The record-union., 1891-11-18
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY.
Granted in Two Cases and Refused
in Others.
The Governor Gives His Reasons for
His Action In Each Case, and
VIII Always Do So.

Governor Markham and Private Secre-
tary Higgins have been busily engaged
/ for the past few days in looking over ap-
plications for pardons, and reading letters
by the bushel relating to the petitions.
Yesterday the following two pardons
were announced:
Lottie Fritz, convicted of petit larceny
in San Francisco in September last, and
sentenced to six months imprisonment.
In granting the pardon the Governor
says:
There is on file in this office certifi-
cate from DR.. H. w. Yemans, the City
Physician in San Francisco, certifying
! that ne has examined Mrs. Lottie Fritz,
and finds her to be encieate; and j. w.
| Ellsworth, manager of the Pacific Rescue
| Home, certities that if the said Mrs. Fritz
! is released, and needs care in the matern-
ity ward, they will admit her. 1t appears
also that she was an upright, honest,
| Woodworking, VirtuOuS woman; that she
/ bore an excellent character, and that her
trends propose, as soon as she is able, to
provide her with honorable employment;
that she has been ill-used and beaten by
her husband, and that he has unsuccess-
fully tried to have her lead lie of pros
titutiOn. Hon. a. L. I. Woriey. Judge
of the Police Court, who sentenced Mrs.
| Fritz, also recommends this action on the
part of the Executive"
RESTORATION TO CITIZENSHIP.
In pardoning Giovanni Bianchi, alias
Jack OZzen, convicted of burglary III
San Francisco i'll February, 1886, and SEN
fenced to two years Imprisonment, the
! Governor says:
1T appears that said Giovanni Bianchi,
alias Jack OZZem, was minor when he
was convicted Of the crime of burglary
and sentenced to two years confinement
in the State Prison at Folsom: that he
was discharged at the expiration Of
twenty months, on account of good be-
haVior, and that he now desires Il pardon
IN order that he may apply for citizenship
III this State. His term expired October
l3, 1887, and | am satisfied, from the state
| ments made to me by honorable citizens
Of Napa County, that he has for the last
four years lived an honest and upright
life; that he is industrious, and has gained
the favor of the community in which he
now lives. 1t is the opinion of his neigh
bOrs and friends, in whose judgment [
have great confidence, that he viii lead
an honorable life and become good citi-
zen.
''In view of the fact that had he been a
citizen at the time of his discharge, he
would not have have forfeited his citizen
ship under the law, but would have been
restored to citizenship by the exercise of
L
hereby grant him pardon"
REASON FOR REFUSING PARDoNs.
Governor Markham announces that he
proposes to answer all applications for
pardons, and in refusing to exercise the
executive power he will state why he
does so. Secretary Higgins has had
made large journal in which he pro-
poses to keep a record of the Governors
action on every application, and his rea-
! Or
This book will be great convenience to
the present Governor, as well as TO future
Executives Of the State. When an ap-
plication is received the book can be
consulted, and it Will be readily learned
whether or not any previous petition has
been filed, and what the action was in the
case.
Yesterday the Governor issued refusals
in the following cases. giving his reasons
therefor, which are interesting, in that
they show how often a convict will make
application for a pardon when he has
not single good reason on which to
base it.
JULIUS PORTELLPS CASE.
Julius Portelli, sentenced from San
Francisco in November, 1889, for murder
in the second degree; term, thirty years
at Folsom. At the first trial the jury dis
agreed. His claim was that he was inno-
cent; that he was convicted on circum-
stantial evidence; that at the trial one of
the jurymen was taken sick and excused
and that Immediately after he left the
jury found a verdict, and that the same
was forced; that he was without friends
and means, and unable to bring these
facts to the attention of the Executive
''1n this case [ communicated with Hon.
L. w. Van Reynegom, who presided at
the trial Of the case, who has the reputa-
ton OF being very painstaking and Just
Judge. He says that he remembers the
incident of the sick juror, and that this
defendant was not preiudiced by it. and
that at the time of the first trial he heard
it stated privately that the jury stood
eleven for murder in the highest degree:
that Portelli expressed himself after con-
viction as being quite satisfied with the
result. The Judge thinks he has reason
to be thankful in escaping the death
penalty.
'The Judge further says that the de-
fendant was faithfully and ably defended
by his attorney. The facts are that the
murder was brutal one, the victim be-
ing chopped to death with hatchet, and
from the statement Of Judge Van Reyne-
gom l have no doubt the same was COM
mitted by the defendant, and that he is
now serving a sentence, which is no doubt
just, and with which I refuse to inter
fere."
MONTERREY MURDERER.
M. e. Buckman, convicted in Monte
rey County of murder in the second de-
gree and sentenced to twenty-five wears
October II, 1884. From the evidence it
would seem that the petitioner killed his
father, George e. Buckman; that he had
a difficulty with his father, for which he
was convicted and sentenced to term of
Imprisonment in the County Jail. Dur
ing his imprisonment he used very
threatening language toward his father
He. was admoniShed by the Superior
Judge and District Attorney not to re-
turn to the residence of his father, and he
promised not to do so. He. however. dis
obeyed the injunction and went to where
his father was with the deliberate and
malicious purpose of killing him. When
he arrived in the vicinity he obtained a
loaded pistol, declaring it his purpose to
use the same, and indulging in abusive
language OF his father.
''At the Coroner's inquest and post
mortem, he acted with heartless and
fiendish indifference. His father made a
clear and succinct statement of the oc-
curence before death to several persons,
which showed that the son was guilty of
a cold-blooded and deliberate assassina-
ton. The statement of petitioner on trial
was improbable and contradicted by
every known fact and circumstance sur
rounding the case, and his demeanor was
heartless and relentless. He was de-
Tended by the late Thomas II. Laine of
San Jose, a well-known criminal lawyer
who did not even move for new trial.
'These facts are CLEANED from the
statement of the presiding Judge and
District Attorney, who were present at
the trial, who say that they believed at
the time and still believe that under the
evidence he should have been convicted
OF murder in the first degree, and moth
ing has since tranSDired to change that