Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-02-06
VARIANTS BLOOD IS UP.
The District Attorney on the Subject
Of Executive PardOns.
HE THROWS IN A PROTEST.
The Matter Sprung on Account Of the
Efforts 10 Secure Malachi
Dlllon's Release.


addressed the following letter 70 the
Ogden Standard
SALT LAKE Cry, Feb. ., 1903.
Editor tue iStandard.-In your issu o
n, last Sunday, you devote much epace
"a the matter Of application for the
pardon Of Malachi Dillon, and Incl
septally connected Herewith you
furnish some Information from the
governors office concerning psrdons
heretofore granted to offenders con.
yicted in the Ogden district. There
seems to DO an organized and sys.
tsmatic effort to create public senti.
ment In tho Dillon case, 10 afford an
apparent Justification, 1 presu NO. for
his pardon.
But II 10 not with the purpose Of dis.
cussing the merits OF this application
that 1 address you on the general ques.
lion involved, but to direct attention TO
The abuses prejudicial to the admins.
tration Of Justice, which result from the
unrestrained use Of pardoning power
in this Territory? Laws arc designed TO
regulate human conduct and to restrain
The evil actions OF mon. Courts are
created for tho purpose Of passing upon
and determining all questions involv-
ing life, liberty aud property. The rules
prescribed for the liberalization OF the
guilt or Innocence Of person charged
with crime, II not absolutely just in all
particulars, ara specially designed for
the protection OF the accused. Twelve
men OF q grand Jury OF nftesn must
concur Ia finding an Indictment.
Twelve men Of q trial Jury OF twelve
must unite In finding . verdict Of
guilty, aud each one OF the twelve
must be- satisfied beyond q reasonable
doubt OF guilt. Tho verdict must then
pass the Inspection Of the presiding
Judge, who Is called upon t. review, not
only tho rulings OF law made during
the trial, but upon the sufiiclency
OF the evidence TO sustain the ver-
diet. The case may then be 70.
viewed In the supreme court. Az a
general rule 1t Ia snfe 10 assume that q
verdict OF guilty. which shall bs ap.
proved by tho judges, IL right aud
ought 10 stand. Upon this conviction
the law itself pronounces the judgment
and fixes the penalty-generaliyw with.
In certain limits. Under our system II
was not intended that the executive, In
whom Is vested the power to pardon,
should cit rs court OF errors and ap-
peal and review verdiots Of juries or re-.
wise the Judgments OF courts. Nor Is
thi0 great and sacred prerogstivea per.
sonal one. Ii isa great personal trust,
which should be regulSted by hxsu
Standards and governed In Its Applicl.
ton by general rules. Where u convlc.
ton Ia had, guilt is to be- assumed, and,
vhsfs subsequent events demonstrate
h. mi IN - hA lttR nfe hs.t In.
eence Of the accused, the pardoning
power should not interfere on dis
ground. Nor, when the Judgment OF
the law fixing the punishmsnt IL once
gwen, should this great prerogativs be
invoked, except, perhaps, In cases
where the severity OF tue Punishment
10 30 pronounced - 10 carry convlc.
ton Of In ustice. am speaking now,
Of course, Of the ordinary crlmes
which disturb society, aud not of
onenses In the commission Of which
whole c0mmunitie, are concerned, and
In the disposition OF which other con.
siderations are Involved. Itis within
these lines generally, 1 apprshend,
that tho pardoning power should be-
exercised; the welfare OF the commun
tyAnd tho safety OF society dem and 1t.
II Is not perceived that petitions OF
requests OF citizens, however exalted
their stations may be, should change
the application OF these rules. The
request Of governors Of other states, OF
Of distinguished citizens OF this Teri.
bry, do not change the fact that the
man was guilty OF violations OF our
Avs; nor should the recommendation
Of Jurors prevail, except In cases within
the limitations hereinbefore stated.
The finding Of the juror upon his oath
that the defendant was guilty beyond
Reasonable doubt, should not be out
weighed by his subsequent statement
or request given ut the solicitation OF
the Interested party.
IL IL time that the community
should DO aroused to q Just appreciation
OF necessity for the certain enforce.
ment OF the laws. No man should
nquest the governor to pardon n con.
Wet unless he has q good substantial
reason for 30 doing; II he does he ID
unjust to tho governor and unjust to
The community. Eighly.one pArdons
Of territorial offenders have been
granted since July 4, 1859. Many OF
Them upon o1 parte hearings and
Without the knowle dye OF the prose,
cutting officers. In some OF these case,
imposition was practicei apon the gov,
trnor. In others tho reasons were
doubtless all sum cient. But In IN my
lis probable = different result would
nave been reached had u full hearing
been accorded.
Permit me TO supply some omission,
~ your statements concerning the
uiliiin aud LOOMS cases. arifii n wal
pardoned while the case was pen ling
onappeal In the supreme cJurt, aud
oeiofe the Judges hal an opportunity
~ passing upon 1t. Judge Henderson,
~ uue, recommended his pardon, hui
.uuRe henderson was the counsel foI
sne accused. There was "a question
e.Ween the assistant attorney and the
.elehse In relation to tho clea ling oil
me pistol, which 1t seems was deter,
mlhed upon the statements and evi
senee produced by the Defendant D
counsel. You state that the Juror
VINO convicted Griffin fllsd aiiidavits
before the governor that the impres
on mat tho Hamcr pistol had mo-
so oen hIci because Of its clean appear
~I was the Ringing point upo |
Ten me conviction was secure d
s ulihculty about this excuse Is
iso' ~ assumes as true u controvsrte ,
.., further tho judge who tried the
caos alu the judges Of the 5uprem,
moa VINO could review all tho test.
arasy' We're better able to determine,
,,nb whether the fact Us alleged WA
W., "hl, second, II turo, whether 4
a material TACT. The extraor a
y proceedings OF an application 10,
of'uoh while the case was pending