The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1894-06-19
TILLmAN on PARDoNs.
His Views OH the Exercise of the Par
doning Power by the Chief Execu-
tive.

~t'
HIS Views OH the Exercise of the Par
doning Power by the Chief Fxecu-
tive.
The following correspondence will
prove of interest and explains itself:
DENVER, Col, June 9th. 1894.
To His Excellency, B. r. Gilman,
Governor Of the State Of South Caro-
lima, Columbia, s. G.
Dear Sir: 1 would esteem it special
favor il you would reply at an early
1st. Should executive clemency be
granted in any case, except upon posi-
tive testimony as to the innocence OF
the convict?
End. Is a Board of Pardons, or an
Advisory Board, necessary to Cover
nor to aid him in dispensing the par
doning power?
3rd. Should pardons be conditional
or would the general doctrine of the
parole system be better for the protec-
tion Of society?
4th. Would the parole system act as
a deterrent for criminals to q greater
extent than unconditional release
either by pardon or by serving out
the sentence?
Very respectfully,
j. l.. APPEL,
Prest. Colorado State Board of Pardons.
In answer to this letter Governor
Tillman has written Mr.. Appel the
following:
Dear Sir: Your favor Of June 9th,
propounding certain interrogatories,
has been received. | cannot take time
to answer fully-that is, giving
reasons, but will answer briefly by
numbers.
TO the first question, answer yes.
Clemcncy does not mean, always, q
pardon, but includes Communication from
"a death penalty to term of imprison-
ment as we'll as change of sentence
where the punishment appears excess
sive. There are also cities where con-
viction follows evidence that may APP
pear conclusive to the jury, but not so
to the executive. The reasoning by
which iuries reach agreementin ver-
dict of guilty is sometimes altogether
invisible to the executive and while
the innocence of the prisoner may not
rest upon "positive testimony" the
guilt being equally shadowy or uncer-
tain, | have given prisoners the bene-
fit Of the doubt especially if there was
Il lack Of motive or previous good char
acter proven.
To tho second question l would say
that Board Of Pardons or an Ad
visory Board, while not necessary,
work and some responsibility. If such
Board exists, however, it should be
frequently changed throughout so as
to insure a thorough examination Of
petitions and prevent the possibility OF
any trafficking in pardons.
To the third question l think under
certain circumstances conditional par
dons are desirable, and | have urged
tho adoption of the intermediate sem
tence system by which the crime, af-
ter conviction is secured, is punished
by q maximum or u minimum term OF
Imprisonment depending on the behav-
ior of the prisoner and the evidence OF
his reformation. Punishment is for
deterring others from committing
crime. Judges are very capricious and
unreasonable some time in passing
sentence, and by such a system the
penitentiary directors could lgiease>ta q
-fs,i!iSAlpGr' tsr rIeconmond pardon when
ever, in their Judgment, the purpose
of Imprisonment had been accom-
plished.
To the fourth question In general
do not like the parole system of con-
ditional pardous. Such men are not
free in the full sense Of the term, and [
would prefer, as aigeneral rule, absolute
release or service Of the full term.
have never granted but two condi-
tional pardOns. One was a man who
maltreated his wife while under the in
fluence of liquor. The other was boy
thirteen years old. The condition in
the first case remanded the man to pri-
son upon proof that he drank any liquor
or maltreated the woman. OF course
the wife begged for clemency. The boy
was allowed to leave the penitentiary
on condition that he wenMto a reform
school whore he was practically
prisoner. Yours respectfully,
B. II. TILLMAN,
Governor