The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1894-06-20
THE MATTER OF PARDONS.
SOME INTERESTING 9NTERROGATO-
RlES ANSWERED.

The President OF she Colorado State
Board of Psrd,ns Propounds Some
Questions to Governor r,1lmsD, who
Answers Them, Giv1ug His Views.
COLUMBIA, S. c., June 14.-The fol.
lowing letters will be of interest and
explain themselves:
Denver, Col, June 9th, 1894.
To His Excellency, B. R. Tillman, Gov
ernor of the State Of South Carolina,
Columbia, S. G.
Dear Sir: would esteem ita special
favor if you would reply at an early
date to the following interrogatories:
First. Should executive clemency be
granted in any case, except upon posi-
tive testimony as to the innocence OF
the convict2
Second. Is Board of Pardons, or
an Advisory Board, necessary to a Gov
ernor to aid him in dispensing the par
donipg power2
Third. Should pardons be conditional
or would the general doctrine Of the
parole system be better for the protec-
tion Of society?
Fourth. Would the parole system
act as deterrent for criminals to a
greater extent than unconditional re-
lease either by pardon or by serving out
the sentence Very respectfully,
j. L. APPEL,
President Colorado State Board of Par
dons.
THE GOVERNORS LETTER.
In answer to this letter Governor Till
man has written Mr.. Appel the follow
ing.
Dear Sir: Your favor Of June 9th
propounding certain tnterrogatorles
has been received. l cannot take time
to answer fully-that is giving reasons,
but will answer briefly by numbers.
To the first question l answer yes.
CIemency does not mean, always, par.
don. but includes Communication from
death penalty to term of imprison-
ment as well as q change of sentence
where the punishment appears excess
i've. There are also cases where con.
viction follows evidence that may ap-
pear conclusive to the jury, but not so
to the executive. The reasoning by
which juries reach agreement IN YER
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 benefit
Of doubt the especially If there was a
lack of motive or previous good charac-
ter proven.
To the second question I would say
that a Board of Pardons or an Advise
ry Board, while not necessary, would
r.lieve the-Governor of much work and
some responsibility. If such Board
exists, however, 1t should be frequent
ly changed throughout so as to insure
a thorough examination of petitions
and prevent the possibility of any trsf-
licking in pardons.
To the third question: I thi1k under
certain circumstances conditional par
dons are desirable, and have urged
the adoption of the intermediate sen
tence system by which the crime, after
a conviction is secured, is punished by
a maximum or minimum term of lm-
prisonment depending Oh the behavior
of the prisoner AMI the evidence of bis
reformation. Punishment is for the
purpose of reforming criminals aud de-
terripg others from committing crime.
Judges are very capricious aud un-
reasonable sometime in passing SEN
tence, and by such system the Peni-
tentiary directors could release pris-
oner or recommend pardon whenever
in their judgment'the purpose of i'm
prisonment had beensaccomplished.
To the fourth question: In general
I do not like the parole system Of con-
ditional psrdons. Such men are not
free in the full sense of the term, and l
would prefer, as general rule, absolute
release or service Of the full term. =,
I have reVer granted but two condl-;
tional pardous. One was a man who
msltreated his wife while under the in
fuence of liquor. The other was boy
thirteen years old. The condition in
the first case remanded the man to pri-
son upon proof that be
drank any liquor or maltreated the
woman. OF course the wife begged
for clemency. The boy was allowed to
leave the penitentlary on condition
that be went to areform school where
he was practically prisoner.
Yours respectfully,
B. R. TILLMAN,
Governor.