The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1894-06-21
THE MATTER OF PARDONS.
SOME INTERESTING iNTERROGATO-
RIES ANSWERED.

SOME INTERESTING lNTERRoGATO-
RIEs ANSWERED.
Board of Psrdons Propounds somo
Questions to Governor Tillman, who
Answers Them, Giving HIS Views
COLUMBIA, S. g., June A.-The fol-
lowing letters will be Of interest and
explain themselves:
Denver, Col, June 9th, 1894.
TO His Excellency, B. II. Tillman, Gov
eInor Gd3e, of ,t the State of South Carolina,
Dear Sir: Iwould esteem 1t special
favor II 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 convict?
Second. Is a Board of Pardons, or
an Advisory Board, necessary to Gov
ernor to aid him in dispensing the par
doning poWerp
Third. Should pardons be conditional
or would the general doctrine Of the
parole system be better for the protec-
t1on Of society2
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
tne 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 interrogatories
has been received. l cannot take time
to answer tully-that Is giving reasons,
but will answer briefly by numbers.
10 the first question I ans wer yes.
Clemency does not mean, always, par.
don. but includes communication from q
death penalty to term Of imprison-
ment as we'll as change of sentence
where the punishment appears excess
i've. There are also cases where con.
Vlctlon 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
|
tain, have given prisoners the benefit
or doubt the especially II there was a
LACK OF motive or previous good charac
ter proven.
TO the second question / would say
that Board Of Pardons or an Advise
ry Board, while not necessary, would
relieve the Governor Of much work an(
some responsibility. If such BoarC
exists, however, 1T should be frequent
ly changed throughout 80 as to insure
thorough examination of petitions
and prevent the possibility Of any traf-
| licking In pardons.
TO the third question: l think under
| certain circumstances conditional par
dons are desirable, and i have urged
the adoption Of the intermediate sen
tence system by which the crime, after
conviction is secured, is punished by
maximum or minimum term Of i'm
r1sonm ent depending on the behavior
or the prisoner AMI the evidence Of his
reformation. Punishment is for the
purpose Of reforming criminals and de-
terring others from committing crime.
Judges are very capricious and un-
reasonable sometime In passing SEN
tence, and by such system the Penl-
tontlary directors could release pris-
oner or recommend pardon whenever
In their Judgment the purpose Of i'm
prisonment had been accomplished
| 10 the fourth question: In egeneral
90 not like the parole system Of con-
dltlonal pardons. Such men are not
free In the full sense of the term, and
would prefer, as general rule, absolute
release or service Of the full term.
L have never granted but two condi =
tlonal pardons. One was man who
maltreated his wife while under the In
tluence Of liquor. The other was a 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 penitentlary on condition
that he went to a reform school where
he was practically prisoner.
Yours respectfully,
Is. r. TILLMAN,
| Governor