The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1895-06-13

NO INTERFERENCE.
Gov. Werts Vetoes the Act
Relative to the Board
of Pardons.
RACING IS A DEAD ISSUE
Reasons for Mitigation in Sentence
Of the Gutenberg Big
Four.
RACING IS A DEAD ISSUE
spccscl to the jersey Citn Meas.

ernor sent another veto message ~ lhe
| Senate. 1t contained his objection to the
bill which provides that all petitions for
pardon, together with the names OF the
! petitioners, shall be open to public scru-
tiny, at least thirty days before they are
| acted upon. This is the message:
To the Senate:
/ return herewith to o honorable
body, wherein 1t originated, Senate Dill
1854. entitled "A further supplement 70 an
actentitled An act relative to the Court
Of Pardons, approved January ,eigh,
teenth, one thousand eight hundred ana
fifty-three,." with my collections thereto,
p~rerogative, In this State it is vested
Jointly in the Executive and certain other
omeadt body is entitled to exercise,
untrammeled by either legislative or
judicial Interference. ~
province to establish reasonable rules 70
regulate the procedure in the courts OF
the State. But the Board of Pardons is
SO called in the act approved anuary
nSmsT; Il is . net ealied We q cH iook i to it's its
origin. its prototype or its duties. it is
no sense a court. t has before it no part
Freeholders of Middlesex, 3 butcher 34o;
The bill in. question provides that al
apRiiui Of III ines and forfeitures. shall
be made in writing, signed by the petit
TONER and filed with DE clerk at least
ana that in every case in which a pardon
or parole shall be granted or a me or d q
forfeiture RENTED. the reasons therefore
upon the minutes of the court, The PHI
is based Upon the assumption that In the
BY the Constitution, the Board of Pardons
Vision. But it must be obvious to every
cannot limit the eonstitutionaf power
conferred upon these officials. 1t can make
no provision controlling their action that
either as to time or manner. To concede
the legislative right to enact the law in
-guestionwould be e. to o. ad an dnai p para 81
II makes no difference that the require,
.s meats as Of the sh soa laI might a ! r properiy est aife
fish. In discharge of it's constitutional
functions, it is a law unto itself, in the
The attempt of the executive. or judicial
departments to establish rules for the
guidance or. government, of the Legisla-
ously resisted
The rules sought to be established by
the proposed law have practically been
many years, except that which requires
orable action 'the reasons tof the boardl
IlGEGlOT Shall Oe PuDilCiy oSSi6hCu GIN
entered upon the minutes" /.
I confess l am unable to comprehend
just what is meant or intended by the
board, in each case. after its decision.
to open it's doors and make public proc
lamaIion Of the ss result w,f or j, tbe 1t simply Simply
70 tSer saesr IN Inc its Ies miniute @.'n to H Which, 1ast the
public may have access? The latter is
the course already prevailing in the
board. In every instance the result is
vooordad in the minutes with the rea-
sons therefor, where it seems proper
the reasons should be noted, and to those
minutes the public has access; -
the board are in writing, which appli-
cations in the great majority OF oases
stances it is impracticable to, require a
formal application or to delay action
for thirty days. Cases are brought to
officials or by it's own committee. which
visits the penal institutions, or by friends
Of the convicts, frequently are employed
before the board. Oftentimes, however,
the parties or their friends are too poor
to procure legal assistance, and too I'M
applications themselves. It is in this
prises most of the business of the board.
of such a character would be imprac-
| ticable n unjust. The proposed law
has certainly been drafted by some IN
dividual who not only fails to compres
| bend the constitutional relation of the
Board of Pardons to the legislative de-
| partment, but Is also u~nacquainted with
the course of procedure adopted by the
I trust / have succeeded In making it
| apparent that, aside from its unconsti-
tuiionai features acab the d prd9po snneca laW IS
ordinarily 1 might properly close this
veto message at this point. but inasmuch
Is t a19sl bill r rsaveasira Il the Of 9ut 4be Board %
of Pardons by a committee of your hon.
| orable body, / beg leave to refer to the
report of that committee wherein it is
| attempted to find excuse or jurisdiction
| for the proposed legislation.
It is doubtful whether the investiga-
| ton of the Board of Pardons was with
in the scope or intent of the resolution
appointing the committee. I assume that
| had the comNittee been expressly direct
| ed to investigate the Executive Departs
| propriety of such action would have
| been so manifest as to preclude the
| adoption of the resolution. What would
| done or attempted by indirection or i'm.
| plication. The committee appears to
have realized this when in their report
With the Executive and not with the
Legislative Department" Nevertheless
1t would appear from the report that al
investigation Of the Executive Depart
ment and the Board of Pardons was
| made, but as to the cases referred to in
| the report. acted upon during the term
| of the present Executive, neither he nor
| any member of the board had any
| knowledge or intimation that any lin.
| v~estigation" was in progress or intended:
It would seem to be a simple act of
| courtesy, If not of justice. and due OF
| Fight to the Executive and other mem
bers Of the board. that they should
have been apprised Of the investigation
| and given an opportunity Qf they de-
sired so to do) to explain any matter
or thing thai in the opinion of the hon.
\ orable committee demanded explanation.
| Had that course been adopted, / am
| sure the committee would have been
| accorded every courtesy due it as the
representative of a coordinate branch
of the government, although a protest
! would probably have been made that the
/ and independent department was en-
! gagged in an unwarranted undertaking
! which would only be permitted through
courtesy. 80
/ cannot, of course, speak of the motive
which governed the board in dealing with
! cases before my connection with 1t. So
| far for the three cases cited In the
| report as occurred within the last two
| years and a haf are concerned, I can
| speak. and have no hesitation In saying.
that in each and every. case the board
as they believed to be in accordance
! with substantial justice and established
The first case noted is that of the State
n. Engeman and others. indicted for
| keeping q disorderly house in Passaic
county, the disorder consisting N main
tanning q race track where betting, or