Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1895-10-05


the mputation that he participated in
the fee paid me by Davis is as baseless as
it is brutal.
If there had been any collision be-
tween the governor and myself in this
matter the Communication would have been
asked for and granted at once after my
employment in March, 1894, and the bal
ance of my fee would have been earned at
once instead of allowing the money to re-
main in Supt. Bergmann's hands for
about seventeen months, and even then
for nearly thirty days after Communication
had been granted.
As the governor did not know of my
connection with the case for seventeen
months after had received retainer
therein, and as he did not know that
had received any fee whatever until near
ly two months after the communication, l
am at utter loss to comprehend tho devil
ish spirit that charges him with corrup-
ton or
COLLUsIoN THEREIN.
Gov. Thornton, like every other exec
utive from the president down, has exer-
cised the benign prerogative that is
peculiar attribute of the executive office
that of pardon-in number of cases,
but in no one of them, either of pardon
or Communication, did my Endorsement,
recommendation or request appear. My
connection with this case was very largely
due to requests from two sources, one
from Baltimore, and the other l am not
at liberty to mention. The fee paid me
was for my expenses and labor, and it was
a transaction wholly between Davis, his
sisters who sent the money and his attor-
ney.
The lawyer-editors question Gov.
Thornton's right to pardon or commute
without the consent or recommendation
of the board of penitentiary commits
sioners. This contention is rs we'll
founded as their implication of the gov
ernor's corruption in the case. No law
yer but "jackleg," and no editor but a
blacksmith, would put himself in posi-
ton where people could
R1DIoULE HIS IGNORANCE.
If they would read section of the Or
ganic Act they would learn that the par
doning power rests solely in the governor
in this territory and any attempt of the
legislature to control the exercise of that
power is mere void and migratory act
in contravention of the Organic law and
hence what we commonly call unconsti-
tutienal.
Gov. Prince was in office four years
after the passage of the law of 1889, which
attempted to control the exercise of the
pardoning power, and nobody ever heard
of the recognition of thatact by him in his
many pardons. Gov. Thornton has paid
no attention to it, and 1t has remained for
the lawy editors, blinded by their greed
for mongering scandal, to see" Dog
berry aud ''raise' h1m--to write them
selves down as long eared gentlemen by
discovering a deadletter statute and call
ing the attention of the people of the
territory to it in connection with their
cry of scandal at the pen.
Inasmuch as this ugly attack has been
made on the integrity of Gov. Thornton
feel, in the interests of fairness and JUS
tice, like going little beyond mere
refutation, to look at the governors
GENERAL RECORD
on the subject of pardons and see if ithas
been such, compared with his predeces
sors, as to make any single act, such as
the one in question, suspicious.
Gov. Prince pardoned thirty-fve con.
yicts during his term. Eight of these
we're life sentences and many others were
for long terms. Gov. Thornton has par.
doned seventeen during the two and a
half years of his term expired, and com.
muted six. Of his pardons six were one
year terms, two we're two year terms, six
were three year terms, one was four
year term and two we're five year terms,
thus showing that all his pardons were OF
five year convicts or less, and the record
shows that nearly all the pardons we're oil
sentences almost expired. The eight life
convicts pardoned by Prince alone far
exceed in exercise of executive clemency
the sum total of Gov. Thornton's exercise
of that power.
AS matter of fact, Gov. Thornton's
pardon record is considerably less In
number of cases and is far less in
IMPORTANCE OF THE GASES,
and he is entirely above and beyond re.
proach or criticism of any kind in this
department of his executive Office. The
sensible and conservative people of the
territory ought to know and appreciate
this in Justice to Gov. Thornton.
The animus of these attacks on the
governor and on me is shown in the
Optics Santa Fe correspondence, where
it is stated, "Ths district attorney is the
man who preferred charges for unprofes-
sional conduct against Delegate Thos. B.
Catron." What has the Catron case to
do with this one? His case will be heard
on it's merits by the highest judicial
tribunal in the territory, and it is not and
will not be based on my testimony.
am not witness to any Of the facts upon
which the charges are based. 1t can
charges if the testimony on which they
are based is true. Let us await the
judgment of the supreme court on that
testimony, most of which came out on
the trial of the Chavez murderers. l
filed the original information and the
testimony on which every word of it was
based in the supreme court for its action,
and then requested the court to relieve
me Of all further connection with the
matter because had already commented
on it adversely to Messrs. Catron and
Spiess in the Chavez case. The supreme
court referred the information and testi-
mony to committee of FIVE lawyers who
formulated the charges on the testimony
and not on my information in any par
ticular. The charges are the charges of
that committee, and not mine. The tes-
timony on which they are based is not
mine, not line or word of it. What
difference does it make who filed this
testimony in the supreme courtf The
question of the truth of the testimony
has nothing to do with the person who
/ called the attention of the court to it.
The lawyer-editors and the political
friends of Mr.. Catron