The record-union., 1897-06-01
Durrant Will Not be Able 10 Cheat the
GallOWS.
Governor Budd Gives the Reasons
That Prevent Him From
Interfering.

Superior Court being affirmed.
Following is the text of his decision
in the matter:
THE hearing of the application of
w. H. I. Durrant for pardon or COM
mutation of sentence, heretofore filed,
came on for hearing at this office Fri
day. May II, 1891 Notice was given
to the attorneys for Durrant, the Dis
trict Attorney of San Francisco, and to
the public through the press. Eugene
Deuprey and George A. A. Tubbs, at
torneys for Durrant, appeared at the
hearing and presented his claims for
Executive interference No appearance
was made in opposition. At the con-
clusion of the hearing the matter was
taken under advisement. Under the
law and the Constitution the duty is
imposed uDon the Governor of inquir-
ing into applications for pardon, or
other interference with the judgment
of the courts, in the most general man.
ner. The evidence is required to be
forwarded to him for examination. The
trial Judge and District Attorney are
required to furnish statements of the
facts proven at the trial. and the Gov
ernor may inquire into and require
statement of any other facts having
reference to the propriety of granting
or refusing the pardon
Under such circumstances it be-
comes the duty of the Executive, in a
proper case, to give the evidence in the
case, the circumstances attending the
trial, and the credibility of the wit
nesses the most searching investiga-
a ch I;
covered evidence and consider and give
the proper weight to evidence and
circumstances which could not have
been, and were not introduced at or
considered by the trial court
In the case of Durrant, the petition
was based upon the claim that the de-
fendant did not have fair and impair
tial trial; that the passion of the peo-
pie and the prejudice of the community
in which he was tried, and the course
of the press during the conduct of the
trial was such that the evidence could
not have been, and had not been, i'm
partially considered by the jury, and
that if it had been so considered, that
the defendant would not have been
convicted.
The claim was also made that the
witnesses, through age and the lack of
powers of observation, or from inter-
ested motives, had misunderstood or
misstated the facts, and that there was
evidence which had not been or could
not have been presented to the trial
court, or considered by the Supreme
Court, because of its character or other
reasons. Under such circumstances
h
vanced, the duty of the Governor to
thoroughly investigate the case. to look
into the circumstances of the trial. to
sift the evidence, inquire into the mo-
tives and the credibility of the wit
nesses, and TO make such other and
further investigation into the matter
as its nature and its gravity demanded
was plain.
I have deemed it my duty in this
case-without regard to precedent-to
make this investigation.
In the case under consideration. w
II. I. Durrant has been convicted of
the murder of Blanche Lamont. and
has been informed against for the kill
ing of Minnie Williams
The two murders were Intimately
connected, and while under the law evil
dence and circumstances relating to the
latter case could not be introduced or
considered at the trial of the former
l have regarded such evidence as hav-
ing reference to granting or refusing
a pardon. and have considered it and
its attending circumstances in investi-
eating this application
i have carefully considered the evil
dence produced at Durrant's trial. I
have interviewed the witnesses and in
quired into their character and credi
bility. 1 have heard all statements
made or offered by his attorneys. and
by other persons who might be likely
to inform me in this matter.
L have visited the scenes of the
crimes, with which Durrant stands con-
victed and charged and have neglected
no source of information, nor neglected
any investigation which would enable
me to determine the truth in this case.
and which would qualify me t,, deal
justly with this man, and arbitrate i'm
partially between him and the law.
The position of the public press upon
this case during its trial. and subse-
quently, is deserving of serious censure
and did I believe that the newspapers
We're in anywise responsible for the
conviction of Durrant, or that in the
absence of their comment he might not
have been convicted, l would interfere
with the judgment in this case. to the
extent which l thought the facts iusti-
fed.
1T is grave responsibility to hold
the life of a fellow-being in your
power, and not stretch forth your hand
to save him. But when it is considered
that this defendant stands charged
with the brutal murder of two young
women, members of happy homes. dear
to and beloved of their families, just
entering upon careers of gentle Chris
tian womanhood, the stern judgment of
the law that life should be given for
life does not seem too harsh.
mo sentimental considerations of
sympathy should influence the decision
of this case: the young women were
killed without pity; the ears of the
murderer were deaf to considerations of
law, of humanity, or of mercy. If the
law has been properly enforced in this
case. it's judgment should be sternly
executed.
A careful and thorough investigation
into the evidence in this case. and the
facts and circumstances attending it.
has convinced me that it is not a proper
case for my interference.
No new evidence has been produced
tending to show the innocence of Dur
rant or creating doubt as to his guilt.
l feel satisfied that his trial. where he
was found guilty by a jury was fair,
and surrounded and attended by all
proper legal safeguards and guarantees.
After conference with the witnesses.