The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-10-03
WHAT THIRTY GOVERNORS SAY
NOW AND WHEN AND WHY A CON-
Wet SHOULD BE PARDoNED.

~ Il
work ThemseIves-The Question
An Important One As the Georgia
legislature May BE Called On to
consider 1t.
HOW should the pardoning power be ex-
.roised and under what considerations
sbould rardons be granted, are questions
that are lust now agitating many states
IN the union which are not satisfied with
the systems in vogue.
In Georgia the topic is one which will
demand public attention with the coming
session of the legislature, before which
Mill come a recommendation from Gov.
w Y Atkinson for the establishment of
board of pardons. Gov. Atkinson has
recently had his time largely. occupied
n hearing petitions from condemned muir
5orars rs. for instance the famous Perry
oosa and other classes of convicts, and
+ba situation has been such as to seriously
interfere with the conduct of the execu-
tive Office.
Then again the convict question in Geor-
cia is Just now an .all-absorbing topic, in
which the proper disposition, both of the
state and county convicts, is involved. In
tarvoven with this is the question of par
dons, many petitions for executive Glenn
ercv having already resulted from the
condition of affairs in the convict camps,
which. in many instances, has been pic
+nred only a degree short of horrible.
with a view to arriving at some idea
as to the best system, Judge A. H. Mae
Donel of this city, a prominent member
of fine Georgia Bar Association, who form
erlv had to deal with misdemeanor con-
victs as judge of the city court, wrote to
the governor of every state in the union
a letter. in which he requested the views
of the chief executives upon these ques-
tons
l. Is the pardoning power in your state
vested in the governor exclusively, or
board Of pardons, or other functionaries?
q In your judgment, can this duty be
best performed by the governor, as the
chief executive, or a separate board?
s. Upon what considerat lions should the
pardoning power be exercised?
T. What do you consider to be the uses
and abuses Of the pardoning power?
Judge MacDonell received replies from
tllty governors, all LHe way IIOul MAINE
70 California, the majority of them being
personal letters, though in one or two
instances replies were made by private
secretaries.
As the topic is one that is just now agi-
tating the public mind in many communi-
ties, the views of these thirty governors
will be read with interest as giving much
valuable information and data for guild
ance.
Several things are to be noted in these
replies. In most of the states there is
a board of pardons usually with ad-
visory powers. In those states the gov
errors indorse such a system, because it
relieves the executive of much labor. In
most of those states where the power is
invested solely in the governor, the chief
executive thinks there should be a board
of pardons, at least with advisory powers.
From only one or two states comes the
emphatic declaration that the power
should remain solely with the governor.
Extracts from the replies of the various
governors will be read with interest.
In Alabama the pardoning power is vest
ed solely in the governor.
Where the number of convicts are few
writes Gov. Joseph f. Johnson; mot above
1000 TO 1,500, 1 can see no good reason why
the chief executive cannot discharge the
duty 10 advantage. But when the num-
Der Is larger it becomes a physical impos-
sibity"
Among the considerations he enumerates
are youth coupled with reformation; in
nocence established by subsequent devel-
oDments or new testimony; punishment al
ready sufficient to meet the requirements of
justice; i'll health; recommends tions of
Judge, solicitor and jury to mercy, con-
Nlctlon having been technically necessary
10 indicate the law, etc. The most COM
mon abuse is in allowing social or poit-
l{aI influence to prevail, which, he says
should not be done.
connecticut has board of pardons con-
e.SuhS of five members, which has ex-
elusive control of the matter
r. since the formation of the board" says
GOV l.. A. Cooke, "there has been a prac-
wee 10 have at least one member of the
pcaId thoroughly versed in the question
III insanity, which so frequently occurs in
tDese cases. There has been little or no
."plalnt that the board is so stony
t ~ yea N al cases that 1t is impossible
20 9tt pardon We feel that this branch
u l"e judicial government in Connecticut
- very well administered under the pres
eht system"
vs.il ne hardening power in California is
TJsi In the governor" writes Gov
ti private secretary ''The hoard of
directors, on his request, may in
i-'lt and report cases but such re-
~ not binding up the governor--he
e. IN conformity Herewith, or disre-
e@.1 II rntirely"
Ut Alya Adams of Colorado writes;
%, -aoning power is vested in the
III. exclusively but since
bo-r5 Enlistment Of the state
tiys OF pardons in 1893. execu-
ar r,1 .Aeney has only been extended aft
Colo eohs-deratior by the board. That
She c- lollows this pan is evidence thar
7, iers it best"
vesIc5 1olS the pardoning power is now
GOV e%elusvely in the governor but
boar amer has recommended strongly
for pardons because the applications
has, often delay, since the governor
'i'ne to take them up promptly
parlo,' considerations for the use of the
nos power, Gov. Tanner saws; "II-
parsa,. death is generally an excuse for
jusH..4 m cases where it appears that
men. been subserved by the punish
have ady meted out, or where facts
taerl -e to light which indicate that
wh.-, re- extenuating circumstances
etc. would have modified the verdict.
tio-.4- abuse of the pardoning power. men
arise. me fourth question, usually
not fsc ION Inc fact that the executive has