The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-01-10
THE GOVERNOR DEFENDED.
IN The PARDON OF PRATT AND
OTHERS IN EDENTON.
Hon. w, p. Pruden and MIR. w. M. 6on~
Write Letters That Will Convince
That the Governor Dore Right.

10 the E<ulIOTs Il rarely dppeltl Ah IA
and do so now reluctantly, in answer to
Judge Undertakes recent letter In your
paper, because Governor Carr, IN pardon
ing Pratt and others, may, LII some meas
ure have been influenced by my letter TO
him urging him to do so, and because
the Judge gratuitously and unjustly at
tacks the people of Edenton, among
whom, have lived for many years.
The facts in this case afford suf-
ficient yindication of Governor Carr $
action In this matter, and he requires no
special defence from any one. 1t is proper,
however, to say that the Governors ac-
ton, in pardoning these defendants, pend
ing am appeal, is not without precedent,
the same thing has been done several
times in North Carolina, of which slight
examination would have convinced the
learned Judge. See rs North Carolina Re
ports, page 231, Et Seq. / will add,
further. that the reasoning in those eases,
sustaining the pardon, under like clrcum-
stances. is much strengthened by the act
of the Legislature, passed since these
cases. were decided which declares that
an apDeal does not yacate, but simply
stays the Executive pending the appeal,
Acts of 1887, chapter 19l. While 1t Is US
ual for the Governor to confer with the
iudge, when pardons are asked, 1t ls not
necessary for him to do so, and IN TINS
case. no doubt, Governor Carr had good
and sufficient reasons for not dong IL.
The question before the Governor was
not whether these men were guilty OF
assault and battery, but whether they
had been properly convicted. The eVI-
,dence before him, though presented by
and on behalf of the defendants was
form gentlemen known to the Governor
and entirely trustworthy and was ample
to convince him on any other fair mind
ed man that their conviction was not pro-
DER. Upon this evidence he act
ed and acted rightly.
The history Of this, now celebrated case,
is about as follows: During the winter of
1895 and 1896, a number of stores in
Edenton were broken into and robbed.
The officers OF the town had been special
~ urged to look after these depreda-
tions. On the night of February %,
1886, the store of Mr.. Mitchell was brok-
en- into and shoes stolen from it. c. j.
Pratt, who was an officer Of the town,
was. at once informed by Mr. Harris
that he had recognized Neil Skinner as
the guilty party. He, at once went in
pursuit of him, summoning Harris and
Leggett to go with him. 1t was late at
night, after almost every one had retired.
Skinner was found about i: 80 o'clock a.
m, at Johnson's bridge, in which direc-
ton Harris stated he had run, and was
there arrested Harris at the time, telling
Pratt, he was the man, who had broken
into the store. About these facts there
was no controversy. Neil Skinner testi-
fed, that after his arrest, he was cruel
ly and brually beaten by Pratt and those
whom he had called to his assistance. His
testimony was corroborated by the fact
that he was found, after the arrest, seri-
ously hurt, and one Robinson, reputable
citizen, swore that he heard the cry of
murder, and upon coming out found Skin
ner upon the ground, who asked him not
to let them kill him. On the contrary
Pratt, Harris and Lcggett, the defen-
dants, swore that they used no force ex-
cept what was absolutely necessary to
hold the prisoner; that from the time of
his arrest until they had got him to the
iail, his resistance was fierce and vio-
lent; that he struck one Of the officers,
and bit another and forcibly resisted
them in every way; that on passing he
casght hold OF q buggy and turned it
over upon himself and the officers and
was finally dragged froH under 1t by
those who had him In custody, and these
geutlemcn swore that 1t was while drag
sing him from under this buggy that he
xried murder and Robinson came out and
found him ON the ground. Robinson,
ALSO, stated, that when he came out he
&rkN,a <hxs a
shove
One Haskell, a reputable citizen, con-
nected in no way with the case, who
happened to be present, fully corrob Eat
ed the statement of the prisoners. The
two doctors, MCMILLAN and Hoskins who
after the occurrence, examined Skinner
testified that they found no external
Bruises upon him, except small scar a
bout the eye, and while they both stated
that his condition was bad, they gave
It as their opinion that it was due to
the severe muscuar exertion he had I'M
dergone. This was the substance of the
controverted evidence on both sides. One
REV of this testimony on the other was
true. The prisoners insisted that the
jury was the only tribunal which could
pass upon It. Judge Timberlake, how
ever, upon that evidence held the PRISON
ers guilty and directed a verdict against
them to be entered and the prisoners
were sentenced by him. 1t will be noted
chat Neil Skinner was arrested, not as
stated by Judge Undertake, for violat-
ing a town ordinance, but for serious
felony. The Judge is likewise in error,
when he says that no warrant was ever
ISSUED for breaking In the store. Such
warrant was issued, as was stated in
open court, during the trial Of the of
6cers 1t 10 also true that Skinner was
indicted, tried aud convicted before Judge
Timberlake at the same term for
resisting these officers, but the
fudge set the verdict aside, directed a
noile prosegui to be entered and Skinner
discharged 1t nay be that these officers
did use, upon that occasion. excessive
force, bat they contend that they have
not been properly convicted OF so doing;