The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-04-13

SEATTLE, TUESDAY, APRIL II
THE pARDoxIxG POWER.

One very serious fault OF Gov. Rogers.
and which viii lead him into very false
and embarrassing positions. Is his dlspo-
sftlon 20 base a very hastiiy-worded
npothsgm upon an especial ease. He r.
now In such position through his eecla-
ration that he would not pardon any man
Who had been convicted unless the Judge
who tried him ard the attorney who pros
eouted him Joined r. tho application.
Th.rc might be times when such re-
auire,nens should be made. bur to declare
lr advance that IL shall Be applied 20 all
sztses Is 70 make the board OF pardons
sseiess body and TO do g great injustice
both to the applicant and 70 the officers.
pardons should be granted only with
the greatest care and for reasons which
remove the onfenSs from the ordinary
ranks of crime. or when conviction Is at
tended BY sucn circumstances as make IL
clear that the law in its well-meant pur-
pose has Incidentally worked a manifest
injustice. II sometimes happens that the
trial Judge and the prosecuting attorney
would be very proper parties to summon
a conclusion. but IL might at other times
be exceedingly unjust. and II would al
ways be a shirking Of responsibility to
place the onus entirely on them. The
governors prerogative is exercised en-
tireiy at his own discretion. The law pre-
sumes that he will not exercise II unless
he lie satisfied that justice will be better
done by that exercise OF authority. The
pardoning power taxes the culprit out of
the hands OF the offcial prosecutor and
the technical law and looks only for the
simple issue. II Is not expected TO be ex-
eroised so much to prevent punishment as
10 mitigate IL where the law Is unavaiiing.
For instance. the law may require SEN
tence which has been partly borne. Tx
ceptional circumstances might make that
punishment harder than the Law intended.
or good conduct might do more to explate
the orrense than continued Imprisonment.
in such cases the pardoning hand might
be stretched forth with good grace. but
neither the Judge nor the prosecuting at
torney would be better able TO form an
opinion as to the merit of the plea for
relief than the governor.
There has scarcely ever been a muir
herer hanged for whose life somebody has
not pleaded After the first flush of lndig-
nation has paled down and after the vic
tim has been forgotten. the sympathy Of
civilization softens toward the convict
aud shrinks from taking life. Tire ind.g-
snation publicly expressed In favor OF
hanging Is not due to hloodthlrstlness but
90 sense of sels-protectioa. and Is ex-
cited oy the failure OF justice 60 iasic. any
punishment whatever. IL The panalty for
murder we're imprisonment with hard
labor Ter Afe, and that puuishmopt weIz
Invariably and promptly visited upon Of
!vnders. public opinion would be satisfied
IL II The entire escape Of criminals
through technical loopholes OF the law and
che pervcrso vegdiets sometimes rendered
that arouse moa IA bot Indignation to de-
E,aad eoadlSn punishment.
me pardonng power should be used
most cautiously. 50 that II do not become
mere "pal.' n AID az the convict with
rich and influential friends Pardon
should never become an Instrument for
the defeat cf The Jaw. II should not ~
used 20 avert AL punishment. because con-
Niction IS conclusive OF measure Of guilt
although not always so where the tcsti-
laony 10 entirely circUms,anttal-but Il
may sometimes be exercised TO The ad-
vantage % toe state IA the meroiIul modi-
ncatioa o; punishment rightly imposed