The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-06-16
Board OF Pardon Advisers.
May IS, 1898.

Executive Office, June IA, 1s9s.--A
| respite has been twice ordered in this case
because manifestly all the facts barring
upon 1t were not brought out on the trial,
and further investigation was necessary.
In addition to what is said In the fore
going report of the board the following
matters are pertinent:
/. The defendant was a stranger in tho
county Of the homicide and trial. AS viii
be shown IL was ruinored In the commute
ity, contrary to his reputation in Rob ertsou
county, whore he was reared that he was
murderer To counterfeit this and also
generally TO show good character, an at
tachment was Issued for many WITNESSES in
Robertson county This was not executed
by the sheriff because he was of the opln-
ion that 1t was imperative in view of tho
new subpoena law. Afterward a subpoena
issued for these witnesses and it was re-
turned not executed bGcuse not receiyv /
until the day Of trial on account OF quar-
antlne. Notwithstanding the failure 10 So
cure service Of process many reputable citi-
zens, including some of the witnes es
named, give assurances that they intended
to be present and testify, hut were pre-
vented by quarantine regulations Only
two we're present and they were relatives
whose testimony may nc. have been fully
appreciated because Of interest in the re-.
suit
2. To some extent at least there were
reports In Fort Bend county prior to the
homicide that defendant had previously
taken human life. These reports have been
investigated and appear to be entirely
raise They not only appear to be false,
but they were circulated purposely ono
OF these reports was that defendant killed
an ola negro on the plantation of William
Newman in Brazos county. but that gen =
tieman makes affidavit that the charge Is
absolutely false. The other report was that
When the defendant was a guard he killed
d negro convict on the Cunningham plgnta-
tlon in Fort Bend county, but the peniten-
tlary officials say he was never in the SER
vice. II seems also clear that defendant
llVed at Simonton during his entire de,i-
de0ee IN Fort Bend county and was en-
ployed by Warren & Sons. How far these
reports of previous hom,cdes gained cnr-
rency before the trial none can say, but
they certainly reached Simonton. where
the homicide occurred.
3. The defendant is young man, ana
those best acquainted with him say he il
not oil strong or discriminating mind In
MS alleged dying declaration the deceased.
'elerlnS TO defendant, said; THE poor fell
low dld not seem to understand what
meant by apologize and began shooting
me- Lack Of mental discrimination will
not justify or excuse htniclde. Int n
mating the supposed provocatlon and the
degree OF punishment. The defendant. q;
mas been stated was a-stranger in tho
nelghborhood. The deceased referring IN
ueiehdant and his room mates, called them
Damn Iahoos." This was not onIv Co.
nuHtcd'ed to defendant, but 1t seems he
was led to believe that the characte-I-a,i'
was extremely insulting. There aro 80
Indications that this view of tbc man
was pressed upon him by his immediate az
soclates, and influenced his action Tba
testimony adduced before the Jury does MOI
snow the meaning of thc. Term. unless as
u9eu II necessarily conveyed an ldea NJ on
piopIiurh' Judging by investigation in Ma
NV a,'T.'S auu 'ne tlrst statement OF defend
ant IL was looked upon there and ha re-
sarueu IL as meaning "a dow down brute +"
me standard Dictionary defines n y,bo,
as person OF low and, vicious instinrtq
degraded brute Whether dScaased
useu the term in any of these senses is NOT
Known but 1t is reasonably certain de.end-
au' so regarded 1t, Under this impression
ne asked deceased If he meant IA inrlnda
him and deceased. according IN no ,1 S,,t.
declaration, answered that ii the shne ~
defendant could wear il,
heeny appreciating the wisdom az n
strict enforcement of law, partiru,arlv
asaihst murder, 1t nevertheless appears IN
me- after most careful consideration thar
me conclusion reached by the board il cor
te'', una 'nal the death penalty should not
De inflicted in this case. Without hi,
lanit defendant was deprived of the testi-
iiony OF disntorested character witnesses
lie was tried when at least some of m,
community unjustly believed him IN be
confirmed murderer. He killed d,ce,.ea
NOT ior gain not for hire, nor upon vulgar
not',ss 81 revenge, but to redress sun |
posed injury to his honor and his cbarap
YER 1t Is true the provocation was utterly |
inadequate and the act cruelty inexrusah,a
nut the circumstances, in my judgmsnt
lii the case above those brutal ana inhr'
man murders for which the law conten- |
flicted, 's IN
Imprisonment In the penitentiarv -, ho,S
labor for life. C. A CuIb,r"o, ""'u