The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-11-27

PARDONISG CoNVIcTS.

1t Ia unfortunate. perhaps, for Adolph
krug that his petition Tor communication
should be circulated at time when
the governor has Just laid down line
Of conduct with reference to pardons,
which seems TO preclude any Ieniency In
his case. There are many who believe
that krug was the victim OF good ma
ture and inexperience In the handling
OF large sums OF money. rather than
guilty Of wiilfui intention 10 divert
the public funds from the treasury 20
his own pocket Nobody who knew
him Will be inclined to suppose that il
he were liberated, he would ever be
guilty again OK even such dishonesty as
that for which he is now imprisoned.
Nevertheless. it mus; be admitted
that there II a great deal of truth in
what Gov. Rogers says about the
grounds upon which pardons should be
granted. Unquestionably. those who
can be proved innocent should be freed
Another possible occasion for interview
ton Is where an excessive sentence has
been imposed in order to produce a de-
terrent effect on the mind Of the gen.
eral public. The instance given by Gov.
Rogers is very pertinent illustration
OF this class of cases. Having served
a good purpose, it might not be unjust
TO shorten sentence. In the instance
mentioned by Gov. Rogers the prisoner
had been found guilty Of holding up
persons on the streets OF Seattle and
robbing them. Highway robberles, &C
companied by personal violence. were
becoming very frequent at that time,
and the ieniency OF the courts seemed
to act like an encouragement. One Sc
we're sentence was sufficient to drive the
other offenders out OF town.
1t happened that in the robbery which
led to the prisoners capture there was
no assault, and for that reason some
sympathy may 20 out to what the gov
ernor calls the poor devil'' who was
sentenced to thirty-six years inprison-
ment as an example. Under no circum-
stances should convict who precedes
his robbery by personal assault have
any mercy shown him. The desperation
OF poverty may be g sort of excuse for
stopping man and frightening him
into handing over dollar or so; at
least. the loss Is not serious one. But
when a man is brutality beaten without
any opportunity for defense the Sc
verest punishment should be merciless-
ly inflicted
The governor makes another excep-
ton. and that is where a convict does
some good service to the state. That Is
a wide field, and action within 1t would
have to be left entirely to the good
judgment of the pardoning power.
Yet. we submit 10 the governor that
he might have included another class
of cases. While We commend his sym
pathy for the poor devils who are for
gotten after they get into Jail, We think
distinction may probably be made be-
tween the man who Is a confirmed
thief and one who has made slip, but
whose antecedents and whose conduct
during imprisonment justifies the hope
that the greatest punishment is the dis
grace. and that with another opportun-
l,y he would begin a new and honest
life.
We know how hard 1t would be Tor
the governor to discriminate. and ii
might be difficult To draw the line be
tween the genuine penltent and the cum
ming dissembler: but as a general prin-
cInle II would bc safe distinction to
make. doing justice to the individual
losing nothing ~ the exemplary force
Of punishment and doing no harm to
sorisfv