Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-04-01
CONDITIONAL PARDONs.

accordance with the rules Of the prison.
Is a measure well calculated to promote
tho discipline Of the institution and re-
formation upon the part of its unfortu-
nate inmates.
while the bill has some few imperfec-
lions. largely due TO the fact that IL was
introduced very late in the session, the
groundwork of the legislation is good
and Il can be made TO accomplish splendid
results. II inaugurates ticket-of-leaVe
system which will serve the double pur-
pose of partially relieving the congested
condition of the prison. and OF holding
ont TO the convicts a strong incentive Tor
industry and good behavior. To insure
the body polite against the burden OF
having 10 bear with hordes of idle jail
birds who. If without occupation. would
| I'm many cases return to their evil ways
! the operations of the law Will be cir
cumscribed by stringent conditions which
must be literally observed. For instance,
the convict who has served half his term.
and wishes his freedom, must first make
application to the Board of Directors,
who will carefully investigate his prison
record and If the case presented is
mertorlous one. the matter will be re-
ferred to the Executive.
The law in no way divests the Gov
ernor of the prerogatives which have
Hitherto attached TO his office, but rather
Increases them, for with the assistance
of the board he will be allowed more
latitude for his clemency. If he deems
the prisoner undeserving, he may refuse
TO adopt the recommendations of the
board, while, on the other hand, he may
qualify the pardon with reservations of
the most exacting nature. In short he
may. as a condition precedent to clemen-
CIV. order the prisoner to pay fine,
leave the State, and never return or to
do any other lawful act which seems
proper.
We take II for granted, moreover, that
no convict who intends to remain in
this State will be able to avail himself
of the new law unless he can give the
most positive guarantee that he will be
able to procure work upon his discharge.
Both the Executive and the board are
well aware that 'idleness is the devils
workshop" so far as the criminal classes
are concerned.
The right Of the Governor of this State
to grant a conditional pardon has been
questioned at times, but the Legislature
seems to have had no doubts upon the
subject. A few cases, bearing more or
less upon the question of Executive Gle
mency. have been adjudicated in Virginia,
but they are somewhat at variance with
one another. The Constitution does not
in express words give the Executive the
right to grant conditional or comnuta-
tive pardons, and dictum of Judge Fry,
in Balls case, Leigh, 726, says:
but with us pardons are, constitutional
ly or from practice, unconditional or alb
solute." Many years later, in the case CT |
Lee Sergeant, VS.. Murphy, p Graft. |
page 7S9, the court takes a directly OPP |
posite view. Here the doctrine is laid |
down that a Governor of Virginia may |
grant a conditional pardon to a prisoner |
of felony. provided the condi-
ton is not impossible, immoral, or lille
gal. The prisoner may even consent TO
accept another punishment in lieu of the |
one originally imposed if ii is recognized |
by our statutes or by the common law,
as enforced in Virginia.
In this case Governor Walker com
muted the sentence Of a prisoner from
three years in the penitentlary to twelve
months in ia !. The convict accepted and
signed the conditions on the back of the
and warrant, but later
sought his freedom b. means of habeas
corpus, on the ground that the conditions
were void and the pardon absolute. The
court discharged the prisoner from GUS
tody, but pending an appeal the judg-
ment was suspended. Under the decision
of the appellate court the prisoner. of
course. had to elect whether he would
serve the three years in the penitentiaTy !
or the twelve months in jail. 1t is safe
to presume that he took the lesser pun
The fact of his having signed
the warrant made ii a conditional par
don, which differs from a Communication
in that the conditions may be refused or
accepted by the convict, whereas in a
which substitutes lesser
for greater punishment, the terms may
be imposed upon the convict against his
consent.
The elaborate opinion in this rase,
which was prepared by Judge Staples, is
generally regarded as conclusive of the
question of conditional pardons. and the
ate Professor John b. Minor, in his
Of criminal law. asserts that
his ruling fully establishes the doctrine
In connection with the subject of Exec
tive clemency, it may be Of interest to
lote the opinion Of the Supreme Court
Ii the case of Edwards VS.. the Common
wealth, 18th Virginia, page 80. There 1t
vas decided that the Governors pardon
relieves the offender not only OF the
punishment annexed to the offence. but
II all penalties and consequences, in
,luding the additional punishment OF five
years added to the term of q person
vice convicted.
The political disabilities incident to con-
fiction. however, are not obliterated by
pardon, and the restoration OF a man
o citizenship requires separate act Of
he Executive.
While the ways of courts and the opin-
ons OF lawyers are uncertain, 1t would
seem that in the light Of the ruling In
he case Of Lee. Sergeant. vs. Murphy.
he bill recently passed will hold good.
md that the measure will prove most