The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-12-13
THE NESBIT CASE.
What the Governors Secretary Wrote
the Girls Father.

On Nov. 80 the Journal printed the fact
that Governor Mount had refused pardon
in the case of Calvin Nesbit, of Posey coun-
ty. Nesbit was barber at Cynthiana, and
had been sent to the Reformatory under
the MISUNDERSTANDING law for from
two to fourteen years for betrayal Gov
ernor Mount took no action in the case ex-
cept to refer the matter to the Reformatory
officials, and the Journal SO stated the case.
The item was copied by the Posey County
Sun, but in what manner and language is
not known. At any rate, correspondence
ensued between the parent of the girl in
volved in the case and the Governors pri-
vate secretary. In dealing with the facts
both parties were apparently misled and
discussed, not the Journals statement, but
a hypothesis originating in the minds of
either or both.
The first error found was in the letter of
Private Secretary Wilson, who said 1.-The
appeal for clemency must be acted upon by
the board of managers of the Reforma tory
at Jacksonville, to which place all the pa
pers in the case were referred. The Gov
ernor has nothing whatever to do with the
paroling of prisoners confined in that insti-
tuition. At no place in the article did the
Journal make any mention of applica-
ton for parole, which everyone knows
cannot be granted until the minimum SEN
tence has been served by the prisoner. The
application of Nesbit was for a pardon, and
the Journal spoke Of it as a pardon in no
misleading way. Perhaps 1t did not &C.
cur TO any OF the correspondents that there
is a difference between a pardon and a
parole. Nesbit has been in the Reformatory
about fourteen months, and will not be
eligible for a parole until he has completed
his second year.
Another error in the case was made by
the father of the girl, who. in writing. to
Il ma M sfqf Tod hat
Nesbits friends had secured a. statement
from the girl that what she swore to on
the stand was false. The girl in the. case
was my daughter, and when / read the
piece L went to my girl and asked her ii
she had signed any such paper. She said
no. In order to be positive l wrote to
Governor Mount, and I inclose his letter,
kind
The Journal never claimed there was any
signed statement from the girl among the
papers in the case, but there was a state
mrent from Nesbits attorney setting forth
that. the girl had made such a statement
TO some of Nesbit's friends, and was ready
to do so at the present time. In dealing
with this fact the Journal said:
'Nesbit was sentenced to the Reforma-
tory Tor term of two to fourteen years.
Since that time, however, it is said that
friends of the convicted man have secured
q statement from the girl that all the evil
dence she offered at the trial was not true,
and that she is now ready to make what
ever amends she can in the case"
: In conclusion the Journal said:
In the application for the pardon several
friends of the young man Joined, but
neither the judge who sentenced him, the
jury that convicted him nor the prosecuting
attorney concurred in the petition. Under
the law he still has nearly a year to serve
before he is eligible to parole. but the mat
ter which seems to worry him most is that
the parole will not vindicate him in the eyes
of the people of the county. The Governor
after carefully reviewing the facts in the
case, felt that he could not properly take
any action in the matter and referred the
papers to the Reformatory officials, which
virtually means that Nesbit will not be par
doned, but may be paroled as soon as his
two years probation has expired.
These statements were true, and cannot
be controverted. The Governors private
secretary yesterday admitted the truth of
them, except that he may claim that the
Journal printed the story, on the morning
of Nov. 30, when the formal action of the
Governor was not taken until later in the
day. The secretary had written the father
of the girl that the reports were in many
respects misleading, due to an over-enthu-
siaStic reporter" Throughout the article
there was not one statement which cannot
be proved by the papers in the case. e1-
cept the small question of time between
the hour of the publication of the Journal
and the hour when the papers were ac-
tually mailed to JeffersonVille.