The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-04-26
LAST HOPE OF VAN
HORN HAS FLOWN
WILL BE HANGED ONE WEEK
FROM THURSDAY.
Board of Pardons at Its Meeting in
Harrisburg Yesterday Refused to
Interfere in Behalf of the Con-
demned Man-It Seems as if
Nothing Could Now Save Him
from Death on the Scaffold-Dis-
trict Attorney Jones' Strong Argu-
ment to the Board.


in the county Jail in this city on
Thursday, May 4.
The board of pardons yesterday at
Harrisburg considered his case and re-
fused to interfere. This removes prac-
tically the last hope of the condemned
man.
Attorney T.. w. Thayer appeared be-
fore the board yesterday in behalf of
Van Horn. District Attorney Jones
was unable to go because engaged in
criminal court, but he prepared
strong argument against commutation
of the sentence by the board and sub
mitted it in lieu Of a spoken argument.
The argument is calculated TO make a
deep impression upon any person who
reads it carefully. Following is the
argument in part:
This paper book is addressed to your
honors in opposition to the Communication
| of the sentence of death imposed upon
| George *. Van Horn, by the court of
| oyer and terminer of LaCkawanna coLn-
| ty, for the murder of Josephine Wescott,
| at Scranton, Pennsylvania, on August Is,
| 1896, over two years and a half have
| passed and yet this case is still pending.
| The learned counsel fer the defendant
| have taken advantage Of every delay pos
|
ponement of the trial-rule for a new trial
appeal to the Supreme court-an at
| tempted appeal to the Supreme court Of
| the United States-their present appli-
| cation before this board for the COM
| mutation of the death sentence to impris-
| onment for life; and yet they must have
| realized all along that they had a hope
| less case. This was one of the most bar
barous, deliberate and premeditated mur-
| ders ever committed in this common
| wealth. The language employed by the
| Supreme court in affirming the Judgment
of the lower court forciby expresses the
| atrocity of this crime. 1t is as follows:
| mo one can read the testimony in this
| case without being convinced that the Of
| fense committed was a most cruel, bar
barous and cold-blooded murder, with
| every element Oh deliberation and pre-
meditation fully established by abund-
ant testimony"
NOT SURPRISING.
When one reads the evidence in this
case, it is not surprising that the de-
fendant's counsel have met with defeat
| at every step taken in the defense of this
cruel murderer.
The power to pardon Is a consttu-
tional power; TO alleviate or remit pun
ishment where perhaps there is a doubt
of guilt; or where the offense was COM
| llllltu ullutT CIRCUMSTANCES
the crime. 1t is an act of grace or mercy.
But what is there about this case that
calls for grace or mercy? Nothing what
ever. There is nothing connected with
| this case that appeals to the members
of this board to extend mercy to this
cruel murderer. He deserves the full
penalty of the law, If ever a murderer
deserved it in Pennsylvania. There is
not one circumstance connected with this
case that mitigates his crime. This board
does not sit as an appellate court. IL Is
not constituted for the purpose of cor
recting errors in the trial of Caus
that function belongs to the supreme
court.
The only question i'm this case, as well
as in all other cases which come before
this board, is: DO the cases present tea-
lures which appeal to and are proper for
executive Clemency? There is certainly
nothing about the Van Horn case that APP
peals to executive clemenCy. 1t is cer-
tainly not a proper case for executive in
teTerencSt Seldom, indeed, does the
Supreme court use such denunciatory
language In the review of a murder case
as Mr.. Justice Green used i'm character
izing the crime Of this defendant. II was
probably the most cruel and deliberate
murder that has come to the attention
of the Supreme court in many years.
| The only reason or ground upon which
| lnS dppllCdllOn Is DaSeO, according 10
the notice served upon the trial judge and
the district attorney, is that of the al
legged insanity Of the defendant, Ac-
cording to the rule quoted, this board will
not consider any other reasons than those
appearing in the notice served upon the
court and district attorney.
SAID HE WAS INSANE.
When this application came before the
| board of pardonS, December q, 1898. de-
fcndants counsel alleged that Van Horn
was insane at the time he committed the
crime and was stil insane This Of
| course. was the only reason assigned IN
! their notice.
| Thereupon the board referred the sub
| jeCt of the defendants alleged insani.y y
to Henry NJ. Wetherll, NJ. d., COnnecto ed
with the board of public charity, and a
well known expert upon the subject OF
insanity DR.. Wetheri1l visited Scranton
and made Il most thorough examination
into the mental condition of the mur,
derer. His report. dated January g. 1Sl9
is filed with this board. DR.. Wetheril
i'm concluding his able and scholarly re.
port, SAYS: II am convinced that he CNaT
| Horn is a perfectly responsible being
| with a clear knowledge of right anC
wrong. and possesses that self-determip
ing power and seN-control which. wher
exercised, prevents the good citizen from
committing crime"
This report leaves the defendants ap
pliCation without ground to rest upon
The judgment Of the lower court, af.
firmed by the Supreme court, Is not to bt
lightly set aside. The certainty of pun
ishmont as the law provides, especially
i'm a case of this character, Is great oh
ject lesson to the lawless element OF tht
community, and should tend to prevent :