Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-06-23
the QUESTION OF PARDOHS.

One of the most difficult questions that
ONE before the chief executive of a
| state for solution is where the pardoning
power should be exercised, in justice to
all concerned. In discussing this matter
the Fergus County Argus, in an ably
written article, says:
We believe Governor Smith and the
state board of pardons are making a
| great mistake in the wholesale manner
in which they are exercising the pardon
ing power. What is the object of courts
and costly trials if the sentence i'm
posed upon criminals is to be committed?
There may be exceptional cases where
the pardoi;iig power can be used with
justice to the condemned and safety to
the commonwealth, but they are extreme
~ rare. That such power has been
abused in this state there can he no
doubt. I
While it may appear so. to the indi-
vidual who is not familiar with all the
circumstances. the real fact is the par
doning power is seldom abused by Gov
ernor Smith or any other executive who
sees fit to exercise clemency from time to
t4hAe. IL was CuStoilldIt Aol Tue uelilO
cratic press to c~riticise Governor Rick
ards with considerable severity for what
was alleged to have been the too fire.
quent exercise of the pardoning power.
and more executive fibre was promised
when his successor took the chair. Dur
ing the past two years Governor Smith
hog ~ .rjNv-1 n crn ,,rt- nv
victs than did his predecessor in any two
years of his ~gubarnatorial term, and the
republican press are disposed, in turn, to
indulge in criticism.
Doubtless the press of both political
parties are actuated by good motives in
taking up arms against the p%ardoning
policy when freely exercised, but a more
complete knowledge of the merits of each
case that is favorably acted upon would
do much to lessen the asperity of such
criticisms. Too often an u~nintentional
injustice is lone by the courts, either in
the conviction Of innocent men, the fail
ure to accord due weight to the impell-
Ing cause or motive OF i crime, OF the
infection of a penalty altogether too Sc
we're to be properly called the administra-
ton of justice. While the executive does
not act in a judicial capacity, he is never
theless the last resort Of the unfortunate
after all other avenues of relief have been
closed and affords the only hope to the
mar who is innocent, on the one hand,
or unjustly punished, on the other.
1t is just as unfair to c~riticise the mo-
tives of the governor, in granting a par
o to a convict as it would be to criti-
else the motives of the court in his in
structions to the jury or in imposing a
sentence. One is quite as likely to be in
fiuenced by considerations of sympathy
as the other, and Indifference to the fate
of the convict may at times be charac-
t~eristic of each. n
Every criminal case in the courts is
| supposed to have been tried on its mer-
it's, in default of any knowledge to tbs
contrary, and with equal fairness it must
be assumed that d PARDON granted by the
! governor, and confirmed by the board Of
pardons, has been justified by the facts
There are instances, in the nature ol
things, when judicial wrongs are pelpe,
trated in criminal as we'll as in civil mat.
ters adjudicated in the courts, and Their
are doubtless instances when executive
c~lenency is misapplied. 1t is a mistake
however, to indicate broadly and in gen
eral terms that the pardoning power i:
seriously abused. The question of the
cost of conviction cuts no figure, if an in
justice has been lone the convict, ant
the work of the governor and the boart
of pardons should bear no relation tt
the money expended in placing the pris
oner behind the bars.