Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1900-10-13
The Chief Executive.

enough to permit them TO claim the
credit for the appropriations of the
last Legislature because one branch
OF il was democratic, and TO cnargt
ahe Republican party with having
made the same appropriations and
condemn that party for them, can
find hut little to complain OF
The fact is cited that under the
Dem, cratic administration fewer
pardons were issued than under che
present administration. From tins tits
absolutely asserted. not argued, that
there has been a gross abuse of the
pardoning power. Not single in
stance is specified in which ii is
claimed the pardouing power was
wrongfullv interposed. The people
are urged to infer from the mere is
suing of laore pardons under the
present nistration than were is
sued under the former one that
81 me were wrongfully issued under
this administration. Would it not be
equally permissible Re infer that the
| difference in number is due TO the
failure OF the forrer governor to is
sue pardons which ought to nave
been issued.
| These Democratic politicians who
are making desperate efforts TO be
| res tored To power, Notwithstanding
| the lamentable results Of their for
mer management of the state gov, ~
ment, find it very difficult to recon
clio themselves to anything that has
been done. In tthe same breath in
| which they complain of the issuance
J of pardons, they also complain OF
the failure to commute the death
sentence TO life imprisonment In the
case of Walker. After stating an al.
legged promise of the executive to do
so, ne is made the subject of a long
TRADE of villification and vitupera.
ton for not having done it. This al
legged promise has been publicly de.
MED. But if it had been made, was
there no duty resting upon the
friends and attorneys OF the con-
derpned man even to remind the execu-
tive OF mat promise, and again ask the
Interpolation of executive clemency
before the execution OF the sentence.
Would it not be more apppropriate
and in better taste, il somebody
must be mode the subject of the
wrath and vituperation of the Demo
cratic politicians in respect to this
matter, to take the a.yorneys and
friends of the man, who having such
9 promise, knowing 10 had not been
complied with, and having good rea-
son to believe it had been overlooked
by the executive, stood by and wit
nessed the execution OF their client
and frieL' without reminding the
executive # his promise?
But the fact is that the present
,hief executive has issued but very
few pardons. In nearly every case
in which he has exercised the execu-
tive clemency it has been in the form
of parole; the convict ia released
on condition that he be peaceable
and law-abiding citizen. If me breaks
the conditions he is to be re-arrested
and returned to the peniten tiary.
fhe last legislature, at the Instance
of tn chief executive, passed law
ereating pardon board to pass up
on all applications for pardons.
The pointing out to certain colored
voters a way by which the Demo
cratic corrupt use of money TO infiu-
ence their votes, and the Democratic
scheme to bind them by an oath to
vote against their best Judgment,
could be broken up, is made the sub
ject of another pitiful wall by the
Democratic politicians, accompanied
by reckless and unwarranted aeon
sstion of the commission of perjury
having been advised in that connee-
ton. No officer has the legal right
TO administer such an oath. No man
is legally bound by such an OATH To
take it and violate it is not perjury.
All this is web known to these des-
perate men out of whose mouths tor-
rents of vile abuse are constantly
poured against all who dare to stand
between them and the offices they
want. They well illustrate the old
saw:
"No thief e'er felt the halter draw
With good opinion Of the law"
The appropriation for the Cover
nor's civil contingent fund for the
years 1899 and 1909 DIS made the sub
ject of unjust and untenable critd-
cism also. That appropriation was