Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-08-10

evidence in this case and as to whom
there could be no incentive TO commit per-
Jury rather than that of kernS. while the
other evidence seems so shadowy and OBJ
seure that Is was scarcely worthy of con-
sideration, II Kerns has consumption or
II Ia danger OF death in the prison. there
Is a proper way TO show that and until
1t Is shown properly no attention viii be
paid to IL by us.
The mental condition Of Kerns was a
matter which could have easily been in
Nestigated at The time of his trial. and we
DO not think, as it is presented to US.
mat II IS worthy OF any consideration at
this time.
Tit Governor is advised not to pardon
the said Frank kerns.
On the application OF Joseph Mathias's
application the board divides. Mr.. Bran
non ~favoring the pardon of Matthias, and
Mr.. Morris advising the Governor not TO
pardon him..
Matthias was convicted of an attempt to
commit murder. IL the circuit ccurt of
Hardy county, and sentenced August 18th.
itentiary.
The gounds urged 10 p this appli-
cation and executive clemency thereon.
When analysed. should be considered
among the weakest ever presented 10 the
! pardon board or to the Governor.
All the papers In the case are a petition
signed by some two or three hundred per-
sons. q recommendation from the judge
who presided at the trial OF Matthias, and
- Altt PROSECUTING aIAhAANA VIZ
appeared against him. The petition states
that the signers of 1t do not think the
verdict of the jury vas warranted by the
evidence in the case, and goes on TO state
the views of the sIgners OF the same
about the trial. The prosecuting attorney
OF HARDY county saws that he believes
the ends of justice have been met by the
punishment OF Matthias. and therefore ne
recommends the pardon, and the judge
makes practically the same statement.
Now. what f. all this WORTH IL must
numerous petitioners who ask for this
mans pardon had very little actual
knowledge. unless II would be by heresay,
OF the whole matter. 1t may be stated
Without fear of the statements being an
! error, that IL was practically a ply steal
impossibility for these persons all to have
been present throughout the trial OF Ma
thias and to have heard all this trial.
Nothing is better known than that almost
any person under any circumstances VIII
sign a petition for almost anything. II Is
very doubtful whether or not one out OF
every ten OF the persons who signed thls
I petition really know what he was sign
ing. and IL is to be said with regret that
many who sign such papers do not care
very much. AS to the recommendation OF
the Judge. there is nothing In IL to show
that anything whatever has occurred
since the trial to convince him or any
body else that the punishment OF Matthias
was not just. If anything has occurred,
1t was nothing more than right ana Just
that the same should be stated so that
II could be known what weight should De
attached to il. The prosecuting attorney
recommends the pardon of Matthias be-
eause he (the said OFFICIALLY believes that
the ends OF justice have been met. III
they have been properly met, what rea-
son IL there why this officer should not
say why. 1t Is difficult to see why II the
Judge and prosecuting attorney DelleVe
that Matthias should not be punished 10
the full extent of the sentence given hib,
they did not act In accordance with their
belief at the time of the trial. The pros
ecuting attorney could have refused TO
prosecute: the Judge could have set aside
the verdict of the jury.
Stated in a sentence the whole GROUNDS
urged on behalf of the pardon OF Matthias
are comprised in saying that he should De
pardoned because a number OF persons
think that he should This Is only con-
yeying to the pardon power the impress
sions or beliefs or views of individuals
outside of that power: and there should
be no pardon recommended unless the
actual facts or circumstances. on Whlcn
the commentator is based, are brought
to the knowledge of the pardon board.
1t is said in the petition that the man
whom Matthias shot was not struck or III
iured in any way. That. of course. had 10
be the case. II the Individual assailed
had been killed under the same circuIn-
stances that the Jury believed there was
only an attempt to murder him, IL Wouid
have been a widely different oftense WITH
out any such paltry penalty attached as
one years confinement in the pehiteh-
tiary. The Jury before whom Matthias was
tried believes he was trying to commit
one of the most heinous crimes known 10
law and found a verdict in accordance
with that view. The Judge presiding at
the mans trial evidently concurred In
that view at the time of the trial. 80 the
verdict OF the jury and judgment OF tne
court should stand unless remarkably
good reasons are shown for reversing the
same. This reversal should not De on
the mere opinion OF any NUMBER Oh lhoi-
vidtals or on the statements or olnciats,
x-bo nnW seem TO have cNanEeU Iitl
view in the cause. but do not give any
reasons as to why they have changed.
Views of MIR.
In view of the fact that the judge earn
estly recommends Mathiass PARDON anu
that 1t is also mme py, the pros
ecuting attorney and about three nun
dred citizens of Hardy count, / recon-
mend that he be pardoned. lie VIII soon
have suffered eight months confinement
OF his one years term, and wheh the u
diciaI and prosecuting officers OF the
county ask hat he be pardoned,. ] con-
cur In the recommendation. The Judge rs
frequently compelled TO impose peni sn
cessities of the case require. Ihe prose-
cutting attorney frequently witnesses une
imposition OF punishments to a measuTs
hayond what he believes to be just. IN
s,,ch cases all that these officials can 40
is TO recommend a pardon. Ihey can 'uus
only internose to modify or lessen lhe
punishment which they are bouhu 10 I'M
poaa for The reason that from the nature
Of things the law must be uniform. Inc
recommendations of the judge ana proseI
cutting attorney on this application, leaq
me 10 believe that this is such q case. l
would yield much respect TO such recon-
r,enda fions although the judge and state 5
attorney do not specify the reasons wh5ch
induce them TO make such recommends.
tions. 1t should BE borne IN mine thai
they are the judicial and quasi-Judlciai
ofdcers OF the county. They are especiaI-
" charged with the execution OF the Grim,
inal law. and when they are satlsne9
mi if has been indicated, as a general
rule / would respect their conviction
7 Wesley Smith was convicted OF graz
,arconv In the circuit court OF Lewis
countv. and sentenced March, lyOl, 70 tWo
vearsi confinement In the penitentiary.
There is nothing in this case 10 sho"
apy grounds for the pardon OF smith eA-
cent a petition or request signed ny a Lew
nersons stating that he is a young m"n
pnd asking for a pardon. OF course, d
aardon can not be recommended on sucn
rrounds as this. The Governor Is tnere-
sare advised not TO pardon the SAID j.
Wesley Smith. for Smith
~ ,h,s trial in the circuit count OF Lewis
"a "a declines TO make any rtCOUl-