The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-11-08
TO CHARGES or FATHER MARION ON
GONWCT'S EXECUTION.
THE PRIESTS INCONSISTENCY
In Declaring His Belief In h Con-
demned Mans OF Crime
and Asking for Only Communication of
the Death Sentence-The Case Thor
oughly investigated by In Governor.
His Conviction of the Mans Guilt.
The Law II Such Cases
ESPECIAL to The Messenger.)

Especial to The M~eSSenger.)
Raleigh. n. c., November 5.-Gover-
nor Aycock was seen today in reference
TO the remarks of Father Marion at the
execution of Louis Council at Fayette-
vile.
The governor said he was not sur
prised at the feeling exhibited by
Father Marion. Council had professed
conversion under his ministration and
it was but natural he should believe
what Council said. Any Methodist,
Baptist, Presbyterian, ~Episcopalian or
Lutheran preacher who had attended
Council, would nave taken the same
view, though he might not have ex-
pressed it in terms used by Father
Marion.
"I am in no wise responsible" said
the governor, for the execution of
Council. He was tried before a jury
of Cumberland county and a judge of
the state, found guilty and condemned
to death. He appealed to the supreme
court. / gave him several reSp1teS in
order that his case might be thorough
1y investigated, and If the court saw
fit that he might be granted a new trial.
On an application for Communication the
evidence in the case was certified to
me. 1 have carefully read that evil
dence-every word said for and against
the priconer. / have not only read it
once but twice and much of it three
times and more. 1 am perfectly salts
fled of :he guilt of the prisoner. L sent
for Mrs. West, the victim, and cross eX-
amined her. 1 sent Judge Womack,
who is known to be a conservative and
careful man, to Fayetteville to inves-
fi~0fo tho crime nn6 tho faTtG connect
ed Herewith. I have exhausted every
means in my power to ascertain the
guilt or innocence Of the prisoner and
am today firmly convinced of his guilt
/ know many excellenr citizens doubt
his guilt, but under the constitution
and the laws of this state 1 am bound
to act under my convictions and not I'M
der theirs.
at called the council of the state in
session to advise me in this matter.
Without exception each one after hear
ing all h evidence, was of the opinion
that the prisoner was guilty, and that
I ought not to interfere with the exc
cution.
There is some misrepresentation in
the minds of some people as to the
right of a governor to interfere in a.
sentence. The constitution gives me
the power to pardon and to commute.
The constitution itself places no limi-
GdlloII III lIC CAC1SloO VI SAAAS
except that the governor shall give his
reason to the legislature which assem-
bleS succeeding his act; but there
must be some rule by which the eX-
ecutive is guided. He cannot interfere
with sentences of courts unless these
sentences are excessive or he has grave
doubt of the guilt Of the prisoner, or
there shall be other causes rendering
infection of the punishment improper,
and these causes must arise after SEN
fences.
I'm Louis Councils case the punish
ment will not be declared to be excess
sive by any person provided the pr1s-
oner was guilty. The only question,
therefore, left open to me was whether
the prisoner was guilty or not.
Upon reading the whole evidence IN
the case, I am not only not satlsfed
that the prisoner is innocent, or that
there is grave doubt of his guilt, but [
am satisfied he is guilty.
Had I interfered with the sentence
I could not have given true and ade-
quat reason for his interference. 1t
is not sufficient that other people
should think the prisoner innocent. Il
could not have committed the sentence
unless I was convinced there was grave
doubt Of his guilt. |
ct regret the remarks of Father
Marion, as I have no doubt he does
upon reflection. I find no fault with
MS COnNlCIlOIlS VI III ~
Council but think it unfortunate he
should have suggested in his remarks
at the execution that I was responsible
for the death of an innocent man. II
he was Innocent the jury ought to nave
said so. It he was not guilty Father
Marion and those who were closest TO
the prisoner ought to have asked for
his pardon and not for cummutatlon
to Imprisonment for life in the pen1-
Tertiary. The very fact that they failed
to ask for his pardon is conclusive evil
dence they believed only that his guilt
was in doubt. If Father Marion was
as certain of his innocence as he de-
clared at the execution, he was derellct
in his duty not to have k for par
don. for to imprison a man Iii the penl-
for life for an offence which ne
did not commit is little less grave than
his execution.
1.-THE law in this state against the
crime for which Louis Council was ex-
ecuted will always be enforced, and the
law against lynchings will likewise be
enforced. There is no occasion for exc
cution of the law by people in mobs.
The people are strong enough In their
capacity to punish crime
and I shall not be deferred by adverse
from letting the law tai its
course when I believe the prisoner