Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1903-08-27

The champion of executive clemency
shrewdly waits until the public amid the
rush and strenuous life of this modern
| age, has practically forgotten the Incl
dents attending the commission of crime,
| 1nd the circumstances of trial and con-
| Viction and sentence; and appeals to q
sympathetic people for assistance. 1t is
this indifference on the part of the gen
oral public added to the generous in
stincts of the individuals directly ap.
pealed to, that accounts for the success
of 80 many attempts to secure pardons
for imprisoned criminals.
The latest effort of this kind Is that to
secure a pardon for Marvin A. Mcclure
who was sentenced three years ago to
serve sentence of seven years in the
| House of Correction for aiding and abet-
ting Charles w. Mussey in abstracting
the funds Of the Merchants National
bank of Rutland The friends Of the con-
vcted man have secured counsel and 1t
Is stated that number of prominent men
of Rutland have been approached on the
subject and some of them have agreed
to give all the assistance in their power
to have McClures sentence shortened.
The argument is advanced that Mcclure
has been sufficiently punished for his part
in the bank wrecking and that nothing
will be gained by keeping him in prison
four years more, while If he could be free
he could work and support his family.
DO the champions of Mcclure undertake
to say that the court which sentenced
him to seven years Imprisonment did
not take all the facts in the case into
consideration when pronouncing sentence
or that the judge went beyond the bounds
Of justice in imposing the penalty? Do
the friends of Mcclure not know that the
granting of their appeal because Nc
| Clure, if liberated, could work and sup
port his family, would set free most of
the married mon in the penitentiaries and
prisons of the whole country?
| But 1t is urged that compelling Mcclure
to serve seven years. while Mussey, the
principal in the affair, has been free ever
| since the first year after he was convict
cd is an injustice. There was no good
reason why Mussey should have been
| pardoned He was sick to be sure, hut
he was not sentenced to imprisonment
pending either good health or bad be-
| havior; and if that precedent were to he
followed, all Mcclure would have to do
would be to reduce his physical condi-
tons to point where the same appeal
could be made for him as proved effective
in the case of Mussey.
The fact that mistake was made In
the case of one condemned criminal CON
sttutes no good reason why a mistake
should also be made with reference to
another; and if this argument were to
hold good, then an endless chain of pre-
edge concerning Mcclure, hut so far as
/ appears in the arguments advanced in his
behalf, taken in connection with the cir
cumstances of his conviction and sem
tence by a judge of the United States
Court and taking all the facts in the
case into consideration. there is
no reason why people who have not con-
sidered the testimony or listened to state
ments in tho case outside of the appeals
/ Of counsel for the condemned should
take up the matter at this late day and
without review reverse the judgment of
the judicial tribunal as to the length of
time during which Mcclure should re-
main in confinement. For men to under
take to do this is not only the height of
presumption and impudcnce, but it also IA
travesty upon justice such as is rapidly
giving color to the constant reiteration
Of this age in Vermont that a condemned
man will never serve out his sentence.