The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1903-01-10
y PAGES TODAY.
pENIrGNrlARY pARDoNs.

4 Mississippi paper is disposed to boast be
cause the governor Of that State pardoned csnly
as persons during four Years while Goveinor
Taylor Of Tennessee, pardoncd 600 during
like period 10 this boast the Chattanooga
The chief executives arc not so much 10 blame
for the excess of pardous as arc the people
themselves as every act Of ccmcncy was based
or large and very unfortunate petitions from
influential people. including, generally, judges,
attorneys general and juries trying the cases.
People ought 10 be more particular in signing
petitions IL is d very COMMON thing to hear
ron abusing the governor for doing the very
thing they asked him 70 do by petition they
probably didn't know they had signed,
Upon which the Montgomery Advertiser
remarks;
The comments Of the Times arc appropriate
ard it might have gone behind the people Who
sign the petitions Part of the blame rests on
the courts and the uries which sometimes con-
Wet persons on insufficient evidence or without
bringing out all the facts. hen, often hap
pens when all the truth is known II is foand
that the sentence IS too severe or that the
prisoner should not have been convicted at all
IN such case the governor is sustained by both
mercy and justice in reducing or annulling the
punishment.
The rebuke of the indiscriminate signing
Of petitions is pertinent and lust, and it is
also true that courts are often compelled
to render severer sentences than real
mercy requires, though courts usually err
on the other side through the false sym
patby of jurors or the adriot management
OF attorneys for criminals. But the com
ment misses the purpose Of the pardon.
Punishment is not retributive, or should
not he. II is designed to prevent crime in
others by the example Of suffering. and
whenever that is accomplished Justice has
been satisfied And experience proves that
It is not the extent of punishment but the
Certainty Of punishment that most effective
ly deters criminals. II all men we're as.
sured that they would be punished for
wrong they would not be so daring. Hence
when punishment has been inflicted
measmably, according to the crime-it is a
matter Of discretion for the pardonIng
power to determine the merits Of each par
tlcular case.
Pardoning Is not an act of setting aside
the Just verdict OF the law, IT. is a func-
ton of another sort, exercised only after
the purposes of the Law have been affected,
and it involves consideration for the Grim.
lnal himself. Imprisonment contemplsteb
reform as we'll as punishment, and when
punishment is satisfied reform is the su.
pleme concern- ell prisoner mas been
well-behaved, If he is duly Inundated, if he
has retained aspiration for a better life.
there is no good reason why he should be
further restrained OF his liberty.
1t is not only merciful to give him an.
other chance, but it is a contribution to
the sum of honest endeavor and 1t is a
practical encouragement to other convicts.
1t teaches that the State does not aim to
wantonly punish, but looks to the protec.
tion Of society and the betterment Of the
individual whether freeman or prisoner
There is great deal of talk about reck.
les pardoning but most OF it is unjust to
governors. Occasionally a pardoned man
returns to his evil ways, but quite as often,
perhaps more often, the convict who has
served out his sentence again offends To
The man SO disposed an act of grace is
bound to come with some restraining force,
and If the real truth could be known it
would be found that the pardoning power
has done infinitely more good than harm.