The San Francisco call., 1905-01-04

garding certain charges, which have
since caused to be further investigated.
/ think that I can safely absolve the
management from the implication OF
deliberate intent to convert public
property to private and personal ad-
vantages, but a most unfortunate and
regrettable laxness Of method of doing
public business has been made mani
fest In many ways. A seeming neces-
sity, or even convenience, has prompt
ed the evasion of laws and regulations
In order that ends which could not be
accomplished directly might be attain
ed by indirection and circumvention.
1t is not q satisfactory excuse that all
of these things were done for the bene-
fit of the school. or Of the pupils in the
school, or that what was converted to
private advantage in one instance was
more than made good In another by
personal service or personal expendi-
ture It Is essential that the laws De
obeyed and that those methods OF DO
ing business which time and custom
have sanctioned as orderly ana Wise
be followed without deviation.
1t is not sufficient that public OFF,
cial shall attend to public business as
he would attend to his own. He must
attend to public business as the laws
require and guard its details with
more exemplary circumspection.
Appended to this message Will De
found the list of pardons, commuta-
tions and reprieves granted from jan
uary Z, 1903, to January 1, 1906, which
are reported as required by law. AS
there stated there have been eight par
dons. twenty combinations and fifteen
reprieves. In all, two or three hundred
clemency applications have been pre-
sented to me. Three of the pardons
were granted to persons who had al
ready served their terms Of imprison-
ment and were free men when par
doned, the object being to effect their
restoration to citizenship, they having
shown themselves worthy OF It. In
this connection / suggest that section
1888 of the Penal Code, which author
ICES the Governor to grant restoration
by simple executive order to a prison
er who is about to be discharged, be
so amended as to authorize restoration
in similar manner to one who after
discharge has made a sincere effort
to be good citizen.
While the pardoning power Is univer-
sally recognized as necessary one,
and has been provided for under all
forms Of Government, the extent and
manner Of it's exercise are matters
concerning which much difference OF
opinion exists. In the view Of one
GLASS of citizens, who usually have had
little personal contact with crime or
criminals. almost any interference with
the full execution of sentences imposed
by the courts is an evidence OF weak
ness on the part Of the executive.
though 1t might be added that when
persons Of this class become interested
in the case of a single lawbreaker,
they become sympathetic to such a de-
gree that they want him liberated at
once. and cannot understand why the
Governor, who probably has received
a hundred applications equally merit
orous, should refuse such a request.
Some of the substantial reasons why
pardons or combinations should be
granted come to be understood by those
who are brought into direct contact
with the problems of practical penology
either as Warden, Prison Director or
Governor 1t is the testimony Of all
prison officials, believe, that an occa-
sional pardon or communication, If given
to the right person, is one of the most
effective stimulants to discipline, be-
cause 1t keeps hope alive in the con-
vict and gives him an incentive to good
conduct. The same is true of the credit
system, by which all convicts for terms
of years can abridge their periods of
confinement, and the parole system
are among the most important ad-
vances in penology in California, al
though both acts were severely criti-
cized when passed.
Another good ground for the occa-
sional extension of executive clemency
is found in the number of instances
in which Judges write to the Governor
to tell him they have discovered that
they erred in fixing the degree of pun
ishment for a crime. There are other
instances of simple blunders such as
administration of law. One man
whose sentence commuted had plead
ed guilty to felony, though, as was
afterward found, he could not have
been guilty of a greater offense than
misdemeanor. Again, several prison
ers are now serving life sentences in
this State because Of an error in a
statute which said that person con-
victed Of robbery who should have
been previously convicted Of niisde-
rneanor should be so punished, al
made where the previous conviction
had been for felony. This peculiar
blunder Of the statute was corrected
by amendment two years ago.
Yet, q Governor can not use the
pardoning power, to correct all the in
Justices of unequal sentences, even
when their equality is gross and palp-
able, though such inequalities are well
understood by convicts and are cause
Of much sullen discomfort within pris-
on walls. 1t Is impossible that Gov
ernor should undertake to review ju-
dicial proceedings and equalize all pun
ishments, End more harm than good
would result from the attempt to do
It.
I have assumed that q conditional
Communication, which will be q restraint
upon future conduct, is better than a
Communication which is unconditional,
and, with this in mind, have inserted
In such documents a provision that If
the person be subsequently, convicted
of felony he must serve out the unex-
pired portion of his former term of i'm
prisonment, as well as his new one.
This makes the communication, or par
don, in effect. kind OF parole. This
condition IL one that has seldom, If
ever, been attached to pardons or COM
mutations OF sentence In this State,
but believe the wisdom of 1t as q de-
terrant can not be questioned That
this policy Is not unreasonable. or
mere surplusage, is confirmed In the
case Of William Grider, who received,