The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-10-05


ercise and his actions are properly the
subject of criticism. But it is hardly
the thing TO criticize a governor for
giving careful consideration to appli-
cations for pardon and conscientiously
examining into cases when he is asked
to exercise executive clemency as ii
done in the following editorial In this
weeks Biblical Recorder:
"a NEW SUPREME COURT.
Governor Glenn has set up a court
above the Supreme court 1t should
be called the SupremeSt court. II a
negro is to be executed, the Superior
or Supreme courts having passed
upon his case, why there is one more
step-it must be referred to the Gov
ernor. He summons witnesses, re-
views the judges, hears argument and
pronounces sentence. His court is
very popular, being full Of cases. Very
recently he tried the case of VIII
Adams; more recently he has set the
date to hear the case of one Murray,
of Durham, convicted of manslaught-
er. 1t amounts to retrfal In every
instance, the lawyers, the evidence,
ETC., etc.
This thing has gone far enough. 1t
has assumed a dangerous aspect. 1t
puts our courts in jeopardy. The par
doning power was never meant to con-
fer upon the Governor the right to
review the courts. A criminal once
under sentence should pay the penalty
unless some extraordinary and unfor-
seen circumstances appears that re-
~, - ;,, = ,a
interest of Justice or Mercy. But as
We have it now, every man sentenced
to death in North Carolina is tried
in three courts. 1t is time to call a
halt"
Before Governor AycOck came into
office the Governor was accustomed to
consider pardons without any formal
hearing and often they were heard
and granted upon ex parte statements.
The action of the Governor was not
given to the press and the only way
the public obtained information of a
pardon came from the criminals home
town after he had returned. That meth
Cd was net in keeping with the pub
licity that ought to be attendant upon
public actions OF such Importance, and
might open the door to mistakes by
the Chief Executive. Governor Ay-
cock. therefore, adopted a rule that
before considering a pardon the per-
son applying for it should give ten
days notice in the county in which
the prisoner was convicted. This gave
70 70
let parties opposed to the pardon pre-
sent their objections. Governor Ay-
cock also decided to give out to the
press all pardons granted and his
reasons for granting the pardon. The
law requires that he shall furnish the
General Assembly with a statement
of pardons granted and the reasons
therefor. Governor Aycock decided,
without waiting for the meeting of
the Legislature. to give his reasons
to the public.
Since he has been in office Governor
Glenn has continued the wise policy
adopted by Governor Aycock and has
adopted the rule in addition Of giving
out to the public his decision
ir all applications for pardon
whether granted or not with
reasons for declining to pardon as
well as reasons for granting pardons.
These rules give to the exercise of
the pardoning power publicity and Sc
cure to the Governor all information
which any citizen wishes him to pos
sess before final action is taken.
More than once this paper has ex-
pressed the opinion that the pardoning
power was not conferred on the Chief
Executive for the purpose of review
ing the courts, but only for such exer
else as is sometimes necessary by rea-
son of new evidence and ill-health.
and when failure to pardon would
work manifest injustice. Governor
Glenn and all his predecessors have
exercised this power conscientiously
and when they do so the public is
pretty apt to give fair judgment upon
its exercise.
The Recorder mentions two cases
In which the Governor has summoned
Adams case in Wake
and the Peter Smith case ia Madison.
In both instances it was claimed that
there was newly discovered evidence.
In the Adams case. right here In
Wake, he examined the witnesses and
found that the claim Of new testimony
was not correct and declined to par
dom In the Peter Smith case he ex-
amined affidavits and found no newly
discovered testimony, and did not
commute the sentence. Would we
not all have been justified in criticising
the Governor if, when attorneys OF
character thinking they had new tes-
timony, requested the Governor to
hear it, he had refused to do SO upon
the ground that he would not review
the courts
AS to the Murray case, the Cover
nor was requested by the judge who
tried the ease and the solicitor who
prosecuted to reprieve Murray until
his application for pardon could be
heard. and the Governor, without any