The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1906-08-02
The Pardoning Power.


W MesStHSeT
There must be something mys-
terious and complicated about the
case of the ex-revenue officers, Hasty
and Samuels, convicted OF most
outrageous assault on Mr.. Deal,
editor OF the Wilkesboro Chronicle.
There seems to have been nothing
doubtful about the fact of the assault.
Mr.. Deal, who had just recovered
an attack OF sickness and was very
weak, was walking down the street
when he was assaulted by the two
men. One of them covered the sick
man with a pistol while the other
committed the actual assault.
The two men were tried and SEN
fenced to a term in the county jail;
they appealed to the Governor for
clemency. The governor has not
yet pardoned them but from time to
time grants them respite OF the SEN
t,nts untilhe can have q full hearing
on the application for a pardon. We
do not understand why the governor
should show such undue clemency to
these two men. The jury OF twelve
men who heard all the evidence said
the men were guilty of an outrageous
assault. 1t found them guilty. So far
as we have been able to learn there
were no eXtenuating circumstances.
The governor has given no reason
for his action in the case. He will, OF
caurse, give none until final action.
In the meantime these two men who
months ago were convicted OF an ag-
gravated assault and sentenced to
Jail, have not suffered one hours
punishment. The governor has from
time to time, we do not know ex-
actly how often, deferred the time
when they shall begin to undergo
their punishment. This is a case in
which the governor should either
grant the petition or refuse it and
give to the public his reasons for his
action and should not continually
defer these mems punishment with
out any reason whatever except that
the lawyers were not ready to take
| up the case before him. 1t has never
seemed to us that the clause OF the
constitution which gives the governor
| the power OF pardoning and granting
Communication of sentences intended
that he should take upon himself the
powers and duties of q petit jury and
try over again the cases which had
been passed upon in the superior
courts, as seems to have become the
practice of late in the executive de-
partment OF the state. The state
constitution provides that the gov
ernOr may exercise executive elem
| ency in cases where he thinks such
action proper, but it does not pro-
vide for his overriding the action OF
a jury in determining the fact OF a
man'sguilt or innocence. The act OF
| pardoning is based upon the predeter-
mined ascertainment of guilt of the
person pardoned; it's exercise cannot
be distorted into Il review of the find,
ing of the only tribunal under our
constitution clothed with the power
to pass upon the question of guilt OF
innocence OF the party accused OF
into retrial by the executive of the
question up on hearing of the evi.
dence produced before the jury OF
| upon that and additional testimony
| When the governor undertakes to dc
this he transcends his constitutional
powers. The governor has no right
to quetion the finding of the jury as
t. taf aftf HGa8k by TIE eengg 0 6ty @ aR5
failure on the part of the Judge to sci
aside the verdict because of such
wrong finding. The constitution EN-
powers the Judge and not the gov
ernor with the right to set aside yer
diets when in his opinion they ART
wrongfully found. When the Cover
nor does this he encroaches upon TIT
rights and powers of the judicial de
partment.