The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1906-07-06
WILMINGTON, n. G.
FRIDAY, JULY 6, 1906.
THE ~PARDO<I\G POWER.


There must be something e.y mES-
terious and complicated about the case
Of the ~ex-revenue officers, Hasty and
SamueIS. convicted Of a most Out-ag-
eUus assault on M. Deal, editor OF me
WilkesbOrO Chronicle. There seems TO
have been nothing doubtful about the
fact Of the assault. Mr.. Deal, who
mad Just recovered from an attack OF
sickness and was cry weak, was
assaulted by the two men. One Of
them covered the sick man with n
pistol while the other committed the
actual assault. The Two men wee
MED and sentenced to Il term in the
county Jail. They appealed to the GOV
eTnUr for clemency. The governor has
TO time grants them respite Of The
sentence until he can have Il full hear
ing on the application for n pardon.
We do no understand why the SOv-
ernOr should show such undue elem
ency to these two men. The jury OF
twelve men who heard all the evidence
ragous assault. 1t found them guilty.
SO far rs we have been able to learn
there were no e~Xtenuating CirCum-
stances. The governor has given 10
reason for his action in the case. He
will, of course, give none until final
action. In the meantime these TWO
men who months ago were convicted
of an aggravated assault and se%ntenc-
ed to Jail, have not suffered one hours
punishment. The governor has from
item to time. we do not knOW exactly
how often, deferred the time when
they shall begin to undergo their pun
ishment. This is a case in which the
governor should either grant the petit
ton or refuse it and give TO the pub
lie his reasons for his action and
should not continually defer these
mems punishment without any reason
whatever except that the lawyers were
0 ready to take up the case before
him. 1t has never seemed to us Lat
the clause of the constitution which
gave to the governor the power of par
dOning and granting communication OF
sentences intended that he should take
upon himself the powers and duties Of
4 petit jury and try over again the
cases which had been passed o il
the superior courts, rs seems t. have
become the practice of late in the exec
utive department OF the state. III"
state constitution provides that he
governor may exercises executive elem
encv i'll 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 ii
mans guilt or innocence. The act O.
p~ardOnin~ i based upon the predeter-
mined asCcTtainment of guilt of III
person ~pardoned; its exercise cHnnot
be distorted into a review of the find
ing Of the only tribunal under Our con-
sti,utiOn clothed with the power 10
pass upon the question of guilt or i'll
uOcence Of the party accused or into a
Tetrial by the executive Of the Quos-
ton upon Il hearing Of the evidence
produced before the jury or upon that
and additional testimony. When Tie
governor undertakes TO do this be
transcends his constitutional powers.
The governor has no right TO quest on
the finding Of the jury as TO the Ia rs
except III the most glaring eases ri
mistake by the jury and failure Oh
the part OF the judge to set aside ne
verdict because OF such wrong finding.
The constitution empowers the judge
and not the governor with right 10
set aside yerdicts when in his opinion
they are wronefully found. When the
governor does this he e~ncrOaches upon
the rights and powers Of the judicial
department.