New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1906-12-26
5rsmEnc i APPEAL DENIED
Parda ID Turns Down New
II 80 Boar Petitioners.
Ecksta. =, Argument for Release
~ Denied.

Eckste. j, Argument for Release
- Denied.
6.tustic Says Law Cannot be Set
AZ tide Without Good Cause.
Violators cf the liquor laws, no mat
ter how severe penalty has been i'm
posed on them for minor offenses, can
not appeal to the state board of par
saons for mitigation of sentences unless
here is question as to their guilt.
This is the edict that went forth from
,he board of pardons on Saturday as
lhe result of a special hearing on an
appeal for clemency for Ben Fesen-
naier, Peter Laway and Paul Jauss,
theee6rst two sentenced forselling liquor
ts n. nors and the latter for selling
)jonor without license. :
Ali of the offenders are perfectly
willing to pay the statutory fine OF, $50
and c9sts and let it go at that, but
tbev a. not relish the experience OF
-snending the holidays behind prison
bars So, through their friends and
attorneys, they appealed to the judge.
He declined to remit the jail sentence,
and fhen they decided to go to the
conr of last resort, the board of
pardons.
Petitions were circulated on Friday
and naturally were literally signed.
!, Armed with these, their attorney, Jos.
n. Eckstein, asked the governor to
call a special meeting of the board to
act on the case. The governor grant.
ed the request and meeting was
called for Saturday m orning.
Mr.. Etekstein appeared and presen-
ted petition for the New Ulm boys
signed Ky over $50 residents of this
city. Ihe petition was headed by
Mayor. Silverson and included the
names of membe of the city coun-
sell, the chairman of the board of
2 county commissioners and most of the
county officers. According to the
Pioneer Press account Mr.. Eekstein
told the board that every one to whom
the petition was presented signed it
and that it was signed by practically
allthe men of the city. This state
ment was not literally true, but it evil
|, dently had but little effect with the
! Board.
/ Attorney General E. T. Young inter-
rsupted him to ask if these same men
= would not have signed petition not
% pterdoE the men if it had been pre-
, sented. People usually sign petit
g &aa ccommodat the person who
~ around" he remarked.
Il EEs!chhsbein replied that while such
aetition undou otedly would have got
--me sigfners, most of thosewho signed
this petition did so because they
thought the men had been punished
enough. He stated that the fine and
the eight days in Jail was punishment
enough for first offense and the men
had promised not to do it again.
f. Governor Johnson asked him why
these two men in particular had been
singled out, and he was told that they
kept saloons in connection with the
Union and Star halls where there are
Frequent dances and that for this rea-
son they hereunder greater temptation
, TO sell to minors than others we're.
fNhiof VT 90, NJ,
,ll96ksGein that in the final analysis a
pardon is a setting aside of the law,
and that before the board would do
this soHse good reason would have to
be shown.
Mr.. Ecks,t stein replied that the Judge
who sentenced the men said that the
law was too severe for first offender,
tbut Chief ,'Justice Start said this was a
: matter Of discretion with the legisla-
tnre and not for the courts or pardon
;board.
:: THE purpose OF the law is to pre-
vent ST Ich occurrences, and the punish
ment ought to serve as a warming to
:others. It may be that these men have
been plunished sufficiently to keep them
from offending again, but the punish.
ment viii fail of its object of warning
others if remitted," said Judge Start
!: Repres tentative S. D. Peterson also
spoke for the petitioners. He said he
had kno swn them since they were boys
eS@-zEz-z
i