The Green Forest tribune., 1907-07-05

OS>AA M hhi~ SA SOAio VT ai1b'S " eehA VI the merits of your application for your husbands pardon. It has impressed mo as matter in which it is necessary to to dis criminate between two positions, somewhat extreme. Upon the one hand is the problem as to whether or not the pardon in this case would be in the nature of, a condoning of the crime for which your husband was convicted, or whether on the other hand it could be considered as an act of justice to you and your children and to the state. As the acting executive of this state it would be objectionable in me to grant the petition if felt that this act of mine could justly be consid- cred in the class first mentioned but 1 have reached the conclu- sion that it cannot justly be so classified, for the following req sons:
 1 In view of all the conditions surrounding the Investigation of the legislative bribery situation, I feel that in this case the dis grace, the deprivation of liberty and the absence from his home and loved ones, which your hus- band has already suffered and undergone, have as fully satisfied all ths demands of the law as his further confinement would accomplish.
 ? l believe that all who are familiarxwith the bribery in- vestigation, as it has been thoroughly advertised through out the land are morally certain that there are others more guilty of the crime for which your hus- band was convicted than is he, but who up to this time have been by circumstances un- available in behalf of your hus- band.
 3. I believe h a the further confinement of your hus- band in the penitentiary adds nothing more to his disgrace, but goes above and beyond him, and but increases your own misery and suffering, and upon these grounds l base my conclusion that executive clemency should in this case be extended.
 Occupying the position that l do it is out of place in me to crit icise another department of the government, or to even by infer- ence reflect upon the able prose- outing attorney who has been conducting the bribery investi- gations.
 fit is of satisfaction to you, however, I will mention the facts which the court records establish to the effect that your husband was convicted upon the testimony of one who has since admitted under his oath that he was guilty of receiving 8 much larger sum of money than your husband is alleged to have offered as a bribe. If this statement had been presented in your husbands case, under the law applicable to the theory of the prosecution, the persons whose testimony was re- ceived to establish the conspiracy would not have been received in evidence under the law applicable to your husbands case.
 
 You may receive some further satisfaction from the fact that hardly day has passed since l have been in the governors of- flee that I have not received some numerously signed petition or some special letter from re. sponsible citizens of Arkansas asking for your husbands pard. on, and stating some of the reasons which I have herein as- signed, and from others who having known him for years stoutly maintained your hus- bands innocence.
 The difficulty which has con- fronted the prosecuting attorney is known to all wellinformed law yers, and is in effect declaration of law that without the testimony of some person free from any connection with the alleged crime, a conviction cannot be secured. This is an old rule, anC