The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-08-02

Proposed Changes.
 The bill passed by the Connecticut General Assembly and vetoed by the Governor, which would free a prisoner in the State prison upon vote of five of the six members of the State Board of Pardons, instead of the unanimous vote of the six being required as now, has aroused much comment through cut the State, owing in part to the two entirely different and irreconcilable points of view which the advocates Of the two sides of the question take.
 The bill and the Governors veto is still before the Legislature and will come up soon in the House, at which time Representative Frank S. Blshop of New Haven will make a strong speech in favor of the proposed meas
 ure. In MT. Bishops speech on the floor of the House will be embodied letter from H. E.. Simmons, describing his experience in petitioning the Board
 of Pardons. The letter is rather illum. mating in some of its statements, and worthy at the very least of careful lows: Hartford. Conn.,, July 2S. 1909. Hon. Frank s. Bishop,
 |! No. 42 Church Street, | New Haven, Connecticut. My Dear Sir: It is not an easy
 matter to write condensed account of my personal experience before the Board of Pardons, that would be of any use in an argument to allow ac- tion by the board to be upon the vote of five out of the six, in place of com polling it to be upon a unanimous vote as now.
 Of course this apparent unanimity means that one man has the power to prevent the other five members Of the | board from doing what they believe to be right; and the statement made that all action by the Board of Pardons has been unanimous, simply means | that the five obstinate men" have yielded perforce. to the one ''conserva- l tive man." who is always righti My petition to the Board of Pardons | which met last December was not | made with any expectation Of a fa-
 vorable result, as it is well understood | that the board will not examine into ! the question of the guilt or innocence | of petitioner; but to give an answer | to the question, Gan a poor man ob-
 tain justice in the State of Connect1- l cut?''
 The only reason alleged in my pe- i titiop was, that I had never commit | ted the crimes of which I was con- | victed; and also that no such crimes
 were ever committed, and this I pro- posed to prove by the States own eVi- | dence as given at the trial; and no at
 tack was made upon the court, offic- being proved, I thought the infer
 ence might be that I was not guilty. | In addition to the evidence, I pro-
 duced my book showing the account | ing for the funds claimed to have | been embedded as the entries were
 made at the time, and fully sustain | ing my claims.
 I was unable to hire a lawyer, from
 my poverty caused by my unjust and | illegal arrest, and so had to present
 my own case. and after speaking | few minutes, one of the members, not l the chairman, broke in upon me say | inc 11r1do | will hear what MT. - (the States ! attorney), has to say'; and it was not | until the chairman, the Governor, had 1 told me to go on and they would hear
 me, that I was allowed to speak, but | all the time I knew that the fatal one | man had spoken!
 The States attorney followed and at l once went into the question of the 1 trial, asserting the fairness and legal Pity of it and that there was no merit | in my contention; so much so that on
 Dec. IA, I filed another petition in | which I asked leave to file official | copy of the entire testimony as given
 at the trial; the charge to the jury; | the record of the court, and the in-
 formation showing the counts upon l which conviction was had; and I ask
 ed that full and impartial examination | be made of these exhibits, "and if | your petitioner be proven guilty of l the charges made in the information by the testimony as given at the trial: under the law as laid down by the | honorable court; he be required to re main in state prison until he shall have been duly punished for his wrong
 doing;' but if the testimony given; and the law as laid down by the court, | shall prove that none of the charges
 as made in the information be true; then that your petitioner may be re- leased from confinement in the state
 prison, upon the ground of his inno- cence of the charges made; and upon
 no other ground; and yet with this Ia hn of
 hibits, my petition was refused and Il I was not even allowed to file the ex- hfbitS as proposed.
 | Hearing nothing from either of my
 petitions, I asked the secretary Of the board what action had been taken
 and was told it was not the custom of
 the board to make a report unless
 the action was a favorable onei
 On February 19, 1909 I asked the secretary of the board if there was
 any rule of the board which would prevent their taking action upon eith-
 CT of my petitions, and would he state
 definitely what the rule is. and wheth- CT it is a part of the law creating the board, simply rule which has . been adopted for their own guidance.
 I also asked if there had not been
 some cases where the board has re-
 leased a man upon receiving proof of his innocence?
 To these enquiries under date of , Hartford February 24 1909, I received the following answer, which I quote | verba tim, that it may be seen just
 how much chance an innocent man, imprisoned wrongfully. has for obtain ing justice:
 , H. E. Simmons, Esq,
 1493 Broad Street, Hartford. Conn. 'T am in receipt of yours of the 18th inst, and in reply will say that while 3 it is not a rule of law, yet it is a rule 2 of practice before the board of par a dons that the board generally consid- , CTS only reasons for pardon and does not attempt to go into the trial of the question of fact and ascertain the guilt of a petitioner.
 y "Under our system of government you oAn at once see the reason for that, our jury system being the tri- bunal delegated with the power of l ascertaining the facts in any ca se
 and the board of pardons merely be- , ing board created to extend mercy when it seems to be in the interests of the state.