The sun., 1909-02-14
NO LAW FOR WHAT THEY DID
JUSTICES VINO GAVE STAYS
TO CONDEMNED MAN.

Gov. Huehes ana Attorney-Generxl
O'Maiiey Discuss Acts OF supreme
Court In the Case OF Negro whose
Conviction Court Of Appeals Cphoid.
ALBANY, Feb. 1a.-Gov. Hughes granted
tonight respite until March eto William
Jones. who was 10 have been executed In
Sing Sing In the week beginning next Mon
day morning for the murder OF l.. b. Bum
at Hampstead In November, NO.. Both
were negroes employed In livery stable.
Il Is alleged the killing grew out Of a
drunken fight. The respite was granted
not 80 much on merit but because unusual
circumstances had attended the Jones
case. Two Supreme Court Justices In
Brooklyn interfered TO give the condemned
man stay In order to hear newly dis
covered evidence, when under the pro-
Visions OF the law they had no authority
TO act. After the Court Of Appeals has
passed on a case it rests with the Governor
alone. under the law. to grant such a
delay In the execution Of a sentence.
This point is discussed In connection
with the case both by Attorney General
O'NIalley and by Gov. Hughes In his
memorandum handed down in connection
with his decision To grant respite.
When the Court Of Appeals affirmed
the judgment OF conviction In Jones's
case H. Willard Grifflths, counsel for
the negro. got an order from Supreme
Court Justice Maddox Of Brooklyn di-
recting the District Attorney Of Nassau
county to show cause on January 2S
last why new trial should not be granted
upon newly discovered evidence. The
order purported to stay all proceedings
on the part Of the State TO execute the
judgment Of conviction until the de-
formation OF the motion. Later the hear
ing OF the motion was by order OF Su-
preme Court Justice Blackmar OF Brook
lyn fixed for February 20 before Justice
Garretson and thus a further stay was
granted. The orders were served on
the warden Of Sing Sing prison. who asked
the advice OF the Attorney General.
The Attorney Generals view is: 1T
In plain from both the constitutional
and statutory scheme that reprieves
II the time before that set for execution
is too short for a proper and thorough
presentation to and consideration by
the court OF the facts upon which the
new trial is sought. II the Executive
Is convinced that the application Is with
out merit then the matter should end.
much complaint Of the laws delays In
criminal cases Is constantly made. With
the Executive in control, through his
right to fx the limit Of the reprieve,
courts are aided in thwarting dlatory
tactics. This is said without any intent
whatsoever TO reflect In any way upon the
merits Of this application for a new trial.
And in fairness to the Justices who
signed the orders I would add that am
informed that their attention was not
called to the provisions OF section 495 or
those Of the Constitution
Gov. Hughes in discussing the case and
the opinion Of the Attorney General says
In part: THE report Of the executive de-
partment shows that II has been the prac-
tioe for Justices Of the Supreme Court
given for the consideration Of a motion for
q new trial to recommend that the Execu-
tive grant suitable respite for that pur-
pose Action upon such recommendations
was taken by Gov. Hill in 1881 in the case
Of John II. Schuyler; by Gov. Morton In
1895 in the case OF Bartholomew Shea and
by Gov. Roosevelt In 1899 In the case OF
Howard G. Benham.
1T is highly important that the consti-
tutional and statutory scheme with re-
gard TO the suspension OF the execution
Of sentence in cases like the present should
be maintained In its integrity. In view OF
the special circumstances OF this case have
deemed it proper TO grant a respite to the
said William Jones from the execution OF
his sentence until the eighth day Of March
tn order that time may be allowed for the
hearing Of the pending motion for new
trial