The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1909-08-19
THE PARDONING OF BEN LEE,

Mr.. Editor: | noticed in your issue
several days ago that the State Board
of Pardons had decided to pardon Ben
Lee, or rather commute his sentence to
six months, on the ground that under
Art. zoe of the Constitution he could
only be sentenced on the public road
for six months. We do not wish to
criticise the Board of Pardon which has
the right and power to pardon criminals
whenever in its judgment it thinks best
for the pubic good, but when it does SO
it should give its reasons therefor and
not attempt to hide behind the Consti-
ton when it does not bear it out. The
public has been led to believe that the
District Judge in sentencing Ben Lee to
twelve months on the public road, over
stepped the Constitution, when in truth
and fact such is not the case. In the
first place, the Pardon Board is not the
proper tribunal to correct errors of the
lower court That is the province of
the Supreme Court, and in doing so it
has over-ridden the Constitution by re-
vising the judgment of the lower court.
But, admitting for argument that it
has this right, let us see if the lower
court was in error.
Ben Lee was indicted and pleaded
pleaded guilty to obtaining money under
false pretenses. The punishment for
this offense is twelve months, with or
without hard labor, and he was SEN
fenced to twelve months on the public
roads. His offense was not necessarily
hard labor, but may be Jail or road
sentence.
The Art 2o2 of the Constitution, re-
lied on by the Board, reads as follows:
"When any parish shall avail itself of
the provisions of this Article (Which is
that prisoners sentenced to jail may be
worked on the public road) the Judge
in passing sentence on persons convicted
OF any offense, when the punishment
imposed by law is Imprisonment in the
parish Jail and may sentence such per-
son to work on the public roads of the
parish" "and when the punishment
prescribed by lave is imprisonment IN
the benitenfidry, he may be sentenced to
work on the pubic roads of the parish
where the crime is committed, if the
sentence actually imposed does not eF-
ceed sir months. :
This Article of the Constitution is so
plain that "he who rims may read un-
derstandingly 1t is clear that where
one is convicted of an offense punish
able in Jail he may be sentenced to work
out his time, whatever it may be, on the
public road. But where be is convicted
i of an offense necessarily punishable in
the penitentiary he must be sent to the
penitentiary, unless the sentence actually
imposed is as low as six months. In
such cases the court is allowed to sem
tence the prisoner on the road for such
/; time. Thus it is clearly seen that the
six month limit on the road is only ap-
! plicable to penitentiary offenses where
the court imposes a sentence as low as
: six months, and is not at all applicable
: to iail sentences, or offenses not neces-
/ sairly punishable in the penitentiary.
I Mr.. Lees case was not necessarily
: punishable in the penitentiary, and II
such cases the court is not limited in it;
: sentence to six months on the road
t The statute fixes it at twelve months
: and the court followed the statute arle
imposed jail sentence-subject tt
S road duty on the public road.
: We write this, Mr.. Editor, to put th'
t public in touch with the law and Con
y stitution. We care nothing for th'
S Communication or pardon of Ben Lee, bu
a we think the Pardon Board shoul'
e shoulder the responsibility and not tr.
g to unload on the court.
Ben Lee was legally and constitution
! ally sentenced, and if he had not beei
d his counsel would have appealed to tn
! Supreme Court, the proper tribunal t
correct errors of the lower court. W
e NAV not be infallibe, but feel sure tha
/ lin this case the sentence was legal an
It that the Pardon Board must have ha
/ other reasons than this for grantin
Lees pardon Respectfully,
n A. J. MURFF,
) District Iudg,