The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1910-03-03
TOWNER REVERSED IN WARE
CASE
Supreme Court Holds Parole Law
is Valid and Ware is Given
Freedom,


The supreme court has handed
down an opinion restoring Leroy
Ware, the Seymour banker, to the
liberties given him under the terms
of his original parole from the state
penitentiary.
In so ruling, the high court re-
versed Judge Towner, of Corning,
| who had ordered Ware recommitted
to the state penitentiary upon the
theory that the parole board had no
right to act in his case.
| In making this decision the high
court passed upon the validity of the
state law creating the parole board.
The opinion states that the law is
absolutely valid and constitutional.
Judge Towner had held that the
parole boards authority extended
only over those prisoners who were
sentenced after the board was Gre
ated and became active, July 4th,
1907, but the high court held this to
be untrue. 1t is stated in the opinion
that the power of the board extends
over persons convicted under the old
law as well as those sent down I'M
der the new indeterminate sentence
law
Ware Released.
AS the result of this finding of the
court, Ware has been released from
the penitentiary at Fort Madison
and made free to enjoy liberty under
the provisions of the parole granted
him.
Wares case is an unusual one and
one of vast interest. to the people of
this county. In 1907 he was indicted
twenty-five times for making false
entries, for ENLIGHTENMENT and for
fraudulent banking.
In court for trial, he entered into
an agreement with the state where
by he was to plead guilty to making
false entries, the state in return for
this plea to grant him exemption
from prosecution under the other in
dictments during the term of his
sentence. This agreement was sane
toned by the court
Ware was sentenced to five years,
but after service of one year and
two months was paroled by the act
of the parole board
County attorney Sallman immedi-
ately had him rearrested under one
of the old indictments. Ware fought
| lilo d1AoSl tiS SSuleHL Sul0T6u
into promising him exemption, and
was successful in securing freedom.
County attorney Sallman then
filed motion asking that Ware be
recommitted, setting up as grounds
that the law under which the parole
board was created and acted was
unconstitutional, as it trenched upon
the power of the governor to grant
pardons, reprieves and commute
sentences OF convicted persons He
further urged that the board, even
ii this law be valid, had exceeded its
authority. for it had no right to par.
ole any person convicted prior tc
! July 4, 1907, the date when the in
determinate sentence law went int
effect and the board was organized
Upon this motion Judge Townel
held with the county attorney ant
! issued an order to the sheriff to take
Ware back to the penitentiary.
Wares attorney, w. L. Living
ston, at once sought a writ of habea:
corpus in the court of Judge Banks
OF Lee county, but was unsuccessful
Judge Banks ruling that the actor
should be brought elsewhere.
Attorney Livingston then filed III
application for the writ with the su
preme court and secured a temper
airy order from Justice McClain.
Holds Law is Valid.
The high court in it's opinion as
serts that the first contention O
County Attorney Sallman to the eff
feet that the law is invalid becaus
it interferes with the power of tn
governor is unfounded.
The power of the governor" til
opinion reads, to pardon or repriev,
criminals, or to commute a sentenc,
pronounced by a court is in no man
ner abrogated, restricted or removed
by this statute
In knocking out the claim that tn,
law didn't go into effect until Jul,
4, 1907, and that to make it appl,
to persons convicted prior to tina
time would make it unconstitutional
as being an exposter factor law, tn,
high court says:
There is nothing in the statut,
which renders it obnoxious to tn,
constitutional inhibition of ex DOS
facto legislation"
The supreme court pointed GU
that no reason existed why the set o
persons convicted under the old Law
and doing time in the penitentiar,
should be set apart as one class t
whom the new law should have II,
manner of application.
These persons are entitled to tn,
benefits of the law, it is held, and tn,
law itself is valid.
Hence it was found that Judge
Towner's action in recommittinf