Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-10-04

by Frank Rainsbarger or at least
withhold action with reference to pay
ment thereof Franks statement to the
board is, that they did not see Lever
ton but that he met Henry Johns at
Steamboat Rock shortly after the muir
der of johnson, got the money from
him and paid off the mortgage. turn
ing Il over to Johns. who was his
brother law, and from whom he got
the money. The records in the county
recorders office OF Hardin county
show that George Leverton assigned
! the m ortgage to Henry Johns nearly
three weeks before Johnson was muir
dered II this be true Leverton did
not hold the mortgage at the time the
crime was committed and Frank
Rainsbarger must have known It II he
gave Leverton the money. as he says
he did do, and the time must have
been before and not after the murder.
and there could therefore have been
| no occas sion for the alleged trip to have
been made The fact OF this assign
ment does not seem to have ever been
presented to the court at the time OF
the trials, and is therefore new evil
dence against the prisoners and is OF
very material nature.
II do not believe that the case
against the Rainsbargers as now pre-
sented to me is any more favorable to
them than as presented to the court
and in the matter of the assignment
referred to it is decidedly less favor
able It is true that there has been
some shifting Of attitude OF certain
witnesses who testified on the trial.
and affdavits Of few persons who did
not testify have been submitted in
favor of the Rainshargers but neither
the board nor myself after the most
careful investigation. believe them
worthy OF much credence. on the con-
| trary, other affidavits have been filed
which tend to strengthen the case
gainst the convicts.
"The court at three different times
having found the Rainsbargers guilty
Of murder in the first degree the case
having been tried in a county other
than that In which they lived or in
which the crime was committed, the
first trial having been held more than
a year after the murder. the second one
more than two years and the third one
more than three years thereafter two
district judges having permitted the
verdict Of the juries to stand the SUI
preme court having passed upon the
sufficiency Of the evidence and the
question Of prejudice and passion and
by a unanimous decision having at
firmed the findings of the lower court
and at least three sessions OF the iegis-
lature having considered applications
for pardon and declined to recommend
the same find no justification for ex-
tending clemency upon the grounds of
innocence or doubt as to guilt. Those
matters were determined years ago by
those whose sworn duty 1t was to de-
eide them and who from every stand
point Of the case had better opportun-
ity to determine them correctly than
either the board Of parole or myself.
1.-The question then resolves itself to
this. is twenty-five years sufficient
length of time to imprison men who by
due process Of law have been convicted
Of murder in the first degree" am not
going to say that there are not cases
where it might be sufficient or even
where shorter time might suffice but
the law fixes the punishment for such
crime at death or Imprisonment for
life and it is only under extraordinary
circumstances that the operation Of the
law should be set aside by an executive
order. If the Rainsbargers are guilty.
as the courts have repeatedly decided,
and l find no cause warranting me IN
saying that the courts erred. they are
guilty of the gravest offense known to
civilized man, that of murder in the
first degree and in their case apparent
ly with no provocation, the gravity OF
the offense being augmented by ex-
tended generalization and collision.
Under all the facts and circum-
stances Of the case. and for the reasons
above stated. as we'll as for many 9TH
ers. do not feel warranted in extend
ing clemency to these men at this time,
and the same is therefore denied.
"B. F. CARROLL.
"CfOVernOr"