The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-12-26

many convicts. 1t has been severely
criticised in some localities for so do
| ing and in addition to this one of the
persons to whom 1t granted pardon
is now in jail awaiting trial that
probably will land him again In pris-
on from which he had been liberated
but few days before.
Devils Lake Journal: Il want to go
on record as squarely opposed to the
action of the pardon board last week"
declared Atty. Silver Serumgard this
morning. 4 don't want to be classed
as. blood thirsty. for such is not a fact,
hat the pardoning of some Of these
! convtcts 1 consider a disgrace.
Il was states attorney at the time
Of the murder Of Babe Wright The
jury started the sentimental business,
for the woman was either guilty Of
murder in the first degree, or she was
innocent. Now the pardon board
comes along with the same line of
work.
They say the penitentiary it no
place for woman. True it is not.
Neither Is it the proper place for men.
The same can be said of the insane
asylum, or hospital. The home is the
place for everyone-so long as they
are decent and law abiding.
i tell you the average OF those peo-
pie are moral degenerates and they
are menace to public safety and
morality Of a community. I repeat,
am not blood thirsty. / believe rmer-
cy should be shown in appropriate
cases: but in cold blooded murder /
believe the penalty should be paid"
WalhalIa Mountaineer: While we
have no wish to criticise the state
pardon board, we do believe that SEN
timent controls the action of men to a
large extent and that the courts and
laws are made the laughing stock of
the criminal classes. The pardoning
OF twenty or more criminals at one
time also takes on the semblance of a
wholesale transaction that would
make anyone unacquainted with the
details of the cases believe the board
were unqualified to act. Any set rule
to govern their action in granting par
dons, would seem impossible, and yet
the fact that SO many were freed looks
as though there must have been some
rule adopted and acted on.
We do not so much censure this ac-
ton Of the board for the minor Of
lenses, as there are extenuating cir
cumstances, many times, but in the
cases of murder, arson and rape, the
sentences are-nine times out of ten
too lenient at first, and any COM
mutation of these seems travesty on
Justice. We do not believe in cap
ital punishment any more than we do
In murder, because it is only legalized
murder, but when d criminal ac-
knowledges his act of murder; when
1t has been proven beyond a doubt
that the right man has been appre-
hended for murder and the Judge and
jury find him guilty and he is SEN
tence for life--the pardoning board
should have no power Of reducing that
sentence until it is shown that the
convicted person is innocent. We have
known of several cases where murder
ers have been pardoned after serving
four to twelve years for their crime
and the result is that the community
suffers because OF the pardon. If
pardons are to be granted each Grim
inal, why go through the farce of a
trial and the enormous expense? Why
not give them the f. Ii, six or ten year
sentence at first? We believe the
court at the time Of the trial is better
able to mete out the punishment than
a. pardoning board In years after
ward.