New-York tribune., 1912-03-01
DIX DEFENDS HIS ACTION
IN THE. BRANDT CASE
Continued from first page.

sidered by me as part of such application.
With these facts established with regard
20 this particular feature Of the case, there
remains only 10 say at this point that INC
application for Clemency does include state
ments OF q scandalous nature. and which
reflect upon the integrity and honor OF .
woman who is mentioned by name.
The Governor says that his refusal of
a pardon was based on three letters
from Brardt the reports Of District At
torney Whitman and Judge Rosalsky
and the prison and medical reports filed
by the Superintendent OF Prisons.
Upon that record and upon that
alone" he says, Il refused pardon, and
for that decision have never cherished
the slightest regret. nor have I desired
TO Offer the slightest excuse He con-
tinucs:
An appeal for executive clemency is ad
dressed purely TO the discretion of the
executive. and Is not to be decided by him
as q question Of law alone. In the exercise
of that discretion. under the circumstances
of almost every case, there are to be con
sdered moral questions as well as legal
ones. and found this to be especially true
in the present instance. ] decided that
upon Brandt's own admissions and state
ments he was not a proper subject for
executive clemency, without regard to the
truth or falsity OF his sworn statements and
admissions in open court. In the letters
submitted to me he has attempted TO dis
prove the crime 70 which he formerly
pleaded guilty by stating facts and utter
ing insinuations which would make him
guilty OF still more abhorrent offence
an offence against the sanctity of the home
by an accusation against the purity OF a
woman.
This accusation utterly disbeleve. l re-
fused, through the exercise of clcmencY.
10 rOndOne q wrorc more despicable and in
sidious than burglary or assault by blasting
tho character and reputation of a woman
on the unsupported statement Of a self
confessed forger, who in the letter which
~ before me- calls God 10 witness the truth
OF present statements. which contradict
what he previously declared under oath.
In regard 10 the indictment. conviction
and sentencing Of Brandt. the Governor
says that the facts in the case as pre-
sented to him by no means indicated
that the law had been violated in the
conviction and sentencing Of Brandt. He
understands Justice Gerard's decision
Brandt to mean, he says. that Brandt
was not legally convicted mainly be-
cause. though he pleaded guilty To bur
glary in the first degree, he declared
under oath that he had entered the Schiff
house through an open door, which did
not constitute the element Of breaking
indispensable 10 the crime Of burglary.
Commenting upon this later. the Cover
nor says:
The gentlemen learned in the law may
contend--and doubtless IN court of law
where the record of conviction Is alone
considered. the contention is right-that
| Brandts statement under oath, which is
part of the record in the case. must out
weigh anything he may say 10 the con
trary elsewhere. But that IS not the case
! in an appeal for clemency addressed TO the
discretion of the Executive. The exercise
| Of the pardoning power is based not alone
upon the court records and the rules on
law applicable thereto, but upon all the
! facts and circumstances in the case-ln-
cludinE that which has occurred after. as
well as before. conviction A falsehood IS
q falSehood. whether made under Oath OF
not. In the eye Of the law perjury Pre-
supposes an oath; but in the sight OF Coz
and heaven and IN my eyes as Chiet
Magistrate, determining grave question pl
! justice In the light of conscience. IN,
enormity Of Il falsehood, solemnly attested
as the truth by an appeal 70 Goo IN
heaven (Which is the language used IN
the statement, Is no whit less than faIs"
statement made upon oath. Why luen
should the Executive decde-what the DIS
trict Attorney. in making his report. ap-
parently did not decide-that tho sworn
statement as to the method of entry must
be taken to nullify the express plea. OF
guilty? He has declared IN court ,nat ne
entered by an open door; he has declared
elsewhere that he entered by means OF q
key. Who shall presume to say Whlch
statement would be accepted o9 as the 1h 1r9rn r
deed. shall declare that he has not shirmeo
falsely IN each case?
Continuing his argument upon this
point, the Governor says:
But there are some facts which he has
not only never denied. but las expressly
admitted. both I'm court under oath and in
his subsequent statements These facts
are that he entered the SChiH residence IN
the night without the permission Of the
master Of the house, and that he took
away with him property which he found
there which did not belong to him. and
which afterWard was restored by ms law
yerS 70 the owner, and IN the statement
now before me, after attesting its truth
by most solemn appeal 70 God. he de .
ClareS that. surprised by the uneXpected
approach Of the man whose house he had
invaded and where lie then was, with
prison looming I'D before me and my life
and honor forever departed he struck his
former employer with 4 bowling pin, with
which he had armed himself to trigh ten
off any of the servants who might dis
cover me And until il is shown 70 me
by evidence more conclusive than his own
unsupported and Self-CoT tradiCtOrV deCl3-
rations that be did not commit the crime
10 which lie pleaded guilty and for which
he was sentenced. I shall Justify and
maintain my determination that he is not
worthy Of pardon The law may deter
mine that he Is entitled 70 his freedom az
matter Of law Upon all the facts and
.ircums tances IN the case which have thus
far been presented 10 me. ! have not been
able 10 so determine ss matter of cXecu-
tive discretion
Concerning District Attorney Whit