The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1912-09-05
DEATH SENTENCES
WERE AFFIRMED
BY CRIMINAL COURT OF AP.
PEALS AGAINST THREE NE.
GROES.

Oklahoma Clt!s Ok4a., sept -
Sentences ~ ueayh imposed D.! the
Oklahoma eoln,! G.strc- court
agans. Elijah Turner, Charley Pose.
ana 100 .oiusOA, negroes, for com,
,Ac.jy iu t-e murder OIL ". II. Archie
on the u.gAt OF March 9, 1871, we're
affirmed D! he Criminal court OF
appeals in an opinion delivered Jy
Presiding Judge FurmaH. The court
set oct. as the date for the .ripIe
execution. Judge Doyle ana Arm
strong concur in the findings.
The three defendants with John
Henry Prather and James Holmes,
also negroes, halted Archie on Third
street near he temporary state cap
ltOl building. After taking his val
uayles Pra'her, according to his con-
fessIon, placed a pistol against Ar
chic head and fired. The body
was found next morning in the street
almost opposite the window OF the
governors office. and the second day
the negroes were arrested
Pratter readily confessed tina, he
fired the fatal shot. He was ad-
judged guilty BY the district court
and given the death penalty, which
the criminal court Of appeals sustain
ed, but while he was waiting the
sheriff's call to begin the march
to the galloWs, and within a few
minutes of the execution, Gov. Cruce
cOmmuted his sentence to life in
the penitentIary. Holmes was next
tried and convicted, the death pen
atty being imposed, which the Grim
inal court OF appeals affirmed. Gov.
Cruce, after a reprieve in order to
allow the case an appeal to federal
court, where jurisdiction was later
denied, commuted this sentence to
life Imprisonment also.
The criminal court N these cases,
as it did in the Holmes case, holds
that the confession Of Prather that
he fired the shot taking Arches
Life, does not mitigate the oifense
of those who had joined him in the
crime. All are as guilty as one, the
court held, and the opinion today
say that what was announced in the
Holmes case may be considered as
announced here without actual repe-
tition
The court calls specific attention
to the law authorizing it to modify
IA judgment whenevr IN his opinion
it should be done and in order to
secure justice. Referring 10 the
law the opinion says
This section confers power upon
and makes it the duty of this court
to modify any judgment in crml-
nal case when, in our opinion, it |
is in any manner excessive, ether |
as to degree or punishment, and 1t |
makes it our duty to revise me dis /.
cretion not only OF the tral judge /.
as to the question OF Law, but also |
the jury upon all questions of fact.
We take ii that this extraordinary |.
over should only be used in eN-
IRENE cases but ncyortheIess ii .
clearly exists and we can not eVade |
the sponsbility it places upon us.
The purpose OF the statute is to |
prevent the reversal of cases where |
the court might be satisfied as to
the guilt of the appellant, but might
also be convinced that IN good con-
the judgment was excessive, either
in degree or amount of punishment.
But few appellate courts in the
United States are vested with such
power. In connection with other sta
utes it manifests purpoes upon the
part of the legislature to make it
the duty of this court to harmonic
our system of criminal Jurisprudence
and place it upon the basis Of just
ness and reason. We would be
wanting in intelligence II We did
not recognize this purpose, running
all through our criminal Jaw, and
we would he both towards and trai-