The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-12-16
THE PATRICK A q

W. - ASVSOs bOuO ~
trick casa the New York Outlook pre-
cents N thoughts which are timely
and which merit censideration. The
outlook reviews the case from the
beginning. outlining the charges
against Patrick. and the manner in
which evidence was secured to prove
his guilt to the subtraction Of the
jury. 1t then continues:
The jury ia said by all those CON
nected with the case to have been
coinposed al mel of mort than usual
intelligence. One Of its members was
q lawyer by profession. He wa not
exempt from Jury service in the state
OF New York because he was no a
member OF the bar Of the state OF
New York. but IN previous practice
in a netghborine state he had had ex-
c%eptional opportunity to become fam
iltar with the weight ana rules Of
evidence in criminal cases. with a
unanimity 81 opinion very unusual in
such cases. the jury brought in a YER
dict OF guilty. Patrick was sentenced
{" death. The trial Judge denied a
motion for a %retrial. on tho ground
that alleged new evidence submitted
by the defense was no evidence at all.
The court OF appeals. tho highest court
in the state. to which the defense car.
ried hs case. also sustained the YER.
dict and refused to grant 4 new trial.
No stone was left unturned by the rel
atives OF Patrick. who had large
wealth At their disposal. to obtain a
retrial ~ the case: when that effort
failed. they endearcred 70 obtain his
pardon.
THE late Governor fiiegins. of New
York state. declined 10 pardon Pa
trick. but comn,utcd his aenteuce from
that of death to imprisonment for life.
Governor white and Governor Hughes
during their terms did not exercise
any further executive elemency. al
though they were familiar With the
history Of the case. Hut Governor
Dix. ~ n Of the last executive acte
Of hts term. has Just pardoned Pa.
trick. not m the ground that ne Ia
a criminal who deeePves Pity or who
has been punished enough. hut on tho
ground that he ia innocent. And the
governor has taken this action with
out any consultation with Recorder
Goff Or with the district attorney who
originally tried the case.
III this notion on the part Of Gov
ernor Dix concerned simply the re-.
turn to society Of one condemned
criminal. we should not discuss It.
for the pardon ie irrevocaole. ana
nothing that We can cay will affect
the relations Of Patrick 10 society.
But something more IL involved than
the individual merits Of the Patrick
ase. Governor pix's action has rats
ed the much sreater question ~ to
how h state should exercise the par.
dontne power in its treatment Of those
who are condemned 70 prison.
The history Of the Patrick eass
seems 70 Us to make II very clear that
no "A man. whether ne be governor
OF a state or president Of the United
States. should have vested in him.
without any check OF supervision. the
power to pardon criminals. We do
not permit the president Of the United
states TO appoint a Justice 70 a seat In
the supreme court without the SUPER
vision Of the United States senate. Il
there any more reason why an ex-
ecutive should be empowered to set
aside without soms supervision the
deliberate judgments Of the courts:
The so-called Recall Of judicial de-
cisions' to be exercised by the joint
action Of thousand Of voters on a con-
stituticnsl question. after long public
and Intelligent debate. is considered
by some publicists to be destructive
of the constitutional foundation Of
the III What must such Dub
licists think of Governor Dix's action
in the Patrick ease: One man, a lay
man At that. without debate. without
any very careful Investigation, with.
oWt making public the grounds Of his
decision. hae IN a single oct nullined
the careful n painsaking procedure
OF the entire judicial system Of the
state Of New York in criminal cases.
He has recalled the decihon Of the
district attorneys once, the gTand