The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1912-03-01

rlcmency In his case, Brandt personally
handed TO the pardon clerk twenty-five
DASe statement in the form OF a letter
N~9fnning Dear Sir" signed with Brandt $
name and believed to be in his hand
writing. Upon his return to Albany on
the following day the pardon clerk in
formed me Of his conversation with Brandt
and Of the contents OF the statement re-
ceiyed from him and asked what II any
thing. he should do. l instructed him
to Investigate the case.
The statement referred to was marked
"Confdentisl' and in letter written
to the pardon clerk while the investiga-
tion directed by ME was under way
Brandt says:
I most earnestly desire that II referring e
to the statement be treated In strictly
confidential manner. I regret very much
that developments in my case force me TO
write and explain Incidents that happer
while In Mr.. schin's service. and would
not resort to such details as basis or
asking for Executive clemency, but In view
Of the fact that they seek to have the pup
Ito as well as yourself believe I am a
liar, It is absolutely necessary ot impart to
YOU details, much as l regret ". In
looking over a copy OF the letter written
you yesterday nnd In my extreme haste
to get the letter away so 1t would reach
you early to-day. I made quite a few ere RS
in the type~ritng OF same. Would par
ticularly call your attentio nto the last
paragraph or =. s.. II is explained more
fully on page . Of my statement.
In his previous letter to the pardon
clerk Brandt had used the following ex'
preston: "r failed to state In my conn
Dental letter to the Governor" etc, etc
in ampl,fcation Of a specific clause in the
statement. which latter was the only
communication or document received
from him and marked CONFIDENTIAL.
These three letters from Brandt. being
part OF the record upon which refused
To exercise clemency, are still in the EX-
ccutive files.
OTHERS SAW THE STATEMENT FIRST
Here then is convincing proof that
Brandt did make application To me for
Executive clemency, and that the state
ment referred to was by him intended TO
he considered By me as part OF such ap-
plication-unless. indeed, the documents
are claimed to he forgeries. which OF
course In not The case. Brandt himself
admits in the correspondence that the
twenty-five page statement had heen read
by other Icrsons before II came to me.
With these facts established In regard to
this particular feature OF the case, there
remains only to say at this point. that the
application for clemency does include
statements of scardalous nature, ana
which reflect upon the integrity and
honor of a woman who is mentioned by
name.
Brandts application having thus been
presented and filed on November 10. 1911.
two DAYS later the District Attorney OF
New York county and the Judge who SEN
fenced Brandt were advised Of the appli-
cation and requested to file with me the
customary reports and tions.
Before the matter was fully prepared
for my consideration the case had been
cd I'm 40 ntihlic and appliCa-
ton was made to the pardon clerk by an
attorney representing Mr.. Schif for leave
TO inspect the papers and reports and to
file statement and submit documents In
opposition to clemency. The request was
denied and has never been complied with.
This action. taken during my absence and
without my knowledge, nevertheless re-
ceicsd my unqualified approval.
FoUSD BRANDT UNWORTHY OF PAR
;,.-.,,s-,..,. DON, ..".- ...- .-s
So that the three letters from Brandt,
the reports of District Attorney Whitman
and Judge RosaIsky and the prison and
medical reports requested Of and filed by
the Superintendent of Prisons made up
the eNsire record upon which my decision
was bated. Upon that record and upon
that alone ! refused a pardon. and for
that Afcision l have never cherished the
slighffSt regret nor have i desired to offer
the slightest excuse An appeal for Execu-
tive clemency Is addressed purely to the
discretion OF the Executive. and Is not to
be decided by him as a question OF law
alone! In the exercise Of that discretion.
under'the circumstances OF almost every
case, e,t-there are to be considered moral
questions we'll legal ones. and |
found this to he especially true in the
present instance. / decided that upon
Brafdts own admissions and statements
he vas not a proper subject for Executive
clentknts, without regard to the truth or
falstty of his sworn statements and ad-
misSipns in open court. In the letters
subuiitted 70 me he has attempted to dis
proys the crime to which he formerly
pleaded guilty by stating facts and utter
REPRESENTATIONS which would make him
guilty Of still more abhorrent offence
an offence against the sanctity OF the
home by an accusation against the purity
ofs woman.
This accusation I utterly disbeleve.
refused. through the exercise OF clemency.
TO condone a wrong more despicable and
insidious than burglary or assault by
blasting the character and reputation OF
woman on the unsupported statement of
a self-confessed forger. who, In the letter
which is before me. calls God to witness
the truth Of present statements. which
contrddict what re previously declared
under oath. In the exercise OF Executive
discretion II Is as much my duty to pro-
tect the fair name OF woman and a
mother. who has never had an oppor-
tunity to defend that which Is dearer than
lie and liberty. as 1t Is to protect the
much mooted legal rights OF one who
has been convicted Of a crime upon his
own plea OF gulty-especially when the
law in his case Is so hotly disputed and
10 alayman at least. seems so far from