The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1913-03-14
DECIDES AGAINST
NEGRO CHAUFFEUR
Important Opinion Given by
City Attorney Edmunds
in Regard to Blease's
Chauffeur, Who was Fin
ed for Speeding-Blease
PardOned Negro and
Wants the Money Refund
ed.
Wednesdays State)

At the meeting of the city council
last night it was decided by four
members present, Councilmen Kee-
nan, Earle, Steiglitz and Blalock, to
refer to Councilman keenan, mayor
pro TEN the opinion by H. N. Ed
munds, city attorney, as to the right
of the governor to order a fine re-
mitted for a municipal offence. Mr..
keenan, will send the opinion to the
governor. Mayor Gibbes was absent,
being in Florida. There was very
little discussion on the opinion, which
holds that the governor has not this
right but it was pointed out that the
governor had the right to appeal to
council if he desired.
The opinion which Mr.. Edmunds
sent r. G. keenan,, mayor pro tem.,
reviews first the facts in the case, re-
citing that Harrison Neeley was ar
rested in violation of the automobile
ordinance and upon conviction was
rined by the city recorder and later
pardoned by the governor. The ques-
tion which Mr.. Edmunds considered
was, Is the pardon granted in this
case an order to remit the fine i'm
posed and collected valid and binding
on the city officials of Columbia?
After quoting several sections of
the constitution Mr.. Edmunds says:
The matter to be decided then is,
Does the pardoning power of the gov
ernor extend to municipal offences,
and can he legally order the mayor to
remit a fine imposed solely for q vio5
1ation Of municipal ordinance Tie
question has not been before the
courts of South Carolina, nor has it
often been the subject of judicial con-
sideration. But such cases as have
called for determination of the is
sue are uniform in laying down the
ru'' that the pardoning power of the
governor extends only to crimes
against the State. The leading case
upon the subject is State VS.. Renwick,
157, No. 292, in which it was held
that the governor had no right to
pardon offences against municipali-
ties. In that case one Corrie Neal
had been convicted and sentenced in
the police court of Kansas City for
violating a certain ordinance and
fine of $500 inflicted upon her. This
fine the governor of Missouri sought
to remit. The court said:
What Court Said.
There remains but one question
for us to decide, and that is in rela-
ton to the validity of the alleged ex-
ecutive pardon. The judgment was
for fine imposed under and for vio-
lation of city ordinance. The suit
arose in a city court, and came by
appeal in State court. 1t involved
no question of violation of law
of the State. 1t was in effect and
form judgment for the recovery of
$500 in favor of Kansas City, and in
which the State had no interest what
ever. We have been referred to no
case as precedent for authority in
a governor to pardon one convicted OF
violating a city ordinance, and in a
search made by us we have found
none. We find authority for the gen
eral proposition that the pardoning
power of the State executive reaches
only to matters in which the State is
Interested
"The provisions of the constitu-
tion, which are practically the same
as ours, are quoted, and the court
proceeds as follows:
The term Offences" as there
used, means violations of State laws:
the context forbids any other inter-
pretation.'
A Kentucky Case
"To like effect is the case of the
city of Paris VS.. Hinton ct al, 1872,
KY, 684. The court concludes it's
opinion in this case as follows:
we are of opinion, both upon
reason and authority, that the gov
ernor in this case had no authorit,.
to pardon the defendant, who had
been convicted of violation of a city
ordinance of the municipality of
Paris, and that his pardon was in
valid.
"See also case of Shoop VS., Com
monwealth, Penn st. 126.
McQuillan on municipal ordi-
nances at section 359 sets forth, The
governor can not pardon on convicted
Of violation of an ordinance under
power conferred by the constitution