New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-18

are powarless 10 render aid in this case.
and the only help which Brandt can no"
get is through the exercise OF executive
Brandt has confessed his sins. lie has
told me the truth. lie appeals TO me Tor
mercy lie gives positive assurances thdt
he will not hereafter offend against IN"
laws. and he promises TO Iedd an n0heS' /
a respectable and an industrious me
want e. give him n chance To prove thr
sincerity of his promises, 10 make soou
and to redeem himself
After much thought and due cohSlu"I
alton. i'm view of all the circumstances !
have come TO the conclusion that by no"
pardonng Brandt ] am exercising tol lhe
best interest OF the people OF the state III!
constitutional power in the matter
The Governor was loudly spplauded.
Attorney General Carmody. who fought
for Brandt when the former Wallets appH-
cation for a pardon WAS made To Gov
ernor Dix. was then called upon by the
Governor and said:
The action that has been outlined ny
Governor Suffers remarks thus iaI, am
leading down TO the ultimate conclusion
OF the proceedings. will constitute. ! ne
lieve, the most important event that haS
taken place In the history OF the state Of
New York in the present generation.
/ have ALWAYS asked for the pardon OF
record in this remarkable case, not as
matter of mercy but as a matter Of Jus
tice. / did not take the position unui !
had become familiar with the RECORD OF
the Court Of General Sessions, by when
he was convicted. That record showed
that, while he may have been suiltN' me
question I'm my mind was whether suIIl
had been properly determined III the man
Eer outlined by our procedure IN courts
OF n criminal nature
There was no trial. There has never
been ii judicial determination OF the iacts
back Of this case. When the matter hrst
came 10 the attention OF the Attorney
General il was upon an application Tor q
writ Of habeas corpus by his attorne!,
Who sits here, in which the record OF me
case was set out as jusufNlng his dis
charge by means Of that writ.
In connection with the District Attorney
Of the CITY of New York, !, as Attorney
General. opposed that application upon
the ground that there was decision or
court of competent jurisdiction Iionouic-
ing him guilty and that was hdr 70
granting hts discharge i'm those proceed
ings. | did believe, however that WHth
he stood before the Court Of General StN-
siOns and said ne was not guilty OF the
crime Of burglary in the first degree that
the attention Of the court was called 10
the facts OF the case, and that he should
have had trial.
While he is guilty Of somcthing-and 1t
is not going to add anything TO TINS case
10 discuss Il AT any great length am
only giving the reasons why the legal de-
partrnent of the State OF New York took
the positions that Brandt was entitled 10
a pardon.
The minutes Of the grand jury did not
show that Al the time when Brandt en-
tered the residence of Mr.. Schlf that
there was human being In the house
and that is absolutely necessary 10 snow
that the crime Of burglary ~ the nfSt
degree was committed. And here Is fact
that has always been overlooked by every
body that has tried to follow the juds-
ment OF conviction in the Brandt case.
/ say now, and repeat, that there never
was syllable OF evidence 10 show that
he was guilty Of the crime Of burglary IN
the first degree and. consequently, ne
should not have been convicted or that
crime So much for that Tho record IS
closed
Governor SulZer, YOU are entitled 10
the thanks OF Brandt, Of the law depart
ment OF the State of New York and or
posterity for having wiped out that blot
from the judicial history Of the state, and
Of showing proper exercise Of executive
clemercy. and showing that there isn't
any power that in the end can deter the
cause Of Justice.