The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1913-03-14
RIGHT OF A CITY
TO RETAIN A FINE
IMPORTANT OPINION GIVEN BY
CITY ATTORNEY EDMUNDS.
Pardon Does not Garry With it Re-
fund-Copy Sent to the Gov
ernOr.
Columbia State.

night it was decldeQ Dy Ine 4ouI AI0.ii
hers present, Councilmen keenan,,
Earle, Stieglitz and Blalock, to
refer to Councilman Keenan,
mayor pro tenn, the opinion by H. n.
Edmunds, city attorney, as to the
right of the governor to order fine
remitted for municipal offense, Mr.
keenan, will send the opinion to the
governor. Mayor Gibbes was absent,
being in Florida. There was very lit
tie 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. C. keenan,, mayor pro tem'
reviews first the facts in the case, re-
citing that Harrison Neeley was ar
rested ii violation of the automobile
ordinance and upon conviction was
fined by the city recorded and later
pardoned by the governor. The dues-
tion which Mr.. Edmunds considered
was, is the pardon granted in this
case an order to remit the fine I'M
nosed 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 offenses,
and can he legally order the mayor to
remit fine imposed solely for vio-
lation of municipal ordinance? The
question has not been before the
courts of South Carolina, nor mas IL
often been the subject of judicial con-
sideration. But such cases as nave
called for a determination of the is
she are uniform in laying down the
rule that the pardoning power Of the
governor extends only to crimes
against he State The leading case
upon the subject is State VS.. Ren1ck,
157, No. 292, in which it was held that
the governor had no right to pardon
offerses against municipalities. In
that case one Corrie Neal had been
convicted and sentenced in the police
court of Kansas City for violating
certain ordinance and a fine of S5OO
inflicted upon her.s This fine the gov
ernor of the State of Missouri sought
to remit. The court said:
What Court Said.
'''There remains but one question
for rs to decide, and that is in rela-
ton to the validity of the alleged
executive pardon. The judgment was
for fine imposed under and for vio-
lation of city ordinance. The suit
arose in city court, and came oy
appeal into a State court. 1t involved
no question of a violation of law
of the State. It was in effect and in
form a judgment for the recovery OF
$500 in favor Of Kansas City, and IN
wt;ch the State had no interest what
ever. We have been referred to no
ease as a precedent for authority IN
i governor to pardon one convicted CT
1io,atI..g a city ordinance, and in a
search made by us we have fou1d
none. We find authority for the gen
eral proposition that the pardonlng
power of the State executive reaches
only to matters in which the State is
Interested
'~The provisions of the constitu-
ton, which are practically the same
as ours, are quoted, and the court
proceeds as follows:
g The term "offenses" as there
used, means violations of State laws;
the context forbids any further inter
pretation.'
A Kentucky Case.
''To like effect is the case of the
city of Paris VS., Hinton ct al, 132,
Ky, 6S4. The court concludes its
opinion in this case as follows:
'''N'c are of opinion, both upon
r@ascn and authority, that the gov
ernor III this case had no authority
to pardon the defendant, who had
been convicted of violation of city
ordinance of the municipality of
Paris, and that his pardon was fG-
valid
See also case of Shocp VS.. Com