The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-03-28
GOVERNOR VETOES
PARD0N|NG BILE
MEASURE. SAID TO HAVE BEEN
DESIGNED TO FREE AL
LENS, DEAD.
is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
REASONS GIVEN by GOVERNOR
STUART SHOW HE HAD GIVEN
CAREFUL STUDY TO COURT
DECISIONS.
is UNCONSTITUTIONAL


bill No. 442. entitled an act to amend
and re-enact an act entitled an act TO
authorize the governor to grant con-
ditional pardon, etc. The BILL provided
for the vesting of this power In the
penitentiary board, under certain con-
ditions
1t Is declared the bill was introduced
Tor the purpose of affecting the mem
bers of the notorious Allen clan. but
Senator Tavenner, who had carefully
watched the measure, had 1t amended
In committee, to exempt murderers,
rapists. highwaymen and burglars
who enter house at night. The bill
gave the power of pardoning to the
board. after a prisoner had served
half OF his term or three years, pro-
vided his prison record justified the
pardon.
Governor Stuart In his opinion. de-
clared the bill unconstitutional, mas
much as the bill failed to show its
true purport in it's title and further
that the power of pardon was vested
in the governor and could not be dele
gated to the board. His opinion is
substantiated in various citations from
the supreme court OF Virginia and of
other States
The amendments placed on the bill
cut short any attempt To free the AL
lens now serving terms in the peniten-
tiary. for the wholesale murders at
Hillsviile.
when II was discovered In the gem
erai assembly. that these outlaws
would be affected by tho measure. II
caused a sensation among the solons.
f,s,t SnA tBa
last night OF the session.
Governors Statement.
Governor Stuart's opinion on the bill
follows:
have today vetoed senate bin Nc
442. the title OF which In part is as
follows;
To amend and re-enact an act
entitled an act TO authorize the
governor To grant conditional par
dom etc.
Considering the provisions OF the bill
the title should have been, an act to
Increase the powers of the board OF
directors OF the penitentiary at the
expense OF the constitutional powers
and prerogatiyes of the executive The
title of the act does not. therefore.
comply with the provisions OF section
sc u the constitution. which provides
that the object OF every act shall be
EXPRESSED In it's title" This Is In IT,
self good ground for veto hat there
are other grounds.
Section Ts of the constitution Of
1seI -6@ vests In the governor the par
aonsng power. II has been repeatedly
held by the courts. including our own
Supreme Court of Appeals. thar the
governor has authority under the CON
stitutfon 10 grant conditional pardous
to prisoners convicted OF felony. pro.
eided the conditions annexed to the
pardon vera not Impossible, immoral
or illegal
Cooley on constitutional iimlta-
tons, lays down the following gen
eral rule as to legislative encroaeh-
gent upon executive power:
Such powers as are specially
conferred by the constitution
upon the governor. or upon any
other specified officer. the legis-
lature cannot require or author
lze to be performed by any other
officer or authority; and from
those duties which the constitu-
ton requires Of him he cannot
he excused by law
On the question OF the pardoning
power OF the governor the Supreme
court OF Alabama in interpreting the
Alabama constitution, which is iden-
tlcai With ours, as to the pardoning
power of the governor, used the fol-
lowing language;
'ft lis the settled law that the
grant includes powers TO grant
conditional pardons, the condi-
ton To be either precedent or
subsequent, and OF any nature.
so long as ii is not Illegal. ina
moral or impossible of perform
ance. and that breach OF the
condition avoids and annals tho
pardon
The court then went on to say;
The parole of a convict Is in
the nature of conditional par
don, and within the constitu-
tional grant OF the parcon,ng
paweF- to he gevesaar.T The
power TO grant pardons. absolute
or conditional cannot, of course.
be taken away from the execu- :
tive. nor limited by legislative ac-
ton. but the general assembly
may enact laws to render its ex-
ercise convenient and efficient
Kennedy's Case, 1875 Mass, AS"
1t, therefore. seems to be settled
beyond controversy that the general
grant of the pardoning power to the
executive includes the power to grant
conditional pardons. which are in ef-
tect paroles.
The bill in question confers on the
board of directors of the penitentiary
the power to parole Cor pardon con-
aitionally) any prisoner who has
served three years Of his sentence. ex-
sept In cases of murder, rape, high
way robbery. and breaking and en-
tering In the night TX the bill carry
Ing these exceptions can stand the
test OF constitutionality then the bill
IS originally introduced. which made
no exception In the exercise OF the
parole power OF the board. would
Have been equally constitutional. BY
the process Of reduction and abs
yurdum the board could be empow-
ered To exercise the parole power
where the prisoner had served one
year. or six months or one day. no
matter what crime he had been gull
" OF.
In short, the pardoning power Of
the governor could, and certainly
4 Rould. be eventually absorbed by the
b0Ard Of directors Of the peniten-
uary by steady, entertainments in the
nature OF legislative enactments, such
q NJ the one In question.
The claim that the exercise Of pa
role power by the hoard of directors
81 the penitentiary Is Of a nature bet
Ter or different from that OF the con-
ditional pardoning power OF the gov
brnor cannot be sustained. since the
governor has q right to attach any
81 nudffinna To DArdOnA that he may