The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-03-28

may bc prescribed b. law. wherea. his
power 10 grant reprieves and pardons after
conviction il absolute In all cases. except
where the prosecution has been carried on
oy tho House OF Delegates"
Cites Many Authorities.
Nr Pollard cites a number OF court au-
thorities NJ length 10 sustain the corten-
ton that the Governor does have authority
under the Constitution TO grant condi =
tionai pardon To prisoner convicted OF
felony. provided the condition annexed
TO the pardon was not impossible. immoral
or Illegal.
After citing ut length judicial opinions
from a dozen or more States Ia which
efforts to create pardon boards 10 cxeT-
the Governor have been held 10 be unccn-
=titutlonal. SIR. Pollard continues:
From careful investigation OF the a.-
thorit'es am constrained to conclude that
Senate bill No. az and tho act OF 1905.
chapter g, page IL. arc both unconsti-
,utionsi because they are in conflict with
section 3 OF the Constitution OF 1907 which
confers upon tho Governor alone the power
TO grant pardons after conviction This
opinion IS strengthened by section OF the
Constitution which provides that the leg
iSla'lfc. executive and judicial department,
OF the state shall be separate and distinct
Eor can the power granted 10 tho board
OF directors Of tho penitentiary be inferred
from the powers granted TO that board by
section It's or the Constitution. which pro-
vIdes that said board. subject 10 such
regulations and requirements as may We
prescribed by Law. shall have the govern
mcnt ard control OF tho penltent!sry
branch prisons and prison farms. and shall
thereof.
Title Misleading.
But there Is stii another reason why
the act 81 1900. chapter s.. page ii2 and
senate bill 81 are both unconstitutional
section ION, IS: q The Constitution provides
than ono object which shall b. expressed
ia It's i!tle. This constitutional provision
has been construed time and again ~
our Supreme Court Thus i. his been hold
that the constitutional provision Is man
uatoTy. and not directory merely And
htA hAaF all H.
lords no clue whatever 20 the contents
me statute - wholly imperative ana void.
utie Is void. And provisions OF an america
tory act not seiinane TO the subject eS-
pressed IN the title to the original act ar.
unconstitutional and void
y number OF Virginia cases cited to
support each OF these contentious.
Nj Pollard concludes:
Examining Senate bill Az and the Act OF
pcs chapter IS page li2. with reference
TO The provisions Of section 80 Of tho con.
aud similar sections. we note that the title
Of both tho hill and the act aforesaid pur-
= conditional pardon 20 persons confined
In thu pcniient!ary. upoIs tho rccomme nda
,ion az the board OF directors OF the said
institutlon,: whereas. the real purpose OF
the said blu and act, have seen.
was 10 take away from the Governor his
constitutional prerogative and confer the
same upon the board Of directors OF the
penitentIary.
1T would hnvc been Impossible In case o.
''p''' " W pu' an; FuCn IeGisl
ton under the original title. The subiec,
matter of the act is not coneruous with
the title. and so far from informing the
Legislature OF the real purpose Of the bill
ana act. the effect Of tho title was 10
rnislcad the Legislature az TO that real
purpose.
Both Bill and Act Unconstitutional.
For these reasons must conclude that
both Senate hili No. i42 ANA the act o.
1894 chapter Is. page III. in attempting
10 confer upon the board OF directors 81
the pemitentiary. the rieh, to parole pris-
"ners In that institution. unconstiti-
tional. and that the courts would have
Ia declare them null ana void u the ques-
ton were properly presented to them
The bill was one of long list rush d
through tho House without reading or CON
"ideration or explanation tho final night
OF the session. within hour or two of
the final adjournment 1t had passed the
Senate several days before