Arizona republican., 1915-03-15


 gative powers, as in monarchial gov ernments, but only such as are vested | in him by the fundS mental law. The Constitutions of tine original states. first adopted. vested most of the ap- | pointing power in the legislative de- 1 partment, and very little of importance | in the chief executive, doubtless guard ing against it's abuse, from which they had recently suffered under the gov ernment of England. In the cOnstitu- l tion of all the states the most import ant part of it has been generally vest ed in the people. to be exercised in 1 popular elections, and the remainder in unequal proportions in all three of the | departments, much more. as q rule, in the legislative than in the others, and often less in the executive than in the ] judicial Richardson V. Young. 123 SW, 669
 1 The power to grant reprieves, com mutation and pardons vested in the Governor by reason only of constitu- tional grant from the people. It i. not an inherent power in the chief eX- tCtutlNe, anu tne Sdiile HIdN De Co1l'l- toned. restricted. limited or taken away entirely by the people themselves at any time they may see fit to do l so. The pardoning power is not nat
 uraliy or necessarily an executive func- | tiOn: and where the constitution is silent. vests no more in the one brancl of the government than in the othe.'" 20 CYC, 1883.
 It is contended that the language in para graph 1297 of Title 2l of the Penal
 Code Of Arizona, 1913 is the construc-
 ton placed by the legislature on Sec tion ,. Article of the constitution and
 should be controlling and the construc-
 ton adopted hy this court; in other words. that the constitution means tc say that the Governor shall have power
 to grant reprieves. communication and
 pardOns upon such condi-
 tions and with such restrictions and
 limitations as the Governor may think
 proper" We cannot adopt such con-
 struction. for the words ''as may be
 provided by law clearly cannot be con-
 strued to refer to any other than .he
 legislative branch of the government. | 4'CHNt u lS Nlt'i lli.ll uIltbIlS. re-
 strictions and limitations may be i'm posed at all must be imposed by some act of the legislatrle or bv the people
 thense'vcs in their aW-mail !G capa
 city the governor is the head of the
 executive branch 1r the government
 and cannot be construed to possess
 any law-making powers. Should he
 attempt to du SO he would he cncrua ch .
 ing upon the legislative branch of the
 government and such an attempt
 would be void.
 But counsel for petitioner insist
 that Section ,. Article ,. of the consti-
 tuition gives the Governor absolute
 power to grant reprieves. communication
 and pardons and that the words con
 ditions. restrictions and limitations
 as used only refer to reprieves, commu-
 tation and pardons granted by the Gov
 ernor. and not to the power itself.
 Granting that this be true for the sake
 oi argument. We do not see the force of
 the contention. The distinction strikes
 us as rather fine-spun-as more theo-
 retical than real, for what condition
 could the legislature impose to restrict
 or limit q pardon that would not itself 'linlt and restrict the power to grant
 II to the same extent? Might not the ; legislature enact d law imposing a con-
 dition precedent to the taking effect of
 pardon which might and could oper-
 ate to defeat the pardon itself-to work
 iorleiture or tito render it a null ny, If the same were granted in man.
 ner or under. circumstances which
 would not comply with the provisions enacted by the legislature? Well do we Know condition precedent to the talk HE erect Of deed or devise in a will may and often does operate to defea, r the grant absolutely. and such cond , .ions' II not against public policy. have , been uniformly upheld by the courts.
 IT the legislature can not limit or re- s'rict pardon to certain conditions ir s'hsle instance and the Governor f shouid grant pardon which did moi come within the limits prescribed would the pardon not be yoid9 And , can any one doubt the authority nj the legislature under section ,. Article oi the constitution to enact conditions leS'r'ciohs and limitations upon par l uohs' communications and reprieves. il i theoretically it is held thev cannot S, 9 restrict and limit the power itself? , Tn it's more extended sense. the yor,
 condition signifies clause in con n tract or agreement which has for if,
 opJect the suspension. recission ot s modifIcatIon of the principal obligation t or, Tn case of will, to suspend. revoke v or modify the devise or beouest." Tow I le V. Remsen. 70 N Y. 303. .309: Elvto, n Land Co. V. South & North AIabarS; t H. Co (Aia) 14 South POT. POS.
 : Condition, in it's legal signification means something annexed to grant : State V. Board of Public Works. 42 Chi, h St. 6O7, 615
 l The word restriction, as used il e this section of our constitution, must h, t deiined to mean limiting or d confin = ing within certain prescribed bounds ) Curry V. Marvin. Fla. All.
 The word limitation" as used i, n this section of our constitution mean