Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1915-05-14

after most complete review of the
eVidence-all these are not wholly
conclusive upon this board, and we
have therefore gone far beyond all
that in our line of duty for all
proper information in consideration of
each case.
while the people of the State, by
their voice, have continued the law
fixing the extreme penalty in case
of murder in the first degree, they
have at the same time preserved
,he power of Communication and par
DON it is lodged with the Governor
of the State But the responsibility
of sharing that burden is imposed
upon this board by the law clothing
it with power and authority, as well
as the duty. in certain cases, of
recommending such pardon or COM
mutation to the Governor; hence.
if a full investigation by the board
convinces that body. notwithstand
ing the conviction of the defendant,
that he has not taken human life in
that manner which calls for the eX-
IRENE penalty of the law, then it is
the duty of the board not to hesi-
tate in recommending to the Govern
OF Indl lnF VI even Inv
highest Court of the State be stayed.
THE extreme gravity of each of
:he foregoing cases, and the solemn
responsibilities placed upon the board,
has moved each of its members to eX-
haust all possible resources of investi-
CATION and research, written or un-
written. matters of record and not
of record, that might bring forth in
formation which would serve to il
illuminate the way for a recommen-
cation of the suspension or commu-
tation, in any or all of these cases
before the board. of this dread de-
cree of the law of the State.
The anxiety of the members OF
the board to do fun justice to the
State and each of said defendants,
ani find lawful and justifiable
grounds for Withholding the execution
of this last full measure of the laws
mandate. has caused each of them to
labor with the utmost fidelity in each
case, which no one can appreciate
except the official who has borne
similar responsibilities. This board
cannot escape it's deep responsibilities
if it would nor should it do so if it
could.
Its members must not attempt to
shift the responsibility from their
shoulders to the shoulders of the
Governor and thus add to the over
burdening cares of his high office.
Hence il the conscience of any mem
Der of the board, under his oath,
would not permit him to put aside
the laws mandate, if he were fully
authorized to do so, he cannot re-
hquest or recommend such action on
the part of the Governor; nor can
the personal opinion of any of the
members of the board regarding the
law under which these sentences
have been imposed be permitted to
Interfere, but each case must rest
entirely upon all that has been dis
closed through our searching investi-
cation. Twelve men. in four of the
cases have pronounced their solemn
judgment under their oaths, after
weighing all the evidence in each
case; the presiding judge in each
case concurred in the judgment of
each jury. On appeal in three OF
the cases, the Supreme Court affirm
ed the judgment and declared each
sentence supported by the evidence:
the Villalobos case not having been
appealed after VeTuicl rendered Dy
the jury, we have most earnestly
scrutinized the record in his case, and
received considerable enlightenment
through other channels, such as to
familiarize the members with the
case in all it's bearings.
1.-THE record in the Peralta case is
full and complete, the judge having
taken all those precautions to make
the evidence of record such as the