Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1920-11-29
THE PEOPLE LOOK TO GOVERNOR PANKEY.

The intimation that Governor Larrazolo corrupty
pardoned the sixteen Vilstas now in the state pen
itentialy meets with sympathy from the Journal
We feel that it was an appalling mistake which re-
fleets discredt upon New Mexico throughout the
United States but we believe Governor Iarrazolo
acted in the best of faith in the matter. II it is
the mistake the journal believes it to be it was
none the less a mistake of judgment and not of
corrupt heart. We have implicit faith in the in
tegrity of the governors intentions
None the less do we believe that the legality of
the pardons should be determined by the courts.
IT is to the courts which resort in America
to determine our differences Of opinion over the
construction of our laws. Others may indulge in
riots revolutions but all right-minded Americans
bow to the
If the pardons granted by Governor Larrazolo
are legal they are not subject to revocation and
these prisoners legally entitled to their freedom
However if the pardons not legal the release OF
these prisoners would give them the status OF
escaped convicts. Therefore it is right that the
legality of the pardons be determined before the
men are released. Then, present law having
been construed by the courts, the public will know
definitely what amendment to the constitution or
laws if any it wishes to demand in order to pre-
vent recurrence of such Il situation
Strictly speaking, the steps now being taken
are not intended to keep these men in custody.
They are steps to determine whether not they
lawfully entitled TO their freedom II lhey aIe'
no one wishes to further deain them
Capt Ed. Stafford, state auditor-elect, prevented
the immediate release of these prisoners by instI-
tuting an Injunction suit to restrain the warden of
the pententiary from freeing them on the ground
that they had not been leaglly pardoned.
This procedure presents three difficulties which
might prevent decision by the court on the
merits of the question of the legality OF the par
dons Can private citizen maintain a suit of this
amt ~ Jurisdiction
Is such a suit collateral attack upon the pardons
instead of a direct attack? If the court is COM
PEELED to answer NO to either of the first two
questions or Yes" to the last the case must
be dismissed without getting to the question of
the legality of the pardons
The argument of the Hon. Neill 3. Field Satur-
day before the acting governor and the assistant
attorney general for the purpose or having
Governor Pankey direct the warden of the penti-
Tertiary not to release these men, despite the all
legged pardons. The prisoners would then be COM
PEELED to bring habeas corpus proceedings ana peaa
the pardons as their claim for release TINS Woula
bring the validity of the pardons directly IN issue
No one is asking Governor Pankey to take
sides" in the controversy. He is being asked, as
the only representative of the people to whom they
can appeal, to put this matter in such shape that
the courts can determine the matter. Governor
Pankey would be aiding in neither freeing nor
holding these men,. The court would decide that
matter Certainly he should do what he can to
test the question of whether freeing them is lawful
If it is illegal and he sits inertly by Whle they go
free he has become party to their escape
Governor Pankey awaits advice from Assistant
Attorney General Bowman, who is attorney
general-elect. Mr.. Bowman is directly charged with
the enforcement of the law and should be very
eager to test the legality of these pardons II there
is doubt he should advise the governor to pur-
sue the course which will test their legality. the
attorney general is not the court and should not
ATTEMPT to pass upon this legal question his
Judgment will settle nothing the Judgment oil the
see how the governor and attorney general can
be faithful to their trust if they fail to throw the
question. into the courts.
The controversy hinges on the question Oh
whether section 50S7 of the code is in force Inc
brief of Mr. Field published in full in the Jourhai
Yesterday explains the ground of controversy ana
fully covers the subject Mr.. Field represents the
tion If section 5087 in force the governor could
not pardon these men without the consent oil the
prison board If not in effect the court Will free
these
Can anybody conceive of reason why the
question of whether these men have legal pardons
should not be determined by the court? Men en-
titled to freedom should not be held, but men not
lowed to go free.
The courts should be permitted to decide All
will bow to their decision.