Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1922-11-03
The Law As to Paroles.

ed convict for violation of the condl-
tions Of his parole, after the time for
which the convict was originally SEN
fenced has expired?
That is the issue that hair-splitting
attorneys have raised in behalf of pa
rolled convicts who have been brought
to taw by Governor Harvey for viola
ton of the conditions under which
they had been allowed to escape just
punishment that had been measured
out to them. through due, process of
law
Judge Prince has decided this ques-
ton against Governor Harvey in the.
case of Reed Shaw, Of Anderson and
now while that case is still pending on
appeal, Barnard b. Evans is trying to
get direct ruling on the same issue
in behalf of Grover Crookes Of Oco-
nee county.
OF course If this matter were regu-
lated by statute there would be little
ground for dispute; but since there is
no statutory guide, the matter resolves
itself down to the constitution Of the
state construed in the light of COM
mon sense.
Where a circuit judge gets authority
to suspend sentence conditioned on
good behavior, is a rather vague prop
osition; but as to the powers Of the
governor in this connection, there is
no room for misunderstanding for in
Section II of Article " Of the con-
stitution, we find this language: "He
(the governor) shall have power to
grant reprieves, combinations and
pardons after conviction Except in
cases Of impeachmenD, in such man
ner and on such terms and under such
restrictions as he thinks proper"
If the circuit judge sentences a man
to be electrocuted on the first Friday
in January, 1922, nobody questions the
right of the governor to reprieve that
man until the first Friday in January,
1882, long after the judges time for
the execution of the sentence had ex-
pired. Neither the circuit judge nor the
condemned man has anything to say
about this matter and under the spe-
cific authority of the constitution, the
same reasoning applies tc criminals
convicted of whatever offences.
Whether the courts allow it or not
that is what the constitution says, and
as we see it, to say that the governor
cannot make a binding and enf0rcible
agreement with a convict as to the
conditions of q parole is quite absurd.
So far as the time at which the SEN
tence would have expired is concern
ed, it has nothing to do with the mat
ter. The court never fixes that time.
1t does not give John Housebuster un-
til November 3, 1928; but it tells John
Housebuster that he must serve in
the state pententiary at hard labor
for one year, and the governor has a
right 10 get that year out of John
Housebustcr five years from now # he
does not get it sooner. Suppose John
Houscbustcr, sentenced to one year,
makes his escape the first day he gets
to prison and he is not recapturcd for
two years, are we going to call it
square because the time at which he
would have been discharged in his
original sentence has expired?
Former Governor Blease, who was
somewhat of an authority on the par
don question, understood very well the
a paroled convict for the violation of
the conditions of parole. In fact he
was rather of opinion that it was the
constitutional right of the governor to
revoke n parole arbitrarily without in
quiring into the question Of violation.
He had parolcd q large number of
convicts during his term of office, and
knowing quite well that it was the de-
libcrate purpose of his elected success
or to revoke these paroles at the first
opportunity, he made it point, be-
grant full pardon in the case of
every convict that had been parolcd.
1t seems TO us that on 4 basis of
constitutional authority, Governor
Harvey occupies an impregnablc posi-
tion in this matter; but the supreme
court has the final say in the matter,
and what the supreme court says will
be the law.