Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1922-06-24

ton. On realizing that lle had been
here suchssa short time, II couldsn
see my way clear ,toa recomrnepd .his
pardon. and therefore 4 ignored the
same.
s".of course. insview Of, t1s showing
made and rsdnestss that hRSe come
to me fromSsso niAny representative
people. Of the city OF Grand Forks
I ought to say lthat I fully Intended
10 join in a Recommendation for VII.
liam Fishman's pardon, after he, had
served a reasonable portion OF hiS
sentence. s tsGN
REV. Ambrose, 81 l am informed.
in one OF his sermons, laid the en-
tire blame for F1shman's pardon on
ME. Wen. 1 hold no Ill feelings
against the gentleman, but | believe
he has done me y great injustice,
For instance he says that those who
signed the petitions, filed with tho
pardon board. signed same because
the elder Mr.. Fishman exhibited a
letter which l wrote to hinN denying
his sons application for either a, sus-
pension of sentence or Its reduction
substance, l told him that his son
u obey the order of the court,
but that, after he had served some
time in the penitentiary, l would
gladly join in a recommendation TO
the board for his pardon. Brother
Ambrose makes the fiat statement
that it was this letter that Influenced
the citizens of Grand Forks to sign
the petitions, filed with the board,
n that. If it had not bee for such
letter. they would not have signed
same. He maintains that 1T was the
elder Mr. Fishman who impaired that
! IN form q tSnr ~ hfVn r.-T VpnnAnr uyhQf
the men, women and Legion boys.
who signed the petitions, containing
in all I'VE five hundred signatures.
that were sent to me long before
those second petitions were signed
and sent to the pardon board, think
about that? In addition thereto /
received a number Of letters referred
to above. l wonder who Influenced
the signing Of those petitions and the
writing of those letters? At that
time or at my tin.e prior thereto, so
far as 1 know. I had never written a
word to either of the two Fishmans,
after L left the Grand Forks term
of court. Besides, Rev. Ambrose does
not take into account the fact that
the Fishnlans would do or say any
thing in order to get ven with me
and to do me harm for pronouncing
the SENTENCED did, and because I did
not see fit to recommend his par
don at the drop ofa hat. But some
body must be the goat. and it seems
quite apparent that I am chosen to
be it. My stand as to the prohibi-
ton laws and the enforcement there
of is too well known. and extends
over too long a period of time in the
community where I live to be ques-
toned there. j,
Now, it is adndtted that I did not
recommend William Fishman's par
don. but did recommend Jessie Hilsa-
beck's pardon. because of the condi-
ton of his wife and children, and
because he was going to nov his
family on his mothers farm in the
state of Washington, and since he
was generally regarded as the goat
in the liquor cases-still. Hilsabeck's
pardon was denied and Fishman's
was granted: Hilsabeck will not get
out until next August. Where then
lies the influence? -
II have always gon on the as
sumption that every judge, in pro-
nouncing sentence, or when it comes
to recommending either "a commute
tation of a sentence Or a pardon,
should take into account a mans
general. habits. his usefulness, and
his general standing in the comnun-
ity where he lives. Such informa-
ton a safely be gathered only from
the law abiding people of the com
munity, and if the judge is a strang-
err there he must naturally depend
to a very large extent upon that in
formation for his guidance. but per-
haps this rule should be applied with
greater care and caution in cases in
volving b~ootleggers, and liquor law
violators than in other cases. Nc
n would regret a miscarriage OF
justice in a b"ootlegger case more