Pocahontas star herald., 1925-11-26

objects of its provisions and the end
to be accomplished, giving its words
their just and legitimate meaning, try
ing at all times to ascertain the real
intent of the trainers of the instru-
ment. To aid in ascertaining this in
tent we may consider the provision
Of prior constitutions.
The constitution as written is the
supreme law of the state. We cannot
presume that any of its words or
under such rules and regulations as
shall be prescribed by law must mean
something. Does the clause modify
the intnitive phrase, Ito remit?" Or
does it modify the principal portion Of
the sentence, "shall have powerY The
phraseology of the paryloning provi-
sions of the constitutions of 1886, 1864
and 1868 admits no douht on this ques-
tion. II may be said on the one hand
that the semi-colon preceding the
phrase ito remit indicates that here
is grand division of the sentence and
that the clarse in question, therefore.
only refers to the remission of fines
and fOrfeitures; but on the other hand
the use of the semi-cOlon will be justi-
fed here because obviously lesser Iii
visions of the sentence have been set
Off by commas. II may he said that
the clause 'under such rules, ETC."
being preceded by comma, is out of
place in the sentence and does not
modify the words which it immediate
ly follows. that is, the infnitive "to
remit" but that the clause mOdifies
the main portion of the sentence and
that the comma can be used for no
other purpose. This would be a logi-
cal conclusion. But the constitution
as printed i'm Crawford and Moses Di-
gcst of the laws Of Arkansas does not
contain the comma and it may be said
that if the use of the comma indicates
that the clause is out of place its alb
sence in the Digest would show that
il is in its proper place and modifies
the phrase "to remit"
Thus. il may be seen that if the
question is argued from standpoint
of arrangement of words and phrase
ology, one is confronted with maze Of
unanswerable questions Our courts
arise above this kind of inquiries and
fall upon the rule before referred TO
for construction, giving all of the words
their just and legitimate meaning with
the sole view of finding the intention
of the writer's of the Constitution.
The ultimate question for decision.
then, is: Did the writer's of the CON
stitution of 1874 intend 10 enlarge the
pardoning power of the governor over
that given him i'm the constitutions
which were in force before it 4; did they
intend to give the governor full sway
in the matter of granting reprieyes
pardOns and combinations without any
right of the law making body to rule
or regulate that power, but gave him
the power to remit fines and forfeit
lures only under rules and regulations
to be prescribed by law?
The General Assembly Of 1903 made
certain rules and regulations respect
ing the applications for pardons and
the issuance of pardons. If. under the
above quoted clause Of the constitution.
the Legislature could enact those rules
and regulations no pardon is valid
unless the law is complied with: other
wise, the issuance of a pardon by the
governor under whatever circumstances
cannot he questioned
There win be no waning of the in
terest of the reading pubic in this
question until il is finally settled by
tie courts. Walter l.. Pope.