The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1932-05-07
BY CLARENCE BARROW
Written Tor United Press

fConFrlFnt. 1889. Df JnitcQ F4taal
HONOLULU, May IL am con-
fident that Governor Judd will par
don Mrs. Granville FOrtescue and
the three navy men convicted Of
killing Of Joe KanahaWai.
To deprive them Of their civil
rights for IN offense 70 which the
Governor attached only one hour OF
custody in punishment would be not
only ridiculous. but petty.
This pardt fight is significant and
almost as important as the light 10
keep them out Of prison. The idea
OF committing their ten-year prison
terms was entirely an idea Of the
states. Before that time, we had
spent all our efforts toward fun par
dom
Tho statement OF the Governor
that the four defendants and their
attorneys Joined in request for
Communication, and that at no time
were pardons mentioned to Gov
ernor Judd. IS literally true. But
st doesn't represent all the facts.
Discussed Pardon Matter
We discussed the possibility oil
pard0ns with Harold Kay. deputy
attorney general. Al no time was
a Communication taken up. Whether
mis- information went to Governor
Judd 1 do not know.
The first I heard of a commuta-
ton was when ! went 10 Iolan
palace at the request Of Kay. That
vas Thursday evening. Previously
re had talked several times TO Kay
and felt that pardons would bC
granted
AT the palace Kay told me they
had concluded 10 issue a commute
ton Of sentence providing for e
reduction from ten years to one
hour in custody Of High Sheriff
Gordon Ross. I informed him thai
nothing concerning a Communication
had been discussed.
1 also told him that II the Gov
ernor would 90 nothing more than
commute the sentence, We woulo
accept that. I made no promise
that we wouldn't continue to ask
for a pardon.
After I left the palace. Kay asked
that we defense attorneys. acting
for our clients. make written re-
quests for the combinations. This
We did
It is possible the Governor cid
not know the reason we didn't ask
for a pardon, but it is hardly prob
able OF course, any one of the
defendants at any time had a per-
feet right to go to the Governor
and ask a pardon, even though
Communication had been granted.
Position Called Absurd
I fancy that any one situated as
we were wouldn't refuse a commu-
tation OF sentence which would re.
duce imprisonment from ten year;
to one hour of technical arrest.
But I see no reason whatsoever
why the Governor should insist tina
a pardon should be withheld from
the defendants, in the face of TIN
fact that the Communication standing
alone deprives them of their civil
rights. including the franchise o
voting.
It seems positively strange to m,
that Governor Judd would propose
that a sentence of one hour bt
served in the custody Of the higf
sheriff as reparat!on for some illega
act. and then attach a condition
which would attach only in cases
OF felony.
The committed sentence was les:
than the punishment for the mild.
est misdemeanoT. II is entirely ou
of keeping with the demand that
the defendants be deprived Of theh
rights as ordinary citizens.
We think it inconceivable that the
Governor will insist on maintaining
such an absurd position. We are
confident he VIII not insist.