The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1932-05-06
BY CLARENCE BARROW
Written Tor United Press
lconrrlrht- 1917 hr rrnitsd pr..sl

f~ouNfsHNts 1897 nF united Press
HONOLULU. May 6.-I am con-
fident that Governor Judd will par
don Mrs. Granville Fortescue and
. the three navy men convicted Of
killing Of Joe Kahahawai.
To deprive them Of their civil
, rights for an offense 10 which the
Governor attached only one hour Of
custody in punishment would be not
only ridiculous. but petty.
This pardon fight Is significant and
almost as important as the fight TO
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 full par
dons
The statement Of the Governor
that the four defendants and their
attorneys joined in a request for
F. Communication. and that at no time
were pardons mentioned. 70 Gov
. ernor Judd, Is literally true But
II doesn't represent all the facts.
Discussed Pardon Matter
NA1N AHlLA tAAE BOooARAAtF VI
psrdons with Harold Kay. deputy
encouragement At no time was
q Communication taken up. Whether
this information vent TO Governor
Judd I do not know.
The first I heard of a commuta-
ton was when I went TO Iolani
palace at the request Of Kay. That
was Thursday evening. Previously,
we had talked several times TO Kay
and felt that pardons would be
granted
At the palace. Kay told me they
had concluded 10 issue a commuta-
ton Of sentence providing for a
reduction from ten years 20 one
hour IN custody Of High Sheriff
Gordon Ross. I informed him that
nothing concerning a Communication
had been discussed.
I also told him that If the Gov
srnor would 90 nothing more than
commute the sentence, We would
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 did
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 per-
feet right to go TO the Governor
and ask a pardon. even though
communication had been granted.
Position Called Absurd
fancy that any one situated as
we we're wouldn't refuse a conmu-
tation of sentence which would re-
duce imprisonment from ten years
TO one hour OF technical arrest.
But l see no reason whatsoever
why the Governor should insist that
4 pardon should be withheld from
the defendants, in the face Of the
fact that the communication standing
alone deprives them of their civil
rights. including the franchise of
voting
It seems positively strange 10 me
that Governor Judd would propose
that a sentence of one hour be
served in the custody of the high
sheriff as reparation for some illegal
act, and then attach q condition
which would attach only in cases
OF felony.
The committed sentence was less
than the punishment for the mild
est misdemeanor. II is entirely out
of keeping with the demand that
the defendants be deprived of their
rights as ordinary citizens.
We think IL inconceivable that the
Governor will insist on maintaining
such an absurd position. We are
confident he will not insist.