& brief, these dutieswere advieoryto the Covernorin the exerciseof the po'~ars of executiveclemenoywhich he exclusivelypossessedprior to +&e 1.93 6 ame~~~~~,~ The act made it the duty of the Board to ccpnpile informationregardingprisoner-e receivedby the Prison System,providedfor its review of the recordsof the prieoner6,and made it the duty of t-heBoard to recommendto the C;ver%~ 5% releaseof prieonerson "parole"where the Board was of the opinioti <"&at5a:~ was reasmiable probabilitythat if the prisonerwere releasedhe would live and remain at libertywithoutviolatingthe law, and that his releasewoLd no,:'sr* L~cnnpatible with Me welfareof society,etc. (Sectlone7-8). I"r,e B3'w.Wof the Board was strictlylimitedto the making of reormnmendations to the Governor; its remmmrdations were made efffao'tial only if the Covernor,b .:& e%?$y;i,e,e cf his ~leamag powers9 sho&i Bee fit to act in accord with the advice of t!e Board. (Section 20, ArtSole 6203). HonorableC. H. Cavness,Page 5 (o-7256)
The act preiorfbsdoertainlimitatlcnsupon the powers of the Board createdtherebyz e.g., in Seotlon 6, (subJeotof your third inquiry)it was providedthat a prisonershouldnot be reocmnendedfor "parole*if smtemed under indeterminate senteuoe,until he shouldhave served a period equal to the minimum seuteuoeimposedupon him for the orime; or If he were eentenoed to a definiteterm, until he shouldhave servedat least me-third of i&e term or terms imposedupou hti. SimlLarly,under section18, it was provided that prisonersseutenoedafter date of the sot to term in exoessof twenty- five yeare (lnoludlnglife mutenoes) shouldbe eligibleto pesole m&y after serviceof nineteeucalendaryears,with a clear prleon reoord.
It Is clear that had the Legislaturesought thue to limit the powers of clemencyvested solely In the Governorprior to the 1936 amendmsnt,the limitations would have been Invalid. 5;, ,":,'I"Lsg,20: ~GB~~;nodgrasZ*f iE'c~~'Ll,~ ~~'~~WT71'"1&, in reoo&tlon of this lack of power, expressly providedthat the Act shouldnit be conetruedas in any way attemptingto limit or prevent"the exerciseby the Governorof this State of powers of exeoutiveclemencyvested In him by the Coustitutiouof this State". (Section 20, Article 6203). Ae to the statutory board,however,the legislaturecould limit or curtainthe Board'spower6 of reoonmendatiou as It saw fit, for the Board had only suoh authorityas the Legislaturedetemiued it ehouldhave.
This was the conditionof the laws when, in 1936, Seotlon 11 of Article IV was amended;your inquirieslead to considerationof the effect of the Constitutional amendmentupon the statutoryprovisionsoontalnedIn Artlole 6203.
me 1.936 amendmentwroughtmaterialchange in the strictureof governmentwhereby the claenoy powers of the sovereigiaare exercisedirntbis state. It established,by Its own force, a Board of Pardms and Paroles; to the Governor rela- vested in that Board the power to make reconmendations tive to clemenoyafter convictionin all criminalcases except treasonand impeachment,and made the power of the Governorto grant olermenoyin such oases conditionalupon the affizmativereccmmendatlon of that Board.
We think that the establishmentby Constitutionalprovision,of the Board of Pardonsand Paroleshaving the powers enumerated,with provisionfor the threemembers of the Board to be appointedone by the Chief Justiceof the SupremeCourt, one by the PresidingJustioeof the Court of CriminalAppeals, and one by the Governor, was inoonsistentwith and thereforeabolishedthe statutoryauthorityfor appointmentby the Governorof a differentbody, whose duties similarlyrelatedto the making of recommendations to t$e Governorin clemencymatters. The contemporaneous constructionof the 1936 amendment,and the praotieeloonstnmtfon unbrokensince that time,