unless,aa a omditim preaedentthemfor, tie Tremor 80 dlree%ed. Such Iiber%y88 he enJoy under +&c pamke proolematim is referablealme to the pardon- pomr, ard the proalamatiemis to be classifiedBB a ec~ditfonal pardon."
Article 6203, eti1le.rI.y involvingthe discretionmy power whether a person conviotedof crime by a jury and ameased a punishmenttherefor,shall or ahall not suffer that punishment,deala expresslywith the pardmif~gpowera. (seoti0n20). To the extent that tt at+mpta to limit or curtailthe exercise of the cPemeneypowerswhich the Conatftutionconferaupon the governorOS upahr the Board of Pardonsand Parolesestablishedby the 1936 amendment,the set i.~ HonorableC. H. Cavnesa,Page 9 (0-7256)
invalid. Even if the Legislaturehad enaotedthm sluce 1936,Sections6 end 18 of Article 6203 would have to fall. Ex p. Belson,sg Snodgrasav. State, aupra. We thereforecannot asoribeto the Legielaturethe Intentionthat these ~aione of the former eot shouldbe imposedupcm the CcmstitutlonelBoexdof Pardonsandparoles.
When the entireact is read, it will.be aeoertalnedthat Article 6203 is a single statute,intendedto eooemplieha single purpose. The act waa de- signed to providea Board to advise,but not to limit or ooutrol,the Covernor In the exerciseof the powers of olemeucywhioh he then posaesaedexelua1veJ.y. 'Pne1936 emendmat aubetituteda new systemfor exerciseof the elemenaypowers; Article 6203 does not fit into the cfmstltutioneletruotureof the government since the amendment. The act was designedto preeoribethe powers and duties of a Board establishedby statute. On the otherhmd, the C~titutimelemend- ment of 1936 is the charterof tie clemencypowers of the Board of Pardonsend Paroleseetabliehedthereby;one need look no fUrtherfor the sourceand extent of its powers in matters of pardon,camautationend reprieve.
We think that Article @03 was outmodedend supersededin all ita parts by the ohauge in goveznmentalstruotureeffectedby the 1936 emendment. It remain8effectiveOnly insofara.9it8 tam an8 limitationawere in~orpor8ted es conditionsinto pardonsgrantedprior to February 1, 1937. ?Xx 84 Tex. Cr. 570, 209 S.W. 148, 150; Ex parta 236 S.W. ,--3g%%s g ) Cr. 83.
Question5
Your fifth questionla ratherebatrect,but we think the prinoiplee hereinafterdiecussedgovern determinationof the mattera raised +hereby.
In the first place, ae we have above stated,the "paroles"granted under the lawe heretoforeexistingin this State; are in legal effect oondi- timal pardona. Ex p* Nelson,e; Ex p. Cores m Such privilegesBB are enlosedby the uersoneto whcanthey are issued.are referableto 'parole" proo~~lon,-considered as a oonditigal pardan. -The owditiom attachedin the grantingof a pardon are valid,unless illegalor Immoral, end measure the rightsand privilegeaof the personacaeptingthe maaxe.Ex p. Redwine, mj Fz pa Brazier,91 Tex. Cr. 475, 239 S.U. 972.
An uuconditianelpardon is non-revocable,except for fraud in pro- curement,(Ex. p. Rios, 72 Tex. Or. 587, 162 S.W. 891), and a conditional pardon is as absoluteen act upon the conditionsnamed thereina8 is an uucon- aitione1pardon. Ibid. Until e oonditionelpardon is revokedin accordance with the conditim>ipulated therein,the penitentiaryauthoritieshave no right to custodyof the peram to whom it ~88 issued. See Ex p. I?elaon, w Conversely,when a oonditionelpardon ie legallyrevoked,it thereupara ceases HonorableC. H. Cevness,Page 10 (0-7256)
to exist,and fran thatmcment on the penitentiaryofficera,havee riightto euatodyof the person invclved,for the remeinderof the t&u he muet serve for the offensecoveredby the expiredpardon. Es p. Redwine,~5 E~_E, Frazier,supra.
The fact that the personwae arrestedand held by LL~os3. su%sr-fttee