supportthis conclnsi.on.
It has been suggested,however,that althoughthe st.e.tut+s wers Hoxorablec. B. ~avness,Page 6 (o-7256)
supersededinsofaras oompositiouand makeup of the Board to exercise,~!xP powers of reoommsndatloniramatters of executiveclemsncgare eorcerned, neverthelessthe remainingprovisionsof Artdole 6203 are still effeotfve, and are applicableto the Constitutional Board of Pardonsand Paroles.
The bgieiature has not assumedsince the 1936 smen&en,*-.? to enact any law relatingeither to the subzectof pardonsor of paroles. I,%llasnot assumedto say that the Constitutional Board shall be subJectedto the require- ments it imposedupon the StatutoryBoard; therehas been no trarsferof powers or duties by statutoryenaotmentsince 1936. To our minds, its :Pai::ure .toaot is indicativethat the Legislaturehad no idea that the &nst:~?~~if~na; Board. shouldwear +&a legal olothingtailoredfor the statutoryBoard ~ti&Cck Sled eoncurrently with the birth of the 1936 amendmmt.
InapplieabfUtyof the statutoryprovisionsto the Gonstft~ti~onal Boati of Pardonsand Paroles is apparentwhen testedby validityof +l?epro- hibitionsand restrfotionsDnposedby the statute. Your iuquZ5ea relative to Sections6 and 18 of the act dir'astly raise the question. As k*epointed out above, the Legislatureooald not have limitedthe powers o?"P,:~Iw;~J~ vested in the Governorprior to the 1936 emerdmentto extensicmsf ckwm:~$r only in those oases where the convicthad served a specifiedmf-.iuza >arl,?J of time; his power attachedat ttie of eonvie%$a of *he -ps-"Ro;z .k~';-YJ&y$$, Ex parte Were, -; SnodgrassV* State, w. By force of f&e ssme a-,tZ!~- ority,we say that the Iagislaturehas no more power to 1Imit or rer+trf:. ihe jotit powers of clemencydividedunder the 1.436 amendmentWbaen ,+%aBPXTI of Pardonsand ParolesestabLIshedthereby,and the Governor. If '.";;* -Q2gig _ J.at~recan prohibitthe Cozstitzfional Board from reoommendinga priwo~erf,or clemencyunfil he shall have serveda mfnfiuum period speoifladby stac,r*te,if can rendernuga%orpthe 60msrtftu~cliora3.mmclafa +$latthe power of",;i%a GoeeLrmr shall at+tach*af,tereonvietlon",as t&e pwwcr of Yas Coverno~is made &epe::.d- ert upon an .affirmatIveresolomeb?dationof olsmeacyby the Fonst,4~~ti~~a'_%~a&. 5+ .;-a The power of the Governorto @a:_, -g~ms~~~y3.~3 t&e cases apezZt"i83a!-,ia&ias "afteroonvi~tioz~"; we .tl:,qIk that the %~er of recommendation vested !.n*&se Board of Pard~~u;is c ) I,"RiL, and Paroleses&!-,.L..,-1 pJ c;Do@ae*&ac, a.~b,+&3;hJes ,~,J~.:t,:j,>"fijL 9'. 2-6. See, Sxmigrass'v.St&b -2 ~4. Nor em t&e n;aI.iaftyei"tie ras~k,rktiascontainedIZ ~ezt.::ms6 ar.d 18 of Article 6203 b,esus,tair*d as applicable50 the Board of Partieda~1 Par>s 'bythe the theorythat the st&a+x 1s a "parole es*tablished ISW" within the meaning of the 1936 amerdmentto Section 11, Articlep5.
Article 6203 is an enactmentwhioh deals with the powers of pardm (Section20 expresslyso states);the olemenoyauthorizedto be ext$icdad under fte provisionsis that of eondltionalpardon. See, Ex parts BeLvou9$JWF~.?.J Bx parte Gore, (Ter.Cr.) 4 S.W.28 38; Snodgrassv. State, mm J&e LJ&,'l$ that the term "parole"is used in the statutedoes not change the sh*as:;trof HonorableC. H. Cavness,Page 7 (o-7256)
the clemencyextended,nor vary the powers called into exercisethereby. Ex parte Eelson,m; Ex parte Gore, af Snodgrassv. State, -q
In the Snodgrassoese (150S.W. 162, 176) the Court in discussing the Constitutional provisionsrelativeto exeoutlveelemenaywhich were in force prior to the 1936 amendment,said:
"What is a 'pardon'? That term has been definedand has a well-urrderstoodmeaniug. In Carr v. State, supra, this Court held: 'A pardan Is a remissionof guilt. 1Bish. Cr. UW, B 898. It is full, partial,or conditional.Full, when it freelyand unconditionally absolve8the party from all