Year: 1877




THE GOVERNOR AGAIN REFUSES PARDoN-uE


DOES NOT THINK THE CASE ANALOGOUS TO


THoRBURN's-THE PRISONER TO SERVE OUT


HIS SENTENCE.


The Governor, acting upon the petition
recently presented to him, yesterday refused
to pardon Colonel W. D. Coleman. Cole
mans friends relied upon the Governors
decision in the ThorbHrn matter for fayora-
BILE action towards Coleman. After COM
pairing the two cases the Governor says:


fail to discover in the case OF the pris-
oner such repentant consciousness Of guilt,
such evidences Of contrition, OF restitution,
and OF reformation as marked the case Of
Thorburn.


1t is alleged that in committing crime the
prisoner was one OF several accomplices-all
Of whom but himself have escaped punish
ment. Such an allegation admits his guilt,
and the Justice of bis sentence, while sug-
gesting equal or possibly greater guilt on
the part of others. Every criminal case
must be judged by the reasons which inhere
within tit must stand or fall on its separate
and independent merits or demerits-and it
Is made neither better nor worse by the
character of any other case. Grant that
other and equally guilty but unpunished
parties combined with the prisoner and
abetted his crime or did worse; such n fact
neither converts his criminality into inno-
cence, nor does it in any wise diminish his
separate guilt. II other parties supposed
to be guilty are allowed by the courts to go
unpunished, it is not for me to repeat that
fault, or to commit another and equal
wrong by turning loose one whose separate
guilt has been fairly and conclusively estab-
lished.


The prisoner was public fuactionary,
and his offence was the breach and abuse Of
an important official trust. Ii 1t is true that
Others were associated with him in crime
if he could have developed legal proof OF
the completely OF his associateS-if in the
opinion of the proper judge or attorney his
pardon could have effected not only the eX-
posure OF the whole of such criminal trans
actions, but the conviction and punishment
of the other criminals-then pardon would
have been granted long ago as the necessary
means to the ends OF justice. But in the
opinion Of the proper law officers OF the
Commonwealth the developments coming
from this particular source, so far from
sustaining prosecution, are not enough to
raise reasonable suspicion against others.


1t is alleged that part Of the testimony
on which the prisoner was convicted was
that Of an insane witness. This is not so.
The witness referred to was found to have
been insane at other times but upon full
investigation by the criminal court OF Rich
.mond, afterwards reviewed by the Supreme
Court of Appeals, he was ascertalned and
decided to be sane and competent wit
ness at the trial OF the prisoner.


1t is also alleged that in this case the ma
iesty OF the law has been vindicated; that
the prisoner has atoned for his offence by
suffering the greater part OF the punish
ment which the court and jury considered
due to his ascertained guilt, and that there
fore he ought to be released. The prece-
dent of one pardon, granted solely on that
ground, il consistently and impartially ap-
Piled to other cases, as it would have to be,
would result at once in turning loose upon
society great multitude of the worst GRIM
inals.


1t is further alleged that the intelligence
and cultivation OF the prisoner make his
punishment especially hard and CALLING to
him; but those very considerations point
to the fact that he is more responsible and
less eXcusable than the ignorant and the
weak, who never had his advantages.


am constrained to add another to q r..i.iin-
Der ns previous reiusals OF pardon in this
case. .-.r JAMES l.. KEMPER.


February 81, 1877.