Year: 1878

JUSTICE


MEssRs. EDITORS have been look
ing for some statement from the eXecu-
tive of the State, in vindication OF his
course in relation to the late execution;
but it seems that he is as indifferent to
public opprobrium, as he was to the
pleadings of q common humanity. Even
though the condemned men were gull
ty'of the crime for which they had been
convicted, to interposed executive power
in order to give the condemned the
benefit of any developments in their
favor, could not have interfered with
the proper exercise of justice; for it was
to meet such cases, where there was q
possibility of the conviction and pun
ishment of even the innocent, that the
executive has been clothed with pow
er to reprieve or pardon.


The governor may excuse himself with
the plea that he was simply performing
his duty in letting the law take its
course. But has he done his duty Is
there not higher law than that Of
the state, which should have had some
weight? Has the governor observed
that cardinal principle laid down by
the'Son Of God; "as ye would that 9th
ers should do unto you, do We even so
unto them?' Would it not have been
in keeping with the character of a chris
tian gentleman, to have given those
men the advantage of a further judicial
investigation ?


Justice would not have suffered, So
ciety would not have suffered, nor
would he have had upon his soul the
possible guilt Of having helped to has
ten the sacrifice of two innocent men.
Though they had been condemned, yet
while they lived, they had as much
right to the benefit of any reasonable
doubt, as if they had not been been
convicted. The governor was the only
one under the law, who could give
them that benefit; and this he has
seemingly, inhumanly, denied.


He has been represented to have said,
that he wished that the law gave him
power to modify the punishment; but
why modify the punishment, if guilty,
and thought worthy of death ? And if
not guilty, they should have been set
at liberty.


If the Governor has knowledge Of
evidence of guilt that was not elected
in the trial, the people have a right to
know it. Had it been member of his
family under condemnation, and like
circumstances had indicated possible
innocence, think his action would
have been different. The fact is, the
whole transaction gives strong coloring
to the impressions that the Governors
prejudice against the black man had
much to do in controlling his action.


As a minister of justice, no such par
tiality should be allowed to have taken
place for sworn duty sets aside all
such determinations.


White or black, the accused should
always have the benefit of a doubt; and
when the life of the accused is involved,
it is nothing short of barbarism to with.
hold it.


The indecent haste to force the eXecu-
ten, looked as if he gloated for tlfeit
blood; and looks bad for one who is
placed at the head of the state, and who
as father, should jealously guard the
safety and interests of all the people.


This is question OH which all should
speak out and demand reasons for ac,
tions of public servants, that awaken
in the public heart suspicious of wrong.
And though they cannot be held to
answer at the bar of Justice, may be
made to confront, the bar Of public
opinion. G. D.