THE STATE BOARD OF PARDONS

The members of the State Board of Pardons, next to the weather man, are the most severely criticised in the state of Minnesota, and unjustly so. In the exercise of the authority conferred upon them the Minnesota State Board of Pardons is the most conservative in the United States. Notwithstanding the fact that they grant about seventy-five per cent less pardons than similar bodies in other states, the press, in many instances, holds that it is too liberal in its disposition of mercy.

The true function of the Pardon Board has often been exemplified by the daily press of the twin cities, and they appear to be unanimous in the belief that where the interest of humanity or reform can be benefited it is proper for the board to lighten a penalty or grant an outright rpardon.

Jesus of Nazareth enunciated the wise doctrine that “if you wish to be forgiven, you must forgive others,” and this apothegm is the alpha and omega of the Christian religion to day. “Go and sin no more” is often the basic principal of true reformation.

The laws of man ever since the days of Moses, Confucius, Lycurgus, Solon and Christ are intended to be just and impartial to all men; but no law yet created by our wise jurists and statesmen can eradicate from the individual the brand of Cain placed upon him by society,—that of an ex-convict. The Pardon Board can enlarge a man's liberty by making him a free citizen and a tax-payer, but it cannot free his conscience from the stigma of disgrace that clings to him until the portals of eternity open to receive him. We believe that the pardoning [pg 149] [pg 150] [pg 151] power, judicially applied, is the greatest aid to true reformation yet discovered.

The Minnesota State Board of Pardons consists of the Governor, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General. Its meetings are held quarterly in the state capitol building, and they meet on the second Monday in January, April, July and October.

The law governing the granting of pardons is as follows: “Such board may grant an absolute or a conditional pardon, but every conditional pardon shall state the terms and conditions on which it was granted. A reprieve in a case where capital punishment has been imposed may be granted by any member of the board, but for such time only as may be reasonably necessary to secure a meeting for the consideration of an application for pardon or commutation of sentence. Every pardon or communication of sentence shall be in writing and shall have no force or effect unless granted by a unanimous vote of the board duly convened.”

A convict in the prison Mirror writes as follows:

“Exercising clemency toward convicted persons is a subject that arouses many editorial writers. These newspaper men are creators of public opinion, and it would seem possible for them to calmly, impartially consider the subject instead of disseminating personal ideas immature in reasoning and founded on the erroneous conception that every person in prison has received a fair, impartial trial and that the sentences must be warranted upon the trial court's proceedings. In fact, the majority of editorial writers should refrain from casting reflections upon the pardon power because it seems too lenient or applaud it for refusing leniency toward prisoners. Their attitude shows plainly a lack of discernable [pg 152] ability. Few prisoners appeal to the pardon power of a state for clemency. Clemency is a term used for pity. Prisoners, as a rule, detest being considered seekers after pity. This is the concealed idea of many editorials, and thereby erroneous. The prisoner appeals to the pardon power because it is a lawfully created power to entertain his appeal, which is based upon his opinions concerning the justice of a sentence as opposed to the injustice of the trial court's imposed sentence. The appellant is not after pity, but expects justice. He has a right to the benefits of the law, and has a right, not only to ask for, but to demand justice. And no class of persons should exploit these facts more than editorial writers. Today they are greatly responsible for the necessity of wives, children and mothers practically begging for pity for some loved one in prison. We need Websters to interpret the law and demand justice for clients—not wives, mothers and friends to beg for pity.”

PATHETIC INCIDENTS AT MEETINGS OF PARDON BOARD.

“My little girl Virginia, only four years old, has been praying to Santa Claus every night for the past week, instead of to God. She has asked Santa every night to give her her papa for Christmas.”

“It seems all a dream, and I am afraid that I will awake to find it isn't true. But I felt all day that the pardon would come. I don't know why it was, but I caught myself singing this morning as I went about the house. It is the happiest day of my life. It will be the happiest Christmas that my family has ever spent.”

“Fred doesn't know that the pardon board meets [pg 153] today. He expects that it will meet Thursday. I am going to take the pardon with me to the prison, present it to Warden Wolfer and take my husband home with me.”

It is a young woman, the wife of a chief of police convicted of grafting, pleading before the pardon board for his release. She has worked a year securing evidence. It is just two days before Christmas and the board is called for a special session. The governor, the chief justice of the supreme court and the attorney general, who constitute the pardon board, hear her case with tears in their eyes. Attorneys and others plead for him also. Then the board goes into session. They decide that seventeen months in prison has served the ends of justice. They summon the young wife.

“Your husband has been granted a full pardon,” announces one of the members.

“May he come home with me now?” she asks, faltering, then she swoons. Soon she recovers. The pardon is signed. She takes it with her to Stillwater, presents it to the warden and a moment later husband and wife are in each other's arms. Merry Christmas it was for them.

“He's all I've got, judge. I'll take him anywhere, or I'll keep him right at home in Minneapolis, if you will only let him out. I want to take care of him, for he'll die if he stays there.” Tears drop from the mother of a youth of twenty-two who has been sent to prison for twelve years for larceny. “I've saved $250 in the last five years, and me doing day work,” she says proudly. Her son is suffering from tuberculosis. The board believes that it is better for him to be under [pg 154] such a mother's care than die in the prison and he is released.

Nowhere else, unless it be at a hospital, must one gaze at such a seemingly unending sad procession of pain-torn hearts, the anguished souls of mothers, fathers, sisters, sweethearts and wives, than at the meeting of the pardon board every three months. Nowhere else are the grinding knives of the law more apparent. Few are as fortunate as the two cited above. Of the two or three dozen cases at each meeting, seldom are more than two or three persons shown any mercy.

Here is the case of a murderer sentenced to hang. An attorney pleads for him; points out that the evidence was doubtful, says that the spirit of vengeance guided the jury. But the board has the evidence before it. “It clearly shows that the crime was premeditated,” remarks one member. There is no hope.

A sweet faced girl who has journeyed all the way from Seattle to take her brother back with her, finds that the law could not pardon an offender because his sister believes in him and loves him. The board must be shown that the punishment was too severe for the crime or that life at home will serve better to make the offender a useful citizen than doing penance at the prison.

To an aged father and mother of a boy serving a thirty-month sentence for stealing $56 worth of grain, the sad news is meted out that their son must serve out his sentence. They had trusted with the blind faith that the board would release him because they needed him. “The farm is running down and Charlie ought to be home to help care for things. He had always been a good boy,” they said.

Scathing lectures are often given those asking pardon for the undeserving, by the members of the board. “Do you think fifteen months is too much for a man who shot his wife? It was not his fault she did not die,” the chief justice recently told some friends of a man who had hunted up and shot a wife who had left him. “If my sister were outraged by a man, shooting would be none too good for him,” the governor recently told a smooth-tongued attorney who was making a plea for a man serving a long sentence for a heinous crime.

So it goes. There is mercy for a few; there is the stern and unrelenting law tor the many.

PRESS NOTICES.