Governor's private office in State Capitol, St. Paul, Minn. Pardon Board hold their meetings here.
Governor's reception room, State Capitol, St. Paul, Minn.
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.”