Mr. PRESSTMAN suggested that the party might
be sent to the penitentiary, before the Executive
could issue the pardon. It would be better to
grant the pardon before the accused in subjected
to the ignominy of going to the penitentiary.
There might be a provision that the court should
delay the sentence, until the decision of the Exe-
cutive on the case should be known.
Mr. SOLLERS replied that the ignominy was not
in the punishment, but in the conviction. He
thought such a case would be of rare occurrence,
If there was any disposition to grant a pardon,
the Executive could issue a respite.
Mr. STEWART, of Baltimore city, suggested to
the gentleman from Montgomery, (Mr. Brewer,)
the propriety of withdrawing his amendment. He
was satisfied from the information before the
committee on printing, that there was no county
in which there was not a newspaper printed.
Mr BREWER then withdrew his amendment.
Mr. PRESSTMAN suggested a modification of
the amendment, by adding at the end thereof, the
following:
"And that sentence of the court shall not be
executed where the court is satisfied that the con-
victed parly has applied for Executive clemency,
until the Governor shall have acted upon the ap-
plication."
Mr. SOLLLERS was about to accept, when
Mr, TUCK suggested, before the gentleman from
Calvert. accepted the modification, the propriety
of so amending the amendment as to make it read
that the party shall have previously applied for a
pardon and notified the court of such applica-
tion.
Mr. KILGOUR said there might be cases of
wrong which would not be reached by the amendment
as it stood. He moved the following
amendment:
"Amend said amendment by inserting af-
ter the words "signing such petition," these
words "unless recommended for pardon by the
court and jury before whom convicted."
Mr. SOLLERS accepted the amendment of the
gentleman from Baltimore city, and modified his
amendment, accordingly.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment offered by Mr. KILGOUR, and it was re-
jected.
Mr. GRASON objected to the amendment of
the gentleman from Calvert, which required the
publication of the names of all who signed peti-
tions for pardon. Applications of this kind were
often made in letters, which sometimes had more
influence than the name? attached to petitions.
He objected to the publication, on account of the
difficulty and expense. In the case of Turner, it
was understood that the petitions were signed by
three thousand persons. It would take several
numbers of the largest newspaper to contain the
names and petitions in that case. There might
be cases in which it would be improper to pub-
lish the names.
A person committing a crime, might be will-
ing to give testimony against his accomplices,
on condition of first receiving a nolle prosequi,
and of not being publicly known as a witness till |
his associates were arrested. He had himself
granted a nolle prosequi, in a case of this kind,
at the request of the President of the Frederick
county Bank.
Again, a person, perhaps a female, suffering
from cold or hunger, might steal as much wood
or provisions as would apply their immediate
wants. There might be cages of this kind, in
which the court and jury and the whole community
would invoke the pardoning power Why
should there be a necessity for keeping such an
offender in prison to await the publication of the
names and petitions?
There was another class of cases—the escape
of a slave from his owner, is made felony by an
act of assembly. If arrested and committed to
jail, he cannot be delivered to his master without
a nolle prosequi, which is usually granted on con-
dition of his being sent out of the State. In such
cases, why should any delay or expense be in-
curred, by a publication of the names and peti-
tions in the newspapers?
Mr. SOLLERS said:
The objection of the gentleman from Queen
Anne's was based on the ground of inconve-
nience. The object of the amendment was to
guard against the escape of criminals from punishment
by means of petitions, which did not em-
body the public sentiment and came from irresponsible
sources. By such means many a crim-
inal may go "unwhipped of justice," especially
on the eve of an election. He desired to prevent
this evil, by requiring the publication of the
names of those who signed such petitions.
Mr. BRENT, suggested that there should be a
provision for the publication in a Baltimore pa-
per, and that it should not be confined to a paper
printed in Annapolis,
He hoped the gentleman from Calvert, would
agree to introduce after the words "if there be
any," the words "or elsewhere in the discretion
of the Governor."
Mr. SOLLERS accepted the amendment and
modified his amendment accordingly,
Mr. GWINN offered as a substitute for the said
amendment, the following:
"And the Governor shall before proceeding to
grant any pardon or nolle prosequi, (unless where
the same is granted for reason of public policy,)
give a reasonable notice of the application of
such pardon or nolle prosequi, and of the grounds
on which the said pardon or nolle prosequi is
prayed "
Mr. GWINN said:
That he thought that the Governor should be
required to give a reasonable notice of such ap-
plications, but that it was improper to fix the
precise period which should be required for such
notice. It would necessarily vary according lo
circumstances.
If the offence were newly committed, in a
thickly settled community, the briefest notice
would suffice to excite public attention, and to
prevent imposition upon the executive, or upon
the prerogative of pardon. But in other cases,
where the neighborhood was sparsely settled, a
greater length of time might be required. |
