striking from your constitution as it exists
to-day the provision that it shall require the
executive pardon to entitle a party to vote,
and the provision now proposed that it shall
require a vote of two-thirds of the legislature,
and that the result is to incite in one single
individual a desire to recover his citizenship
and to become a better man. Is it not some-
thing fit to be done ?
I have no doubt there are many cases in
which, after the commission of the first crime
the parties are hurried on to the commission of
others simply because in addition to the legal
ban upon them there are so many other social
bans. I think that to the poor fellow who
may have fallen into misfortune, and wishes
to correct his life, we ought to hold out the
helping hand, instead of pushing him back.
I hope the amendment will not prevail; and
that the portion of the section requiring the
executive pardon will be stricken out.
Mr. MILLER. I hope the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr,
Stirling) and now under consideration, will
prevail. I think the provision allowing the
executive of the State to pardon offenders, and
then, in case a man serves his time out upon
conviction of any infamous crime, allowing
the legislature by a two-third vote to restore
him is going far enough in that direction.—
As the gentleman from Cecil (Mr. Pugh) has
very properly said, although there is no max-
im of law on the subject, it has always been
understood that the objects of all criminal
laws, whether statutory or such provisions as
are contained in the constitution, have for
their object not simply the punishment of
crime, but the prevention of crime, the ex-
ample which the punishment affords to others
to prevent them from committing similar
crimes.
As to the argument presented here, if a
man under necessity committing some little
offence, some petty larceny, yet coming under
the definition of an infamous crime, and serv-
ing out his time in the penitentiary, if be is
a proper party to be pardoned, the guardians
of the penitentiary are watching him, and
know the circumstances, and they will have
this case presented to the governor of the
State. To meet such cases was the very ob-
ject of having an executive clemency vested in
the governor, to enable him to act upon meritorious
cases of that kind.
the argument that has been used with ref-
erence to the political effect of this matter,
that efforts have been made to get men out of
the penitentiary on political grounds and ap-
plications have been made to the governor
and the governor has exercised the pardoning
power upon that ground, if such things are
true it certainly argues a very .corrupt execu-
tive. It is no argument against such a pro-
vision as this, but only shows that in former
times we have had men acting as governors |
who have improperly exercised the pardoning"
power.
Mr. THOMAS. I did not mean to cast any
reflection upon the executive, I am perfectly
satisfied that the executive did not know these
political wire-pullings about getting the men
out of the penitentiary; but it was done.
Mr. MILLER. Then the men deceived the
governor and induced him to pardon these
convicts in the penitentiary. He should be
very careful bow he exercises this prerogative.
He should look to the offence and the circum-
stances. If the sentence is for a long term of
years, and the man's conduct is such as to
show that he has reformed, the universal
practice is for the governor, some short time
before the expiration of the sentence, to exer-
cise his executive clemency and let the man
go. But I think the criminal statistics show
that very few who come out of the peni-
tentiary ever reform. They go on pretty much
the same way again. I hope the amendment
will prevail,
Mr. STIRLING. So far as I am concerned 1
should be very much more disposed to strike
out the word " pardon " from the clause,
than to take the course advocated on the other
side, I know very well that a great many
men are pardoned for other reasons than re-
forms, and that a great many who are par-
doned for the reason of reformation are in
fact not reformed. I have seen a great many
instances of a most remarkable character,
which goto justify what was said by my col-
league (Mr, Thomas) in regard to that sub-
ject.
I have in my eye now a man who had some
good qualities but was really one of the most
dangerous men in the State, who was par-
doned simply because his testimony was ab-
solutely necessary for the State. That man
is no more fit to exercise the right of suf-
frage, and just as likely to be made a tool of
desperate men for the most iniquitous objects
as any man in the community.
Mr. ABBOTT. Will my colleague amend
his proposition by striking out the pardon?
Mr. STIRLING. I should prefer to strike it
out; but I do not desire to injure my amend-
ment. I want to see whether the amendment
will carry at all before I extend it to that.
If a man has really reformed there is no diffi-
culty in proving it to any sensible candid
man; and the legislature is more apt to lean
to the side of mercy than to the other side.
There are instances where men have abso-
lutely reformed, and can establish it to the
satisfaction of everybody. But there are
plenty of people pardoned out of the peni-
tentiary, and who have gone on to commit
worse offences afterward than before they
went there, and are now known to be among
the most reckless criminals in the State, The
difficulty is in this country that the men who
commit the most dangerous class of offences,
wear good clothing, and most of them look |
