2058 VETOES.

I advocated the passage of the bill, believing that it was in
the interests of parole.. The Bill would relieve the Governor
of the handling of parole cases and I suppose that no Governor
would be averse to being relieved of what is a most exacting
task, although none would desire to shirk responsibility. The
measure would give exclusive authority to the Parole Director
to grant these releases from the penal institutions. Of course,
his action would not be reviewable by any other authority and
he would be answerable to no one directly. It was my belief
that the majority of people who have been interested in this
subject were in favor of adopting this policy.

However, since the adjournment of the Legislature, I have
received comments from Judges in various parts of the State
who seriously doubt the wisdom of placing such far-reaching
powers in the hands of one appointed official. They have the
utmost confidence in the present Director of Parole. However,
as some have pointed out, if he should relinquish the office they
would be very much concerned over his successor who could,
without notice to the public, release malefactors from the penal
institutions when their applications for parole were taken up.

I have consulted former Commissioners of Parole and they
bear out the Judges in their opposition to the Bill, although
they, too, have the greatest respect for the present Director.

It is pointed out that, under the proposed law, the Board
which was set up by the 1939 General Assembly is abolished.
Two of the subordinates of the Director of Parole would con-
stitute a Board of Review under the proposed statute. A
further comment is offered in that if the proposed change is
made, the Governor would still handle cases concerning con-
ditional pardons, partial pardons and commutations of sen-
tence whereas the Director of Parole would handle parole
cases. This it is alleged might lead to a situation where the
two officials would be handling different applications for one
or other forms of release concerning the same individual.
Possibly, less objection would be heard if a Board would be
set up rather than to vest all the authority in an individual
Director.

It would be most unfortunate if parole in our State, which
has been handled much more satisfactorily during recent years
than previously, would be given a setback through some criti-
cism of a Director's action, either for bad judgment or other-
wise. Several reports from J. Edgar Hoover of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation have been sent me showing what can
happen and has happened in other States.

I intend to ask the Legislative Council to make a study of
this question with a view to considering a recommendation for
a Board of Pardon and Parole in whom might be vested all
powers, not only for parole but for pardons as well. Sugges-
tion has been made that, if the power is to be vested in one