| Show BLOOD IS UP U 8 district attorney varian has baa addressed the following letter to the ogden standard SALT LAKE CITY citi feb 3 1893 editor ane standard cL la in your jour issue ot lost last sunday you devote much space apace to the matter of application for the pardon of malachi dillon and incidentally I 1 connected therewith you furnish some information from the governor govern oroa office concerning pardons heretofore granted to offenders convicted in the ogden district there seems to be an organized and systematic effort to create a public senti ment in the dillon come case to afford an apparent justification I 1 presume for his hie pardon but it is not with the purpose of discussing the merits of this application that I 1 address you on the general question I 1 involved but to direct attention to the abuses prejudicial to the administration of j ustice which result from the unrestrained use of pardoning power iu in this territory laws are designed designe 1 to regulate human conduct and to restrain the evil actie 8 of mon men courts are coated for the I 1 purpose of passing pacing upon and determining all questions involving lire life liberty and property phe The rules prescribed fur for the determine de of the guilt or of a person charged with crime if not absolutely just iu all particulars are specially designed tor for the protection of the accused twelve men med ot of a grand jury of fifteen must concur in finding an indictment twelve men of a trial jury of taz twelve V 6 1 must unite in 1 finding anding 1 a verdict of guilty and each one of the twelve mut must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt the verdict must then pass the inspection of the presiding judge who is called upon to review revie woot not only the rulings of law made during the trial but upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the ver dict the case came may then be re viewed in the court As ae a general rule it is ia safe eafe to assume that a verdict of guilty which shall be approved by the judges la is and ought to upon up 0 o n this conviction the law itself stielf pronounces the J judgment and fixes the penalty generally with in certain limits under our system it was not intended that the executive in whom to Is vested the power to pardon should sit as a court of errors and appeal and review verdicts of juries or revise the judgments of courts nor is this great and sacred prerogative a per bonal one it t is a great personal trust which should be regulated by fixek standards and governed in its app applies applice lic tion by general rules where a cunovic tion is in had guilt Is to be assumed and except in exceptional and striking cam faaea where subsequent events demonstrate the mistake of the jury and the innocence of the accused the pardoning power should not interfere on ehfe ground nor when the judgment of the law fixing the punishment is onge onee given should this great prerogative be invoked except perhaps in oases cases where the severity of the pu punishment bibb to is so pronounced as to carry a conviction of injustice I 1 siam am speaking now of course of the ordinary crimes which disturb society and not of often of lenses see in the commission of which whole communities are concerned and in the disposition of which other considerations side rations are involved it is i within these theme lines generally I 1 apprehend that hat the pardoning power should be exercised the welfare of the community and the safety of society demand it it is not perceived that petitions or rk quests requests of citizens however exalted their stations may be should chainge ch age the application of these theme rules tn the request of governors of other states or of distinguished citizens of this terri tory do not change the fact that the man was guilty of violations of our aw nor should the recommendation of jurors prevail except in oas cases within the limitations hereinbefore stated the finding of the juror upon his oath that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt should not be out weighed by his subsequent statement or request given at ac the solicitation of the interested party it is in time that the community should be aroused to aj a just appreciation ot of a necessity for the certain enforcement of the laws no man should request the governor tu to pard gardn ia a con fiut culess he has a good god substantial reason tor for so doing if he does he is unjust to the governor and unjust to the community eighty one pardons of territorial offenders have been granted since july 4 lanyor many of them upon ox ex parte hearings and without the knowledge of the prosecuting officers in some of these cama imposition was practiced apon the governor in others the reasons were doubtless all sufficient but in amny it is probable a different result would have been reached had bad a full fall hearing bearing been accorded permit mo me to to supply some gome omissions in your statements concerning the griffin and loomis cases griffin was waa pardoned while the cane came was waa pending on appeal in the supreme court and before the judges had an opportunity of pawing passing upon it judge Hen dinou it la is true recommended his hia pardon but judge henderson Hende raon was waa the counsel for the accused there was a question between the assistant attorney and the defense in relation to the cleaning of 0 the pistol which it seems was determined upon the statements and evi denoe produced by the defendant yd counsel you state that the jurors who convicted origin griffin filed affidavits before the governor that the impression that the hamer pistol bad not been fired because of its clean appearance was the hinging point upon which the conviction was secured the difficulty about this excuse is that it assumes as true a controvert ed fact further the judge who tried the case came and the judges of the supreme court who could review all the testimony were better able to determine first whether the fact as alleged was true and aad second it if ture whether it was a material fact the extraordinary proceedings of an application for a pardon while the case was pending on appeal would seem to indicate a lack of confidence in the point relied on the application assumed the guilt of f griffin because became a pardon is not granted to an innocent man the truth is there is a decided difference of opinion as to what was the turning point in the case cam and it will serve no useful purpose to discuss the evidence hoce here your statement however seems carefully to omit a very prominent fact viz that griffin left hamer went away and armed himself and re turned to the saloon where the homicide was subsequently committed loomis was pardoned against the emphatic protest of this office without any official notification of the application estion the fact of the application was accidentally brought to we the attention of the district attorney your statement bement of lauts I 1 in n this case might well have included also the fur her statements that loomis in his retreat fired upon the pursuing officer anit in jl cating his desperate character that your local officers including your city marshal took the pains to unearth the past record of loomis and presented the same to the judge to the effect that he was an expert and professional professions burglar and an J criminal and had bad served a tori term in the penitentiary of another state that petitions for his bis pardon came from ogden oden simply illustrates the unreliability and worthlessness as a general rule of such requests reque ats what did th tb people of oden know about this criminal whose first introduction into that community was in the capacity ot of a detected burglar 0 my excuse for thus troubling liag you is found in the fact that upon my office devolves in part parr at least the responsibility lity of administering the criminal law or of the terri ory it is a mistake to assume that there tie is no crime here there ir in a great deal of it so long as the pub ic 10 sentiment permits the administration ot justice ustice to be obstructed and neutral zed by thoi the well meant but mistaken efforts of kindly disposed persons in behalf of convicted felons so ao long will the good order aud safety of society be iu in peril so do far as dillon is concerned it may be remarked that the question of insanity or responsibility non now sought bought to be tried upon the ex parts parte statements of persons not under oath was fully and carefully presented by distinguished counsel and professional witnesses at the trial the verdict passel passe 1 the challenge of the trial triai judge and the supreme court the question of bis pardon should not be made to depend upon this matter which hs been litigated and determined in the only way provided for by our law it if there are other reasons sufficient to move executive clemency the case will present a different aspect respectfully C 8 13 VARIAN |
