*Of the 771 cases acted upon by the Executive, 107 were pardoned outright at the request of various conscription boards and of the prisoners and their families in order that they might enlist in the army. Furthermore, in the 771 cases are 55 persons reported as being paroled when as a matter of fact they were only let out for the purpose of working out their fine. Within the last two years it has been the practice of the executive where a petition was filed by the school fund officers to remit a fine, instead of remitting it, in nearly all cases we permitted the prisoner to go out on parole upon condition that at least five dollars per week be paid to the clerk upon the fine. In this way the state was relieved of the burden of the prisoner, the man was restored to his family and many thousands of dollars turned into the treasury. The fact that these men are compelled to take out of their wages each week this sum of money is a constant reminder of the fact that they have violated the law. It is interesting to note that during this period of high cost and scarcity of labor during the war, that nearly half of those to whom clemency was extended, or to be exact, 506 persons, were released in order to contribute to the support of their families. Of the cases passed upon by the executive, clemency was recommended in 676 cases by the judges, prosecutors and the superintendents of the various institutions. Aside from the number of paroled men who enlisted in the army and others who worked out their fines under parole, as herein stated, and others who went back and assisted in food production during the war, a further fact makes any comparison with the preceding four or eight year period somewhat misleading. Prior to the establishment of the State Farm, which did not get under way until the last year of Governor Ralston's administration, all misdemeanants were committed to the various county jails and were there under complete control of the local judges who could and did very frequently order their release without appealing to the executive. It is interesting to note that the number of cases in which relief was granted by the executive at the state prison during the past four year period is much less than during either one of the two previous four year periods. It will be noted from the list, that while the executive has been somewhat liberal in extending clemency to first offenders, to those in distress, that such has not been the rule when applied to the older and more hardened criminals usually committed to the State Prison. It has often been said that the free exercise of the pardoning power by the Governor tends to create a disregard for law. With this I can not agree. It is not the length of punishment or the severity of it so much as the certainty of it that causes men to hesitate before violating the law. The fact that the law does not seem to bear with equal weight upon everybody tends more to bring about a disregard for law than extending clemency to those who have already suffered its penalty. It is exceedingly difficult to secure the conviction of men in places of power and influence who betray their trust and violate the law. At the same time, those who commit petty offenses and are without influence have the penalties of the law visited upon them. It is this situation more than the mere extension of clemency that brings about disregard for law and a very deep-seated feeling that the law means one thing to a man of low estate and another thing to the man of power and influence. The record of the cases of clemency extended by the Governor seems to justify the action taken so far as shown by its immediate effect upon the prisoner, for out of the 771 cases in which clemency was extended by the executive, it has only been found necessary to revoke the paroles in 21 cases, or less than three percent. I have not separated the cases of executive clemency, 54 in number, extended by acting Governor Bush during the 23 days he acted as Governor, but they are included in the list of cases which herein follow. |