[Governor’s private office in State Capitol, St. Paul, Minn.]
Governor’s private office in State Capitol, St. Paul, Minn. Pardon Board
hold their meetings here.
[Governor’s reception room, State Capitol, St. Paul, Minn.]
Governor’s reception room, State Capitol, St. Paul, Minn.
The laws of man ever since the days of Moses, Confucius, Lycurgus, Solon
and Christ are intended to be just and impartial to all men; but no law
yet created by our wise jurists and statesmen can eradicate from the
individual the brand of Cain placed upon him by society,—that of an ex‐
convict. The Pardon Board can enlarge a man’s liberty by making him a free
citizen and a tax‐payer, but it cannot free his conscience from the stigma
of disgrace that clings to him until the portals of eternity open to
receive him. We believe that the pardoning power, judicially applied, is
the greatest aid to true reformation yet discovered.
The Minnesota State Board of Pardons consists of the Governor, Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General. Its meetings are
held quarterly in the state capitol building, and they meet on the second
Monday in January, April, July and October.
The law governing the granting of pardons is as follows: “Such board may
grant an absolute or a conditional pardon, but every conditional pardon
shall state the terms and conditions on which it was granted. A reprieve
in a case where capital punishment has been imposed may be granted by any
member of the board, but for such time only as may be reasonably necessary
to secure a meeting for the consideration of an application for pardon or
commutation of sentence. Every pardon or communication of sentence shall
be in writing and shall have no force or effect unless granted by a
unanimous vote of the board duly convened.”
A convict in the prison Mirror writes as follows:
“Exercising clemency toward convicted persons is a subject that arouses
many editorial writers. These newspaper men are creators of public
opinion, and it would seem possible for them to calmly, impartially
consider the subject instead of disseminating personal ideas immature in
reasoning and founded on the erroneous conception that every person in
prison has received a fair, impartial trial and that the sentences must be
warranted upon the trial court’s proceedings. In fact, the majority of
editorial writers should refrain from casting reflections upon the pardon
power because it seems too lenient or applaud it for refusing leniency
toward prisoners. Their attitude shows plainly a lack of discernable
ability. Few prisoners appeal to the pardon power of a state for clemency.
Clemency is a term used for pity. Prisoners, as a rule, detest being
considered seekers after pity. This is the concealed idea of many
editorials, and thereby erroneous. The prisoner appeals to the pardon
power because it is a lawfully created power to entertain his appeal,
which is based upon his opinions concerning the justice of a sentence as
opposed to the injustice of the trial court’s imposed sentence. The
appellant is not after pity, but expects justice. He has a right to the
benefits of the law, and has a right, not only to ask for, but to demand
justice. And no class of persons should exploit these facts more than
editorial writers. Today they are greatly responsible for the necessity of
wives, children and mothers practically begging for pity for some loved
one in prison. We need Websters to interpret the law and demand justice
for clients—not wives, mothers and friends to beg for pity.”