Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 2.djvu/249

 Harvard Law Review.

Published Monthly, during the Academic Year, by Harvard Law Students. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE. $2.50 PER ANNUM 35 CENTS PER NUMBER.

EdUorial Board, GlORGE R. NUTTKR, .... EditoT-in-ChUf.

Everett V. Abbot, William F. Bacon,

Wilson G. Crosby, George P. Furber, Treasurer ^

Charles Hudson, • Charles M. Ludden,

Alfred E. McCordic, Edward T. Sanford,

Edward I. Smith, Samuel H. Smith, Joseph Walker.

We have received the following interesting communication upon the subject of conditional pardons, which has been kindly sent us by ex- Govemor Hoadly, of Ohio : —

"In the number of the Harvard Law Review for November, 1888, just received, I notice, upon page 181, a note with regard to the grant of conditional pardons, which induces me to write you to say that, for many years, at least since 1869, it has been provided bylaw in Ohio that pardons or commutations may be granted 'on such terms as the Governor deems proper to impose.* (66 Ohio Laws, 287, section 214.)

3 Wilhams Revised Statutes, 11), now numbered as section 89 A of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, it was provided that * a violation of the con- ditions of the pardon shall be held to be a forfeiture of the pardon, and shall render the person pardoned liable to be recommitted to the peni- tentiary, there to serve the remainder of his sentence as though he had not been pardoned.*
 * ' By an amendment to this act, passed in 1882 (79 Ohio Laws, 122,

" The residue of the section provides for the method of procedure in such cases, which is, in substance, this : That the governor requests, in writing, the prosecuting attorney of the county, in any such case of violation, to file an information thereof in the office of the probate judge of said county, whereupon the judge issues a warrant to the sheriff, the sheriflf arrests the prisoner, the question of violation is tried before the probate judge, and if the charge be sustained, the prisoner is re- turned to the warden of the penitentiary under a warrant from the pro- bate judge to the sheriff.

" During my term of office as Governor of Ohio I was compelled twice to recapture persons whom I had pardoned, and they are now, or, at least, one of them is now in the Ohio penitentiary, serving the residue of his original sentence.

" These were both flagrant violations of the condition, accepted by the prisoner at the time of pardon, to abstain from the use of intoxicating liquors. This experience was very painful to me, and rendered me ex- tremely doubtful whether this particular condition was wisely imposed. These doubts never left me, but I yielded during my whole term to the