ENPages
1
Winchester Ten. 4th Sept_ 1848_
Dear Sir_
Yours of the 31st ult. has been rec'd in which you solicit my opinion, as to the jurisdiction of pardoning authority.
I fully concur with you, that the pardoning pow -er should be cautiously & sparingly excercised;- still there are cases, in which such exercise is demanded, by every consideration of humanity; - & in which it exercise will not weaken the authority - of the laws, or the claims of justice and such a case, as I think, is Anthony's.
Had I been a juror in Anthony's case, I could not have convicted him. I only acquiesced in the judgment of affirmance in the Supreme Court. I did so, because
2
although I was strongly inclined to believe he was de-ranged when he did the fatal act,- yet the jury had found that fact against him,- but had saved his life, by finding that there were mitigating circumstances. I thought it best upon the whole view of the case to affirm the judgement, and leave it to the development of subsequent facts of the govern-or's clemency. Had a new trial been granted and another jury of the same mind as to the insanity, - he might have been hung.
The opinion of the defendants wife had great weight on my mind. When in ex-tremes, she was questioned as to whether the act was done by design or by accident She said he did it of purpose, but he was not "right." Unquestionably, she believed he acted under an alienation of mind, - & having observed
3
all the minutiae of his con -duct, she was prepared to estimate his motives proper -ly, - and although she was the unfortunate victim, yet she distinctly announces that opinion, that he was not "right."
His conduct she thought after the transaction, was strongly indicative of mental alienation. He manifested no concern for what he had done, nor any apprehension of consequences to himself.
Add to these facts, - others in proof, - & it must be seen that the jury was urged to find the verdict of guilty, by the enormity of the act if the perpertrator were sane, - rather than a satisfactory opinion that he was sane. It is manifest they were not satisfied that he was sane, - or they could not have found mitigating circumstances. This fact shows they were in doubt- & doubting, they should have acquitted.
