fore been arrested for nor charged with the commission of any crime, and up to the time of his arrest had been steadily employed, and was of good repute for integrity and sobriety in the community where he was born and always lived. 2. That the crime laid in said bill of indictment, to which your petitioner pleaded guilty, as aforesaid, was falsely swearing to the age of his wife in procuring a license to marry in the city of Philadelphia, and which marriage has been consummated. 3. That the wife of your petitioner since the day he was sentenced has been residing with the family of petitioner in the city of Wilmington, awaiting your petitioner's releases in order that they may resume their joint domestic life properly under the law, for the needs of which your petitioner has now awaiting him permanent employment. 4. That between the time of his arrest and his arraingment your petitioner was confined in jail in the city of Wilmington for the period of seven days, which, if added to the time your petitioner will have served at the date of the hearing of this application, will nearly complete the two months of the sentence. 5. That the civil disability of being incompetent as a witness, incidental to the crime in question, considering the former good reputation of the petitioner and his youth, imposes a punishment, it is respectfully submitted, disproportionate to the crime committed, and which disability your petitioner believes was not contemplated nor intended by his Honor, the sentencing Judge. In support of the application several letters have been presented to the Board, testifying to the good character of the petitioner. We quote the letter from the Hon. Geo. M. Fisher, Mayor of Wilmington: "I have known Richard M. Morris, Jr., for eight or ten years. He has always been a quiet, industrious boy, and a young man of good habits and no evil tendencies. He comes from good people and has been well reared. No charge has been brought against him, on the contrary, he has the full respect of this community. I respectfully commend him to the favor of the Board of Pardons, with the belief that his life hereafter will vindicate any leniency which you may show him." We also quote the letter written by the Rev. Henry S. Dalany: "I have known Richard M. Morris, Jr., since he was a boy. I am a near neighbor, a Methodist minister, was pastor of the family about ten years ago, and although absent for several years, have been pastor of the family the second time for more than two years. Richard, as I saw him, was a modest, retiring, refined young man. We sincerely hope you will liberate this young man that he may return to his devoted young wife, parents and friends." Letter of similar tenor have also been received from Charles H. Blaine, president of the council; from Henry C. Conrad, city solicitor, and from Harry W. Lowe, president of the Board of Health, all of Wilmington. In view of the facts and circumstances as above set forth; taking into special consideration the fact that the applicant has employment awaiting him and friends willing to assist him, and giving due weight to the good character which he has established, and considering the fact that he has served nearly the time of his sentence, the Board respectfully recommends that a pardon may now issue to the said Richard M. Morris, Jr. WM. M. BROWN, Lieutenant Governor FRANK M. FULLER, Secretary of the Commonwealth, HAMTON L CARSON. Attorney General. JAMES W. LATTA, Secretary of Internal Affairs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Board of Pardons. His Excellency, Samuel W. Pennypacker, Governor. Sir: The applicant for a recommendation of pardon, John Henry, was, on June 4, 1902, sentenced to a two years' term of imprisonment in the Western Penitentiary for the crime of larceny. This sentence has, by commutation, expired; and the said John Henry is now undergoing imprisonment on sentence, imposed the same date, for the crime of shooting with intent to kill. The latter crime was committed while the applicant was resisting arrest. It appears that Warren Davidson, Elmer Gillett and Clyde Stockewell, who attempted to arrest, hancuff and imprison the applicant and his companion, were acting without any right, warrant or authority. Further, that the men named were armed with deadly weapons, and their intention was to make the arrest by use of arms if necessary. It was in resisting such arrest that the crime, as alleged, was committed. The basis for a recommendation of pardon, at this time, is the critical condition of the health of the prisoner, as evidenced by the following letter: Western Penitentiary of Pennsylvania. Wm. McC. Johnson, M. D., Warden. Allegheny, Pa., January 27, 1904. George D. Thorn, Esq., Clerk of the Pardon Board, Harrisburg, Pa. Dear Sir: Your letter of inquiry, dated Jan. 25, concerning the health of John Henry, known here as No. A-3540, has been referred to me. In reply will say that Henry is a tubercular subject, as evidened by a scrofulous condition of his system; glands in the armpits now broken down and discharging. He is a delicate felllow, and we have been compelled to watch him closely since his arrival here. He was in a debilitated condition when he arrived, but has 5 Sen. Jour. rallied some little. However, to a man in his .condition, tubercular confinement is always hard and dangerous, due to the fact of his inability to be out in the open air and sunshine when confined. His case is and will be serious as long as he is confined. Yours very truly, (Signed) O. J. BENNETT, For the reason above given the Board 'respectfully recommends that a pardon may now issue to the said John Henry. FRANK M. FULLER, Secretary of the Commonwealth. HAMPTON L. CARSON, Attorney General ISAAC B. BROWN, Secretary of Internal Affairs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Board of Pardons, His Excellency, Samuel W. Pennypacker, Governor. Sir: In the court of quarter sessions of the peace in and for the city of Philadelphia, at July sessions 1902, Phillip Coyle was indicated for an attempt to commit larceny and an attempt to enter, with intent to steal; and was tried and convicted, and on September 22nd, 1902 was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution and to undergo imprisonment in the County Jail for the term of two years. The prisoner was arrested in company with Charles Morgan, alias John Hawkins, and Walter Missimer; and at the time of the arrest the police officer shot Morgan, severely wounding him. Morgan was confined to the hospital, and his severe hurt put a serious aspect upon the cases, and the officer was much interested in the conviction of the prisoners to justify the shooting. The testimony of the officer was, that he was patroling the street, in citizens clothes and saw the three boys loitering on the cellar-door of a Girard avenue store, late at night. Remaining concealed, he saw two of the party lift the smaller boy towards the transom, and then saw them desist in their attempt to enter the store. He approached the boys and asked them what they were doing. He testified that they attempted to run away, and that he was compelled to shoot Morgan to stop them from running. Coyle had never before been arrested, and had never been previously charged with any crime. The testimony further showed that Morgan, alias Hawkins, had served a term in the Eastern Penitentiary. For this offense he was sentenced to imprisonment in the Eastern Penitentiary for the term of eighteen months, and Missimer was committed to the House of Refuge. The reasons presented in support of the application for a recommendation of pardon, are as follows: 1. Prior to his arrest and conviction Phillip Coyle bore an excellent reputation. 2. The said Philip Coyle has been sufficiently punished for the crime of which he was convicted, if he was guilty of the same. 3. There are grave doubts as to the legality of the conviction of the said Phillip Coyle. 4. The youth of Coyle (nineteen years). Taking into consideration the youth of the applicant, and the previous good reputation sustained by him, the Board believes this to be a proper case for the exercises of Executive clemency; and therefore respectfully recommends that a pardon may now issue to the said Phillip Coyle. WM. M. BROWN, Lieutenant Governor. FRANK M. FULLER, Secretary of the Commonwealth. HAMPTON L. CARSON, Attorney General ISAAC B. BROWN, Secretary of Internal Affairs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Board of Pardons, His Excellency Samuel W. Pennypacker, Governor: Sir: William Busch, the applicant for pardon, was convicted in the court of oyer and terminer of Elk county of murder in the first degree on September 23, 1886, and the next day was sentenced to be hanged. On April 1, 1887, the Board of Pardons, after a careful examination and review of all the testimony in the case to it submitted, recommended to the Governor a commutation of sentence to impris onment for life, and in their recommendation, after reciting the facts of the case, the Board find and say: "The Board is of the opinion that all the incidents connected with the killing of Philip Busch by his brother, William Busch, were inseparable parts of the same affray, and that the elements of murder in the first degree do not exist, for the killing was done in hot blood-there was no cooling time between the last attack of Philip on William until the latter followed Philip downstairs, saw and seized the gun on the wall, at the foot of the stairs, loaded and within easy reach, and did the killing; there is no evidence going to show premeditation." The reasons upon which the application for a recommendation of pardon is based are as follows: "The Board of Pardons, after a careful examination of this case, having decided on April 1, 1887, 'that the elements of murder in the first degree do not exist' in the case, and the applicant having served more than the maximum penalty for murder in the second degree, with allowance for good behavior as provided by law, he is now entitled to be released from further imprisonment." We quote from a letter written by the Rev. J. L. Milligan, chaplain of the Western Penitentiary: "He (Busch) has been here long enough. As far as I can learn the crime was committed largely, if not entirely, in self-defense. He has been very patient and uncomplaining during all the years of his imprisonment. He has been industrious and obedient, and hence exemplary in his conduct. I feel sure if he were released he would avoid all associations of evil which led to his crime." (The commutation for good behavior allowed on a twenty-year sentence, is seven years and nine months, as shown by the act of 1901.) The following correspondence has been submitted to the Board, as part of the history of the case: "The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, "Hon. James A. Beaver, Bellefonte, Pa.: "Dear General: I remember distinctly the testimony in the Buschi case and the unanimous feeling of the Board concerning him. I was recorder of the Board at the time, and wrote the reasons for the commutation, this duty requiring a very careful examination and analysis of the evidence in the case. The truth was and is, that there was absolutely no testimony warranting a first degree verdict; a verdict of second degree was hardly sustained, and the logical conclusion to be drawn from every fact testified to was acquittal on the ground of self-defense. William Busch was a small man, in deadly fear of his brother, Philip, from whom he had received repeated beatings; he had been threatened by Philip time and again, and was fully pursuaded that Philip meant to kill him. Philip was a large man, of exceptionally powerful frame, and physi cally able to kill William if he desired to do so. On the morning of the killing Philip again attacked William; the latter fled from him and ran downstairs. At the foot of the stairs hung old man Busch's rifle-right opposite the place where William landed on the floor, and was the first thing to naturally catch his eye. He grabbed the gun and shot Philip, who was close upon him. No feeling but that of fear was the basic motive for the killing; an accident placed the weapon in his hands; he did not seek it, and only terror impelled its use. The case made an impression upon me, and I give the above brief outline as it comes back to me. do not hesitate to say that you will be entirely justified, by all the facts proven, in writing a letter to the Board recommending Busch's pardon. I |