XI PARDONS, COMMUTATIONS AND REPRIEVES Pardons, Commutations and Reprieves Granted by Governor Smith 1923 PARDONS January 17, 1923. James Joseph Larkin. I have decided to grant the application to pardon Larkin, who was convicted and sentenced to a term of five years for violating sections 160 and 161 of the Penal Law. The great public interest aroused by this case prompts me to state my reasons. The statute upon which Larkin was convicted defines criminal anarchy as the doctrine "that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence * or by any unlawful means". It provides that whoever advocates such a doctrine is guilty of a felony. What Larkin did was to join in issuing the manifesto of the so-called "Left Wing" of the Socialist party. That manifesto counsels a change in our form of government to what is described as the "dictatorship of the proletariat," and that this change should be accomplished by strikes called to affect the political action of the electorate. My present action in no way involves the slightest agreement with this manifesto. I condemn the dictatorship of "the proletariat," of the farmers, of the capitalists, of the merchants or of any other section of the community. In a free democracy we know no dictatorships and we endure none. No group has any legal, social or moral right to impose by dictatorship its views or interests on any other group. Likewise I condemn the project to coerce political action by any such method as the calling of general strikes. Labor has the right to strike for the pur pose of securing reasonable improvement of its own conditions, but not for the purpose of driving other groups into the acceptance of a proposed political dictatorship. I disapprove such a project just as I would disapprove a combination of capitalists or of manufacturers to constrain political action of the laborers or the farmers by withholding from them the means of procuring the necessaries of life. I pardon Larkin, therefore, not because of agreement with his views, but despite my disagreement with them. The Court of Appeals has decided that the issuance of this manifesto constituted a violation of the statute. It is my duty to recognize to the fullest the authority of that great court. And yet I find that two of the judges dissented from the judgment in an opinion strongly maintaining that Larkin was unjustly convicted, in that he was not advocating anarchy (which is the absence of all organized government), but merely a new and radically different form of organized government. Executive clemency is the reserved power of the State, through the Governor, to mitigate the undue rigors of the law and in a proper case to temper justice with mercy. That two judges of our highest court regarded this conviction as legally unsound, is a circumstance which I take into account, though, of course, standing alone it would be an inadequate reason. But in this case I must consider it in connection with the following additional circumstances: Larkin's prison record has been good and the application for his release has the approval of many highly respected citizens, including that of the assistant district attorney, who conducted the prosecution. Moreover, there is no evidence that Larkin ever endeavored to incite any specific act of violence or lawlessness. What he did was to voice a faith that in the ultimate development of our political institutions there should be the radical change which I have described and condemned. Substantially his offense was nothing more than the issuance of a misguided opinion that in the remote future our system of government should be changed by a process abhorrent to our institutions. Our State rests too firmly upon the devotion of its citizens to require for its protection an imprisonment of five years for the mere expression of an erroneous or even an illegal, political doctrine, unaccompanied by any overt act. Moreover, I believe that the safety of the State is affirmatively impaired by the imposition of such a sentence for such a cause. Political progress results from the clash of conflicting opinions. The public assertion of an erroneous doctrine is perhaps the surest way to disclose the error and make it evidence to the electorate. And it is a distinct dis-service of the State to impose, for the utterance of a misguided opinion, such extreme punishment as may tend to deter, in proper cases, that full and free discussion of political issues which is a fundamental of democracy. Stripped of its legalistic aspects, this, to my mind, is a political case where a man has been punished for the statement of his beliefs. From the legal point of view it is a case where a man has received, during the period of unusual popular excitement following the close of the war, too severe a sentence for a crime involving no moral turpitude. One of the prevailing opinions in the Court of Appeals stated that the judge of that court recognized that "the sentence may have been too heavy for the offense". He has already served over two years in prison. This, in my judgment, fully expiates his offense. The State of New York does not ask vengeance and the ends of justice have already been amply met. For these reasons I grant the application. February 13, 1923. I have this day pardoned Ignatz Mizher, Paul Manko, Minnie Kolnin and Anna Leissman. These people were convicted under the Criminal Anarchy Statute and are serving various sentences from two to five years. All of them except Minnie Kolnin would be released under parole during this year. The evidence upon which they were convicted is pretty much the same as that urged upon the trial of James Larkin, already pardoned. Their offense consisted of spreading literature concerning the Communist Party. They all came to our shores from a country |