List of pardons granted by the President during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1894-Continued.

Sentence.

July 23, 1891; 5 years in San
Quentine, (Cal.) prison,
and to pay a fine of $100.

Nov. 2, 1893; 30 days in jail
at Wilmington, N. C.,
and pay a fine of $100.
Sentence not yet served,
owing to ill health.

When
pardoned.

June 8, 1894.

June 9, 1894.

James Hawkins, jr.

District of Columbia Feb. 20, 1894

Assault

Feb. 20, 1894; 364 days in
the U. S. jail, District of
Columbia.

.do

Reason for the exercise of Executive
clemency.

Granted. This convict has already been
confined nearly 3 years. His conduct as a
prisoner has been good and his character
before conviction was fair. It appears
that he has lately developed symptoms of
mental disturbance which, with other con-
siderations, appear to justify his pardon.
Granted. The judge who sentenced this ap-
plicant and the district attorney who pros
ecuted him strongly urge his pardon on
account of his age and impaired health,
and the representation is made to me that
confinement would endanger his health
and his life.

Sentence commuted to 6 months' actual im-
prisonment. The assault of which this
prisoner was convicted was not an aggra-
vated one and this with his prior good
character, in my opinion, justifies a mit-
igation of his sentence.

Sept. 19, 1892; to be hanged. June 21, 1894 Sentence commuted to imprisonment for
Appeal to Supreme

Court of the United

States; judgment af

firmed.

Resentenced

...do

life. The homicide of which the prisoner
was convicted, though not entirely unpro-
voked, was accompaned by incidents not
at all calculated to excite any great
amount of sympathy for the convict. In
view, however, of all the surrounding
facts, the youth of the convict, and the
recommendation of the judge who sen-
tenced him, I believe the safest thing to do
is to save the life of the condemned.
Sentence commuted to three months' actual
imprisonment. I desire to uphold those
charged with the execution of the criminal
law in their efforts to punish and prevent
the offense of carrying concealed weapons,
but in view of all the circumstances of this
case, I believe the lesser term to which the
imprisonment of this convict has been re-
duced is abundantly sufficient.

June 22, 1894 Granted. The physician of the prison in
which this convict is confined reports his
health to be in such a condition as to jus-
tify his pardon on grounds of humanity
alone.

Burrell L. White

Alabama, southern. Dec. 19, 1892 Passing counterfeit | Jan. 20, 1893; in one case to | June 22, 1894 | Granted. money upon two indictments.

1 year at hard labor at
Anamosa, Iowa; in other
case to 1 year at hard
labor. to begin at the ex-
piration of former sen-
tence.

; imprisonment for June 25, 1894
1 and one-three-hundred
and sixtieth years at Ohio
penitentiary.

This convict has less than 6
months remaining of his term, and this is
remitted upon the recommendation of the
district attorney who prosecuted him and
the judge who sentenced him.

Granted.

This convict would have but a
few days imprisonment to serve if his sen-
tence was fully executed. He is in a very
critical condition, with probably but a very
short time to live. This pardon is granted
with the hope that it may reach him in
time to permit him to die at home and
among friends.
Granted.

His

This convict is afflicted with a
disease from which he can not recover and
which makes him nearly helpless.
crime was an atrocious one and his present
condition makes it doubtful whether his
release will be a real kindness to his poor
mother, who begs for his pardon. I am.
however, moved by her prayers and by the
pitiable condition of the convict to concur
in the opinion of the judge and district
attorney that a pardon in this case is a
proper exercis of clemency.
Sentence commuted to 4 months imprison-
ment. Trespassing and cutting timber on
Government lands is much too common
and is not punished as often as it ought to
be. I am determined to second the efforts
made to punish this offense by refusing.
as a general rule, to interfere with the sen
tences in such cases. This commutation
is granted because I can not resist the
representations of the judge and district
attorney that a mitigation of this sentence
should be made.

EXHIBIT Q.-Report of Hon. George Hoadly, special assistant to the Attorney-General in the matter of the receivership of the Union Pacific Railway Company.

NEW YORK, November 1, 1894. SIR: The Union Pacific Railway, with its branches, and lines which it then controlled, having been thrown into the hands of three receivers, S. H. H. Clark, late president, Oliver W. Mink, late comptroller of the company, and E. E.lery Anderson, of New York City, at the suit of Oliver Ames second, and Samuel Carr, executors of Frederick L. Ames, deceased, and Edwin F. Atkins and Peter B. Wyckoff, complainants in equity, against the Union Pacific Railway Company and others, defendants, you appointed me on October 17, 1893, a special assistant to the Attorney-General in the matter of said receivership "and of all matters growing out of the same or connected therewith." On the same day I took the oath of office as required by law.

I have the honor to report that under the foregoing appointment I have had the advantage of your directions from time to time and have also enjoyed the assistance and cooperation of the following-named gentlemen who have since been appointed by you at my instance special assistant attorney-generals, in pursuance of law, to assist in the performance of the foregoing duty, and who have all qualified by taking the oath of office, viz: For the district of Nebraska, Gen. J. C. Cowin, Omaha; for the district of Kansas, Gen. Charles W. Blair, Kansas City; for the district of Colorado, Joel F. Vaile, esq., Denver; for the district of Wyoming, Melville C. Brown, esq., Laramie, and for the district of Oregon, C. A. Dolph, esq., Portland.

As the subsidy debt to the Government will not begin to mature until November, 1895, and as the general appearance of the Government as a litigant in the cases in which the receivership had been created, viz: pending in the districts of Nebraska, southern Iowa, western Mis. souri, Kansas, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Utah Territory, Oregon, Washington, southern New York, and Massachusetts, might interfere with the freedom of action of Congress in legislating for the protection or extension of the claim of the Government, it was and still is believed by me unwise to enter such appearance in these cases until either the failure of legislation for the adjustment or extension of the debt, or its maturity, should demonstrate it to be the will of Congress or should render it necessary for the protection of the Government that the United States should appear as a party litigant.

For these reasons the appearance of the Government has not been entered in any of the cases pending and the reasons for its nonappearance have seemed to increase, not diminish, with the lapse of time and the pressure of events.

It was, therefore, deemed best to confine the action of the Government, for the present, to the appointment of such additional receivers as might satisfy the country that the management of the property would not enure to the detriment of the Government during the period that might elapse before either an adjustment of the complicated situation, or the necessity of governmental activity for the legal protection of its interests might require other steps.

Accordingly, but with reasonable diligence, I succeeded in securing the assent of all parties in interest and of the necessary courts to the appointment of Messrs. Frederic R. Coudert, of this city, and John W. Doane, of Chicago, as additional receivers, and they were qualified and have since acted as such.

These selections were made principally, because in addition to the high intellectual and business qualifications each gentleman possesses, one of them was, at the time, a Government director, and the other had, within a comparatively recent period, occupied the same position for a series of years, and each was thus thoroughly familiar with the situation and able to enter upon the performance of duty without previous study or qualification.

It was further believed that the appointment of these gentlemen, with Mr. Anderson, who was a Government director at the time of his appointment, would justify the Executive department in postponing consideration of the suggestion made to it by eminent lawyers and members of Congress, that it was out of the power of the courts to appoint receivers for a property, which according to the terms of the laws calling it 'into being had been especially acquired, and a great governmental subsidy furnished, for public and political purposes and not for commercial ends, and which was therefore a governmental agency, rather than a private enterprise.

The next step taken was the preparation of that proposed legislation for which you had been called upon by the House of Representatives, and which, in your judgment, it was proper and necessary to submit at the same time to the Senate Committee on Pacific Railroads.

This was a work of time and study: it required conference with the committees of creditors, and full consideration of the relations of the main lines of the railway, upon which the governmental subsidy was a lien, to the branches; in short it involved the preparation of a legal scheme for the reorganization of more than 8,000 miles of railway, whose various parts were connected by consolidations, by leases, by guarantees of earnings, and by ownership of stock and otherwise.

To some extent, parts of the proposed legislation had been anticipated by bills heretofore presented to Congress, by the recommendations of the Commissioner of Railroads, and especially the reports of the commission consisting of Governor Pattison, Messrs. E. Ellery Anderson and David T. Littler, who in 1887, subjected this property and its history to a close and careful examination.

Your views were submitted in a bill, which I had afterwards the honor, once at a joint session of the House and Senate Committee on Railroads, and at a later date to the House committee alone, to explain.

The result of the consideration of the subject by the House committee appears in majority and minority reports, and a bill presented by the majority of the committee, and as this is now pending before Congress, nothing further need be said upon this subject.

I will only add, however, that the object had in view during the preparation of this legislation was not only to harmonize, if possible, and to accept, so far as seemed reasonable and consistent with the interest of the United States, the wishes and interest of the parties owning securities, by providing a method for the reasonable extension of the subsidy debt, but also to provide a complete plan of reorganization by which the best results from the future management of the property might be secured with the least possible injury to any interest of any creditor or stockholder or the public.

Since the original appointment of receivers, the earnings of the property, in common with all other railways in this country, have shrunk to an extent which if a recovery might not be expected, would indicate the total bankruptcy and inability of the railway company to meet the Government subsidy upon any reasonable terms or within any reasonable time.

H. Ex. 7-12

The beginning of slight increases of earnings, however, indicates a turn in the tide which it is to be hoped will, in the course of a brief period, ripen into a restoration of the property to its former earning capacity or at least sufficiently so to simplify the situation and render it easier to handle.

On December 18, 1893, Frank Trumbull, esq., of Denver, was appointed receiver of the property of the Union Pacific Denver and Gulf Railway Company, part of which had previously been owned by the Union Pacific Railway Company and the whole of which had been controlled by the latter company through the agency of its ownership of stock.

This appointment was made at the instance of John Evans as complainant, and is still in full force.

After it had been made, and Mr. Trumbull had qualified and taken possession, difficulties arose between the receivers of the Union Pacific Railway Company and Mr. Trumbull as receiver of the Union Pacific Denver and Gulf Railway Company, which, however, have been happily adjusted by the order and action of Judges Sanborn and Caldwell in the circuit court of the United States, sitting at Omaha, so that the relations between the two sets of receivers are now harmonious and working satisfactorily for the common end of enhancing earnings of both lines. It is, however, to be greatly regretted that the court in Colorado thought it necessary to sever any part of the property of the Union Pacific Railway from the receivership common to the whole system, at least until after Congress had had full opportunity for consideration and action as to the adjustment and determination of the future relations of the Government to the property in question.

As a consequence of the shrinkage in earnings, the receivers have been unable to meet the rentals, traffic, balances, and all of the interest and other obligations of the various corporations, the properties of which are in their charge. Accordingly, on July 3, 1894, the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company's property, (which had prior to the receivership been attached to the system by means of a lease to, and through the ownership of stock therein by the Oregon Short Line and Utah Northern Railway Company, in which last-named company the Union Pacific Railway Company is largely interested as a stockholder), in judicial proceedings taken for that purpose in the district of Oregon, was thrown into the hands of a separate receiver, and thus severed from the Union Pacific's general system.

Edward McNeill was appointed and qualified as such receiver, but it is hoped that in his hands the interests of the Union Pacific Railway system will not suffer, beyond the necessary and unavoidable consequences of the operation of the property as an independent although connecting line.

On July 16 and 17, 1894, by action taken in the districts of Kansas and western Missouri, in a suit brought by Russell Sage and George J. Gould, as trustees of the consolidated first mortgage of the Kansas Pacific Railroad, the property of the Kansas Pacific Railway in western Missouri and Kansas Pacific Railway in western Missouri and Kansas was separated from the other portions of the Union Pacific Railway and placed in the hands of three of the five receivers, viz, Messrs. Clark, Mink, and Anderson, (although complainants sought the appointment of all five).

The United States district judge in Colorado, where a like suit is pending, refused to take similar action, but referred the subject to the circuit judge, and the original receivership of the five receivers there