"ך

give him steady employment at our New York store, as soon as he returns there; the father is and has been in our employ for over two years past, and the boy also worked for us before his arrest, as driver of our delivery wagon, and was always faithful and honest."

His conduct in the Reformatory was good. It was represented to me that the grief of his mother, caused by his imprisonment, had greatly affected her both in mind and body.

I was thoroughly convinced that the public good would not suffer by the discharge of this prisoner, and that his welfare would be promoted by his return to his parents and his former employment.

This led me to grant the pardon prayed for.

September 26, 1883. James McGee. Sentenced August 8, 1883; county, Rensselaer; crime, petit larceny; term, six months; prison, Albany County Penitentiary.

This convict was convicted of petit larceny by the police magistrate of the city of Troy, on the 8th day of August, 1883, and sentenced to the Albany County Penitentiary for six months.

It was represented to me that this young man did not belong to the criminal class, and that he seemed thoroughly penitent. Since his imprisonment his father suddenly died, leaving his mother and six children younger than the prisoner entirely without the means of support. I had a petition signed by prominent citizens of Troy, including the police authorities, asking his pardon, and the police magistrate who convicted and sentenced him earnestly urged his release, and expressed the decided opinion that the reformatory objects of punishment had been accomplished in his

case.

I had the pledge of the party by whom his father was employed, that the son, if released, should have the place made vacant by his father's death, thus relieving the public authorities from the support of the family.

I deemed the facts presented to me a sufficient justification for the pardon of the convict.

October 9, 1883. Emma Orlock. Sentenced October 15, 1873; county, New York; crime, arson first degree; term, life; prison, Sing Sing, transferred to Kings County Penitentiary.

The offense of which this prisoner was convicted consisted in setting fire in the night-time to the contents of a trunk belonging to her, for the purpose of obtaining the insurance upon the same. The fire in a very slight degree burned the floor of the room in which the trunk was located. This room being a part of an inhabited dwellinghouse the offense was charged as arson in the first degree.

I should have been much better satisfied that the conviction was exactly right if it had been of arson in the third degree, for which the maximum imprisonment would have been seven years.

The attorney who prosecuted for the people wrote that the counsel for the convict attempted to induce her to offer a plea of guilty of a degree of arson lower than the first, and that if it had been offered he believed it would have been accepted. This officer, in full possession of all the facts, strongly recommend the pardon. The character and standing of the others who asked for this convict's release, made the strongest possible petition. The prisoner at the time. of her conviction had not long been in this country, having been born and reared in Austria. She but imperfectly understood our language and had no friends here, except

such as she had gained by faithful service as a domestic in several very respectable families in the city of New York. These and several other philanthropic persons interested themselves in her behalf and promised that if released, she should be immediately sent to her friends at her distant home.

She was imprisoned, before her conviction and since, more than ten years, and during her incarceration she had been obedient to the rules of the prison and well behaved.

Upon the representations made to me upon this application, I was entirely convinced that this convict had been imprisoned as long as justice, the public good and the reformatory purpose of punishment require.

October 26, 1883. William Rabsen. Sentenced January 17, 1877; county, Rensselaer; crime, rape; term, fifteen years; prison, Clinton.

This young man was seventeen years of age when sentenced. The complainant was nearly the same age, and resided with her mother, who kept a disreputable house in the city of Albany. The two went together for a ride on Sunday afternoon, and about two o'clock the next morning the girl came home accompanied by two men, to whom she had complained that she had been outraged.

The next day she made complaint to the police, accompanied by her mother, and they were immediately taken before the grand jury which was then in session, when there were presented, in corroboration of the testimony of the complainant, the clothes which it was alleged that she

wore at the time of the commission of the offense, the condition of which went far towards establishing in the minds of the grand jury the guilt of the accused. An

indictment was promptly found, and the prisoner, under the influence of fright and on the advice of counsel, who, upon the proof presented saw no chance of escape, pleaded guilty to a crime of which he, all the time, protested that he was innocent.

I found, among the papers presented upon the application for pardon, the affidavits of three women, who at the time the offense is charged to have been committed, lived in the same house with the complainant and her mother. I examined all of these women (except one who had died), and another one who also lived in the same house, and also a number of the members of the police who were connected with the case. I had also the statement of one of the men who accompanied the complainant to her house on the night in question, and of still another party, who saw and talked with the prisoner and the complainant just previous to the first complaint on the part of the girl of any ill usage.

From the affidavits referred to and the statements thus obtained, I was satisfied that the charge made against the prisoner was without foundation, and that the evidence produced in its support was false and fabricated.

The prosecuting attorney who presented the case to the grand jury, in a personal interview, expressed the same opinion; and in a letter written by him in regard to the case, he used the following language:

"After the excitement had subsided, I became satisfied that the whole transaction was a blackmailing scheme; and Judge Strait, who sentenced him, told me during his lifetime that he had come to the same conclusion."

The prison officials spoke in the highest praise of the conduct of the convict since his incarceration, and reported that he had learned to read and write.

He appeared to have no friends who interested themsslves in his behalf; but after an imprisonment of almost seven years I did him justice, as nearly as I could, by granting him a pardon with a full restoration to citizenship.

October 31, 1883. J. Harvey Lyboult. Sentenced February 1882; county, Onondaga; crime, larceny; sentence suspended.

13,

The offense of the defendant consisted in stealing various small articles for which he had no possible use, and which he neither sold nor gave away.

The judge of the court in which the indictment was found stated, that upon an investigation had after his plea of guilty, it appeared that prior to his offense the defendant had undergone a severe illness and had become addicted to the use of morphine, and it was claimed that he was so much under its influence at the time of taking the property which he was accused of stealing, that he was not responsible for his acts. The court and District Attorney believing that this might be the case, sentence was suspended upon his plea, and has not yet been pronounced, though nearly two years have elapsed. The subsequent conduct of the defendant has fully justified the court in its clemency, he having, since the conviction, entirely abstained from the use of morphine, and having by his exemplary life fully deserved and received the respect and confidence of his neighbors and fellow townsmen. The Judge who accepted his plea of guilty, the District Attorney who prosecuted the indictment, and a great many respectable citizens who know the defendant well and were acquainted with the circumstances of his case, earnestly requested that he be pardoned and restored to citizenship.

It was doubtful if the defendant lost his rights as a citizen