Razzle Dazzle Clemency Time?
"Most controversial" pardon lists are clumsy marketing devices, something like films about sports "greats" that emphasize short-term memory, available film clips and a cover photo of the most recent "great" - the one that still has a living target audience with money to spend.
Who remembers Charles L. Craig? No one. But, from 1917 to 1926, America's newspapers used more ink on Craig than they ever did on Marc Rich. Craig was an outspoken Tammany Hall Democrat who didn't mind hurling criticism at the "muzzled" media of his day and "monstrous" decisions coming from a Republican judge in federal judiciary. In 1921, the judge slapped him with a 60 day sentence for failure to retract the substance of several public statements. Craig avoided incarceration for a couple of years, appealing his case all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
By the time it appeared he would actually have to serve the time, Craig was the comptroller of the City of New York and Republicans were begging Calvin Coolidge to grant a pardon. The fear was that outspoken comptroller would become a martyr and "freedom of speech" and the jail term would become campaign issues. Craig saw something to this kind of thinking and was more than a little eager to go to jail. Indeed, he boasted that he would not seek clemency from the president and offered that, if necessary, he could do his job just fine behind bars. A sympathetic Samuel Gompers predicted Craig's imprisonment would be a great "public service" and discouraged any applications for clemency on his behalf. Meanwhile Democrats in Congress called for a variety of official inquiries.
While everyone was focusing on the possibility of a pardon, Coolidge landed a political bomb by using clemency in a different manner. He remitted the 60 day jail sentence (without comment) and left it up to members of the Department of Justice to spread the word that the punishment Craig received for his "false and malicious statements" was "justly deserved." Thus, the remission had been granted only in consideration of the interests of the citizens of City of New York.
Long ecstatic over the possibility of being able to reject a presidential pardon in a public and contemptuous way, Craig and his supporters were blindsided and very angry. He loudly proclaimed his innocence, repeated all of his previous slurs against the judge and accused the administration of "political cowardice" and "subterfuge." When Craig realized that he would probably not be able to "break into jail," he made a desperate reach for something like a moral victory, arguing that a "remission" and a "pardon" were really the same thing. Thus, he accepted what he said was, in effect, the president's unconditional vindication of his rights and a clear rejection of the judge's decision making.
As we watch the Scooter Libby case, it is worth our while to wait for the decision of the judge (see May 9 comments below) and to remember that clemency can take many forms.
Who remembers Charles L. Craig? No one. But, from 1917 to 1926, America's newspapers used more ink on Craig than they ever did on Marc Rich. Craig was an outspoken Tammany Hall Democrat who didn't mind hurling criticism at the "muzzled" media of his day and "monstrous" decisions coming from a Republican judge in federal judiciary. In 1921, the judge slapped him with a 60 day sentence for failure to retract the substance of several public statements. Craig avoided incarceration for a couple of years, appealing his case all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
By the time it appeared he would actually have to serve the time, Craig was the comptroller of the City of New York and Republicans were begging Calvin Coolidge to grant a pardon. The fear was that outspoken comptroller would become a martyr and "freedom of speech" and the jail term would become campaign issues. Craig saw something to this kind of thinking and was more than a little eager to go to jail. Indeed, he boasted that he would not seek clemency from the president and offered that, if necessary, he could do his job just fine behind bars. A sympathetic Samuel Gompers predicted Craig's imprisonment would be a great "public service" and discouraged any applications for clemency on his behalf. Meanwhile Democrats in Congress called for a variety of official inquiries.
While everyone was focusing on the possibility of a pardon, Coolidge landed a political bomb by using clemency in a different manner. He remitted the 60 day jail sentence (without comment) and left it up to members of the Department of Justice to spread the word that the punishment Craig received for his "false and malicious statements" was "justly deserved." Thus, the remission had been granted only in consideration of the interests of the citizens of City of New York.
Long ecstatic over the possibility of being able to reject a presidential pardon in a public and contemptuous way, Craig and his supporters were blindsided and very angry. He loudly proclaimed his innocence, repeated all of his previous slurs against the judge and accused the administration of "political cowardice" and "subterfuge." When Craig realized that he would probably not be able to "break into jail," he made a desperate reach for something like a moral victory, arguing that a "remission" and a "pardon" were really the same thing. Thus, he accepted what he said was, in effect, the president's unconditional vindication of his rights and a clear rejection of the judge's decision making.
As we watch the Scooter Libby case, it is worth our while to wait for the decision of the judge (see May 9 comments below) and to remember that clemency can take many forms.
posted by P.S. Ruckman, Jr. | 1:01 AM
<< Home