Shoe Switching Time?
One rarely sees extended, detailed argumentation as to why someone should not get, or does not deserve, a pardon. In some sense, criminals are just criminals. But the direction of efforts to justify pardon for Scooter Libby do bring to mind a situation with interesting similarities that one finds in the Annual Report of the Attorney General for 1915. The case involved a Dr. Thomas J. Kemp, who was on his way to a two-year stint in federal prison, when Woodrow Wilson commuted the sentence to a mere five hundred dollar fine.
Kemp, a suspected "abortionist," practiced medicine in the District of Columbia. But local authorities were unable to come up with solid evidence against him. Eventually, a post-office inspector came to the rescue and mailed Dr. Kemp a “decoy” letter from Concord, North Carolina. Kemp opened the “decoy” and read about the plight of a married man who had gotten a “young girl” pregnant. The author claimed that he could not marry the girl and her reputation would be ruined unless something was done. Kemp was asked if he could do something about the situation and an inquiry was made as to the costs associated with the services.
The Doctor responded to the letter with an unsigned reply. He agreed to assist, but said the process would take about a week and the cost would be two hundred dollars. So, he was convicted of mailing "prohibited matter" even though one Nettie Bunker responded to the same "decoy" letter, at about the same time, and was charged and acquitted.
The U.S. Pardon Attorney "strongly urged" that the "decoy" letter was inappropriate despite the government's defense that it was "acting only in an effort to ascertain who were the law-breakers." In addition, the pardon attorney was annoyed there was no evidence that Kemp had ever used the mails improperly or had even been accused of doing so. The doctor had simply been induced to commit a federal crime. Since the offense "possibly never would have been committed" but for the "improper" actions of the inspector, the pardon attorney considered the prison sentence "excessive punishment under the circumstances."
Attorney General James McReynolds was in general agreement with the pardon attorney, but even more impressed by the fact that the entire case was built on “a fiction.” After all, there was no girl and there was no abortion. Thus, the only crime that had been committed was result of "incitement and procurement of a Federal officer." McReynolds agreed a prison sentence would be "unjust" and recommended that Wilson commute Kemp’s sentence to a one thousand dollar fine - a figure which the President then cut in half.
Kemp’s case appeared to be a matter of legal perspective and nuance within the administration. But outside, where Republicans were watching, the angles were considerably different. It turned out, Kemp was the son-in-law of a member of Congress, Senator Duncan Fletcher, a Democrat from the state of Florida. The New York Times reported it was “understood” that Fletcher had “interceded in behalf of his son-in-law.” James R. Mann (R-Illinois) suspected "political influence" was responsible for Kemp's commutation and promised to "take the lid off" of the entire affair. Mann told reporter it was clear that the President was "afraid" to "have the facts made public." Indeed, he promptly entered a resolution in the House of Representatives which called on President Wilson to “transmit” all “papers or copies there of” relating to the application for clemency. The Times reported Democratic House leaders were “disinclined” to discuss Mann’s resolution but were in “general agreement” that it would not be acted upon by the Rules Committee.
Two reports from the Judiciary Committee focused on the Kemp commutation. Representative Andrew Volstead (R-Minnesota) authored a minority report insisting either house of Congress had the right to call upon the President for information concerning a pardon. In Volstead’s view, “pitiless publicity” was a “great safeguard against the abuse of power.” On the other hand, Representative Edwin Yates Webb (D-North Carolina) filed a report that recommended a resolution of inquiry be put on the table “that the power of the President in granting pardons is derived from the Constitution, that it is unlimited, rests entirely within his discretion, and cannot be controlled, limited, or regulated by Congress.”
Kemp, a suspected "abortionist," practiced medicine in the District of Columbia. But local authorities were unable to come up with solid evidence against him. Eventually, a post-office inspector came to the rescue and mailed Dr. Kemp a “decoy” letter from Concord, North Carolina. Kemp opened the “decoy” and read about the plight of a married man who had gotten a “young girl” pregnant. The author claimed that he could not marry the girl and her reputation would be ruined unless something was done. Kemp was asked if he could do something about the situation and an inquiry was made as to the costs associated with the services.
The Doctor responded to the letter with an unsigned reply. He agreed to assist, but said the process would take about a week and the cost would be two hundred dollars. So, he was convicted of mailing "prohibited matter" even though one Nettie Bunker responded to the same "decoy" letter, at about the same time, and was charged and acquitted.
The U.S. Pardon Attorney "strongly urged" that the "decoy" letter was inappropriate despite the government's defense that it was "acting only in an effort to ascertain who were the law-breakers." In addition, the pardon attorney was annoyed there was no evidence that Kemp had ever used the mails improperly or had even been accused of doing so. The doctor had simply been induced to commit a federal crime. Since the offense "possibly never would have been committed" but for the "improper" actions of the inspector, the pardon attorney considered the prison sentence "excessive punishment under the circumstances."
Attorney General James McReynolds was in general agreement with the pardon attorney, but even more impressed by the fact that the entire case was built on “a fiction.” After all, there was no girl and there was no abortion. Thus, the only crime that had been committed was result of "incitement and procurement of a Federal officer." McReynolds agreed a prison sentence would be "unjust" and recommended that Wilson commute Kemp’s sentence to a one thousand dollar fine - a figure which the President then cut in half.
Kemp’s case appeared to be a matter of legal perspective and nuance within the administration. But outside, where Republicans were watching, the angles were considerably different. It turned out, Kemp was the son-in-law of a member of Congress, Senator Duncan Fletcher, a Democrat from the state of Florida. The New York Times reported it was “understood” that Fletcher had “interceded in behalf of his son-in-law.” James R. Mann (R-Illinois) suspected "political influence" was responsible for Kemp's commutation and promised to "take the lid off" of the entire affair. Mann told reporter it was clear that the President was "afraid" to "have the facts made public." Indeed, he promptly entered a resolution in the House of Representatives which called on President Wilson to “transmit” all “papers or copies there of” relating to the application for clemency. The Times reported Democratic House leaders were “disinclined” to discuss Mann’s resolution but were in “general agreement” that it would not be acted upon by the Rules Committee.
Two reports from the Judiciary Committee focused on the Kemp commutation. Representative Andrew Volstead (R-Minnesota) authored a minority report insisting either house of Congress had the right to call upon the President for information concerning a pardon. In Volstead’s view, “pitiless publicity” was a “great safeguard against the abuse of power.” On the other hand, Representative Edwin Yates Webb (D-North Carolina) filed a report that recommended a resolution of inquiry be put on the table “that the power of the President in granting pardons is derived from the Constitution, that it is unlimited, rests entirely within his discretion, and cannot be controlled, limited, or regulated by Congress.”
posted by P.S. Ruckman, Jr. | 1:08 AM
<< Home