In re Raymond

• Decision Date: 10 September 1901
• Citation: 110 F. 155
• Parties: In re RAYMOND.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

110 F. 155

In re RAYMOND.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

September 10, 1901

Syllabus by the Court.

On the assumption that the Pennsylvania act of May 11, 1901 entitled 'An act providing for the commutation of sentences, for good behavior of convicts in prisons penitentiaries, workhouses, and county jails of this State and regulations governing the same,' is by congressional legislation applicable to United States prisoners confined in the Eastern Penitentiary of that state at the time of its enactment, a United States prisoner so confined has no right to commutation for good conduct in the absence of a report on that subject by the board of prison officials to the governor and action thereon by the latter, with the approval of the designated state officers.

John Kent Kane, Chancellor D. Holden, and Hampton L. Carson, for petitioners.

Joseph W. Thompson and Wm. M. Stewart, Asst. U.S. Attys., and James B. Holland, U.S. Atty., for respondents.

BRADFORD District Judge.

Charles W. Raymond had resorted to a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from alleged unlawful detention in the eastern penitentiary of Pennsylvania, a state institution for the confinement of prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for crime. In December, 1895, he was convicted in this court of the offence of willfully misapplying the funds of a national banking association, and was sentenced December 23, 1895, as follows:

'And now, the 23d day of December, 1895, all and singular the premises being seen and by the Court here fully understood, it is considered and adjudged that the defendant, Charles W. Raymond, be imprisoned and confined in the Eastern Penitentiary, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for the term of seven years and five calendar months; that he pay the costs of prosecution and stand committed until judgment be fully complied with; and that he be subject in all respects to the same discipline and treatment as convicts sentenced by the courts of the said Commonwealth.'

Pursuant to the sentence he was forthwith committed to the custody of the warden of the penitentiary, where he yet remains in confinement. The principal question sought to be raised in this case is whether the act of Pennsylvania of May 11, 1901, entitled 'An act providing for the commutation of sentences for good behavior of convicts in prisons, penitentiaries, workhouses and county jails of this State, and regulations governing the same,' has by congressional legislation been made applicable to United States prisoners confined in the eastern penitentiary at the time of its enactment. Section I provides that, subject to certain exceptions not material in this connection, a prisoner 'may, if the Governor shall so direct, and with the approval of the Board of Inspectors or Managers earn for himself or herself a commutation or diminution of his or her sentence or sentences' according to the specified rate.

Section 3 is as follows:

'Section 3. On any day, not later than the twentieth day of each month, the Board of Inspectors or Managers, or the warden, superintendent or keeper of each of the State prisons, penitentiaries, workhouses or county jails of this State, shall forward to the Governor a report directed to him of any convict or convicts who may be discharged the following month by reason of the commutation of his or her sentence or sentences, which shall contain the following information, namely: The full name of the convict, together with any alias which he or she may be known to have, the name of the county where the conviction was had, a brief description of the crime of which the convict was convicted; the name of the court in which the conviction was had, the name of the presiding judge, the date of the sentence, the date of the reception in the prison or penitentiary, the term and fine, the amount of commutation recommended, and the date for discharge from the prison, penitentiary, workhouse or jail, if allowed.'

Section 5 is as follows:

'Section 5. The Boards of Inspectors and Managers of the State prisons, penitentiaries, workhouses and county jails in this State shall meet once every month, before the date fixed for the transmission of their report to the Governor, as hereinbefore provided, and proceed to determine the amount of commutation which they shall recommend to be allowed to any convict, which shall not in any case exceed the amount fixed by this act. They shall have full discretion to recommend the withholding of the allowance of commutation for good conduct, or of a part thereof, as a punishment for offences against the discipline of the prison, penitentiary or county jail, or for any attempt to escape therefrom. In all cases, however, where the board shall recommend the withholding of the allowance of the whole or any part of the commutation for good conduct, they shall forward with their report to the Governor their reasons, in writing, for such disallowance and the Governor may, in his discretion, decrease or increase the amount of commutation as recommended by the said board, but he shall not increase the same beyond the amount fixed by this act: Provided, however, that the Governor shall not execute any of the rights or powers herein granted unto him until the Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Attorney General and the Secretary of Internal Affairs, or any three of them, after full hearing, upon due public notice and in open session, according to such rules as they shall provide, shall have recommended the said commutations and diminutions of sentences.'

It is admitted that the petitioner's conduct while in confinement has been excellent; that the 'as prisoner has so demeaned himself that he is entitled to whatever reduction of sentence is legally given to federal prisoners for good behavior;' and that, should he now receive commutation according to the rate specified in section 2 he would thereupon be entitled to his liberty. It is claimed, however first, that the Pennsylvania act does not apply to federal prisoners, and, secondly, that if applicable to such prisoners sentenced since the date of its passage, it does not apply to those sentenced and committed prior to its passage. If it be assumed that by virtue of federal legislation the system of commutation as a whole provided for by the act is applicable to federal prisoners sentenced and committed to the eastern penitentiary prior to its passage and there remaining confined at that time pursuant to their sentences, it by no means follows that on account of uniform good behavior on their part during their confinement they will become entitled to commutation at the specified rate, or, indeed, to any commutation. Good behavior alone does not cause the act to execute itself so far as commutation is concerned. Certain proceedings required by the act are conditions precedent to the granting of commutation. First, the board of inspectors or managers of the penitentiary shall meet 'and proceed to determine...