It may be further remarked, that the records of 1859 and 1860, do not disclose an aggregate proper for comparison with the aggregates of other years, for the reason that during those years the interviews of the Governor with convicts at the annual visitations of the prisons, were noted and entered as applications for pardons. In other years the memoranda of such interviews have not been entered in the Registers of Applications; consequently, the aggregates of these two years are too great for the purpose of comparison, to the extent of the number of visitation interviews recorded; and, therefore, deducted at the foot of that part of the table devoted to those years. Thus, it will be seen, the aggregates of all the years are made comparable, while the table shows the true state of the records. Had my interviews with convicts during the years 1865 and 1866 been included as applications for pardons in the tabular statement of those years, the totals of applications would have been increased by hundreds.

In this connection, it seems proper to add that the number of applications yearly made, affords a very inadequate idea of the labor imposed upon the Chief Executive officer of the State by his investiture with the pardoning power. An application for pardon, although denied, still remains on file as an open case, until the sentence has become satisfied, either by its expiration or by the death or discharge of the convict. And while open,

each application is subject to be reviewed at any time because of the addition of new matter or the solicitation of those whose heartfelt interest will demand renewed attention. Thus, at the beginning of the year 1866 there were on file 392 open cases; and there were during the year 467 additional cases presented, making a total of 859 applications, each of which demanded the executive attention, at least once, and many of them required repeated reviewal, because of additional documentary and oral representations. The applications filed during that year, as in other years, constituted little if any more than one-half of the number which the Governor was called upon to decide. If to this is added the annual visitation to the State prisons, the duties imposed on the Governor in this department of the public service may be quite correctly estimated.

As will be inferred, the applications yearly made furnish no data of the proportion between applications made and pardons granted

To ascertain this proportion, the whole number of open cases, and not the cases filed in any one year, should be made the basis for calculation. I regret that owing to the manner in which the records have been kept, I am unable to furnish the number of re-examinations of cases on file during each year.

Very respectfully,

R. E, FENTON.