Officials are proper subjects of public scrutiny, and their actions of criticism. Every man in a position of trust should invite the utmost publicity of his challenged conduct. Every honest critic without personal animosity will be fair - will state the facts, will not mislead his fellows. In my inaugural address I said --- "I cannot hope to avoid mistakes, evade criticism, or escape being misunderstood, but relying upon the good sense and fair judgement of the people of the State to uphold my hands and to sustain my efforts to serve them constantly, honestly and fearlessly. I shall devote my time and talents to their cause". That promise I have kept. I have received criticism. In the matter of pardons which consume much time and which are frequently contested it is of course impossible to please both sides, and no one can properly exercise a solemn constitutional power under the mere desire to satisfy individuals, or under mere fear of criticism. My performance of the duty placed upon me by law in pardon cases has sometimes grieved my friends, and furnished golden opportunity to my enemies. The people must know that ordinarily a governor who has read every line of evidence in a case, and every paper accompanying an application for pardon, and who is acting under the obligation of an oath as well as official duty, is more apt to reach a proper conclusion than a critic who is under no such obligation, who has taken no such means to inform himself. Had I had a less regard for the wisdom of the people and had I thought they expected me to follow the wishes of anybody else instead of my own judgment, I would have been saved much trouble, conscience permitting, and my task would have been easier. I hope the people will remember that the pardoning power is not an arbitrary one. I cannot pardon one merely because I would be glad to see him out, or refuse a pardon merely because I would be glad to see him punished. There are great principles and broad humanitarian policies involved, and the obligation is just as binding upon a governor to pardon one in a proper case, as it is upon a judge to enter a judgment in a proper case, and it is just as much the duty of a governor to decline a pardon in a proper case as it is for a judge to refuse judgment in a proper case. It is just as proper to criticize a court without hearing a case as to criticize a governor without knowing the case. The Governor's duty is just as imperative and more serious and burdensome, for from him there is no appeal, and he can divide the responsibility with no associate. With several thousand convictions every year and a constant list of prisoners of near three thousand, the pardon business is important. I am not encouraging applications, but the great State of New York annually paroles proportionately to the number of her convicts more than three times as many prisoners as North Carolina pardons and commutes.