The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1840-06-06

r. jail foS thopsymcne 81 any 4n1 - I'M may
Il. county eoSrisscnesu may. II b mA1s % sppesI
70 shsr sstsacon that the person % confined cannot
pay such fine and costs, order tho sheriff o. jAiler Of
such county 70 discharge such person from imprson
order il writing, shall discharge such person accord
inglv Fropidsd That the commissioners may al
any time thereafter order and cause to be Issued an
execution against the body lands, goods or chaiteIs
Of the person 20 discharged from imprisonment, for
the amount of such fines and costs."
Ii will be observed by the curious student Of
our penal code, that the punishment prescribed
for the various offences defined in the original
and supplementary acts, such as theft, burglary,
bribery, malicious mischief, riots, assaults, bat
teries, attempts to corrupt jurors, &c. was fine
and Imprisonment in the county jail, and that
the remedy for enforcing payment for the fines
imposed was BY process Of g execution against
the body, goods, chAttels, lands. and tcnements
Of such offenders, for the amount Of such fine,
and the costs Of such prosecution, which might
and tenements, or body Of the offender"
II appears, therefore, that any person convict
ed and fined for any one Of the offences specified
in the original or supplementary act could, I'M
der tina 9Th section OF the former procure his
discharge from imprisonment by application TO
the board of county commissioners perna-
nent body, consisting Of three members elected
by the people of the county, and satisfying them
that he was unable .topay such fine and costsn
From this review Of the laws existing at the
time the supplementary bill for the punishment
| Of minor offences was before the Senate OF
Ohio il plainly and incontestably results that the
operation Of the 10Th section, had il been adopt
ed, must have been limited to very small class
Of offenders, and those of the most vicious and
hardened kind. For il could not have operated
on any one of the following Glasses
/. Those who had sufficient means to dis
charge the fine and costs of prosecution for, as
to such, they would Of course relieve themselves
al once, by making payment.
| 2. Those who were poor and destitute; for
they could procure their discharge from prison
by making il appear, to the satisfaction Of the
| beard Of couRty commissioners that they were
unable 10 pay, according to the 37th section.
! 3. Nor could il extend to those who might be
willing to pay the fine by labor on the highways,
according to the provisions Of the 10th section,
already quoted.
| tence to ehard labor" under the provisions Of
the 18th section, before referred to,
5. And, lastly, il could by no possibility reach
the case Of an honest man.
| Then on whom would it operate, you will
ask? Sir, | will tell you on whom it would OPP
crate; il would take effect as il was intended it
should, on that class of sturdy offenders who by
fraudulent sale or concedlmeni Of their pro-
perry had placed It beyond the reach Of execu,
ton, thereby adding to their original offence the
preparation Of fraud. Persons Of this de-
scription having property, but refusing to sur
| render il up, or apply il III payment of their
fines could not, and ought not to be relieved as
persons unable TO pay. No one can fail to see
| that the 37th section is comprehensive enough
in its remedial provisions to embrace the case Of
every offender who does not by his own fraudu-
lent act deprive himself of its profered benefits
To those only, then, who preferred fraud and
evasion to probty and fair dealing, in the appli-
cation Of their property TO the discharge Of
| fine imposed for criminal offence, could the
| 10th section of the bill have been applied
But il is said that assaults and batteries, though
breaches Of the law, do not, as most other Of
fences, imply any moral turpitude in those who
commit them; and yet they are not exempted
| from the operation Of that section. True, they
are not But, in regard to offences Of that kind,
have already shown that they might be dis
posed Of under the provisions Of the bill that
contained the section objected tn in two diffe-
rent ways: LIST. BY plea Of guilty before a
justice Of the peace; 2ndly. BY amcable agree
ment and compromise between the parties
Then, if these methods of adjustment failed, a
prosecution by indictment was discouraged by
the provisions that required the prosecutor to en-
dorse the Indictment for costs, and the party ac-
cused to be recognized to appear before the
court.
Under these various regulations, obviously in
tended, as indeed their effect was, to discourage
prosecutions for assault and battery, but few
cases, and those only of an aggravated kind,
which the parties could not arrange before ma
gistrate or settle between themselves, were ever
likely to be carried into court.
Suppose, however, a person imprisoned on
account of fine for assault and battery-an
event thatcould never occur under the legal en-
actments to which ] have referred, without
more than ordinary degree Of delinquency--he
could, nevertheless, procure his enlargement by
any Of the means before indicated. And il he
did not avail himself Of them, but chose rather
to be disposed of under the 10Th section, ii would
clearly be his own fault.
In conclusion of my remarks on this branch of
the case, would ask gentlemen to compare the
10Th with the 18th section, with view to adjust
their relative claims upon our appreciation. If
am not greatly deceived, the latter section con-
fers power far mole likely to prove dangerous
and oppressive in its exercise than the former,
and yet it passed by silent vote and without
opposition from any one.
Finally, what is the offence of General Harri-
son in the premises2 Why, sir in 1891 the
House Of Representatives of the General As
sembly Of Ohio, passed certain bill, by vote
of two to one, and sent it to the Senate, where
a motion was made TO strike out particular sec
ton, and General Harrison, with other intelli-
gent and patriotic gentlemen, voted against the
motion. And this, if you will believe me, is his
offence! A vote given nearly twenty years ago
against rejecting proposition that had received
the deliberate sanction of an immense majority
OF the immediate representatives Of the People
and on question concerning which different
opinions were and might be very nnocenty en-
tertained, is now brought forward as matter Of
grave accusation, and one that ought to arouse
/ The whole American pe0po with ~,
for the safety of their liberties On the contrary
] | shall be greatly mistaken &c they do moi with