New-York daily tribune., 1856-03-17


held legally responsible, and jury returned YER
dict of simple assault and battery. The judge having
heard what was alleged IN excuse for the defendants
IN The ysy Of proyocstiOn, sentenced Coburn topay
fnc Of FIVE hundred dollsrs, and to be imprisoned
nine months, and Daltcn to pay fine OF two nun
dred and fifty dollars, and to be imprisoned tour
months and half To the other assault, that on
Parker the defendants pleaded guilty and that case
being before another judge, they were sentenced
each to pay fine of twenty-five dollars.
Yet with ell this extraordinary difference in the
amount of punishment imposed, as the eases stood
BE- fore the Court there was no difference whatever
between them. The first judge had no right to
take into account Summers subsequent death.
The iury by bringing in verdict Of assault and
battery. had in substance and in law brought in a
verdict of acquitta on the charge Of manslaughter
We do not intend to imply that the punishment
inflicted in this case was any more severe than the
circumstances fully warranted All we sayi that
the Court was obliged 70 regard it and treat il as
case Of assault and battery, and that only; and
that in this and in every other respect proper to be
taken into consideration by the Court, both the
cases-that in which Sumner was assaulted and
fiat in which Parker was assaulted-were precisely
alike. Why, then, the extraordinary difference in
the amount of punishment imposed
The Judge who rendered the second sentence at
tempted to apologize for it, and at the same time
to dsayow any censure on the severer sentence N
the other case, by suggesting that the conspiracy
TO entrap Sumner to CObern's house-consplracy
itself alone being great Offense, and Also great
aggravation of every ofense with the perpetratOn
of which it is connected-was one main element
taken into account by the Judge who inflicted
punishment in the other case. But was there not
ike conspiracy to entrap Parker Then again,
as to the provocatoD, which was this Judges eI-
cuse for the lenieucy of his sentence-was not the
proyocaton In both cases precisely the same ?
There, is besides, ns to this matter of proyocaton,
something still further to be said. If provocation
is to excuse deliberately planned assault and bat
tery is not provocstOn also to excuse the yery acts
which in these cases constituted the alleged provo
cation under which the defendants acted fCo-
burn aud Dalton were to be excused for yielding 70
the rage of jealousy, were not Sumner and Parker
to be excused for yielding to another passion not
bit less imperious7 The idea that temptation is to
excuse the commission of an Offense can only be
acted upon to a very limited extent in the admins
tration of criminal law. The great object of the
criminal law is to put stop to the commission OF
certain acts no matter what the temptation may
be. In a case of arson, or theft, or forgery, the
temptation under which man acts goes for very
little. Why should it be otherwise in a case of as
sault and battery
Indeed, it is not too much to say that the made
quate punishments inflicted upon this offense,
is one of the greatest disgraces of our administra
tion of criminal law-serving rather as tempta-
ton to its commttal than as prevention OF 1t,
and exhibiting our administration of criminal JUS
tice. 80 far as relates to this subject as in the
highest degree inconsistent, illogical, barbarous,
and inefficient.
In the case of an assault and battery we are
not merely to consider the amount OF personal in.
Jury inflicted. 1t is not merely an injury but an
insult. 1t ia that in which its sting consists Now,
in barbarous countries, in the Southern States for
instance, it is open to the person who has suffered
this insult to challenge the aggressor, and at the
risk of his own life to seek to wipe it out in that
aceressors blood or, he may take occasion to
shoot him quietly on some convenient opportunity,
certain that the provOcatlon be has received will
be held good plea in justification
We have done away with all that. BY our law
il is a highly criminal ofense to send challenger
and to shoot man deliberately, no matter what
The prOyCcatiOn may have been, is murder SO
much the more reason then, that the law, having
taken from us the right of ayenging ourselves,
should infict some punishment upon the aggressor
adequate to prevent him and others from the repe.
titOn of the Ofense. Yet how totally Inadequate,
in this point of view is fine of from SO to $lO0
the utmost limit of punishment common in these
cases An assault being intended not so much to
inure as to disgrace tie person assaulted, the pun
ishment also ought to be of a kind to retort this
disgrace upon him who makes the assault; and that
can only be by imprisonment.
In a community where the law regards all as
equal, the person of every man ought to be sacred
and TIE law ought to protect that sanctity, by max
ing assaults punishable in all with imprisOn-
ment 1t is only aggrayatiOn to an assaulted per-
son TO have the insOent aggressor merely fined some
ten or twenty dollars. Such punishment is but
an invitation to the assailant to repeat gratdca-
ton Of his yindctive passions, which he may think
very cheapy purchased at that price. On the
other hand, it is but temptation to the other
party to throw the law to the dogs, and to take
into his own hand the punishment Of criminal acts
Of which he may have been the OSject-a system
under which evidently the bravo and the bully has