The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-03-04
SHOOTING SMALL BOYS AS Il
PA0TIHK

PASTIME.
FRANK MoGAUGHRAN, watchmau on coal
wharf, being of a sportive turn OF mind, and
having the example of Richard Ficken, sugar
refner, before his eyes, celebrated last Christ
mas day by indulging in the luxury of shoot
ing to death a small boy by the name of
George H. Fury, just as Ficken oemmemo-
rated the anniversary of st. Valentine year
ago in somewhat similar manner.
McGsughran proved himself the better
marksman of the two, for he slaughtered his
boy, while Ficken merely "winged," or to
speak more literally, legged" young Curran,
and was thereby enabled to escape liability
to the penalty which the laws attach to the
crime of murder. McGaughran was evidently
inspired by the example of Ficken to celebrate
the Christmas holiday in the way he did, and
there certainly appears to be no good reason
why poor coal-wharf watchman may not shoot
small boys on Christmas, if wealthy sugar
refiners can with impunity indulge in the
same sport upon st. Valentines day. 1t was
lust here, however, that McGaughran made
his greatest mistake. Shooting small boys is
not yet recognized to any given extent by the
general public or the laws of the State of
Pennsylvania as q legitimate method of
amusing the leisure hours of gentlemen of
sporting proclivities. To be sure, q license
to shoot small iboys can be purchased in the
shape of general indulgence from the Gov
ernor of the State, who is endowed with the
power of granting free pardon to any
one for all offenses, whether such offenses
have been proved in q court of law to have
been committed or not. This kind of par
don, however, takes money, and it cost
Richard Ficken the sum of $50, 900 for send
ing bullet into Arthur Curran's leg.
As McGaughran killed his boy, it would
probably have cost him at least 800, 200 to
have been released from the disagreeable
necessity of standing trial upon the charge
of murder. McGaughran being only poor
watchman, was unable to obtain any such
sum as this, and the consequence has been
that yesterday he was convicted before Judges
Ludlow and Paxson of murder in the second
degree and was sentenced to ten years i'm
prisonment in the Eastern Penitentiary
This served him right, for he should have
known that, although this is a republic, rich
men have some privileges which poor men
must sigh for in vain, and one of these is the
privilege of shooting small boys.
We doubt not but that McGaughran 8
counsel did what they could for him after a
certain fashion, but as he followed in the
footsteps of Ficken in one respect, why did
he not initiate him in another? He should
by all means have obtained the services of
Messrs William B. Mann and Lewis g. Cas-
sidy, who carry on the business of pardon
brokers as well as that of attorneys and coun-
sellors-at-law, and who have an influence with
the Executive in matters of this kind which
it would have been worth while for McGaugh-
ran to have availed himself Of Messrs
Mann and Cassidy might indeed have put the
matter through with the Governor for much
smaller sum than 100000, and the friends
of the unfortunate man who was convicted
yesterday might, by begging, borrowing, or
stealing, have possibly obtained enough cash
to have spared him the pain of public trial
on the charge of murder and sentence to
such an unpleasant place of residence as the
Eastern Penitentiary. Indeed, the more the
matter is considered, the more likely it ap-
pears that the thing could have been done at
comparatively moderate cost. With the
precedent of the Ficken case before him,
how could the Governor, to be consistent,
have refused pardon to MeGaughran Be-
sides, McG aughran probably has some
political influence, even if he lacks cash. and
as the Governor, the Attorney General,
and Mr.. William B. Mann
are all aspirants for valuable
public offices, and as they will certainly need
all the political influence they can obtain, it is
very likely that McGaughran could have got
his pardon on comparatively easy terms. AS
the matter now stands The administration of
justice in Pennsylvania is certainly open to
reproach. Richard Ficken can walk the
streets of Philadelphia a free man, simply
because he is able to purchase with certain
amount of cash immunity from any of the
legal consequences of what the law denomi-
mates TO be crime, while Frank McGaughran,
for initiating his example, is tried, convicted,
and sentenced to the Penitentiary as felon.
In the words of the immortal w. Shakespeare
we exclaim:-
"Can such things be,
Aud o'ercOme us like a summers cloud,
Without our special Wonder?"