Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1872-02-01
Mistaken Mercy.


ry,must be prompt in their appli-
cation and just in their severity.
Our punishments, in this coun-
try, have not always such char
acteristics, and hence are not al
ways effective. We need look
no further than this weakness
10 discover the cause Of that III
otous disposition which per-
vadcs certain class Of the pop
uiace. We need seek reason
u no other direction for the
rufiianly assaults Of which our
newspapers are the daily chron-
.les, for the violations of the
pablo peace, want ofrespect for
tie law and the contempt mani
lest for its ministers, which meet
our eyes and ears on so many
humiliating occasions. A few
years ago We were properly con-
sidered a law-abiding nation.
We pointed with pride to the
thousands of e&citable populace
from whom the baton of the con-
stable exacted far more obedi-
ence than could the musket of
the soldier. "Thrice is he arm
ed who hath his quarrel just, !"
but quadruply was he panoplied
who exhibited the symbol of
civic authority Men, however
quarrclsome, bowed before him.
doing homage, not to the officer,
but the office. They felt that he
was, tor The time, the represen-
tative Of the law; and the visi-
be presence Of that law, Of it's
quiet power, Of its quick admin
istration aud its memorable dis
interestedness, fell like a shad-
oW upon their hearts, demand
ing reverence. But now, we
hear the courts laughed to scorn
by men notorious for their tur-
bulcnce and crime; wretches
who have, time after time, been
arrested for wicked pursuits.
Shall We ask why is this?
What has produced this remark
able change? Tho reply is OBJ
vious: it is the mistaken mercy
Of the courts. For what other
kind Of mercy can it be which,
by treating hardened criminals
with so much consideration, a.
gain places the community in
peril at the hands of It's natural
enrmies? What kind of mercy
must it be that, instead Of gently
winning the public offender from
thcerrorof his ways, encourages
him in the destructive path, and
bids him hope, no matter how
atrocious his acts, for some in
1uence to aid in the escape from
justice. 1t is of no use to make
signal examples of petty offend
ders. Take the great ones. 1t
would be folly to send man
to prison for six months who is
VIGOROUSLY peaceful, but, under
some undue influence, was temp.
ted for once to play the part of q
disorderly bully. But why treat
with such delicacy common
brawlers, whose names ara per-
petually associated in the news
papers with tumults and fights
and bloodshed; who are ever
under bon1s, which they never
respect, to keep the peace, and
who threaten to kill the officer
who dares arrest them? These
are the creatures to make exam
pies of. These and their COM
panions are the beings who
should be struck aghast by q
proper administration of judi
cial severity, if we would really
make the tcrrors of the law what
they profess to be, the security of
the citizen. It is worse than
useless, we contend, to punish
disorderly men by exacting Pc
euaiary atonements. Now, let
as seriously ask if the prospect
Of paying fve or even twenty
five dollars, is likely to deter
any Malignant being, who has
fhe necessary physical ability,