The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-10-26
Legislative Discussion on Punish-
ment of DisOrderIy Persons.

for the punishment of disorderly persons.
and the same vas read third time
Mr. Grout of Newport explained that the
committee thought that the present statute
was sufficiently broad to cover all cases en-
braced in this bill, for that reason reported
against the bill. He compared the bill
with the law, item by item. The motive
that prompted the introduction of this bill
was undoubtedly good but if we pass it
we shall mar and deface very good law,
instead of adding anything to its force and
efficiency. So far as boys are concerned,
he did not believed but it were better to
leave them to the restraint of parents and
the existing laws.
Mr.. Eddy of Jamaica, thought il very
questionable whether the statute as it now
stands will reach class of cases embraced
in this bill, but that this bill was only add
ing certainty to the present law and was
needed to reach cases that he believed
could not be reached under the present
law. He believed no harm could result
from the bill, but that good would come
of it and he hoped the bill would be passed.
Mr.. Wells of CRANKY, favored the bill,
and from his experience as a magistrate he
had seen the need of some more explicit
law against the spirit of violence embraced
in this bill, and which could not better be
designated than by calling it spirit OF
mob violence.
The discussion was continued by Messrs
Davis of Reading, Henry of Chester, DAVIS
of st. Adams, Davenport of Wilmington,
Buel of Middletown, Hubbard of Spring
field, Shurtlef of Plainfeld, Powell of
Richford, Eddy of Jamaica. Grout of New
port, Furman of Wolcott, and Wells of
CRANKY.
Mr.. Davis, of | eading, said he intro
duced the bill at tie request of friend,
who was not a lawyer, and he believed it
had merits. He had witnessed cases even
before the grand jury of the county courts,
where cases had been rejected by the grand
jury simply because they did not come
within the meaning of the present statute
This bill covered cases that ought TO be
punished. but could not be unless the pro-
visions of this bill are incorporated into
the existing law. He favored making our
laws plain and explicit, and leaving no OPP
portunity for offenders to get clear by rea-
sons of tcchnicalities in the phraseology of
our laws.
Mr.. Abel, of West Haven, thought
there was no additional force given to the
law by reason of this bill, and he was OPP
posed to it.
Mr.. Henry, of Chester, said his first
opinion as to this bill was favorable to it,
but by careful study of it he had changed
his opinion, and was now opposed to 1t, and
no argument yet presented in its favor had
any weight with him. He now thought the
present law was all that was necessary, and
If the bill became law t would tend to
increase litigation without promoting pub
lie tranquility. 1t would lead to vast
amount of petty prosecution that ought not
to be brought until they reached magni-
tude sufficient to be embraced in the pro-
visions of the present statutes. He be-
leved it We now pass the BILL it would be
repealed in two years from now by a
unanimous vote.
Mr.. Davis, of st. Adams, explained that
the committee made the report against the
bill, but three out of the seven were in
favor of it. lie referred to the objections
brought against the bill by Mr.. Grout, of
Newport, and thought we should pay more
attention to the efficiency of our laws than
to their beauty and perfection. We should
protect the old and unfortunate as well rs
the young and vigorous, and he believed
there was necessity for the bill.
MIR. Davenport, of Wilmington, was
under no obligations TO take it for granted
that we should regard the report of CON-
mittee as final on any subject. He claimed
the right to accept or reject a committees
report, as he thought it right or wrong. In
this instance, however, he thought the bill
unnecessary, and should agree with the
committee and vote against.
Mr.. Buell., of Mddletown, objected to
the severity of the bill, because he thought
it did not allow boys to be fined, but sum-
marily sent them to the reform school, and
thereby inflict upon boy the stigma of
being sent to reform school for too trih-
ing an offense.
Mr. Hubbard of Springfield, said that he
thought this bill not subject to the obiec-
ton named by Mr. Buell., but that it was
in the discretion of the court to impose
fine if they thought proper He favored
this bill as being demanded by the necessi-
ties of the people.
Mr. Shurtleff of Plainfeld, said if we
are to pass any new law we should be sure
that we are to cover some new crime and
If no new crime is to be reached, there is
no call for new law. He objected to the
wording of the bill as rendering the defni-
ton of crime under it more uncertain. He
believed this bill not so plain as the pres
ent law. He was friend of the boys and
liked to see them polite and courteous, but
did not want any law that made boys pun
ishable for acts that would not subject
men to a like punishment.
Mr. Powell of Richford favored the bill,
even If 1t was necessary to amend it 80 that
nothing herein shall be construed to detract
from the poetic euphony and fine language
of the present law, to satisfy the objec-
tions of the gentleman from Newport.
Mr. Eddy of Jamaica, again briefly ia
yored the bill
Mr. Grout of Newport, explained that
the committee which reported against the
bill stood six out of nine against the bill.
The cases that had been referred to as not
coming under the present law, would have
been punished had they been brought un-
der the provisions of the right statute. if
lawyers bring prosecution for libel I'M
der the statute for breach of the peace,
there is no trouble with the law, but with
the lawyers. The more he hears the bill
discussed, the more he is satisfied it should
not be passed.
Mr.. Davis of st. Adams, said but seven
members were present when the vote was
taken in committee, and the vote was four
against and three in favor of it,
Mr.. Grout admitted that, but the other
members of the committee had opposed the
bill on the floor of the house, making it
really six to three.
Mr.. Fairman of Wolcott opposed the
bill as unnecessary, the present law being
sufficient to cover all cases that could be
brought under the law should this bill be
passed.
Mr.. Wells of Cranky thought the penal
ties under the bill would be more likely to
secure the punishment of minor offences
than the penalties under the present law.
Mr.. Grout of Barton, moved the pre-
vious question, which demand was Sec
onded by the house. The main question
was then put on the passage of the bill.
On that question Mr.. Holden of Clarendon
demanded the ayes and nays, which were
taken--yeas 1903, nays 77-so the passage
g ha u