Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1875-08-19
man went on to say that the follow
ing wac passed in 1899.

Every person who shall wilfuliy and macious,y
Kill main or dishgure any horses cattle or other
beasts of another srson, shall wilfully and mac-
iously administer poison any such beasts expose
any poisonous substa with intent that the
may be taken or swallowed by them. shall wiliful.
y and malciously destroy or jure the personal
property OF another, in any manner by any means
not particularly mentioned and described in this act,
shall be punished by Imprisonment in the countyja
mot more than two years nor less than three months
by fine not exceeding se hundred dollars nor less
than fifty.
This law, he said, without an ad-
dition was subsequently, re-enacted
in 1849, and again in 1858; and that
Dodge, Dewey and Randall, had sue
cessively signed and approved the
same. Because this was so, and be-
cause the law which Taylor approx
ed and signed was different only 10
that it contained after the words
county jail" the words 'or state
prison at the discretion Of the court, "
he thought he had made point for
Taylor and bis advisors.
Now if the reader will closely scan
the law quoted, together with the
amendment, he will find it to be pre-
ciseIy as the HERALD stated it. 1t is,
as law. of the kind to which great
objection may be made. Of such,
Blackstone has said, eve may observe
that punishments of unreasonable Sc
verify, especially when indiserimi-
nately inflicted, have less effect in
preventing crimes and amending the
manners Of people than such as are
more merciful in general, yet prop
erly intermixed with due distinc-
tons of severity. 1t is the sentiment
of an ingenious writer who seems to
have well studied the springs of hu-
man action that crimes are more eff
fectuslIy prevented by the certainty
than by the severity of punishment.
For the excessive severity of law
(says Montesquieu) binders their ex
ecution: when the punishment sur
passes all measure the public will
frequently, oct of humanity, prefer
impunity to it,"
It was because OF this or like
knowledge, we may reasonably irfer,
that the Legislature of 1862 added to
it the following proviso:
Provided that in case such personal property shall
not exceed the value of three dollars, such per
persons shall be punished by fine not less than five
dollars nor more than fifteen dollars; and in such
case every Justice Of the pence shall have concurrent
jurisdiction in his own county with the circuit court
There was reason in this, and if
this was still of effect, there would
have been little chance for the
young man to give the HERALD
thrust or two, but it is not.
The truth of the matter is, that
the Legislature Of last winterignored
the law of1862 The chapter which
they emf cted begins as follows
/" Section forty-four (44) of chapter
one hundred and sixty-five (165) of
the revised statutes of 1883" ETC.
Nowhere is there anything said Of
the amendment of 1862, and as a
consequence, by well established
rule Of statute construction, it is re-
peaIed by implication and he old
law of 1889, 40 and 50, with cor
State prison at the discretion of the
court" inserted, is Inv to day. The
statute as a whole is repugnant to
tho former ono. 1t was bad enough
to pass such a law in the first place
but what must we think of those
who ia their ignorance Of the proUjso
of 1862, as manifested by their pre-,
sent enactment, repealed by impIca-
ton The wise provision, and added
rigor to the old statute of 1858?
The HERALD was right; but read
what the yoang critic said after his
exhibition Of ignorance:
After such perusal and comparison, I seriously
doubt whether a could be found even in Arkan-
sAs, who the UERALD's critic, would permit his
venaI ina gnetion usurp the function of his reason
or 10 allow his ignorance plead in the face his
intelligence-and deliberately declare that by chap
ter 17o of the laws of the State of wisconsin if a
man wiItully kills another mans lit deg whit
ties his desk tears his newspaper even though
his property less than three dollars in value" the
guilty man may be fined nifty dollars or sent to the
State prison two years ?"
1t must now be apparent that the presumptious
legal critic of the HERALD is too much of witless
scrvener and too little of artess reviewer to de-
serve the compliment of the candid open attention
we attempt to show him. Why it is plain to
view the folly of his criticism that when he
the Legislative Bulls" for the HERALD he was as
ignorant of the proviso of the laws of 81 as the
sgarthy Ethiopian of the pettifoggers Of Wisconsin
But if we already have 'ognd IN this critic lamenta
bic ignorance in his knowledge and Interpretation of
the laws what shall say when discover his
phrensied prejudice in accounting for their origin
The reader sees by this that he
thought the proviso was in force at
the present time Qatter part first para
graph; and also that he is modest to
a fault, and very charitable. In view
of the facts, however, the following is
the most rich:
We have said we would advert to the other laws
noticed by the legal critic of the HERALD, but
space Will not permit us TO give them such a exami-
as suitlout such examination should consider
words unworthy the attention of the reader-we
shall be compelled TO leave criticism but half
completed.
Third and AdmOnitory:-Read
little elementary law, young man; real
a little elementary law ; and keep in
remembrance that which is within the
lids of Lacon, and which is expressed
in the following words, to-wit
" When you have nothing TO say, say
nothing a weak defence strengthens
your opponent, and silence is less in
furious than a bad reply"
OLD ORDINARY.
Lancaster, August 10, 1875.
---~-
.@ am proud to say that tohile tbs
Republican party may hare erred, thae
not proUed false to any great principle,