The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-08-18

The Judicial result OF the proceedings
against the noted railroad striker, Donahue,
is so lamo and impotent that the public will
think it farcical especially after the legal
fuss and parade made over his case. He has
been lifted up as prisoner into a conspicu-
BUSINESS which has made him general OBJ
ject of attention, and the extent Of his SEN
tence is only five days additional imprlson-
ment in the Ludlow Street Jail F! Assuredly
the upshot of this impotent prosecution
will not make the law terror TO evil
doors. We'do not censure Judge Donohue,
whose action has been judicious enough,
but this prosecution reflects no credit on
the sagacity of those who instituted it. 1t
was strained and unnatural proceeding.
A great crime against property was put on
the narrow, technical ground of mere con-
tempt of court. 1t probably never occurred
to Donahue and his confederate strikers
that the Erie road stood in different rela-
ton to the law from the many other roads
whose business was interrupted by riotous
strikers 1t is unlikely that the idea that
he was committing contempt OF court
ever dawned on him previous to his arrest,
and it was petty and ridiculous to rest the
proceedings against him on 30 slender
and technical, not to say SO fictitious,
basis. The common sense OF the COM
munity does not appreciate these WIRE
drawn legal distinctions The common
sense of the community does not regard
property which happens to be in the hands
of o receiver rs more sacred or more entitled
to the protection of the low than other
property of the same kind in control OF its
owners 1t is important in the interest OF
justice, for the safety of the railroads and
for the convenience of travel and traffic, that
examples should be made of the ringleaders
in this war upon property. The dignity
and severity Of justice are belittled when,
instead of prosecuting criminals under the
ordinary statutes, trumped-up case is made
against them for mere contempt of court,
which is o minor offence. punishable at
the discretion of judge. If q man who
had committed burglary should resist the
order Of court tor his arrest, such resist
ance would, no doubt, be technical con-
tempt of the court which issued the warrant
but what SnOulo we tnluA Oh inc WlSOo1u OK
arraigning him for the contempt instead Of
putting him on trial for the burglary?
To be sure, Judge Donohue had no au-
thority to try any other charge than the one
brought before him, and the prisoner
being charged with only contempt Of
court. nobody can object to the Judges
failure to consider the more impor-
tant question. He was wise in not mag
nifying the contempt and Furnishing the
graver offence under color of that legal fic-
ton. We suppose most lawyers will con-
cede that contempt of court was commit
ted and that Judge Donohue has correctly
decided that the ignorance of the prisoner
cannot absolve him from its consequences.
The penalty pronounced is properly lenient,
being merely thirty days imprisonment, the
time spent in Jail since the arrest to be
counted as apart of the sentence Donahue
will remain only Eve days lohgeriti custody
and be discharged on Wednesday. This
farcical proceeding being ended we trust he
will be arrested on charge of more substance
and made to suffer the just penalty of the law
for instigating and leading war upon
property.