The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1879-10-09

note of the 23d inst, that have not
found time until now to consider the
question as to which you ask my
opinion.
Section 1 Of the Act Of June 2,
1879, is as follows:
ANY person, not being i'll the
county in which he usually lives OF
has his home, who is found going
about begging, and asking subsistence
by charity, shall be taken and deemed
to be tramp"
It is obvious from this language,
that no one can be a tramp" in the
county of his residence.
A tramp, within the purview of
this statute, is one who is found out
side Of his own county, going about
begging, and asking subsistence by
charity"
[ am Of opinion that the statute
applies only to that class of persons,
whose habitual mode Of life is to stroll
through the country and subsist by
begging; the class which, so to speak,
makes that their business.
The statute, being penal, must be
strictly construed; and therefore a
single or an occasional act of soliciting
charity would not render party a
tramp"
He must be found resorting to that
as a method of procuring a livelihood
before the statute applies.
| | am, etc,
E. A. GUTHRIE.
CHILLICoTHE, O., Sept. %, 1879.
Hon. J. B. Paine, Jackson Ohio:
DEAR SIR-Yours of to-day, receiv-
ed, requesting that | state what class
of persons" in my judgment. ARE
liable to punishment under Section
1st, which defines tramp"-that is
under Section 1, Of IAN act to define
and suppress tramps."
The class of persons liable to pun
ishment under said Section is, in my
opinion, any persons found going
about tout of the county of their
residence, and not excepted by Sec. 4
of said act) begging and asking sub
sistence by charity" that IS, persons
! who make it business of so doing
and having no regular avocation. II
does not apply to persons temporarily
out of employment, OF who by misfor,
tune are compelled to ask charity
| even if out of the county of then
residence. To hold that it does would
be to impute inhumanity to the Leg
| islature. Yours very truly,
| MILTON L. CLARK.
| These letters, gentlemen, are from
lawyers of high standing, and then
opinions ought to be conclusive In
addition to this, | submitted the same
question to Judge Bradbury, and
while he thought it improper to write
an opinion on the subject, [ am cor
rect in saying that he concurs in the
opinions Of Messrs. Clark and Guth
RE. Now let us review. | have Of
| fered to discuss the question, and h
| has steadily kept himself in the rear
| have offered to pay him twenty dol
lars for legal opinion, and | still
have the twenty dollars. His nephew
a leading democrat of the county
practically gives it up.
l back my position by that of a:
good lawyers as there are in the State
of Ohio. Mr.. DUNCAN has publicly
said that he is in favor Of the repea
Of the law, and will so work and vote
if elected. He is not in favor Of addi
tional legislation to protect the wo
men and children in the country dis
tricts from insult and outrage. [ hav
said time and again, and here say
that when any first-class lawyer will
say that the law affects the class 0
men Mr.. DUNCAN says it does, then
will vote for the repeal Of the law, an
not till then.
J. B. PAINE.