Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-11-22

short time. In the then humor Of the
country, Garfield, being but a few
months dead, there were fanatics |
lawless enough to condone the breach of |
law, in consideration of the odiousness
of the proposed victim. There were few,
however, to deliberately urge the remis-
sion of Mason's penalty. To the law
abiding the weight of the sentence i'm
posed was no scandal nor reproach, but
to the Press alone belongs the odious
distinction of demanding the criminals S
release. Day after day, the president is
urged in such terms and by such argu-
| ment5 as would disparage the intelli.
gence of Kalamuck, to pardon the mall
| factor and let him loose for the adulation
OF the crazy abettors Of lawlessness.
When the public press becomes the
apologist of crime, there should be some
resource in the laws to protect human
life. a pardon to Mason would be no
more nor less than premium upon
mutiny in the army and murder inter-
vening in the process Of the courts. AS
a soldier, Mason's crime was Of the
gravest sort /; as citizen, it was in no de-
gree justi6able. The maudlin reasoning
of the Press, if its disjointed frenzy on
| the subject can be called reasoning,
makes no pretense that Mason was not
mentally responsible when he made use
of the arms entrusted him to protect the
laws and the persons under their author
ity. Had Mason been civilian the
attempt to murder would not have been
so serious q matter but If one soldier
may raise the arms of the government
against prisoner, why may not dozen
or hundred soldiers join in shooting
down the magistrates who have to deal
with prisoners ?
Lynch law mt best is barbarous and
detestable resource, but the law Of pas
sion in the operations of the courts
il tolerated in Mason's case, would lead
to eXcesses that no sane man can con
template without horror. Hence the
freak of the Press is a criminal disregard
of the wholesomest procedure II tends
to demorallze the soldiery and make
every mud headed 2ealot, an instrument
OF the passions of the ignorant. 1t has
nothing to do with the merits Of the
case, that the object of Mason's murder
Gus attempt was an assassin so base rs
Guiteau. He was entitled to the legal
adjudication of his offense as clear
ly as any other criminal. II pas
sionate impulse should be permitted in
avengng the crimes done society, there
would presently be no society to viudi.
cate.
1t is dishonor to journalism that a
journal Of character should lend its influ
ence to such charlatancy and demagog.
ism as this grotesque attempt to STAN
pede the law in favor of criminal only
less odious than Guiteau himself. Any
thing that tends to lessen the safeguards
Of human life is criminal in its cOnse
quences, ifnot its motives a public jour.
nal above all should be backward in pro-
claiming the doctrine that murder under
such circumstances as Mason attempted
it is no crime. The conditions of moral
restraint once loosed, moral distinctions
become very soon obiterated the bul.
let sent to-day to avenge an assassina
tiOn may Tomorrow be sent to avenge
personal malice. The army is, under
the most Jealous conduct, delicate
machinery in a free government, and
any laxity in the discipline of its mem
bers would very soon tend to such
anarchy rs was seen in France during
the Commune and in England during the
Revolution. A pardon TO Mason would
be simply an invitation for regiment
to take justice into its own hands in
some magnified case of Guiteauism.
Above all the man who profted by Gul-
teau's act canlot afford to imperil public
order by criminal !enlty to his would-be
murderer.