New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-11-01
JYfHU'S SENTENCE.

JUDGE Barrett has given Ferdinand Ward the
heaviest penalty the law provides, namely ten
wears. If the efforts OF the defence to procure "A
new trial fail, the defendant will, allowing Tor
the regular good conduct communication, have
about six wears to serve. There has been in
tmation of possible future indictments against
him. but no dependence can be placed upon talk
of that kind not merely because six years
always make q great difference in the degree
Of interest attaching to even the most exciting
events, but because after such lapse OF time 1t
would probably be difficult to find the most
necessary witnesses for the prosecution. The
presumption therefore is that this sentence
represents the full penalty at all Likely to be en-
forced, and if in six years this man will be free
and not only free but rich, it is nonsense to pre-
tend that the punishment in flicted upon him by
Society is adequate or deterrent.
No fault can be found with judge or jury
however. The trial was conducted admirably
by Judge Barrett, and the jury Gid their full
duty The prosecuting officers, it Is said, com
plain that Wards actions were so circumspect,
and guarded with so much cunning, that it was
extremely difficult to frame an indictment
against HIM which would hold But If this
statement is true, it certainly goes to show that
the state of the law is bad, and that instead OF
providing easily attainablc remedies for nOtOii-
| GUS aud demonstrated wrongs 1t involves every
question of criminal procedure in such haze of
| subtle.ies and crooked definitions and distinc
| tons that an adroit rogue finds in the statutes
which should be his terror protection and de-
| fence What is absurd is that when II man has
stolen millions through long process of com
| plicated but ndubitable fraud, the officers Of
! the law should be compelled TO spend weeks in
studying opportunities to frame an indictment
against him which cannot be bI oxen down, and
that it should be necessary to cOniine the pro-
ccedings to single item of his villdny, which,
when brought home to him, can only be visited
with a wholly inadequate penalty. TO say that
the public are sufficiently protected against
such crimes as Ward has committed, in the face
of his trial, conviction and sentence. would be
to cor fess to a hopeless deficiency i'll the sense
of proportion.
And if, after this relatively feeble result has
been reached. there is reason to believe that
Ward is virtually purchasing, by six years of
Imprisonment, the right to live luxuriously the
rest of his life upon the stolen fortune concealed
| by him with this express end in view, it is clear
that Society will have no cause for cOngratula-
| ton in revie wing the outcome OF its contest
with this audacious thief. Such an outcome in
deed is only less unsatisfactory than would
have been the escape of Ward with his plumber.
Ii cannot be said that he is punished as he de-
serves. If he succeeds in retaining a consider
able share of his punder he will not have been
punished at all. Yet it is extremely doubtful
whether his hidden treasure will be discovered,
or, being discovered. will be recovered. The
suggestions of this trial altogether are not COM
foriing, and the public ought not to be encour-
aged to accept such result as a satisfaction of
justice. In the existing state of the law it may
be the best that can be secured, but that only
shows that the law needs amendment. As to the
! consideration that the convictions of Fish and