Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1888-08-16

]
the Court in the Jere Clemens matter
Concerning the personal abuse its pow,
erful writer attempts to heap upon per
sons connected with this paper, we shall
have little to say, and care much less
| Life is too short to waste time in handy
ing epithets with shallow blackguards,
and we long since learned that people
are not convinced by personal abuse
Bitter words might be truthfully written
of the author of the nonsense and bad
English to which we refer-but what
would all that have to do with the queS-
ton as to whether the law had been,
practically, nullifed, and public decency
and the moral sense of the people out
ragged by Court in the eleven cases of
Ohio rS. Jere Clemens?
There is little in the Gazette'S rejoinder
about the merits of the complaint against
the COurt-nothing, in fact, except a
statement that "on plea of guilty" no
testimony was produced to show the
character of the place. That statement
is only partially true, and is calculated
and was meant to mislead in an import
ant particular. The inference is that
but one indictment was found, whereas
there were tJCellty, and to elecen of them
Clemens entered pleas Of guilty. 1t was
so stated in the article to which our able
contemporary has undertaken to reply,
and it was expressly stated that that fact
should have put the Court upon its
guard, and it should, even though the
Court had never heard of the place, nor
of Clemens.
Here is the point made against the
Court: Under the law Clemens could
have been sentenced to pay fines aggre-
eating $1,100, and to $50 days imprison-
ment. Instead, the Court made the fines
aggregate 1920, and the Imprisonment
% days.
Suppose there was no testimony before
the Court as to the character of the place,
what justification does that afford? Here
was an individual against whom twenty
indictments had been found, and who
entered pleas of guilty to eleven of them.
The inference would be that the Court
had information that the defendant kept
rather nice place, and that the noun
tain of indictments piled up against him
were wrongfully found-that, instead of
severe sentences, he was entitled to an
apology. On the contrary, attention had
been called to the character of the place
in newspapers of both st. Clairsville and
Wheeling, and it was insisted that the
Court should stamp the life out of the
vile place.
No; this will not do. At the risk of
again being blackguarded by the able
Gazette, we affirm that it is the business
of a Court to know something of the
character of confessed criminal brought
before it for sentence; and if it permits
defiant and impudent violator of the
law to escape punishment, it can not es-
cape responsibility by setting up plea
that it did not know the character of the
man. But did not the Court have some
knowledge of Clemens and his place.
If not, why were fines and Imprisonment
both reduced to the minimum?
AS to the malicious assault upon Pros
ecuting Attorney Hollingsworth, what
has that to do with the fact as to whether
the Court is deserving of censure because
of the treatment of the Clemens cases?
and what foul and infamous and un-
called for thing it is, in this connection.
And Mr.. n. X. KennOn is dragged into
the matter, too. What had ne to do with
it? Nothing whatever; and if we were
as malignant and soulless as the Gazette
we would give him a scientific black
guarding. But that would be entirely
foreign to the questionat issue, and al
together unjustifiable.