Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1888-08-02
Bpl11tnttt Chronicle.
THURSDAY, AUGUST ?, 1888.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1888.
THE miserable botch made by the Com
mon Pleas in the Jere Clemens case is the
subject of much indignant talk upon the
streets. That Court should be ignorant
of the penalties of law violated by no
torious malefactor when the criminal re-
ceives sentence is deplorable enough, but
that that criminal-the keeper of the
vilest place ever known in the county
place where all manner of iniquity was
practiced, in defiance of the laws of God
and man, eliminating in an attempted
double asSaSsinatiOn-should virtually
escape punishment through the mistaken
clemency of the Court, is matter peo-
pie cannot contemplate with patience
If ever law breaker deserved the full
penalties of the law, here was one who
did. All the people knowit. The Court
must have known the character of the
place. The twenty indictments found
against him-to eleven of which he en-
tered pleas of guilty-should, at least,
have put the Court upon its guard.
Clemens was indicted for the unlawful
sale of liquors on Sunday. The law as
originally enacted MAY IA, 1866 pro-
vided that persons convicted of its vio-
lation should be fined not exceeding 800
and imprisoned in the county Jail not ex-
ceeding thirty days. On April IA last
this law was amended, and the penalty
now reads shall be fined not exceeding
800 and not less than $25, and be i'm
prisoned not less than ten nor not ex-
ceeding thirty days. The repealed sec
tion gave the Court very wide discretion.
1t was that repealed section the Court
had before it in passing sentence. The
extent Clemens got the benefit of that
discretion is what shocks and grieves per-
sons who are advised as to the wretched
place he kept, and is keeping yet, in all
human probability. In each case the
Court assessed fine of $40 and two
days in jail. The fine fixed in the law
in force, it will be observed, is $25, and
the minimum Imprisonment ten days.
The Court is fallible, of course, and
the fact that repealed law was used in
passing sentence may be excused, seri-
GUS as was the mistake; but what posi-
BILE excuse can be offered for reducing
the penalties to the minimum of a sup
posed law, in behalf of fragrant, def
ant, and infamous law-breaker? If there
is single extenuating circumstance in
the case of Clemens it has never reached
the ears of the public. Every feature of
it is repulsive, and in not one particular,
that we have ever heard of, was there
that would suggest clemency
to Court in passing sentence upon him.
And yet the Court, the law authorizing
a fine of 800, made it one fifth that sum,
and unwittingly S. less than the law in
force fixed the minimum fine, and i'm
prisoned him one fifteenth the time au-
in the law, and again unwit-
tingly eight days less than the time re-
quired by law.
Clemens kept the worst place ever
known in the county. Beyond munich
pal control, not only did he boldly sell
liquors in defiance of law, but com
mon report said gambling was permitted
there, and that it was known resort for
vile people of both sexes. Especially on
Sundays high carnival was held, and the
stories that are told of the do
ings of drunken men and women are al
most past belief.
When the crack of the assassin's pis-
tol compelled the officers of the law to
take notice of the character of the place,
it was hoped slumbering Justice was at
last aroused, and that the iron hand of |
the law would strike the wretched place !
such blows as would forever blot it out |
Of existence. But the Court failed at the
supreme moment, when the bold violator
Of law stood up to receive sentence, the
law was practically nullified, and the
guilty wretch escaped the punishment he
so richly deserved.