Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-02-23
The Stamping OF Criminals Not Fa-
vored in This Community.
VIEWS OF WELL-KNOWN PEOPLE.
Only One Person Found Who Believes in
the Ancient Custom.
SOME PERTINENT REMARKS PICKED UP


been adopted by several prison authorities,
4 and further:
1t has been suggested that in every penal in
stitution the process should be carried out, and
| in this way complete record could be kept of
a mans life, no matter in what part of the
| globe he might be found, as, having a key, the
prison management could readily follow up his
| history. tits proposed to introduce the plan in
the Illinois State Prison at Joliet-frst, because
it is harmless, and, second, because 1t will form
| perfect chain of evidence against wrong
doers, but will in no way affect unfavorably
those who may be disposed to reform and live
| an honorable life.
Regarding the possible effect and the
danger of infection, the Journal says:
By this plan (tattooing) disorders of the sys-
tenn may be conveyed from one person to an
other, and until such a penalty becomes a
! part of the edict from the court no person
should be subjected to this trying ordeal; and
we believe that physicians will be ready to
| show their disfavor toward it by diseounte-
nancing such proceedings as far as lies in
| their power. The fact that the saliva of some
| persons is sufficient to cause symptoms of
poison when introduced into the skin of
| another would in itself be sufficient to con-
denim the practice; but, with our knowledge of
| the germ theory and the principles underlying
| the distribution of disease by incubation, it
seems almost impossible that such diabolical
schemes could long find restng-place in the
minds of civilized human beings.
PITTSBURGERS OPPOSE IT.
A DISPATCH reporter interrogated peo-
pie whom he knew casually, just as he met
them in half hours walk, and found the
proposition generally abhorrent. They were
questioned not as to their views of tattooing
but branding, with hot iron, the latter not
being likely to produce the evil physical eff
fects possible from the former Gentlemen
spoken to were Messrs +. G. Dorrington, of
the City Treasurer's office; John J. Davis,
among lawyers E. E. Cotton, J. c.
Hoymaker, Henry Meyer, Morton
Hunter, Frank W. Smith, B. G. Christy,
T. h. Davis, C. F. McKenna, Captain Nc
Clelland and w. A. Sipe, Esqs, and
the same opinion, though Messrs.
McClelland, Sipe and McKenna treated the
proposition as absurd, and seemed to
refuse to believe it could possibly be
seriously entertained. Mr.. Cotton said exper-
ience had shown that crime most prevailed in
the times when malefactors were barbarously
mutilated, and that evidently branding,
seourging, ear-clipping, nose-splitting, etc.,
had no preventive effect. The same
the whipping post and against
capital punishment, yet some
very good people would like to see the first
established and the work of the second |
greatly extended.
Some took the ground that the State has |
an interest in the criminal. and that re-
formatory one and that branding, or
tattooing, or any other kind of marking,
would preclude most criminals from ever |
and Mr.. James P. Quinn took the
ground that the prison birds are gen
orally punished fully enough. anyhow.
Said another man, 81 am opposed to any
kind of mutilation of criminals on grounds
both humane and polite, and also because
the greatest criminals OF the age are outside
of penitentiaries, and the same has been the |
case in oil ages, so far as I can learn. The
really great criminals are always able to
take care of themselves, and if the small fry |
escape it is because they find protection
under the greater"
ONLY ONE FAVoRS BRANDING.
Among all solicited for an opinion, Mr..
Alfred McCabe was the only man who
would admit that the practice might be de-
Tended in extreme cases. He said there were
men against whom he believed society would
have right to protect itself by indelibly
branding them in such manner that they |
could never by any possibility impose them
selves on strangers. On the ground that pre-
vention is preferable to cure, doubtless most
people could agree that some people of their
acquaintance should be marked, so that all
mankind would shuu them as it does lepers.
In the meantime, DR.. E. A, Wood
has preventive plan that might
not only decrease crime in the present,
but increase in potency from generation to
generation, but it isn't likely the doctors
plan would gain on the people at large, as
fast as would the proposition to tattoo or to
brand.
Some people have contended that brand
ing, tattooing, nose-splitting, ear-olipping,
etc., are unconstitutional, and quote the
eighth article of the amendments to the
Federal Constitution proposed in
1889, and ratified by the re-
quisite number of States; excessive
bail shall not he required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punish
ments inflicted" Now, the question arises
as to what the people in 1889 considered
a cruel and unusual puni i'hment. 1t
is said that once, probably at that
time and later, horse thieves were branded
in Pennsylvania. Our ancestors did not
trouble themselves much with ethics in the
case of criminal, especially if he were a
horse thief, the latter gentry being regarded
with an aversion similar to that we now en-
tertain toward burglars. In some places at
present horse thieves, when caught, may
esteem themselves fortunate if allowed time
to pray before taking their swing. The tel
egraph has circumseribed their operations
in thiekly settled countries.
OF ANCIENT ORIGIN.
bo bropJipn nf 1c aDpaore 10 bo
OF very ancient origin. We are informed
mentioned in history, but that brand, as it
is generally styled, we are told
was put on the murderer to save his
life and not for the purpose of marking
him so that he could not impose himself on
the Nodites. 1t would seem that 2,7O0
years later there wasn't much need tor
branding murders, for those who could not
claim sanctuary in the cities of refuge were
put to death with little ceremony and it was
seldom that either an allocatur or a new
trial was granted.
Opponents of the brand say it is only fit
for the marking of beasts, and this shows
how the sentiment of the age differs from
that of former times. Once not only criminals.
but slaves guilty of no crime, were branded
or marked in some distinctive way. 1t was Fl
provided in the Mosaic law that if o poor
Hebrew sold himself to his neighbor for
term of years. and, if before the expiration
of the time, he became mashed on
one of his masters female servants, SO
badly that he could not leave her, then the
master took him to the door-post and bored
his ear through with an awl, and the
enamored servant became the masters prop
erty, absolutely and forever.
It doesn't appear that marking criminals
sr1 n. | ,