Tombstone epitaph., 1890-02-08
A CHAPTER ON EARS.
People Who Were Punished Long Ago by
 Having Their Hearers Removed.

Having Their hcsfSIS 1senOSeUs Any mutilation of the ear which in, volved the loss of a portion or all of it has always been a mark of disgrace In one of the statutes of Edward VI the penalty affixed for it's violation is the ''loss of ar estr and perpetual infamy. In those days the celluloid ear had not been invented and the loss of one of these members was a public badge of shame for life
 Following the retributive law of Moses, probably the punishment originated in the ecclesiastical courts. l. is first pIrn- toned in the trials of Offerse against tie church and some of the ealless clericaIs were noted men. The sentence to the plllory frequently had the additional pun ishment of the loss of one or both ears added Daniel Fooe, or to4. later in life known as Daniel Defoe, wrote ramph- let called The Shorteet Way with the Dissen;ers, :" and lost hs e5rs. Pope, in ils '.Dunciad, speaks of the author of
 Robinson Crusoe:" "Earless on high stood unabashed Defoe.
 He was placed in the pillory three times That instrument being on a raised placorm explains the Iine. In Defoe's case, however, as in many others. his punishment was rather a martyrdom, and liftel him in the esteem of those who believed as he did.
 Dr. Bastwick. who published more pamphlets than pills. concludes che of his essays with: From plague, pestilence and famine, from bishops, priests and deacons, good Lord deliver us" This was so serious an atIr0nt that the doctor was sentenced to the pilory and to lose both his ears. The execution of lis sen tence was a sort of pGbiic fete. His friends gathered before the pillory and shouted words of encouragement. His wife climbed upon the pilory and kissed him. When his ears were cut off ''she tut them in a clean handkerchief" and carried them home. The celebrated Prynne suffered a similar punishment.
 The names of lesser criminals have escaped the permanent records, but Blackstone mentions a number of earE English parliamentary elactmentS mak ing the loss of all ear pen0!ty in law. Fighting in a church orchmchyard h,. acts passed during the fifth and siXr;. years of the reign of Edward VI meant the loss of both ears. f the pri4nne1 had no ears which inaiWs that there were habtual criminals $50 years ago he was to be branded with the letter F in the cheek. In the second and third year of the same munaTrh combinations among victualers and Etifcers to raise the price of provisions Of the rate oi labor for the third ofense was punished by the rilIory and the loss of an ear The statute not only extended to the combinations to raise wages. but to reg, ,,jate the quantity of work or to lessen the hours of labor. In this degenerate age the trusts and other combines, with the different labor unions, if these laws were enforced. would give the public eZeoltioner active eini ,iO+ ,lNnt.
 In later years the loss Of an eae or part of one has also been regarded as imply ing disgrace. The ear is not easily lost. Any accident that destroys the eaI usually destroys the person wearing it One Of the favorite ways of mutilatins an enemy in a rough and tumble fight is to bite off his ear. In disreputable brawls and in low resorts brute instinct makes ear mutiiation a fit revenge for almost any wrong. Jack Slade, the notorious desperado, in a fit of rageliz said to have cGt of the ears of man he had mur. dered. He kept them in his pocket an6 boastfully exhibited them when in a drunken and dangerous mood. When he saw on the poker table stake he wanted particularly Jack played the ears Ringing them on the table they beat foul aces or a straight flush. for Jack had pistol in each hand the next instant. ue always took the pot on inc play.-Cni- cago News.