Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1890-04-30

That Electrical Rent,

BY means Of electricity in accordance
with law passed by the Legislature to
*1hat effect. The condemned man does
nOt seem to have any particular objec-
|1lCn to the proposed method of his
taking Off and Is without the
means to defray the costly effort to
avoid II that IL being made. 1t Is sup
poeed, to be made by the Westinghouse
+ company that sells the particular form
{ Of electricity that is adapted to capital
punishment, though the lawyer says he
{ 3 not acting for IL. The company Is
i Understood to object to the adj
81 svertisement Of the killing power
Of Its goods, which it considers
will be water on tho mill Of the
I Edison company that sells electricity In
another and an alleged TO be less dan
eerous form.
The state courts having declared that
electrical execution is all right, the
United States court is appealed to under
& the constitutional proviso that the states
4 shall not inflict cruel and unusual
( punishmepts. This provision is like
wise contained in the New York state
constitution, but the court Of appeals of
that state decided that it was for the
\ Legislature to say whether electrical
execution was such cruel or unusual
\ punishment and that as II had decided
\ that 1t was not, the courts could not
|. review the decision.
We should like the supreme court of
Y this state to occasionally take as conser-
.svAtive view of Its jurisdiction over the
Legislature; and perhaps the judges
may, when they come across question
Ike this which they may like to
n avoid the decision of. The New York
court Of appeals had no stomach for
5s1uterference with the legislative discre-
tlOn In this matter, else 1t too might per-
: chance have found itself clothed with
I: power to correctit. 1t makes a great deal
3 Of difference with courts, as II does with
individuals, how they like job that
they have chance to get their fingers
I: Into.
Providing II he admitted that the np-
5 plication of electricity to execute man
Y y punishment, there does not seem to
{. b room TO deny that 1t Is an unusual
+ one, since 1t certainly has never been
i s5nficted as n punishment. The only
y apparent way Of getting out of this hole
I'D to hold that the punishment IL In the
E1leAth and not in the mode of inflicting 1t.
Meath Is not an unusual punishment, and
and II the constitution does not inhibit nm
/ fnuusual mode Of Furnishing with death,
<there is freedom for the state TO kill with
Il *electricity IL 1t desires. But the sugges-
!; tlOn Of this idea runs foul of the prOhi-
billion of cruelty in punishment. 1t can
hardly he said that the constitution will
permit cruel mode of iniiicting the
& punishment of death; and If SO the
81 limitation as to cruelty must be con-
4 ceded to apply to the mode of punish
I ment ; and SO must therefore the prohi-
bition of novelty apply to the mode.
1t Is very pretty nut for the United
States courts to crack. II does not ap-
pear to be any of the business of the
United States to call halt upon the
desire Of the state of New York to
) electrify its murderers out of the world
4. and probably the court will find some
means of slipping away from the re-
4 sponsibility of denying the plain fact
that electrical execution is novelty,
while setting the state free in Its prac.
( tice. Supreme courts never find much
\ trouble in deciing rs they please; agood
ltiustration Of which has just been az
iorded by the UnitedStates supreme court
IN It's decision that man who killed
smother who attacked justice of its
court, did no act for which any court in
4 the country could put him on trial. In
the midst of the supreme court the laws
are silent. Around and about each
\ member ever flows an atmosphere inca.
pable of harboring crime and no man
may be torn from the side of any ono OF
them aud be accused of 1t.