The Pascagoula democrat-star. (Pascagoula, Miss.) 1878-1920, 1891-07-17
THE IySOLvENT ACT.

WEST PAscAGoULA, Miss. ,July1l 1891.
Editor Democrat-Star
In an editorial in your paper o
!, last week you are in error in you
Interpretation of The act of Legis
lature of 1890 in regard TO work
ing prisoners, etc. You speak o
this act rs a repeal Of the insolven
act, and tins constitutes yonr frs
error. The latter act does not re
peal The former act either express
ly, by implication or conflict
Your next error is in supposins
that this latter act operates to eX
tend the imprisonment OF the in,
solvent for 2 years, when The truth
is that The prisoner is only 10 be
confined a sufficient time for him
to work oul, under The provisions
ofthe act, his fine and costs, even
if that should require only 10 days,
and it is further provided that in
no case shall such prisoners be
confined for such purpose for a
term exceeding Two years. 1t will
thus be seen that the time any
prisoner Can be kept under lock
and key, under This act, will de-
pend ON the amount of his fine,
costs and daily expenses, and the
hire that the sheriff may be able
10 contract for per diem. | have
not the act handy TO refer to, but
this is my recollection of The con-
text and effect Of the act referred
to, and no reference is made there
i'll to The msolvent act you mention.
j.. NJ. PELHAM.
Replying 10 The communication
of Hon. J. NJ. Pelham, memb r. of
the Legislature from this county,
relative 10 the editorial in This pa.
per last week, We will state that the
article referred to was doubtless
prompted by the acts and decisions
of the officers and attorneys of the
county in carrying into effect The
act Of 1890 in disregard of the in
solvent act OF 1882, which provided
for The release of prisoners in ten
days upon taking The insolvent
cath, and The acts themselves were
probably not examined or the de-
cisions bearing upon them.
The present writer was at first
inclined to think that Mr.. Pelham
might be correct, having casually
examined the act of 1890, but in
formed Mr.. Pelham that If he was
in error he should hear from us
editorially, and he must take the
cllapccs of an off.hand communi-
cation.
We concede that Mr.. Pelham is
correct in regard to the possibility
of a prisoner getting his release in
a much shorter space of time than
Two years, If he is hired ont, and
the editorial'of last week referred
to did not deny that proposition,
but simply failed 10 mention that
the special complaint being
IT had proven to be scarcely
possible to obtain employers for
,onvlcls, The result being in every
such case of unemployment two
'earS imprisonment,ho however small
he offense, and such must be the
necessary consequence unless MIR.
'elham is correct about the insol-
rent act being repealed. II he is
light he has very high authority
Igainst him. ,
In the case Of er parte Mcdaniel,
Iecided by The Supreme Court in
anuary, 1891, Judge Campbell de.
The opinion of the court,
hat court decided IN substance as
Ollows, we quote The silibus as il
borne out by the decision J: I
"Act Miss. 1890, G. so, entitled
An act 10 provide for hiring pris-
ners sentenced 10 fine and i'm
risonment in tho county Jail of
ertain counties, and making no !
revision for the discharge of pris /
who are not hired out within /;
IN days, by implication repeats, {
S 10 the counties to which it re- I,
FRS. Act March o, 1882, which
rovIdes that prisoners may, if not |
ired out within ten days, make a
,hedule Of their property under 1
ath and be discharged" I
This was a case of commitment 8
, default of the payment of a fine :
{ S25, and the money must come ,
r an ecDloyar mr. The fwo vaars in =