The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1894-10-24

III
sating the victim of the injury and
Furnishing the guilty in manner to
deter others from like conduct. 1t is
a principle of tt Z law that for every
wrong there should be a remedy, but
there is not, alas When by foul
murder helpless women and children
are left without the means Of support,
where is the remedy? To hang the
murderer neither soothes their grief
nor supplies their wants nor does it
effectually prevent repetition Of such
crimes. Does not the slayer, whether
or not he forfeit his life to society for
an example, owe the family the sup
port of which he has deprived them ?
Almost every injury except an in
jury to life is the subject of civil
action for damages, but the law by
some inexcusable remissness permits
the family no action for damages for
this greatest Of all injuries, and is
justified by the sophistical reason that
the civil remedy is merged in the
offense to the public Since it should
be the policy Of the law to utilize
every possible motive to deter from
crime, the addition of money penalties
would be most wise. The murderer
with means, though by legal talent
through technicalities or through the
sympathy of the jury he might save
himself from the gallows, could not so
easily save his estate from his victims
widow and orphans. Thus would
there be, on the one hand, some ap-
proach to just restitution to the fam
lily and, on the other, greater Ger
tainty Of punishment-and even
light punishment if certain is more
feared than a scverer punish ment if
uncertain.
But does responsibility for the
crime extend only to the murderer?
The organization of civil society con.
templates the State maintenance Of
order and protection Of her citizens.
Only in reliance upon the faith OF the
State to carry out her contract can the
citizen feel safe in devoting himself
to peaceful pursuits and laying aside
precaution for his own protection
against violence from his fellows.
The State further emphasizes her duty
by forbidding him to carry a weapon.
Alas, too many noble lives have
been lost, confding in promise that
is very imperfectly kept We could
seldom distinguish the breaches Of the
peace which it was impossible for the
States watchfulness to prevent and
those rendered possible largel ly or
chiefly by the neglect Of duty Of the
agents of the State. The latter class
of death, the State-the public-is
certainly accountable for to the suffer
ers, and the conclusion is inevitable
that the State should be the absolute
insurer of the lives Of the citizens
against deaths by others violations
Of her laws. Therefore-aside alto
gether from the hanging Of the MUIR
derer (who is unfit to live because he
has "a heart devoid of social duty and
fatally bent on mischief '') aside alto
gether from the money damages which
by the award of a jury the estate Of
the unlawful slayer Of another should
pay to those whose mainstay has been
thus removed-the State should for
felt certain sum to the family of
any person unlawfully killed by an
other. I would not be understood as
setting a money value on life on affec
ton, but the knowledge of the GER
tainty of provision for those otherwise
left in want might render dying hours
peaceful, and families with means
might choose to donate such sums to
charitable objects in memory OF the
beloved dead.
, The incidental effects of such law
would be admirable. With ordinary
men the pocket nerve is the most SEN
sitive, and if they knew that every
killing meant money from the treasury
and higher taxes they might make it
their "business to interfere" to pre-
vent murderous fights. Certainly,
however, they would mark for retire
ment the Sheriffs and other peace
officers, through whose ineficiency
such costs should come upon the
County. Thus can something efec-
tive be done towards "the exaction of
a frmer, prompter and more sensible
discharge of duty by the city police"
and all officers and by the "private
CITIZEN" and towards preventing use
less deaths, wrecked lives and un-
speakable burdens Of anguish.
Another branch of the subject is
by the fact that the two
killings spoken of in the beginning OF
this article were both by men under
the influence of liquor. [ had in
tended to suggest before the Legisla-
ture meets substitute for the dispen-
sary law. (Of course I realize that
my suggestions will not be adopted,
but there is no knowing to what re-
suits discussion may ultimately lead. }
Briefly it is that there be licensed
sellers under heavy bond, forfeiting
sums for any violation of prescribed
regulations. Forbidden to sell to any
drunkard, the seller should forfeit on
his bond fixed heavy sum for every
from his liquor and again
for every death due to such intoxica-
tion. If the State continues as the
seller, she, or bondsmcn of the dis
pensers, should answer similarly for
the consequence of violations of regu-
lations by her agents, the dispenser.
So only can the rule against selling to
be enforced and the evils Of
whiskcy be reduced to a minimum.
JOHN j. McMAHAN.
Columbia, Oct. 73, 1894.
The Augusta Herald is authority
for the following good story on Sena-