The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-08-28
POLICY APPEARS DOOMED.
JUDGE MACDONELL PUT THE LOT
Terry KEEPERS ON NOTICE.


Their Third Appearance Before Him
VIII EntftIe Them TO the Limit,
which Means Twelve Months on
the Gang-They Tried I'm Vain 40
Get "a Reduction of the $3.50 Fines.
The Punishment OF the Law, Judge
MaeDonelI Says, l. 40 Deter an Of
fender From Breaking Ia Again.
The Droprietors Of policy lotteries. It
appears, are walking on pins. They don't
know which way to turn. and they want
some one TO tell them what is going 10
happen next
Judge MacDoneu Of the city court has
taken quite an aggressive position with
regard 10 them. and has just refused to
reduce the fines recently imposed on two
parties who pleaded guilty TO operating
policy lotteries, which fines were rather
heavier than the defendants had expect
ed. Not only this, but ne has put them
on notice in one instance at least. that
the third time they are convicted before
him on the same onense they may expect
to get the full limit OF the law. which
means twelve months on the chain-gang.
The two cases which brought the mat
ter to this issue will be remembered. They
are those Of julius Hirsch and Male
Henderson, who pleaded guilty about i
week ago to the charge of keeping policy
lotteries and were sentenced 10 pay a fine
of $50 each. In sentencing them Judge
MacDonell told them at the time, that
this was the second time they had been
before him for the same offense, that the
punishment of the law was inflicted N
order to deter them from repeating the Of
Tense. that he had punished them the first
time by the lowest fine which the law al
lows. 500, that the fact that they had
been caught up with again, showed that
the punishment had had no effect, that
the policy Of the law in such cases was
TO increase the punishment and that II
they came before him again they might
expect to see the law enforced to its ut
most.
The imposition of $50 fine was a big
surprise to the defendants. They had
pleaded guilty in the expectation, it APP
pears, that they would be given the rega-
lar fine Of sea. which is the lowest the
law allows in such cases, and upon which
many Of them have grown to look as a
recently taken to fighting the cases.
Deeming the fine too heavy, Hirsch re-
Quested his counsel, Mr.. W. W. Osborne
10 see If he could not prevail upon Judge
MaeDonell to reduce 1t. Mr. Osborne saw
Judge MacDonell several times, but al
ways with the same result. the
last time being Monday, the
day he left the city for Atlanta, when
Judge MacDonell stated positively that
ne could not consistently and conscien-
tously make any reductions in the fines.
He stated again that this was the second
time that the defendants had been before
him on the same charge. and in pursuance
OF the law, as he viewed it, he had in
increased the penalty for the second Of
tense.
But this was not all. Judge MacDonel
went further and told Mr. Osborne that he
understood and had been Informed that
these men were still in the policy lottery
business, and that he had better put his
client on notice that If he came before
him third time and was convicted on
the same charge, that he would get the
full limit Of the law, which means twelve
months on the chain-gang
This will be a heavy blow no doubt to
the operators Of the policy lotteries 1t
appears that 1t does not apply, of course,
to those who are convicted Of the first.
nor, perhaps. of the second ofense, but
on the third conviction Judge MacDon-
ell says they had better look out
Judge MacDonell Is on record in this
matter and gave just these views of the
law in paper on Discretion in Punish
ment." read before the annual meeting
of the Georgia Bar Association in Rome,
July 6, 1898. In speaking Of the graduation
of punishment for successive offenses, he
says:
"One of the considerations in measuring
out punishment is that It may be of e
degree and kind sufficient to discourage
the offender from future transgressions.
Some men are easily discouraged in
given pursuit. Others follow such a nat
ural proclivity that they are as prone 20
sin as the sparks are to fly upward.
over all such the law should operate as
a spark-arrester. But for all first Of
lenses the law should apply punishment
as an experiment and in moderation, and
not until the offender has shown himself
TO be incapable of learning from expert
ence should the terrors Of the law be APP
piled"
The $500 fine, II appears. has not proven
a "spark-arrester," and 1t remains to be
seen whether or not the $3.50 fine win prove
a fire extinguisher. If it does not, 1t APP
pears that due notice has been given and
no one can complain.
A RECEPTION TO MAyUCY.