New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-12
IMPRISONED FOR DEBT.
A HARSH LAW WHICH APPLIES TO Ma
TIONAL GUARDSMEN
THEY MAY SPEND TWENTY DAYS IN JAIL FOR
FAILING TO PAY COMPANY DUES-CON-
SIDERATIONs OF DISCIPLINE.

FAILING TO PAY COMPANY DUES-CON-
sIDERATIoNs OF DISCIPLINE.
The imprisonment recently OF two privates Of the
National Guard for neglectng to pay any attention
to the findings Of the military courts by which they
had been tried for delinquency aroused unusual
interest among people who recognized In the pro-
cedure a revival Of the happily obsolete custom of
imprisoning man for debt. One OF the men
who cast into Jail was member OF the 9th
Regiment. and the recent victim was a MEM
Der of Company d. of the 18th Regiment Both
men had failed to pay their company dues and were
tried by delinquency court When It was found
that they would neither pay nor avail themselves OF
the privilege of appeal but simply ignored the find
ings of the tribunals the regimental marshal was
called in and. In accordance with Article 3I Of the
Military Code OF the State of New-York, the men
taken jail. This article reads:
For the purpose OF collecting any fines or penal
ties imposed by any court-martial or delinquency
court ire president OF the court shall, within
twenty days after the expiration Of the time In
which an appeal Is allowed. II such fines and penal
ties have been approved issue a warrant or war
rants for collection OF such fines and penalties
rema unpaid. No property shall be exempt
from the payment OF such fines and penalties In
default OF sufficient personal property to satisfy
the same the officer executing the shall take
the body OF the delinquent and convey him to the
common Jail OF the city or county In wnicn ne may
be found, whose ja!ler shall closely confine HIM
without bail for two days for any fine or penalty
not exceeding s.. and two additional days for
every dollar above that sum, unless the fine or
penalty together with costs and jaiers fees be
sooner paid. No such imprisonment shall extend
beyond the period OF twenty days and the prisoner
may be liberated at any time by order OF the officer
who ordered the court that imposed the fines and
penalties.
AN OFFICERS POWER.
BY this article OF the code II be seen that
guardsman may be imprisoned for twenty days and
that for the time being the officer who ordered the
court has the high privilege OF keeping the key
turned on his place OF imprisonment or OF liberatng
him. The practice has been denounced. not only be-
cause It smacks OF the debtors prison laws, but
because II opens the way to practical petty tyranny
Against the argument advanced by officers of the
National Guard that man Is sent TO prison only III
extreme cases. It is contended tina, the same thing
was said by officers in European armies when the
movement against corporal punishment was first
started. While hundreds OF humane officers would
not abuse their privilege and would not have the
soldiers nogged, one In whom the bump or KINDNESS
was poorly developed might make use OF his rights
to the injury OF many: and to guard against the
possible abuse the part OF one. the hoggng power
was taken from all Those who oppose the system
which makes imprisonment possible say that
man should have a hearing before civil tribunal
and should not be dealt with by a military court
Ike a regular soldier frontier service All agree
that the offender should be punished but many say
that the punishment should not take the form OF
imprisonment. but should he confned 10 ulshohor-
able dismissal from the service. .,,
Guard say that there is nothing arbitrary or tyIan-
meal about the system. and they an Desih i.ei
arguments the subject by saying: NO sood SOL
Colonel william Seward said that the OF
his regiment about whom much had been writ
ten might nave saved himself the disgrace ana the
trouble II he had taken the pains to explain to me
Caif N he
with which he was charged Eases o. thas r KIM
ways manage to help the man: But when soldier
simply ignores the ndlnss OF me ,oo,bIs ne I'd"
Colonel Heman Dowd would not discuss the case
Private Mayorsan Of ,bs o sh. ot who
presided at the cour, had been appealed TO- and 4
a proper statement had peeh ihaue' '"e man "'u'N
not have gone 10 jail
AN EXTREME REMEDY.
Major Henry S. Van Duzer. judge advocate on
the s,an OF General Fitzgerald said that men were
sent 10 prison only In extreme cases Men mad
RICH, 10 appeal from the hnding OF the delinquency
court or from that OF the other military trouhas'
but n they refused or neglected 70 40 so; Hey
pa, n, hen nnei for a criminal offence. In such
cases a refusal to pay the fine was just cause iof
, his does no, satisfy those who favor the en-,
forcemen, OF disciplinary ms tn Object t to the I'M
,,y,eni Tor debt me thods They believe that the
discipline would not s ,Ter Of Se eoae had "h
matter In mind for Article 2j9 provinces 'e"'e'''
II reads: -, ,u,, -, court who shall
r.gcc or refuse to pay such fine withln lorI ~
,,r tho same was imposed may be dshon9rany
discharged from the service by the ocer ianS
" -, without allowance Of time he served ana
snail thereby disqualified from serving III '"e I'D"
tional Guard for period OF hve Years a.. ,,orco
+, is firmly believed by many that the enioIV,
mont OF Article 2s9 would b. SUFFICIENT 70 max mn
nrornpt in their oblieaons to the COMPANY OF r.
,rncnfsai treasury and that the puDicatoh oi IN
aa,nn q, orders as having been dishonoraby uls.
ila io, H. a Greater punishment than imprisonment
ma more IN keeping with the spirit OF the times