The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1896-10-13

a human life not taken. and the more
serious offenso, was the violation Of the
rights Of man In his own house. II
there In anything sacred 10 an Ameri-
can citizen II In the right 10 be unmo-
Tested In his own house or place Of busi-
ness. In this case II appears that the
defendant entered into the house and
there used very improper and profanc
language against the prosecuting Wit
ness and Ia the hearing Of his wife.
Such language was used as would pro-
yoke almost any man under similar cir
cumHtances TO take exactly the course
that Mr.. Ross took IN this case He did
nothing more than nine out OF ten men
would have done II the same language
had been used towards them under the
same conditions and the tenth man
would probably have taken more ex-
treme measures"
''On the other hand. the crime Is
somewhat mitlgated by the fact that
the defendant was In liquor at the time,
and probably not wholly responsible
for the language he used. and that he
used such language as he would not
have employed had he been perfectly
sober. am well acquainted with the
defendant and knew him fof long
time while was district attorney here
and he was deputy sherin. He per
formed his duties faithfully and so far
as am able to say. was a good and
efficient officer. and has that much
placed to his credit. am disposed to
think that liquor was much TO blame
for the act he committed. This should
bear It's lesson 10 all others Those who
are now. perhaps even in this court
which this defendant made his mistake.
should stop and turn about-pause be
fore they fall from a habit OF this
kind. The legitimate end " all such
ways results in almost certain disgrace.
There is only one out OF very large
proportion Of the crimes Of the day
which cannot be traced TO and for
which the liquor habit Is not RESPONSE
bic" rn
rs said before J have considered
this case tery carefully. Personally
would like 10 put upon the defendant
the lightest sentence that the law will
permit believing that he probably
would not be guilty Of repeating this
onense. But the object Of the law is
not wholly for the purpose OF prevent
ing the defendant feom again commit
ting the same offcnse II has another
objcct-that is, a warning to other peo-
pie To abstain from offenses OF like
character, and the further object OF
an assurance To law abiding people that
their lives and their property viii be
protected. So In this case. II inflicted
upon this defendant the least penalty
there would be very little in that to
deter others from similar offenses. and
very little assurance % others that
when they We're assaulted in their own
houses and exercised the right inalitna-
BILE to all. to put an intruder out Of
their house, the offender would be pun
ished. II at all. only slightly. do not
feel like infictlng the lowest punish
ment the law provides in this case. AZ
ter very carefully considering all the
facts in this matter, have concluded TO
inilict such punishment as in my best
Judgment will deter others from COM
like offenses. and will give an
assurance to law abiding people that
their homes will be protected from in
suit at the hands of all intruders. In
rendering decision, l take the letter Of
the prosecuting witness into considera-
tlon; also the recommendation Of the
jury in this case, in which the mercy
OF the court is invoked, and the plea
made In his behalf by counsel.
THE defendant will stand up.
1T is the Judgment of this court, con-
sidering all the circumstances of this
case that you be confined in the state
for one year"