The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-09-14

prevention OF a repetition OF the offense. The
legislatures OF the various States and OF the
united states have determined what these
deterrent punshmentS shall be. and no court
is justified in affixing punishment for any
purpose except the protection of society. No
doubt the court is within The provision OF the
punishment, and there was no necessity 1or
assigning any reason for it's decision. On the
theory expressed by the court the term OF
IMPRISONMENT should, in my opinion. have
Deen heightened instead of shortened, as an
Ino1an TO whom the taking OF human life is a
casual trifle, is dangerous to be at large.
-, ,x-Judge Fox of the supreme Court
ms Is not really legal question IL the court
decided the point in his judicial discretion
and not in viola ton of the statutes. II there
has been any attempt to hold that an Indian
or any other race shall be adjudged on dit
ierent basis than white man or any other
citizen the court has surely gone beyond the
law. Circumstances always alter cases, and
when question is left to the discretion OF the
court there is always wide range. / an
hardly able to see why an Indian would suffer
more in Jail than white man.
AT. orney II NJ. +. Soto-I never heard
OF any such precedent. and l do not think
there ought to DE any difference between an
Indian and any other class of citizens IN muir
der cases or other crimes. 1t is one country
and there is one law for ali classes whether
white, black, Chinese or Indians. | do not
think an Indian would suffer more than
white man, and am at loss 10 see why there
should be two standards OF punishment or
why the Judge took the position he did.
EX- Supreme Justice Van. Il. Pater-
son-The premises ID this ca Sc seem to be
false. l do not know what Judge rendered
the decision you have shown me, but l think
his reasoning is odd. The Indian is not
man OF delicate nervous organization, for
which reason he does not suffer as a civilized
man does. He is more like an animal. He
feels the punishment for \ time. but when
the physical system gets accustomed TO new
conditions he is all T ght. lie does not feel
the pangs OF disgrace and remorse, but he
soon learns to love the food and the ease of
his position. There Is no distinction between
races IN the law, and do not think it would
be safe precedent to say that Indians who
commit manslaug liter or murder should be
punished more lightly or severely than others.
Colonel w. L. Dudley of Stockton
The reasoning of the court seems to me to be
peculiar. l have never seen any precedent
for such a distinction a that which you quote.
II strikes ne that an Indian cannot suffer SO
keenly as white man CT Intelligence and
education, for more Than half of the pain of
I'M prisonment Is mental
NJ. A. Dorn-The law makes no such dis
unction as the court has made, but justice is
blind and regards all men as equal. The two
told purpose OF punishment is 10 remove the
criminal temporarily or p 'rmanently from
society and 10 warn other mem bers OF society
OF the consequences of evil-dong. In my
judgment term OF punishment will have
any effect on the average Indian, except 10
keep him away from society and therefore
protect 1t from his ravf ges. The who advau-
tage i'll punishing an Indian, therefore is that
which comes 10 the people lar e, for the
Indian Is not reformed. Under TINS view it
occurs TO me that the longer the term of i'm
prisonmen the better. The compare i've SUI
fering or non-Suffering OF an Indian, there
fore, Is not proDer subject lior judicial con-
SHERATON.
Ex-Judge ID. j. Murphy think there