Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1898-05-05
Imprisoned for Debt.

We think it was shame to imprison
this mana disgrace upon his wife and
daughter and also upon the city
Those whose duty it is to collect the
license might have done il months ago
or have closed the billiard room. We
understand that others have been away
behind paying license Why were they
not summarily dealt with? We be-
lieve in exact justice to all and special
privileges to none, but it is not always
SO carried out. II, in the goodness OF
his heart. the revenue commissioner
could wait for the payment of balance
after much other tax had been paid,
the police justice should have put that
official between the throne and the OPP
pressed debtor. Wonder why this
matter was not settled some ten days
| before.-Argus.
The above is part of an article ap-
pcaring under the above head in this
weeks Ar0ass, relative to the imprison-
ment of Mr.. j. G. Scheffer, proprietor
of the Va. Hotel in this city,
Ibe fscts in the above case as we
learn arc as follow, Mr.. Scheffer had
failed to pay his license and had been
INDUCED by the Com of the Revenue,
Thomas j. Crowder, until he could
| wait no longer, when ne, with Others,
was reported to the Police Justice,
and he and others were cited to ap-
pear before the Juatice, and this was
done ON several occasions, until at
last he refused any longer to obey
AZ -
NJ arch the Chief of Police, Capt.
Waters, swore out warrant for Mr..
Sche fer and he was brought before
the Police Justice. On his appear
ance he was not fined, but was given
an opportunity to pay his license, the
Police Justice not desiring to deal
harshly with him. But he refused
and neglected to pay the license until
two days before the time would ex-
pire when any &C ion could be taken.
and when If longer neglected the
State would lose the license entirely.
There was no alternative left but to
impose the fine, and if the fine was
imposed and not paid there was no
alternative left but that Mr.. SchefYer
must go TO Jail. At the time the Pc
lice Justice took the action and per-
formed what he states was one of the
most unpleasant duties performed by
him during his career, Mr.. Scheffer
stated that he had received great in
diligence and lenisncy, and he could
see nothing else for the Police Justice
TO do, Or words to that effect. The
Rne may have looked large. but had it
been less the fine would have been
paid and the license lost. So the Pc
lice Justice it would seem wisely, made
the fine large enough to cover the I'M
paid license, and when it was paid the
amount was allowed to go fl payment
OF the license, so Mr.. Scheffer
did not pay any money that was not
due from him. The article in the ar
gas whose headline is Imprisoned for
debt is wholly unwarranted by the
facts as the imprisonment was not for
sseht int r-es fof d iine imposed and
the fine was imposed because the party
had openly and fragrantly violated the
law. Had the police justice arrested
or fined any body else in the case, save
and except Mr.. Scheffer. the Argus
would doubtless justly have cried out,
loudly about the ''shame," but man
whose life has taught him what his
duty as to the payment of license wac,
who has been prominent in Staunton's
affairs. and & member OF the City Coun-
ell ought to have protected his own
character and saved his family the
"disgracen of this affair, aud not have
expected MIR. Landee, the police justice.
to do for him what he himself declin-
ed to do after the long indulgence.
His was the only case before the JUS
tice, and the only case of unpaid license
in the city so far as the records show.
We had not intended mentioning thia
case on account of our friendly rela-
tives to all the parties, but as the Dr.
gas has seen fit to condemn Mr. Landes
and as We think put him IN a false
light, we deem a statement due
MIR. Landes, who probably does not
need it, as his eff ient fearless, but at
the same time judicious and temper
ate management of the duties of his
Office have elevated him in the eyes of
the people of Staunton to such a de-
gree that defense from US is unneces-
sary. But had Mr.. landes neglected
to do what he did his own Office should
have been forfeited, for it is manifest
ly unjust to others who are in the
same business and who pay their
license promptly, to allow opposition
TO their business to go on without
such payment Mr Sehefrer was sure
ly liable to a penalty far in excess of
Che orc imposed, and ii other officers
are liable to fac for failure, this is no
cXoneration OF Mr.. Schefer, but they
can be dealt with according to their
de4erts.