The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1901-01-19

News oftn.
i terest g
coScERN1NG PROHIBITION Law.


= ~ G0~1
Laws Enforcement.
A matter having a very important
bearing on the effectiveness Of the pro-
hibition law Of North Dakota is to
come up before the county court OF
Ransom county, at Lisbon, Jan. Is. 1t
appears that in August last John Eek
strom was brought before the county
court for blind -pigging, at Sheldon,
Ransom county, and, on a plea OF
guilty was %adjudged. by County Judge
Smith, to be imprisoned in the county
Jail 100 days and to pay a fine Of $3.50
and costs, and to stand committed n
til the said fine and costs We're paid
The place where the digging was
CARRIED on was declared to be a nuis-
ance, and ordered abated. The prisons
er has served out his term of imprison-
ment, but is still in Jail for the nom
payment Of the fine and costs. The
law provides that in such cases the
person against whom such fine and
costs are assessed shall be committed
to the county jail until such fine and
costs are paid, at the rate of n day
for each 81 of fine and costs, but no inn
prfsonment for non-payment Of fine
and costs shall exceed six months.
Now, after this defendant has served
out a little over one month on fine and
costs, he files, through his attorney,
Ed Pierce of Sheldon, a motion for his
discharge from custody, supported by
his affidavit setting forth the fact of
his conviction, sentence, etc., and aver
ring. that he is. poor and has no means
of paying the line and costs. imposed
under the law against. him. It is con-
coded that the conviction and sentence
are quite regular, but is is claimed the
prisoner has been punished enough,
and that he is now being kept, at great
expense, to the county, whereas, II he
is released, he will save such expense
and be enabled to embark. In some en-
terprfse wherein he may earn enough
in a short time to pay his fine and
costs. Judge Smith, who sentenced the
prisoner, has been succeeded by Judge
Charles A. Gram of Sheldon, who will
be called upon to pass upon the Ques-
ton. Former Judge Smith refused to
entertain such a motion as is now
made, on. the ground that he had mo
jurisdiction, the power to remit fines
and forfeitures, to grant 'reprieves,
communications and pardons after IN
viction" being vested, by the constitu-
ton of North Dakota solely in the
governor Of the state. It is claimed,
however, by the friends of the prison.
er, that District Court Judge Lauder
acted favorably, few years since, in
q similar case, and that, therefore,
there Is a precedent established for ia
vorable action in the present case. It
is safe to say, however, that If such
proceedings are legal, it will knock the
props from under the whole prohibi-
ton law, and render the enforcement
of it very unsatisfactory to the prohi-
bition people Of the state, and weaken
its effect quite seriously. Imposing a
fine and costs is not Of itself of great
advantage, as most Of the violators of
the prohibition law are men of poor
financial responsibility and practically
execution-proof.. It is held, however,
that the Service of time in the county
Jail does not legally satisfy the fine
and costs in the least. but that execu-
ton may issue at any time to collect
the same. rs
If, 1t is c%ontended, it is proper to en-
terrain a motion for a prisoners dis
charge after he has served a month OF.
so on account of fine and costs, 1t
would, by parity OF reasoning, be quite
the thing to do, 80 at m time after
conviction, and, If entertained, would
rob the law Of its seriousness and eff
f~ectiveness, and, so far Is its beneficial
effects may be concerned, the legis-
lature might as well repeal all Of the
criminal laws on the statute book, and
have q general jail delivery of all sorts
and conditions of men.