The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1901-10-09
TREATING THE DRUNKARD.
Difference Between Laws Of the Various
States.
NMp York SIM.

For example. in Connecticut for the
first Offcnsc common druDkard may
be sentenced to hard labor for max.
: imum term of sixty days; for the see
days, and for the third offensc to a
maximum term Of 200 days. In Min
ncsota, which is also typical Of the
States in which the scheme of graded
sentences prevails, for the first Of
fensc a drunkard may be fined from
$40 to $40 or imprisoned from ten to
forty days, for the second offcnse he
may be fined from $50 to $40 or be
imprisoned from thirty to sixty days,
and for the third offcnsc he may
be imprisoned from sixty to ninety
days.
In Arkansas, West Virginia and In
dian Territory security for the good
behavior of a convicted drunkard may
be cxacted in lieu Of fine or impris-
onmcnt. In Arkansas the presiding
magistrate may require Of the intoxi
Gated person surety "for good behav-
ior and for keeping the peace not cx-
cccding one year" but in case the
bond cannot be procured imprisonment
for maximum term Of thirty days is
authorized. In West Virginia the life
OF the security is limited TO six
months.
In eight States aud Territories
statutory provision is made for the in
stltutional treatment Of inebriates.
North Dakota authorizes the commit
ment, at county expense, of habitual
drundards to ''any reputable institu-
tion for the treatment Of drunken
ness designated by committee ap.
pointed by the Governor The victim
must express desire to undergo
treatment and must be impecunious,
and he cannot be committed n second
time IT the public expense. In the
Territory Of Oklahoma, where the law
is substantially similar, not more than
four persons can be sent 70 the ir ,ti-
tuition from one county in year. In
North Carolina the period Of treat
mont cannot jbe less than three
months nor more than a year, aud Il
drunkard may commit himself upon
application endorsed by respectable
friend.
Legislation providing for the sus-
pension of the execution of sentenc
and the conditional release Of con-
victed drunkard upon parole under the
supervision Of probation officer has
been enacted in Massachusetts,, New
Jersey and Rhode Island. The pro
baton system was introduced into
Massachusetts more than dozen years
ago, and it has become an important
feature Of the penal policy of that
Commonwealth. Proposed laws es-
tsh!,shing probation machinery based
upon the Massachusetts, practice
have been under advi=esaeut III
the Legislatures Of various States this
year.
The conventional treatment of con-
victed drunkards in the United States
is retributive rather than reformative.
and it is not justified by the logic Of
results, some students of the subject
say. Experience, they declare, has
proved with painful positiveness that
the imposition of a fine or Jail SEN
tence does not operate on the inebriate
as regenerative agency and does not
tend to divert him from his anti-social
tendencies. The most hopeful exper.
iments, they think, lie along the lire
of the application of the probation
system To first offenders and the COM
m;tment Of hsh;tns! dr.akards &c q
special institution under an undeter-
inmate sentence, where they be con.
fined at hard labor and under scien-
ti6c treatment until their appetite
for alcohol is deadened and mo.
tives for sustained good conduct are
created.