The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1907-07-18

1Ac only check is the fact that
!Lc G caught are required to an
wcr. fnes are only makeshifts
aud do not bring prominent citi-
zens to proper realization of
their positions. ="
For some years the nswapapers
have been preaching that very
doctrine. The Daily News has
time after time used practically
the same language as now used
by Judge Morris in discussing the
subject. But Judge Morris is the
first Judge to make an open dec
laration to the effect that the
courts have been wrong for some
years.
Judge lands of Chicago, holds
like opinions, and in the Standard
Oil cases he endeavored TO ascer-
tain the wealth of the guilty cor
poration with a view of assessing
a fine that would be a punishment
The corporation convicted could not
be sent to prison, so that Judge
Lands had only to assess a fine,
but the chances are he will make
the fine ample-as nearly so as a
fine can be. Had the officers of the
company been amenable to the law,
the probability is that Judge Ian
dis would have said something
along the line quoted from Judge
Morris.
We are not concerned with the
wisdom of the Valentine law, nor
with the general character OF the
men sentenced by Judge Morris
The law may be a bad one and
the men may be admirable citizens.
Neither fact enters into this dis.
cussion. Here are number ol
men who come into court and con,
fess that they have violated a stat,
ute Of the state al Ohio, winch
statute provides a penalty for its
violation of either a fine or tern
in Jail. The men are able TO pay
fine, probably. By violating the
law they have been able to make
a good deal of money, and they
could easily spare a portion of II
to nav a fine. 1t would be the
gheerest nonsense to assess a fine
against them and TO turn then
loose.
But six months III a workhous'
is something different. The mel
will know when they come out oi
the wCrkhouse that they have beer
there. They will realize that Il
means something to violate the laws
Of this state. Their social position
will avail them nothing when they
are branded as jailbrds. They Wi
know as they walk along the streets
and have people look at them tha'
they did a serious thing when the.
violated the law. If they have tn
conscience that men ought to hav'
it will be a punishment to then
all the rest of their lives to thlnl
that they served term in pnsoI
as common criminals. 1t will no
be pleasant thing to think oil
III will indeed be a punishment
as a fine could never be IN thel
case.
But is there not danger that tn
new principIe-for it is a new pl1n
ciple-enunciated by Judge Morl
will overthrow one OF our chershe'
traditions We proclaim loudl,
that in this country every man l
eoual before the law. Is that
fact, if the new doctrine is L
prevail? If a man Is poor he
, fined; if he is rich he is sent u
iail. Is that equality before tn
law? Those are the questions w
now expect to hear raised, and W
/ anticipate them and answr III IN
affirmative. Yes, that Is equaht,
before the law-the only equality
lit is equality of punishment 10
violation of law, and that Is VIVA
is meant. 1t is not equality !
two men are fined a like amount
when one of them is able to pa,
| his fine without missing the none.
while the other has to mortgag
his home, or go into debt to obtai
1.-The amount of the fine. That ha
|been the trouble all along. We hay
tried to prove that all men wer
equal before the law by ASSESSING
| the identical punishment agalns
men regardless of whether the,
were physically on financially o
mentally equal, whereas it wonl'
Ibe a much greater punishment U
put out one eye of the man VIII
had already lost an eye than T.
put out one eye Of the man VIII,
had two good eyes. Springfield
n NpSUs