The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1908-11-11
Hunters Who XIII Men.

The Bennington Banner whose edi-
tor is representative in the present
Legislature has the following comment
on an article in this paper:
Some of the suggestions of the
News are rather severe and others
would be decidedly difficult to carry
out, but the two main contentious that
there should be some law enacted fix
ing a penalty Tor the careless killing
by hunters and providing a remunera-
tion for the families bereaved will
meet with considerable commenda
ton. IL is mot at all likely that a
Vermont jury would ever convict a
man of murder for carelessly killing
fellow hunter, but the knowledge
that to mistake a man for deer meant
good stiff term in the state prison
at Windsor would have a tendency
TO swell the bump of caution in many
craniums in which past experiences
have demonstrated IL is not particu-
LARRY pronounced Some OF the re-
qurements Of the license provision,
particularly those providing that
hunter should file a record OF when
and where he is going to hunt, would
be impracticable."
The editor of the Bennington Ban
ner introduced a measure I'm the leg
islature providing punishment for
those hunters who accidentally kill
other hunters, believing them to be
deer This bill was killed no one
seemed to say why. The News. dis
GUESSING the question claimed that this
bill was TOO mild In its provision for
the killing of men In the woods and
suggested something more severe.
This measure provided Imprisonment
for ten years aud $1,000 fine to go to
the family OF the dead man
The suggestion or this paper was
far more severe measures in addition
TO the above, such as several western
states have adopted, to prevent this
reckless hunting man-slaughter In
deed there is a we'll defined opinion,
founded upon certain suspected cases.
that at least some Of such killings
have been really premeditated muir
der. In order TO cover any possibility
that an actual murder had occurred
we suggested provisions to the follow
ing effect
II such shooting results In the death
OF q human being the fact shall be
taken as prima facle evidence that
murder has been committed. and the
man who fired the gun when found
shall be placed In jail and held for the
grand jury on the charge OF murder.
N hunter is found guilty OF muir
der and hanged his estate shall pay
TO the family of the murdered man; or
II found guilty OF the lesser crime OF
killing. he snail pay. 10 the family OF
the man whom he killed the sum Of
$4,000
The effect OF this provision would
be. first, 10 restrain the hunter and
second. 10 take the whole question In
10 the grand jury room and court
where the facts could be ascertained
and the reckless shooter punished ac'
cordngly. II has been assumed In
such cases heretofore that they were
all merely accidents. That assump
lion Is a reckless triling with life on
the part OF local authorities. These
shooting accidents. nine times out OF
Ten. no doubt. are positively criminal
I'm their careless recklessness, To put
a man who has killed fellow being
ON trial for murder is the rule and not
the exception. Why should class OF
men. namely hunters. be omitted by
local authorities from all consequences
Of their murder or man.slaughter as
the case may be?
OF course no jury would convict a
killer OF men, for murder. II his crime
we're actually an unavoidable accident.
our contention Is that n violent death
under such circumstances should be
prima facle ovidepce OF a crime. AS
TO the registry. We consider that pre-.
caution wholly practicable, so that, II
a man has been killed In certain
town II would be possible to ascertain
who were hunting In that town at that
time. and thus find the guilty person
burlington News.