Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-11-11
WHY NOT GO ON?

VIII NOt GO UNI
The Cedar Rapids Republican and
the Marshalltown Tines Republican
find themselves in agreement on one
point at least. For a number of years
the Times-Republican has been advo-
eating a radical change in the manner
of collecting fines for drunkenness and
similar crimes. II has proposed that
the city find work for men convicted
of such crimes, force them to work
under penalty and pay wages that
would support their families instead of
throwing these dependents on public
or private charity. In this it is grati1ed
to find the Cedar Rapids newspaper
agreed. The Republican advises:
After man has been arrested for
drunkenness, instead of taking the
money from his wife, If she happens
to have a little saved up. or throwing
the man in jail. we would set him to
work earning money The city has
an island that needs wall around it,
We would provide train load of
rock for the island. We would get
one of the patent stone crushers
which are made in this city and we
would set those men feeding that
crusher (not breaking stone by ham
ners and we would begin putting in
the island wall out of those crushed
stones. A little of that every week
and by and by there would be the
completed wall. The men need not
be tagged with balls and chains for
they are easily guarded on the island
without such barbarities We would
have the city pay the men a reasonable
wage, according to the value OF their
work after their keep has been paid
for and we would send that money to
their wives and children
But the Times Republican goes far
ther and wishes the Republican would
come all the way. This newspaper be-
lieves that a state law should permit
or rather provide that the price of the
living Of a family dependent upon an
able bodied man whose habits or in
clinations deprive his dependents of
the support they have the right to
expect and that the public has the
right to demand be taken out of the
muscles of the derelicts. 1t believes that
the days work" in a husky body are
as logically subject to an execution as
personal or realty property. And it
would have the state and the county
and the city collect by process of law.
What honest objection can be urged
against a law that would take the lazy,
idle loafer who depends on his wife's
labor at the washtub and forcing him
to work for the wages that paid for
assure them some degree of comfort
and relieve the public Of burden and
the family of want? There are thou
sands Of such in Iowa, parasites and
worse, who are dead loss to the COM
munities OF $500 a year apiece. Why
don't we set them at work and buy
ing home from school? Is there any
reason why the state or the city or
the county should not conserve the
wages of the drunkard who works ey-
cry day, spends all ne earns for drink,
goes home drunk and abusive and is
an outrage in the community Why
should not authority step in and say,
"You can not pay a fine out of your
wage. That belongs to your suffering
family. You shall work for ninety days
at wages that will be paid over to the
family under the administration of Of
fcials. II you support them after your
time Is out you shall be free as long
as you do your first duty to the state
ard those dependent. If not, back you
go. The economy Of the age as well as
common decency demands that your
estate of $500 annual earning capacity,
equaling the interest on $4,000 to $10,-
900 in money or the rental of a 100
acre farm be conserved and admins
tered. Man. you are crazy or incom-
petent to care for this property. You
are wasting what belongs to your wife
AMI your children. You need guar
diam" Why not? No man would be
permitted to throw his years wages
OF s5G9 into the cutters while his fam