Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-05-11
A Communication.

general interest throughout the State.
The keen edge of disappointment time
has dulled. but a serious desire re-
mains to understand how the Cover
nor, who by every other token stands
for enforced prohibition. could by his
own hand destroy the only hope of
securing enforced prohibition.
For twenty years the people have
been learning that fines for liquor
| sellers were entirely ineffective, and
| that imprisonment, even, unless firmly
persisted in and made the established
policy, is not effective. However, II
anything can drive the rum seller to
| cover the people believe it is the
certainty of the Jail. They see no way
TO securing such certainty except by
removing all discretionary powers
from the Court IN pronouncing
sentences upon criminals. What they
| We're willing should be done in the
way of removing such discretion may
be taken as measure of their deter
| mination to make the Jail certainty
for the rum sellers.
What is the Hastings Bill? Let US
see! 1t amends Chapter 1876, Section 1.
Revised Statutes, by striking out the
following words,-"When it is pro-
vided that he the offender) shall he
punished by Imprisonment and fine,
or by Imprisonment or fine, or by fine
and in addition thereto Imprisonment,
he may be sentenced to either or
| both" The effect of this would be to
make inflexible all sentences for all
crimes within the whole body of the
Statute. The punishment admins
tered by the Court for each crime
would have to be precisely what is
named in each Statute. 1t looks
reasonable that the proper penalty
| with the proper latitude between
minimum and maximum should be
affixed for the violation of each
Statute The layman can see no rea-
son why that would not be a plain and
safe way to make laws.
But it must be remembered that in
this state, for the last sixty years,
penalties have been affixed to the laws
| by the Legislature with the idea that
every sentence as affixed to the indi-
vidual Statute was subject to modi-
fication by the general principle which
the Hastings Bill would remove. The
Hastings Bill as Law would modify or
limit the flexiblity of all sentences as
| they were intended by the Legislatures
for the last sixty years, and establish
a less flexible code of sentences than
was intended by the Legislatures
throughout the whole body of the laws
of Maine I say for the last sixty
years because the Revised Statutes of
1910 contained in Chapter 1853. Section
4, this principle which has remained
MT ~
ruption. The Statute of 1910 reads
offender shall be punished by i'm
prisonment and fine the Court may
sentence him to either of those
punishments or to both" This rule
gave the Court at least three degrees
of punishment, fine alone. imprison-
ment alone, or fine and imprisonment
| The Revised Statutes of 1857.
Chapter 1876, Section /, still further in
creased the discretionary power of the
Court 1t reads, "Whenever it is pro-
vided that he Uhe offender) shall be
punished by Imprisonment and fine or
by Imprisonment or fine. he may be
sentenced to either or BOTH BY this
rule the Court was given all the dis
erection allowed by the Statutes of 1910
and more. Whenever an individual
Statutes prescribed fine or imprlson-
ment, the Court was authorized to
unite the two and give fine and im-
prisonment if the case warranted It,
In other words by this. Statute the
Court was authorized to construe or
as land" as well as to construe and
as cor" BY this rule the Court was
authorized to infict heavier penalty
than the individual Statute imposed
For example, in the case of nuisance.
the penalty of which is fine not ex.
ceeding a thousand dollars or i'm
prisonment of not more than one year
The Court under this rule is author
lied, il the case warrants 1T, to give
| both the fine and Imprisonment. This
rule has applied to the Court from
as far back as 1857 to the present time.
| In later years when notification of
| the law against the rumselier began to
be practiced, it became evident that
| certain Courts were using the Judicial
discretion given them by the Legisla-
| ture in a way to encourage and pro-
mote the traffic instead of prohibiting
| it according to the intent and purpose
of the law. The people therefore be-
gan to seek to limit the discretionary
powers of the Court in administering
punishment to liquor sellers. In 1887
| the Legislature. by change CT
phraseology, attempted to deprive the
| Court of the privilege OF discriminate
ing against Jail sentences in liquor
cases. AS penalty for "single sale
the Statute was made to say-"The
| offender shall pay a fine of not less
than fifty dollars and costs and in adj
dition thereto be Imprisoned thirty
days" Gradually the phrase in addi-
| ton thereto was incorporated by tn"
| Legislature into the penalties for
| numerous violations of the liquor law.
for the sole purpose of turning the
Courts away from the filming system
and Of forcing them to give Jail SEN
| fences.
In 1898. however, this effort of the
people was effectually blocked by a
new amendment to the old judicial
discretion" Statute. The phrase in ad-
dition thereto-the peoples remor-
STRANGE against the filming system If
the Court-was cunningly deprived of