Norwich bulletin., 1912-01-26
PHELPS DIES IN ELECTRIC CHAIR
Seven Members of Governors Council Against Extending
Mercy Silas Phelps-Issue Statement, Giving Their
Reasons-Acton Generally Approved in Desperado's
Home Town.

children were with her. In the fore
noon a neighbor called and assisted
Mrs Phelps, who appears worn and
detected.
Elmer Phelps, brother of the con-
demned man, was unloading at mill
when told the news. Il expected it. /"
was all the comment he made, and
continued his work
The residents of Monroe Bridge as
a whole endorse the action of the gov
erner's counsel. as they considered ST.
las Phelps a dangerous man.
Councillors Received Many Letters.
The seven members of the executive
council who voted against committing
the sentence issued a statement later
In the day in which they said that
they voted with reluctance but with
what seemed to them to be an imper-
alive duty.
1t has been made more difficult
and painful" they continue, through
the receipt of large number of let
ters written by well meaning persons,
for the most part betraying Ignorance
Of the real facts. Erroneous public
statements and comment have made
the affair still more distressing"
Phelps Had Threatened Haskins.
The councillors say that the supreme
court set forth the important tastl-
mony. TT has been shown" conti' ues
the statement, that a sherifs' posse
Of not more than six or seven. about
sunrise, with abundant warning,
sought to apprehend man, well in
formed of their identity and errand.
who fully expected arrest. Deputy
Sheriff Haskins was in rightful per-
Torrance of his duty, and believing
that Phelps had committed q felony,
he entered the house to arrest him.
Phelps had previously threatened to
kill Haskins If he came on such an
GRAND, and he did kill him.
Law Does Not Consider Misery Of
Innocent.
The verdict was rendered by a jury
and the council believes that the trial
was fairly conducted and the supreme
court settled all disputed questions.
Continuing, the councillors say: But
il has been argued that on other
grounds clemency should he exercised
and that the disgrace brought to the
wife and six children would justify
Cummutation The answer is that the
penalties of the law never take into
account the misery or disgrace they
bring upon the innocent.
Ignorance Of Law No Excuse.
Of Phelps himself, it is said that
he should not forfeit his life, mas
much as he is the product of environ
/ ment and not to be held responsible
for weakness, viciousness or degener-
acy perhaps Of his own making. Our
law does not today contemplate that a
man sane. according to present stand
Dc h1n IA hal 1-fbN Ia
completely responsible, for his own
acts. Also, it excuses no man for ig-
norance of the law.
Not to Punish, but to Deter.
The protection Of society must con-
troll such questions. The law does not
. 6emand of Phelps the supreme pen
atty for the sake of punishment or
| vengeance 1t does impose death that
such d sentence may deter others from
doing what Phelps did. The main pur-
I pose is to protect as far as possible
1 our own lives, and the lives of those
{ as dear 10 us that for them we would
/ gladly give our own if need should
| come.
Mercy in This Case Would Endangcr
Officers.
In its application of this particular
| case. the law contemplates it to be Of
I the utmost importance that the officers
] Of justice shall be surrounded with
( every protection that statutes can de-
( wise. He who resists an officer OF
I the law attacks the foundations of So
! ciety. This is the reason why, in ou1
I judgment, we could not be merciful
! to this one man without the terrible
! probability that we would thereby en-.
danger the lives of others and bring
the same bitter grief to other homes
/ that he brought to that Of Deputy
| Sheriff Emmett F. Haskins.
tSigned): Robert Luce, Eben S. S.
Keith, Alexander McGregor Edward
rockingham, Herbert E. Fletcher, ].
Stearns Gushing, A. H. Goetting.