Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-10-15
An Unconscious Humorist.

to thank our contemporary for npst
enjoyable 10 minutes. If. under The
guise of serious argument. its hunor
was Intentional its editorial ranks
high as the work of an artist. But If,
as we somehow suspect. its humor Vas
entirely unconscious, 1t is all the more
delieiously funny.
Pardon us while we turn aside to
sive smile to irradiate our che4ful
countenance, at the representative Of
Mr.. Pattangail posing as the legfla-
tive champion of mandatory Jail 3en-
tences for rumsellers.
With solemn countenance, and With
out the suggestion of an editorial Wink,
the Sentinel raises the issue of hin
ceIity" Very well, let us see.
In 1870 the law of this State conain
ed the following statute, of genera ap-
plication, and therefore appropriately
included in a chapter relating to SEN
case3:
s.Whenever il 10 provided that an
offender shall be punished by inpris-
onment and fine, the court may en-
tence him to either Of those punish
msnts without the other, or to beth"
This was an emphatic declarationpf
the great principle of judicial dise1e-
ton, which has been not inaptly d.
scrfhed as lone of the foundatRn
stones of the Temple of Justice" TIE
above statute safegnarded that prit-
ciplc against hasty or inadvertfrt
legislation in particular instances.
From at least 1910 it has been contnu-
ousiy the law of this State until he
present time.
On Monday, the Sentinel alluded %
this statute as a Joker intended o
take the teeth out of the prohibitoy
law. We drove the Sentinel from th;t
position by showing that the so-callA
ECKER" was enacted almost two dec
AIDES before Maine had any prohibitor'
law. 1t continued to be the law o
this State, administered daily by ouf
courts, and incorporated in successive
legislative revisions of the statutes,
until 1887. The only Joker" about 1t
at any time has been the Sentinel edi-
tor nimseif-and even he is only an
unconscious joker.
In 1887, and again in 1891. says the
Sentinel, the friends of prohibition
succeeded in having some teeth put
in the prohibitory law. The Sentinel
adds that this was done by Republic
can Legislatures. The qualification
was quite unnecessary. The idea of a
Democratic Legislature supporting
prohibitory legislation would too
greatly strain even the Sentiners re-
fined and subtle sense of humor. No.
let us have no horse play.
The 1887 and 1891 amendments, says
and "or" provision by using the words
land In addition thereto imprison
ment." The words got around" are
the Sentinel's own expression. 1t also
refers to these amendments as cir
cumventing' the general law giving
judges discretion, which had stood I'M
challenged for nearly half century.
BY the Sentinefs own logic, the "jok-
er" lay in the liquor law amend
ments. and not in the statute confer
ring judicial discretion. So far as
that is concerned, however, there is
no occasion to manufacture any "jok-
err out of the situation. Men may
honestly differ as to the expediency OF
excepting liquor cases from the gen
efal law giving judges discretion In
the imposition of sentence in Grimm
al cases.
But, says the Sentinel, If the and
and .or" provision was not previ.
ously a joker. it certainly became on,
in 1893, and has been one ever since
That's where We smiled most broad
ly. The 1893 statute, which we believ,
is right and sound, but which the Sen
tinel denounces as a Joker" amended
the statute comforting discretion upoI
judges. by adding the words or b.
fine and in addition thereto imprison
ment," SO that the sentence now reads
"Nhen il is provided that he shall
be punished by Imprisonment and fine
or by imprisonment or fine, or by fin
and IN addition thereto Imprisonment,
NJ may be sentenced to either o
BETH"
Is the Sentinel aware of the fac
that those two stalwart Democrat
Judge Bird, an honored member Of on
present supreme court. and the lat
Simon s. Brown of Waterville, VIII