Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-10-13
Is This "Sineerity?y


and minding her own business. She
was purring quietly over THE case
of Doctor Berry All was serene. But
in the distance a naughty little Wa
terville Sentinel dog was frisking
playfully about and wagging his
Democratic tail His eye CHANGED to
fall upon the cat. instantly his hair
bristled, his eyes belched fire, and he
flew at the good and patient cat with
q fierce editorial bark About Jail
Sentences"
Tahby yawned. arose, said "F-f-f-t!
and scratched the nose of the httle.
dog. who ithereupen, with tail be.l
tween 53
But we anticipate u.
Saturday morning, under the caps
ton about Jail Sentences the faith
full, Sentinel barked furiously at the
fact that. while we advocate jail SEN
terces for rumsellers, a member or
our staff voted against the Hastings
bill while a member of the Legisla-
ture in 1869.
The. individual referred to. who is
An occasional contributor to these col
pnnss did vote against that bill he
also voted to sustain Governor Fer
maids veto of it. His convictions with
reference to that bill, and his belief
In the wisdom of the Governors veto,
remain unchanged. Moreover, he
wrote the editorial from which the
Sentinel quoted, as well as one from
which it did not quote. These edito-
rails accurately express his convle-i
Hons with reference to the question
Of jail sentences.
THE sentinel's attempt to find an
inconsistency between our vote in 1909
and our editorials in 1918. either be-
trays superficial knowledge of the
real questions at issue, or conyicts the
editor of that very insincerity which
he so freely attributes to others.
The storm center of this eontrover-
sy is Section / of Chapter 1876 of the
Revised Statutes, which reads as fol-
lows:
.No person shall be punished
for an offense until convicted there
OF in a court having jurisdiction
Of the person and case. When no pun
ishment is provided by statute, per-
son convicted of an offense shall be
imprisoned for less than one year
or fined not exceeding five hum.
dred dollars. When it is provided that
he shall be punished by imprisonment
and fine, or by Imprisonment or fine,
or by fine and in addition thereto i'm
prisonment, he may be sentenced to
either or both. In ali cases where a
fine is imposed he may be sentenced
to pay the costs Of prosecution; and
for violations of Sections Al, AZ, A,
~ and 81 of Chapter %, he shall be
sentenced to pay such costs"
The references in the latter part of
the foregoing section are to those sec
tions of the liquor law relating to sin
gle sales. common sellers, tipping
shops, searches and seizures and
claimants of liquors. The quoted sec
tion is Of general application in all
criminal cases. The sentence printed
In full face type with the exception
of the words .or by fine and in ad-
dition thereto imprisonment" has been
the law In this State continuously
since 1910 at least. In the Revised
Statutes of that year, Chapter 1853,
Section 4, it appears in the following
form:
Whenever Il 10 provided that an
offender shall be punished by impris-
onment and fine, the court may SEN
tence him to either of those punish
rnents without the other, or to both"
In it's editorial the Sentinel says:
This provision does not occur in the
prohibitory law itself Succeeding.
Republican Legislatures went through
the form of putting teeth in the law
The teeth consisted largely in provis-
ion for jail sentences. The time came
when the law was as full of teeth as
are the jaws of crocodile. And then
one of the Republican Legislatures in
serted in another part of the stat
utes this and and or Joker which
takes the teeth out 5of the prohi bitory
law ssg&
This statement is exactly contrary to
fhe fact, and upon such false premise
the Sentinel spins its diaphanous web
of sophistries. The Sentinel is appar-
emily ignorant Of the fact that this
land" and "or" sentence, which it de-
scribes as a joker intended to take
the teeth out Of the prohibitory law,
was enacted many years before Maine
had : prohibitory law, and has been
the. law Of this State ever since.
II represented general, and vastly
important principle in our jurispru-
deuce--that OF entrusting our Judiciary
1fth discretion in the imposition of
eSu,fences in criminal cases. 1t has been
fl.1 laW Of this State since 1S4o, at
81 Il rtel