Rensselaer Republican, Volume 17, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 April 1885 — Another Letter on the Wartner Question. [ARTICLE]

Another Letter on the Wartner Question.

Town Convention.--The Republican voters of the town of Rensselaer are requested to meet tn mass convention, at the Court House, on Saturday evening, May 2nd, 1885, at 8 o’clock, sharp, for the purpose of nominating a ticket to be voted for at the town election ot May 4th, 1885.

MANY VOTERS.

In the death of Ex-Governor Conrad Baker, which oceured Tuesday, at his home m Indianapolis, this state loses an eminent and justly honored citizen. —,—: ~— j? A new county Superintendent iriust be elected in June. Mr. Nelson has filled the office with phenomenal zeal and energy, and also, as we believe with discretion and ability equal to his energy and zeal. It is our opinion that the County Board will re-elect him without serious opposition. - At the banner high license town, Joliet; Illinois, the friends of ■Whiskey, and their assistants, the extreme prohibitionists, worked Hard to elect a low license ticket at their late spring election. But the true friends of Temperance and of good order prevailed, and the SIOOO license law will still be sustained. The Republican office has been knocked about; from pillar to post, since a time whence the mentory of man runneth not. We have finally decided z to piit a stop to that kind of thing, and have bought a lot and begun work on a two-story building, in the lower .story of which we expect to find a permanent home for our newspaper and job office. From the present aspect of affairs a great war in Europe and the East, between Russia and Great Britian, with the certainty Of other nations becoming , involved, seems inevitable. Both nations are ablaze with a war spirit, and both Lave taken positions from which it seems impossible for them to recede without dishonor. We have no sympathy with that feeling which rejoices in the prospect of this impending conflict. The war may be of some little temporary advantage to this coun(ry, from a monetary pbint of view, but the selfishness which caff rejoice at advantage gained stt the tost of so much misery and bloodshed among the innocent masses bf the nations involved, is of a kind which no right thinking man should sympathize with.

Some facts in regard to the new Railroad projected to run through Jas per county, are given else where. Of course at this stage bf procedings, it is safe to say, judging ffotfi past that because the road has been incorporated by a number of good men, it does not follow by any means that there is any certainty 6f its construction. Nevertheless there is a chance that it will. In base it should be built on or near the proposed line, it is vastly important to' the interests or Kensselaer t£rat it intersects the tj. N.-A. &C. at this place. The town hits' already thrown away the chance to secure one north and South railroad, to its irreparable and unending injury. Let us not repeat the stupendous folly of throwing away such another chance? Should the agents of the new road Come to our tdvfri let us treat them nr a manned to secure their friendship tatKet than their enmity, fad let us give them to understand tjlat the people of Hensse4<er are ready to do the fair thing oy the company which will give Wowuxbcr desirable railroad.

Editor Refpbupan.—An article in your issue of April 23d, signed by “Justice,” opens a desesrtation on merciful punishment, by “ * * Capital punishment is a feature of our law which has been borrowed from the barbarism's of the past.” If “Justice” will be kind enough to point out a single punishment now inflicted by Our laws that was not inflicted by barbarians, we would be glad to have him do so. They have been inflicted “from time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the Contrary.” Why not jump at the cen'clusion that all “features” of our laws that inflict penalties were “borrowed from barbarisms of the past,” and for that reason abolish them ali? >Are we to believe that the legislators who framed and enacted our criminal code of 1881, and prescribed by that code the death penalty for murder in the first degree, were transformed into barbarians while enacting this part of the code? “Justice” is presumably ignorant of the fact that all civilized nations, probably without exception, provide for capital punishment in certain cases. Says justice, “The reluctance of modern juries to inflict the death penalty demonstrates that the tendencies of.our age are against capital punishment.” “Justice” has stated a fact, with regard to “modern juries” inflicting the death penalty on criminals, but he should have added, “their tendencies are against inflicting any penalty whatever.’ Had “Justice” put the above proposition in this form: “The pronenesfi of modern juries to acquit murderers, demonstrates that the tendencies of our age are against punishing them at all, on the ground that they are all insane, or at least so weak minded as to be irresponsible,” he would have come nearer the truth. The conclusion arrived at by “Justice,” from the above quoted sentence, id groundless and unsupported by the facts. It requires twelve meh to render a verdict. Who ifrould expbet twelve nibn, where crime is involved, to arrive at the same conclusions oh a given state of facts, and especially so when they are prone to indulge scfltimcntalisms? In nine cases but of ten there is a Judas, himself the doer of evil deeds, (and the attorney for the “defense” never “objects” to him,) who will betray his oath because he desires the criminal’s acquittal, and hd invariably acquits, or “hangs 1 ’ the jury: and the “trial” is worse, if possible, than if no attention had been paid to the crime. These are the only reasons that can be assigned demonstrating the “tendencies! of ou r agejare against capital punishmeiii, ’ ’ or, in short, any 7 punishment at all; But the tendencies of our Courts, arid especially the People, from whom all laws are derived, are growing very adverse to the “reluctance of modern juries” in punishing crime, dnd, consequently, when they are outraged a few times by the “reluctance of modern juries” te punish criminals, and by turning insane, (?) demented(?) and weak minded (?) criminals-lose in their midst, they take the execution of the law into their own hands and give themselves that protection which the “reluctance of modern juries” had failed to do. “Had he entered a plea of not guilty he would have been acquitted,” which would have followed as a na Ural sequence from the “reluctance of modern juries” to punish crime, and he would have been at liberty to murder some

mote of Sis most intimate, useful and accommodating friends. If there is a moral responsibility attaching to the tribunal which sentenced this man, wno would have been responsible for his acts had he stood trial and have been acquitted, by “the reluctance cf moderii juries'” to punish crime? Where would be poor “Justice’s” feelings should the sentence in this case be commuted, Warmer sent to prison for life, if he should exercise his “viciousness” by killing his keeper and escaping? Who would b£ responsible for that? Who are responsible when criminals are turned loose upon helpless society, which is compelled to either mob hem, br submit to theii depredations, because of the “reluctance of modern juries” to inflict the death penalty, and other adequate punishment, upon them? Who is responsible for the laxness with which criminal law is administered? The answer is, the “reluctant modern' jury.”

A.