PUBLIC OFFENSES.
On motion by Mr. COMSTOCK, the Senate returned to the consideration of the bill [H. R. 393--see page 17] conoerning public offenses, commencing where it left off yesterday, at Section 165.
On motion of Mr. URMSTON, the minimum fine for selling intoxicating liquor to an intoxicated person was reduced from fifty to five dollars.
Mr. HENRY made an ineffectual motion to make it ten dollars.
On motion by Mr. COFFEY, all was stricken out, proposing a fine for the second, and a fine and imprisonment for the third conviction of being found is a a public place in a state of intoxication; so the section stands with a simple fine of five dollars for that offense.
Mr. BROWN moved to strike out all in reference to imprisonment for the sale of spirituous liquor to an intoxicated person. It is too much of a punishment for so trivial an offense; it is out of all reason. This section does not confine the punishment to confirmed drunkards, and would be placing in the power of some malicious person to jail one whom the State has licensed to sell liquors. The enormity of the penalty will in many instances defeat the object of the section.
Mr. HENRY thought the punishment should be left discretionary, and so moved to amend.
Mr. COFFEY opposed the motion to strike out. The talk about non-execution of the law is bosh. The penalty should be such as to deter men from violating laws. Is it wrong for a person engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors to sell such to persons in a state of intoxication? The law declares it is a public offense, and unless sufficint penalties are imposed men engaged in the traffic will not be deterred from so doing. If a small fine is imposed they care but little for it, but if in addition they are to be imprisoned, that punishment will be a deterrent. Unless this page: 156[View Page 156] clause is left in the bill, the whole section might as well be stricken out.
Mr. SPANN also opposed the motion to strike out. There should be such a penalty affixed that such a crime will not be repeated. The penalty we have is not sufficient. This section is not harmful to the man selling the liquor, because it requires proof to be made that the seller had direct knowledge of the fact that the buyer was intoxicated.
Mr. FOSTER believed the motion to strike out is right, and opposed the adoption of the section as it stands. It unfair and unjust.
Mr. HENRY withdrew his motion.
Mr. BROWN said there would scarcely ever be a conviction under this section. Encouraging prosecutions of this kind would be to encourage prosecutions of some poor unfortunates unable to defend themselves. The more wealthy and highly connected would almost invariably avoid the penalty.
The motion to strike ont was agreed to.
Mr. Henry reoffered his amendment, leaving imprisonment in the discretion of the Court or Jury trying the case.
Mr. BROWN believed the same evil, in many instances, would occur, and hoped the amendment would not prevail.
The amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER decided the bill is before the Senate for commitment or amendment, after which the question will be: Shall the Senate amendments be ordered engrossed?
