West Coast Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 20, 1879.

West Coast Times, Issue 3056, 20 January 1879, Page 2

West Coast Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 20, 1879.

More than usual interest has been attached to the trial and sentence of James Allan Mackie, for forgery aud larceny, while acting as Bank nianager at the Hutt. The sentence of four years imprisonment is considered in certain Wellington circles as heavy, and the New Zealand Times editorially comments thereon, making comparison between the sentence passed on thi3 particular culprit and other sentences passed during the last few yeai*s, op men convicted pf the same kind of crime. In ope case, says our contemporary, the prisoner was cpn r demned to six years, in another it was six months, in another three years, and in another three months. Without asserting that Mackie's punishment was too heavy, or too light, or that the other cases referred tp displayed exactly the same degree of turpitude when compared one with the other, it is argued that not one qf the cases was so totally unlike any one of the others as tp have warranted so great a difference in the sentence, and the New Zealand Times contends that in apportjpning sentences for offences of this, class, some carp Should be taken to equalise the punishment, that "it is not right to make fish of one and flesh oranotber," and " what is sauce for a Welljngtqn goose is sauce fpr a Canterbury or Auckland gander." Which expression of opinion, being interpreted, probably signifies that many of the culprit's immediate friends in and around Wellington are disappointed that he was not let off with a light sentence, and their dissatisfaction finds expression in print, although the subject is handled merely as an illustration to give force to an argument that the discrepancies between sentences passed by different Judges, and even by the same Judge at different tjmes, are. in New Zealand, a great deal more glaring than there is any necessity for. The comparative measure of such discrepancies, we opine, depends altogether upon tfie judicial view taken of the surrounding cirpjimstances of each case, and ifs individual demerits. The suggestion our contemporary makes is that something might be done to equalise sentences for similar pffences, that some understanding should be pome to among the Judges " whereby each one should agree wi.th his fellow as to what might be considered as an average sentence for sp,me of the more common offences." In support of this idea it is instanced " that such an agreement is said to have been come to by the Judges of another colony some years ago, and at a time when horse-stealing was a crime of every day occurrence. From that time until the crime became, comparatively speaking, rare, the sentences were invariably very high." An illustration, by the way, which seems to effectually demolish the plea, inferentially raised, that Mackie's sentence was excessive, and that special classes of crime should render the offenders subject only to a certain amount of punishment. For are not crimes of larceny, forgery, and embezzlement the papst i refluent in the Criminal Calendar, and would not the judges, if entering into tacit understanding as to the

degree of punishment to be inflicted, be compelled at the onset to deal with such cases, as the South Wales judges did with hgpso stealing, and ii)flicj; the maximum penajtjes allowed {^y the ljo, uptil the 'fj'eqjjpncy of the pprtfculfir offences abated ? The advocai;es qf tfie A^olitioi) of Capital |?unjphmei}t for mapper have not been successful in proving that the commutation of sentence of death to imprisonment for life, has in any degree lessened the murder rate, as evidenced in the i criminal records of either the Home country or of the Colonies, but rather the reverse. The impulse to murderous deeds apparently intepsjfyiqg in recklessness ' under the thought that, after all, the punjsjjmpnt may Rpt be that of! a life for a life. And so with misdeeds of j minor cjegree. The criminally inG|ined calculating their chances, setting immediate gains against possible detection and punishment, would no longer be dealing; with an unfepown quantity, but, with, far greater degree of certainty than the! turf : gambler, could make their books, 1 setting a maximum of possible plunder against a maximum pf possible peiiance. His Honor the Chief Justice, in passing sentence, dwelt strongly on the position of great monetary trust held by the .cujprit, and that the greater the trust, the greater the offence, in the estimation of courts of justice, an opinion in which the public, generally, will concur, especially in relation to fraudulent ?}pts by, bank officials. It avails nothing in extenuation of the crime of the culprit under notice, that his remuneration, as stated at tbe trial, was inadequate— it ; has been since averred that he. was, at least, fairly paid — neither the courts of justice or the public have aught to do ■ with that part of the subject. Banking j cqrporafiqns are not responsible to t|ie public for their methods of conducting business, nor for the rates of salary they ; pay their oificers. S,p long as yqung : men are anxious to rush into engage- ; raents as bank clerks, the bank pro- j prietorsare perfectly justified in regulating the salaries they pay in proportion to the demand there is for the par- j ticular kind of employment they offer. Tb.e rule hpljJs equally good in all plasses. pf Industry. Wha,t the public hare, a right to demand is j,hat banking corporations, as custodians of the floating'and trading capital of the country, should be, like Caesar ? s wife, above ?us,pieiqns that from thp directors down to, the junjpr office lads there should be no cause for mistrust, that they should not only be honest by repute, but that effective means should be in operation to keep them honest. Hence the need Tor fullest penalty when laches ensue, and hence also the danger, if degrees of punishment are limited by any hard and fast rule.