There's been a lot of talk about the "hit and run" this week. A few crashers, in fact, have revolted the public conscience. One of them, the other day in Versailles, was about to flee after running over a man. The outraged crowd arrested him. He threatened with his revolver the good people who tried to remind him of his duty as a civilized man.
Two or three days later, at two points in the suburbs, children were killed by "hit-and-runs" who managed to escape. Then there was a woman run over on Rue d'Aubervilliers, and a man killed on the road from Pierrefitte to Saint-Brice; finally, in Bezons, a twelve-year-old boy was run over by a truck whose driver managed to escape. Count in one week, six individuals were guilty, in Paris and its suburbs alone, of this abominable crime known as "hit and run." And of the six, only one, the first, fell into the hands of justice. The other five sped off, light-hearted, clear-minded.
Yes, six times, in such a few days, in the heart of this country of France, a country of humanity, a "country of charity," as the good Vincent de Paul once called it, there were men barbaric enough to abandon, without help, on the road, a human being they had knocked down in their feverish speed.
These men didn't even stop; they continued on their way, indifferent to the misfortune they had just unleashed, insensitive to the suffering of their victim.
Such cowardice appears as culpable as a premeditated crime. There is little difference between the guilt of the murderer who kills because he intended to kill, and the man who, having caused an accident, perhaps repairable, flees without a second thought and leaves to die the unfortunate person whom strict human duty commanded him to assist.
Individuals who display such barbarity deserve severe punishment. Unfortunately, the lack of surveillance of our roads, even in the immediate suburbs of Paris, generally ensures their impunity... Their conscience should indeed inspire them with bitter, unbearable remorse... but conscience only speaks out among honest people.
Undoubtedly, when we consider the considerable number of automobiles that crisscross the roads today, we can be pleased that such incidents are relatively rare. The vast majority of drivers would be repelled by such abominations, but the mere fact that they can occur, and up to six times in the same week, denotes a real danger, the threat of which weighs on all tourists.
It is through such methods that the population is exasperated and reprisals are prepared, which, more often than not, affect innocent people. We cannot therefore condemn such acts of savagery too strongly, and hope that those guilty of them will be treated, whenever they are discovered, as criminals.

However, it seems that our laws lack the necessary certainty in this matter. We know that Article 319 of the Penal Code punishes reckless homicide with imprisonment of three months to two years and a fine of 50 to 600 francs. But how much more severe will the penalty be if the perpetrator of the homicide adds hit-and-run?
A law of July 17, 1908, provides for this case. It stipulates that "any driver of any vehicle who, knowing that the vehicle has just caused and occasioned an accident, fails to stop and thus attempts to evade any criminal or civil liability he may have incurred, is punished with six days to two months in prison and a fine of 15 to 500 francs, without prejudice to the penalties for the crimes or offenses that are associated with it." Note that if a person dies, these penalties can be doubled.
So, at most, the "hit-and-run" who, having run over a passerby, then fled the scene, can only be sentenced to two years and four months in prison, plus a fine of 1,600 francs. Not much, you must admit, for such a crime. And yet, there are few examples of the courts having applied this maximum. In England, a law of July 1914 imposes much more severe penalties on drivers who fail to stop their car after hitting a pedestrian. Let's take an example. The events of recent days clearly demonstrate that "hit and run," if we want it to occur less frequently, must no longer be punished as a misdemeanor, but as a crime. The courts should be able to show leniency to drivers truly concerned with their duty to humanity, who stop, assist the unfortunate victims of the accident they caused, pick up the injured person, put them in their car, and drive them to the nearest hospital. However, they must be better armed and use their weapons mercilessly against the crasher who flees and leaves his panting victim dying on the side of the road.

Ernest LAUT.