If You Ask Me / By Martha Knight

First, some unfinished business. To all who have inquired about how to get a copy of “that book about the Halls” (as some people refer to it)—Sorry, I didn’t have that pinned down when I wrote a review of it a couple weeks back.

To find out where the book can be ordered, go to youngbros.com.

The book in question is “We Are All Well: The Letters of Nora Hall.” Yes, it is a book about the Halls, and numerous people related to Nora and her husband by blood or marriage, and many acquaintances, because they are mentioned in the many letters transcribed to form this book.

But the book is by no means a comprehensive story of the Halls, for the letters were written in a two-year period, all to her son Howard Hall. She mentions little Raymond Viner Hall, baby son of Walter and Marie Hall.

There are many other family branches not given much space in the letters, and of course many years, generations, of the family’s exploits before and after the period when Nora wrote her fascinating letters.

It has been suggested that there should be a more nearly comprehensive book about the Halls. I agree. Just finding all the source material would be a major undertaking, one accomplished before more of the material gets destroyed, dispersed, damaged or lost.

I do have some good news: Judith Swann, the Ithaca-area poet, editor, linguist and technical analyst who transcribed and provided context for the letters so masterfully, probably will visit our community in a few months, and do a reading and book signing while she is here. Gary DeVore says he and Sue would arrange for there to be tours of Lynn Hall, coinciding with Swann’s visit.

One long chapter or several shorter ones in a book about the Halls would be about the planing mill John Hall, and eventually he and Howard, ran for so long. It also sold building supplies, and produced lots of “millwork” and cabinetwork, and functioned as a sawmill that turned anything from hemlock to ash logs into lumber.

•    •    •

A Chicago-area friend inquired about “police in that area,” meaning around here. “What is their attitude toward juveniles? Are they suspicious of youths in general? What is their attitude toward minorities? Do you detect any racial bias in how they respond to situations?”

That was a little tricky to answer. The questions came from someone who is not familiar with this community or this area. I had to explain that we are mostly of European extraction. But there are some other groups here. Those have included Asians, Filipinas, persons with Semitic background, some with African-American heritage. I have not seen indications that our police treat them differently.

As for youths, I believe our police usually try persuasion and warnings before resorting to charges and arrest.

I haven’t heard this expressed as a formal policy, but logs of the calls and incidents handled by our police indicate that they try to avoid using formal law enforcement measures that would result in court, a “record,” and punishment. This is true especially with kids who haven’t made a habit of being destructive or “causing trouble.”

I have to admit that the curfew has made a difference in the amount of malicious mischief and juvenile offenses in the borough. I used to oppose curfews on principle. Ageism. Prior restraint. A suspicious attitude toward an entire age group. I can remember several times the curfew idea was floated, beginning with one in the 1980s, until eventually a curfew ordinance was passed. I was agin it. Bust people for what they do, not for the fact that they are minors.

But being caught violating curfew usually does not result in dire consequences—the first time. There is a warning. The minor out for a midnight wander or a few “harmless pranks” is likely to be taken to the station to wait while parents are summoned, or to be taken straight home.

But if actual “pranks” have been committed and have an element of destruction or harm, things can be somewhat more serious.

The kid out for a late-night saunter is likely to learn what is meant by the long arm of the law. In the case of Officer Adam Dickerson, that arm probably can extend from the patrol car window, pluck the youth off the sidewalk and dangle him in the air. But that is speculation on my part; I have not witnessed the use of this curfew enforcement technique.

I cannot conceive of our police using obscenities in speaking to those they encounter on their rounds, even if they encounter teens who are acting defiant and stupid. “Hey, #@$%!^&, get the $@$* out of the street” is not how our police remonstrate with miscreants. White, black, brown or plaid, suspects and known parole violators and those who are being arrested on a warrant are treated with a certain formality, usually low-key. Terminology and mode of address are pretty much “by the book.”

Shoot even a fleeing burglar? Not likely. The approach will be to apprehend the individual, and charge him or her, and let the law take its course.

I am not suggesting any laxity in law enforcement practices here. Rather, they seem effective, but there is an element of mercy, of restraint and reasonableness.

There isn’t much malicious mischief here. There are some altercations, mostly in or near bars. There are a good number of “domestics.” One party or another may become obstreperous toward the officer and kick and punch—likely as not the female in the fracas—but usually the outcome is that one party is persuaded to “leave for the evening.”

Runaways are taken home, or turned over to CYS, depending on the circumstances. Custody disputes bring advice to contact an attorney. Property disputes bring referrals to a magistrate or suggestions to seek legal counsel.

I have seen local police display real courage in the face of danger. But I have also noticed a preference for the three F’s: firm, fair and friendly, in handling law-and-order duties here. It seems to work quite well.

Peace.