The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-04-25


place, or be found signalling mans wife to entice
her from husbands house to commit adultery
then he is taken in the act If he take the child
and leave it at a friends's house while taking the
mother to his place of assgnaon, it is the c0ldest
and most deliberate act of adultery. The poor
mother can be plunged into but lower point of
degradation-lnto common prostitution. Can she
not be saved? There is chance of saving her,
but one-the killing of the adulterer. Lawess
love IS as short-lived as criminal and is speedily
supplanted by some fresher love, and the loathed
one Is speedily cast off for some fresher victim
Her only rescuer must be her husband; and the
prayer of society will be, May God guide the hus-
bands bullet Applause
The prosecution say that the husband shall not
shed the adulterer's bood the defence that he NAV
shed hetacomb of lives to ksaye his wife TIL
has been done in millions of cases. The defence
meant to plant their the law of the land of
the home, and the family. He would lay down
here four propositions
lst. That by marriage the husband ACQUIRES
legal interest and exclusive right in the per son and
chastity OF his wife-absolute as his own lfe and
that may be defended by the same weapons and to
the same extent as he may defend his own life.
I'd. That this absolute right being DESTROYED by
adultery with the wife, such an act is an atrocons
crme-a NAHUM in Sc; and if the adulterer be slain
in the commission of that act, it is neither murder
nor manslaughter.
Sd. That the act of adultery which iustifes the
husband in staying the adulterer is not limited to
the moment OF sexual contact but extends to every
proxlmate act In furtherance of, and a means to
the consummatlon OF the wltes pollution.
4th. That the wife's consent and participation in
the crime does not shield the adulterer she being
incapable in law ofconsentng to any invasion of the
husbands marital rights; and therefore every vio-
lation of the wifes chastity is in contemplation of
law against the husbands WILL and may be treated
by him as al act OF force and violence against the
wifes person.
Mr.. S. stated that these propositions rested
upon the hrmest principles of human as we'll as
divine law. He quoted Blackstone, End book, 18th
chapter, to show that by marriage the husband
ana wife are one person in law. On this union
OF them depends all their rights and duties in mar
rage A man cannot enter into any covenant
with his wife, as to do would be to suppose
hlm capable of covenanting with himself. 1t fol-
lows that the husband obtains a full and entire
right to and over her. Although she is physically
a separate being, she is by law Incorporated in
him. From this law-created, consolidated exist
ence, the husband may employ the same weapons
and force to defend his wife as he may employ to
preserve his own life. By consequences as a man
may kill an assailant OF his natural existence, he
may repel any attack on the existence of the law
made relation with his wife,
Page on Divorce title Adultery, page 1907 SAYS
that adultery is a very aggravated crime-one of
the basest forms of human atrocity. That hus-
band should be charged with guilt for slaving one
committing against him the most atrocious crime
is repugnaut to human reason. Wherever civilized
man has trodden, it has been held that man NAV
kill him who commits attrocious crime against
him: The prosecution have held that for the hus-
band to kill the aduterer in the act, is murder,
under the common law. What is that common law?
Blackstone says "lmmemoral usage"
This District was organized in 1901 and since then
no husband Staying an adulterer has been found
guilty for so doing. The judicial decisions of this
District do not show that what the prosecution
contends for is common law here. The reports of
the State of Maryland do not recognize crime in
the act Of husband in staying an adulterer.
Here the speaker quoted from the common law of
England to illustrate the point under considera-
tion.
But this Court might have power to adopt any
principle of the common law which conformed to
the habits of the people.
Now as to the origin of what is claimed by the
prosecution as the law this question. In Man
nlng case, the accused was married man, and
had slain man with stool, whom he had found
in the act of adultery with his wife. As gan En-
glishman, it was his birth-right to have his act
passed on by jury; but that was a dark day of
Judicial corruption. 1t was day when iufies were
fined and sent to Jail, for refusing to render YER
dict against their conscience. And the same book
that recorded the burning of Manning's hand, re-
corded the above Judicial iniquities
Here the speaker quoted from Thomas Raymond,
page 81, and also on page l3S, to show that per-
sons were fined and imprisoned for refusing to
return verdict in violation of their consciences;
and also to show that man could not enjoy the
privilege of bill of exceptions in the days of JUS
tlce Twisden, who presided over the case of Man
ming.
This same Judge, from the Kings bench, dared to
declare in Westminster Hall. that "the Judge is en-
trusted with the liberties of the people, and his
saying is the law"
1t has always been principle common law
that where man is committing a crime worthy of
death the killing him is iustitable. Immediately
preceding Manning's case, adultery was crime
punishable with death. He contended that so far
from the adulterer being excused by the consent of
the wife to the adultery, he was doubly guilty in
having perverted the mind of that wife,
The age of Charles the Second the age of adulte-
ry; when trafcked in the chastity oftheir wives
mothers, and sisters. Chastity ridicued, and
female virtue was jest Public virtue was at its
lowest ebb. The judges the panderers to
and partakers of the corruptiOns of the age. The
same Court which adjudged Mannine's punish
ment, punished juries for unpleasant verdicts, and
prosecuted Quakers and nonconforists. The rule
OF law had its origin at time and in state of
ciety which makes it inapplicable and here
In American society there is a freedom from re-
straint that exists no where else There is frank
ness of intercourse that requires the sancty of ie
male honor to be especially respected.
Officers here in public employment are accus-
toned to throw open their doors with freedom of
hospitality which exists no where else. But this
Is to be the means of giving opportunity for the lib
ertine to prosecute his purposes, they will be
PEELED to close their doors.
He maintained that since Mannings case no hus-
band has been punished for Staying the adulterer in
England, nor there previous to that.
His friend (Mr 0uld for since some angry pas
sages which had occurred between them, and which
had been explained, he had had an opportunity to
get acquainted with him, Mr.. o. and was glad to
on the other side had claimed to show cases to the
contrary in this country.
|. The case of John, the North Carolina negro,
quoted by the prosecution, Mr.. $. contended was
not opposite here, it being that where slave was
concerned.
There was one other case cited by thecounsel on
the other side, but there evidence in that case
showing preconceived malice.
He enumerated various cases before American
courts, where the adulterer had been killed and the
killer held to be justified. Singleton Mercer fol-
lowed the seducer of his sister for days, and shot
him in a coach, and was acquitted.
The speaker quoted number of other cases. (of
Jarboe, of Smith in Philadelphia, and othersl
where the parties were uniformly acquitted
Where then, had the adulterous practice introdu-
l'ced in the time of Charles ii. taken root in this
country? Wherever it had been attempted it had
been met and repeled. Among the cases enumer-
ted the speaker alluded to Ryan's case as embody-
ing the principle of American law, which some
of the instructions in this case had been drawn up.
No matter whether the husband be present or alb
sent, the consent of the wife cannot in any degree
affect the adulterers guilt; and if the aduterer be
slain in the act it is justifable homicide. Now
what constitutes "the act?" He understood Mr.
Carlisle to claim, in accordance with the very loose
| language of Baron Parke. tha: it was necessary
that the husband should have ocular demonstration
| of the crime
| Mr.. Carlisle.-I said it was necessary that he
should s'find' him in the act.
| Mr.. Stanton was glad to find that his friend had
adopted more liberal view than that attributed to
him. Inc OBJECT OF that law was to erect the gal
! lows and hold up the branding iron, in order that
the courtiers of thatlcentious court might pursue
the wives and daughters of the citizens with i'm
punty The fact of guilt in of this sort is to
be manifested according to the rule of evidence that
applies to every other fact. In this it is claimed
that the evidence brought directly to the visual
senses of the prisoner at the bar, and that when he
saw the proximate acts, the waving of the hand
| kerchief &c, &C., he the actual adultery as
much as if he had beheld the rem IN re. Here Mr..
| s. read from the case of Collins The State, IA
| Alabama Cos, to show that married man meeting
with his paramOur once a week for several months
was regarded as living in state of continuous adul-
| terry.
| 1t was not requisite that they should live under
the roof, but that they should meet under the
| same roof.
| The wife'S consent could not shield the aduterer
In the absence of the consent and connivance of the
| husband, any invasion of his marital rights was in
resistance to his authority and established right.
| If the separate existence of the wife could not be
supposed for beneficial purposes, in case could
! it, to constitute justification for the aduterer.
Here the inquiry was not as to injury to society,"
but to the husband. The legal unity and existence
of the wife forbade her Welding ANYTHING that be-
| longed to the husband. Any movement towards
| the wife with an intention to invade the right OF
the husband invasion Of force, and was to be
| justifably resisted by the husband, even to the
| death of the adulterer.
| In the contemplation of law the wife always
| in the presence of her husband, and that husband
| had right to resist such invasion, whether the
| wife consents or not. Here a man living in q
daily state of adultery with the wife of the accused
! and by moral power over her could tear her from
her child and drag her through the streets to graf
ify his lust. The husband saw him in the act o