The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1868-10-20
Husband vs.. Wife and Wife VS.. Husband

not take it amiss if examine i'll respectful mar
ner the opinion of the Supreme Court, as de-
ivered By you, in the of State Us. Rhodes,
Phillips Law, 1853. 80
The proof against him was that he struck her |
three lcks with switch, the size Of his finger,
without any prov ocation, except some words ut.
tered by her and not rccollccted by the witness.
He was tried in the Superior Court, before Judge
Little, who held that '.he had a right to whip
her with switch as large as his thumb. VI
course therefore, he was acquitted. The Solicit
tor for the State appealed-the verdict being
special one.
Examine the case. as reported, Judge, and
you will see that state it correctly. Aud now
for the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Your opinion correctly states that there are
no statutes, decisions, settled common law
principles binding on the Court. On the con-
trary, yos make the decision, argue it out, and
put it forth as setting one way what you were
perfectly at liberty to decide almost any other
way. In other words. the subject was sat sea,
as you state and you were in no sense tied down
And now, Judge excuse me for saying that
! cannot, for my life, examine the decision
without smile, at least | do not laugh out
right, as you did, at Waugh's temperance report.
Nor do get 80 full of satire as va" .E'"o 1octor
u--r-.,. sduIcss. But good broad smile can
not keep down.
After properly throwing out Of the case the
words used by the wife, because their nature was
not proved, you say:
awe must therefore, consider the violence
unprovoked. The question is, therefore, plainly
presented, whether the Court will allow con-
viction of the husband for moderate correction
of the wife, without provoeation."
Were you not Judge, ! would ask you to ex-
plain how a woman or anything else can be "cor
rected" without being wrong. And it puzzles
plain person to understand how a correction or
beating can be anything but in,modcrnte, where
the thing beaten has done nothing to deserve it.
But more of this presently
You saw: 1--WE will no more interfere where
the husband whips the wife than where the wife
whips the husband
Here am afraid to discuss the point too freely.
l know many woman who whip You and
Inc, both together.
Do you really mean to say. Judge. that it is 4
free fight between husband and wife in North
Carolina? Suppose We reverse Rhodes case and
the question were ''plainly presented" as to the
wife giving Rhodes moderate correction without
proyocation." As understand you each party
stands on the same ground exactly, and whoever
can whip in the fight is master Cor mistress)
of the situation" There is no law to check their
fighting. They may fight every day and every
hour. The only limit is that after they fight I'M
III oHc IL 'fCtoi, INC IuSt NC
ther bruised
But examine the matter further 1t is a fight,
you say: On equal terms. Each may lawfully
overcome the other and each of course law fully
resist being subdued. PRAY tell me- then they
went into the fight willingly and were Of good
pluck, at what stage of the fight the law could
take hold of either party? Each is lawfully try
ing to get the upperhand and fighting valiantly
against subjugatiOn. No law restraints either
from striking first, nor from returning blow for
blow violence for violence, death for attempted
death.
You say: 1.-TWO boys under II years old fight
the play ground and the Courts vi: not notice
it But in the sentence you say they arc
punishable sOmerhtre for it. to wit: in the school
room or at home. So the analogy between the
boys and the married couple fails.
A free fight between husband aud wife. Do
you hear that, We small men, with large wives
The Courts afford you redress, if she gives
you moderate correction without provocation"
Family government" requires you to stand and
take switching from her, whenever she is in
cllned to administer it. She makes you sweep
the house, sft the meal, milk the cows, wash the
dishes and fly around generally, and take whip
ping into the bargain. If you go to Judge
Reade about it, he says, "N1y dear sir, your wife
has no right in law to whip you. but if she does
whip you, even for nothing, the law says you must
take it." And this brings me to the next idea
laid down, to wit:
1--WE do not hold that the husband has the
right to whip the wife, but we will not interfere
with family government" Quite comforting TO
woman, no doubt | would like TO see Judge
Reade tell that to one of our back woods women.
whose husband had g ven her whipping for
nothing.
Really, Judge, you will discover if you will
read your opinion over, that, instead of family
government with the husband settled by tar as
tie head OF 1t, you have jostlcd the authority of
every married man in the State
In the newt place. you will find that your de-
cision makes the wife the perfect slave of the
husband, differing in no respect from old slavery,
unless you were in earnest about her whipping
him, i'll which event he would be her slave
And, finally, Judge, let Me suggest to you
that Rhodes ease calls for no such principles as
you lay down. And if it did. your principles are
wrong. Law should not give men power and
Say they have no "riyht" to use it. They will
use it even towards their wives Bad men will
it at once. Moderate men will gradually
get at it too. The only safety for society is to
have laws to make men do light Good laws
make good men and in return good men make
good laws. And thus they act and react on
each other Aud this say: Wherever Court
can see that either party has without cause in
ficted corporal violence on the other, our Courts
ought to stop it malicious, and not add to the
wrangling, by proclaimins that either party no
matter how wrong, may correct" the other no
matter how much in the right. .....
protest, with energetic vehemence against
allowing any woman to whip her husband