The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-12-11
A High Old Bill.

House of Representatives have reported Ia
yorably upon the bill ito declare the use OF
scertain words misdemeanor," and recon-
mend that it do pass. There is prospect,
then, the Legislature willing, that naughty
expressions will soon cease to sully the lips
Of the lieges OF South Carolina, and that not
even the worst member Of the Columbia
Ring will be called a "thief, rogue, scoun-
.sdrel, or poltroon," except in strictly
Pickwickian. sense The pleasure OF calling
a fancied foe by hard names is not deep
enough to compensate for Imprisonment
"with hard labor, in The county jail,
coupled with "a fine of fifty dollars, at the
discretion Of the Court. We fear, however,
that inveterate vituperators will fad way
to evade the law. They will whip the foul
fiend around the stump by inventing new
vocabulary OF abuse Suppose, for instance,
that instead OF making use OF "the oppro-
curious epithets" forbidden by the law, they
call their tergiversating neighbor Scott,
and fling at the head Of a. ''ouceaw riche the
stunning title Of Parker. Would the use OF
these names, Gin rude, angry or revenge
'ful manner" expose the unfortunate Of
fender to trial In Court OF competent ju'
orisdiction?' Or If a needless Conservative
shouted out that Mr.. So-and-So was q
Mackey, or Hendricks, or Bowen,
would the guilty wretch be likely to sojourn
for an uupleasantly long period under the
roofof the county jailf We are anxiously
waiting for the coming of that millennial
time when all words shall be sweet as
honey, and no man shall merit harsher
title than that OF angel or saint. But so
long as the citizens of South Carolina are
only to be made reyerentiai by an Act oi
Assembly, tits Just as we'll for the judiciary
Committee to make their legal nets close
enough in texture to hold the little fish as
well as the big ones. And if they can, by
law, prevent profanity and obscenity, We
would suggest ttat they cut q little deeper,
and, by law, prevent any member OF their
own body from telling tibs, pocketing the
public moneys or showing the white feath,r-
After all, the sting Of the Act ''to declare
"the use OF certain words o misdemeanor"
liesin its tail, The second section provides
that any person who may be indicted foras-
sault and battery may plead, in Justification,
that the language which the bill prohibits
has been used towards him, with this quail
fcatiop "Prorided The assault and battery
'1shall be proved not to have been ezees-
..sive." We humbly hint that this is rather
vague. What is to be deemed an ''exces-
..siven assault and battery p" Mr.. Jones
calls Mr. Brown "aliat thief, scoandrel ana
..poltroon,D Id go rude, angry bfrevengefA
.'manner," and Mr.. Brown, in the language
Of the Ring, taps Joues's claret and closes
his peppers. Would that be an excessive"
assault and battery? Are we to frame
sliding scale in this fashion A thief, one
black eye. A thief and liar, two black
eyes. A thief, liar and poltroon, two black
eyes and the forfeiture OF the front teeth.
And is the force OF muscle to be taken into
consideration! What is; to justify blow
with an umbrella or a slap in the face? Is
the aggrieved person to do his level best,
and leave it to the "Court OF competent ju-
ssrisdiction" to determine whether the pun
ishment was excessives These are obvious
difficulties, which we CONSIDERABLY suggest
for the contemplation Of the individuals who,
if the bill should pass, are most likely 10 find
it necessary to avail themselves OF Its liberal
provisions. ..