Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-03-26
Aallraster f1ltslligencer.
xonDAY EVENING, MARCH 2e. 1893
His Sole Justification.

His Sole justification.
The man Conkling who shot the
parsmour of his sister in New York has
been admitted to five thousand dollars
bail since the declaration of the coroners
iury that tie deed was committed un
der great provocation," and the act OF
the Judge who admitted him to bail IS
commented upon variously some journals
condemning it as a recognition OF the
popular heresy that in cases of this kind
the male relative of the injured woman
has the right to kill her paramour, and
others applauding it as proper defer.
ence to "the rooted popular belief that
close kinship gives man moral right
to protect, and, if need be, avenge the
injuries of q kinswoman," and the " deep
public conviction that illicit lust out
laws the man guilty of it, and makes
him liable to swift revenge"
Asin the Dukes case, most of those
who undertake to influence OF give dl'
rection to public judgment miss the
real point of the case, which simply is
whether or not the assailant In the
trapedy acted in self defense. No man
with the proper regard for the law
which is every mans protector as well
as the vindlcator of wrong doing, can
subscribe to the doctrine that the in-
turies of a kinswoman are proper
subjects for the individual to avenge, for
the reason, SO forcibly illustrated in this
New York case, that the individual and
even the popular judgment of whether
or not the woman has been wrongec IS
ADJ to be erroneous and to be rendered
in hot blood. Whoever regards Conk-
ling as the avenger of his sisters
wrongs or cOndones his killing OF llaVer-
stick upon any such grounds obviously
Judges without reason. There is no'il-
ing in the history of the case to show
that she was wronged nor that she was
ANYTHING less than wantOn in the deser
tion of her home, husband and children,
and in her faithlessness to her marital
vows and duties. Had COnkling's act
been one of aggression, begun on his
part, no consideration of supposed re,
gard for his sisters honor could
have justified him; and had ne
been slain in making such an attack as
was made upon him, the relations Of
Haverstick with his sister would not
have weakened the right of self-deiense
In the assailed man. Fortunately for
his defense, Conkling is able to show
that he only resorted to the pistol when
his own life was endangered, and upon
this and upon no fgment of guarding
his sisters smirched honor, rests his
security before the law. The argument
of his counsel, outside of this, may Win
the huzzas of the crowd, but il is proper
ly characterized by the district attorney
as "slush," which should have no
weight with a court of justice.
So in the Dukes case, the one single
consideration for the jury, and which
the public and the press seem to lose
sight of, was whether or not Dukes had
reason to think his life was in danger
when lie fired. a correspondent Ill Il
prominent journal makes much OF the
fact that a juryman told him he did not
know whether seduction was crime OF
not, and another &" confessed that he die
not take the matter of Dukes dehauch
cry into consideration" Aud yet they
had better conception of their duty
than many of the editors who have been
trying this and the New York case.
The one obvious conclusion which thosi
who differ most widely about other lea
lures OF this and similar cases MAY
agree upon, is that the prevalent rrac'
tice. of carrying concealed weapons II
defiance of law is one not only to b'
reprobated, but to be more severely !'un
ished.
1t is provocative of three-fourt!S d
that class of tragedies the criminaiit,
of which is most difficult to fix and which
are therefore most demOralizing in thei
consequences. The custom is IN almos
utterly needless one,' and those who in
dulge it take their own lives in thei
hands as well as place those of tliei
fellows in peril.
They are nuisance from w!inm
society has right to be protected, ant
il the statute against carrying deadi.
weapons WAS more strictly enforced In
law would be less frequently invoked tt
punish graver offenses or to miscarry b.
failure to vindicate its infractions.