Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-06-23
MALTREATING WOMEN.
The Salt Lake Herald of this morning
makes the following comment:


makes the following comment:
"Society's opinion of the man who abuses
and maltreats woman is well understood
the civilized world over; he is regarded as
one of the ugliest and most depraved
wretches, despised by decent men and alb,
horred by women. Is il any more noble and
manly for an officer to use the strength that
the law gives him to maltreat weak and IN
nocent women, than il is for the private
citizen to be brutal to a woman because ma
ture has given him greater strength than she
posSesSesY'
The question is addressed to the pub
lie, and as a part of the E pIuri6uS a1an
we should say no. An officer should be
as much of a man and a gentleman as
the private citizen. If any officer in Utah
is using the strength that the law gives
him to maltreat weak and innocent
women, such officer should be removed
first and impeached afterwards. An
officer has no more right to maltreat
women or other people than the hum
blest private citizen; in fact it should be
his special care to see that those who are
in his custody receive proper care and
attention and that no insult or abuse is
offered them. An officer of the law is a
guardian of the peace and the rights of
the citizen. The law defines those rights
and the law says how they
shall be protected. In protecting
the rights OF the citizen and
the State it gives to the officers of the
law certain powers to enforce those rights.
Among these powers is the right to pun
ish for contempt of court, no matter
how or by whom expressed. The law
does not consider sex in the matter of
contempt, and if woman commits
contempt of court she should be
punished for the contempt, and not NAL
treated because she is woman. Justice
as well as gallantry forbids the maltreat-
ment of women when in the custody of
the officers of the law But the law can
not permit women to defy the authority
of the law and then set up sex as plea
in avoidance.
As the Herald says, "Society's opinion
of the man who abuses and maltreats
women is well understood the world
over" Very true, and that opinion is that
such a man is only worthy of contempt
and social disgrace. Should not this
same contempt and disgrace be meted
out TO the man (?) who will permit an
alleged wife to suffer Imprisonment rather
than surrender himself to the officers,
fearing that by SO doing he may suffer
Imprisonment for his crime against So
ciety? Is not such a man, no matter for
whom or for what cause he does it, one,
as the Herald says, that els regarded as
one of the ugliest and most depraved of
wretches, 1espised by decent men and
abhorred Dy women?" Are there no
such men Ti0h, who suffer their
alleged wives 10 endure punishment
and disg lne and maltreatment, if you
please, an who never once step
forward to save their wives from such
treatment? WHY are contempt and CEN
sure always visited ron the officers of
the law when their duty compels them to
consign to prison women who defy the
law, no matter how .pu Sive such duty
may be to the naturl. ceilings of the Of
ficers, and not upon those gallant hus-
bands who save themselves and sacrifice
their wives? Upon them should be Wis
tied the contempt and censure of every
right feeling citizen, no matter what his
religion or politics. No, ii is the proud
polygamic husband who prints his plural
wives to go to prison to shield and save
himself that maltreats women who are
consigned to prison for contempt of court.
A proper public sentiment should declare
such husband social outcast and
disgrace to humanity.