The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1885-01-01
CANNlBAIlSM.
Is 1t Ever Justiiable,- Even in Self Dcfensef~
A Hard Question to Answer.

Is 1t Ever Justifab1e-- Even in Self Dcfensef~
A Hard Question to Answer.
The case of the cannibalistie~crew Of
the British yacht Mignonette; who have
been found guilty of murder, and who
have taken an appeal. according to our
cable dispatches. raises an interesting
and novel question in law, If not in
morals. Their offense is not simply
that of such cannibalisn,s as was
charged against Lieutenant Greeiy's 8
crew. The shipwreeked mem of the
Mignonette deliberately slew the boy
who was with them, and d d so'for the
purpose of eating him. They did this
the eighteenth day after the shipwreck,
and after having been for eight days
without food. By means of the relief
which they obtained in this way they
survived until the twenty-fourth day.,
when they were rescued by German
sailing-vessel. Upon their return the
wretched men freely told adj that had
happened. They made no attempt to-
conceal any of the facts nor to-
vary their stories after they were
arrested and held to, trial. One
of the three had from the begin
ming refused to have anything TO do
with the killing. He would not, he
said. kill any one. nor would he allow
any one to kill him. The two others.
justified themselves on the ground that,
as they had families and the boy had
none. it was right TO sacrifice him that
they might be able to return to. thesup--
port of their wives and children.
No case of this kind has ever before
come into the courts. As was pointed
out by the Judge who charged the
Grand jury which indicted the men,
there have been cases which bore a
shadOwy resemblance to it, but none
which could bequoted in support of the
view that such homicide was done in
self-defcnse. There is case reported
without name and without place by
Baron Puflendorf in which seven ship
wrecked Englishmen killed one of their
number for food and were acquitted
when tried. but the court in this case
declared that to be too vague for a
precedent. There is no other parallel
case in the books. and this one had
therefore to be decided on its intrinsic
merits. Looking at it in this way, the
Judge instructed the jury that the.
crime was one of murder, pure and
simple. The doctrine of necessity will
not stand an application to this case.
The shipwrecked man who pushes an
other off plank that will save only
one is justified by Blackstone on the
ground of necessary self-defense, since
the remaining of both on the plank is a
mutual though innocent endangering OF
each other life. But this, even if it
be right. is nos in point here. The boy
who was killed was not endangering
the lives of his comrades in any way.
This Is most clearly expressed by the
Judge in his remark that what imper-
lied their lives was not the presence OF
the boy in tie boat but the absence of
food and drink.
But though the rnlicG ga :ra court
was unllinchin:;--2!: ia favor of a verdict
of muI1i-t against the cannibals of the
NJ ncnetTe there was an assurance
that the clcmency of the pardOning
power would be invoked if they were
found guilty. All the circumstances
of the affair invite sympathy for the
survivors in only less degree than for
the boy whose sacrifice saved their
lives. The tragedy is 4 frightening
revelation of the easy descent by which,,
when deprived of The accessories of
civilization. nineteanth-century man
will slip back into prehistoric barbar-
iSm.- (hicaGO Tribune.