The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-06-30
THE INJURED HUSBAND.
Forced to Murder by Public Opinion,
Not His Outraged Honor"

w. ID. towels, in Harper's Weekly.
The appearance, in most instances where
the injured husband kills 1.-The destroyer
OF his peace" is that he is not at all mad
dened out Of his Self-possession. He goes
about his crime with very notable intelli-
gence and elaboration. He steals upon his
victim or lies in wait for him with entire
seif-possession, and l have no doubt that
he has forecast the chances of his acquit-
tai for his misdeed before he does it. 1
have no doubt that far oftenest he would
never dream of killing the destroyer of his
peace If he were not goaded to it by a fear
of the shame he must suffer before the
he murders one of the ~paranOurs or both
Of them. 1t is therefore an abominable
public opinion which forces him. just as in
other times an abominable public opinion
would have forced him to kill the slayer
OF his brother. or in yet other times TO
fight a duel; We have got rid of the
the duelist, but the husband maddened by
his injuries still remains to the enjoyment
of an impunity in murder beyond the privi-
lege of any other homicide.
The theory which his apologists proceed
upon is that the betrayed wife" is always
the prey of her paramour. In the words
~languaged him; the paramour is supposed
to "insinuate himself into a home under
the guise of friendship, and with studied.
sly. ensnaring arts ALLEVIATE the affections
and betray the honor Of the wife of his
friend" But very possibly this is not the
way it happens, except in the emotional
u u III anu al t1lS u liONClS. tlOuSU
it may happen so in real life. 1t seems
probable that the injured husband some
times knows this quite well when in the
fine frenzy of becoming a law unto him.
self and preparing to do his injurer to
death. Very likely he would willingly let
both paramours go, but the public opinion
behind him urges him to do murder in be-
half of his sullied honor and the cause of
domestic purity. He knows that If either
paramount merits murder at his hands one
merits il as much as the other. and that
his Madness If in is madness Or the rod
In him, if ii is inspiration. ought to deal
equally with them, but in the very ecstacy
out of Difference to public opinion. and
murder only one of them. He may safely
count upon getting off with a slight i'm
p~risonment If he murders both. but he
knows that he will not have the sympathy
OF the community so wholly with him in
that event.
1 should like to ask the casuists who ex-
cuse or justify him, who say some that it
is his privilege and some that ii is his
duty. to shed his fnjurer's blood. why. he
murder to adultery? What has been gained
for the purity or the peace of the home
by this lustration OF blood? Has vice been
rendered repulsive. as the critics used to
say OF the stories where virtue was always
rewarded?
The moral of the whole affair seems to
bis t Wife: a p ,tah IS m th.s a MI lesson son a ar AN nrof Of
able to the community? What sort of in
jured husband is il that commonly avails
nimSelf or this privilege or QiScnargeS this
duty to society? Is he commonly a good
man? Is he ever a good man? The stats
tics are not at hand, and one hesitates to
hazard the conjecture that he is usually
a good man, a man Of pure life himsel
and a friend of the domestic virtues. But
If he happens not to be a good man does
he become better by the murder he has
done? Or is il that he has sacrificed him
self to the general good. and for the sake
OF civilization has taken a crime upon his
soul which no good man could commit
without lasting remorse?