The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-02-02

ought not upon grounds of policy to be
brought before the publ.c such a whip
ping as that inflicted by the defendants
upon the back of his wife transcends all
the bounds of policy" There has been
no further modification of the rule which
| now recall.
Isn't it shocking to- the conscience Of
tfpis enlightened day to see the august
courts OF our State deliberately an
nouncing the extent to which husband
may whip the wife? Isn't 1t amazing to
see them actually defining the size of the
switch he may use or the number OF
ticks he may infiot? Isn't it humiEating
contemplation to behold the State per-
hitting her daughters to be whipped as
IL they were slaves? What public policy
could possibly Justify such a rule of law?
1T is said that il the courts interfere
Il would invade the privacy of the home,
expose family differences to the eager
gaze of the public eye. 1t should be re-
membered that there is another public
policy involved here as well as the one so
cautiously guarded by the courts. 1t is
the policy which relates to the family
LIFE. What sort of girls and boys can
the State expect to be raised by the man
she permits to whip the mother of these
boys and girls i'm their very presence?
Nothing ON earth could be more democrat
izing TO a family OF children, nothing so
debauohing to manhood, nothing SO de-
grading to womamhood than the legal
toleration OF such a practice.
There is every reason why the wife
should enjoy the fullest protection at the
hands OF the law. She is i'm the power
Of the husband absolutely. She is nearly
always beyond the reach of help. We
can not think of a more defenceless or
HELPLESS person. IL there is a being IN
the State who needs the protection OF the
streng arm of the law, it is she. To hold
her person sacred from the angry touch
of mortal man, lis to accord TO her that
only which is due her.
Public policy demands that the child
rem be raised in the purified atmosphere
Of such an idea. And this is the public
policy which should govern.
The law as it is now construed puts
the horse and THE wife about ON a par.
The man may whip his horse, provided
he does not do so needlessly or cruelty.
The man may whip hrs wife provided he
does not leave any serious injury, and
he may actually do this WITHOUT
PROVOOATION." In the case of State
VS. Rhodes, the witness could not even
remember the words which brought on
the whipping-sso trivial they NO doubt
were The chances are ten to one that
the wife only spoke the truth.
Few people have amy idea how common
this offence is among certain classes OF
our population. 1t is most frequent Oc
currence often attended with cruelty.
1t passes all comprehension that this
common law relict of barbarism has been
permitted so long. The time of its eter-
nal revocation is at hand.
The universities OF the land are fast
being opened to women. The profes-
sions are already opened to them. Presi-
dent Alderman in his splendid inaugural
suggested the opening OF thed oors OF our
State University to women in the post
graduate courses at least.
The State recognizes in her n hfe capa-
Bile OF the highest development.
1t is simply monstrous that the courts
of our State permit her to be whipped
like criminal by a brutal or drunken
husband.
If some gentleman in the General As
sembly will introduce and have enacted
into law o bill abohshing the common law
rule and placing her with reference to her
husband on the same footing with every
other person he will perform a service
to his State OF which he may well feel
proud; and the names OF those who vote
for the measure will compose a roll of
honor will not perish with the ages.
Respectfully,
EDWARD W. POU.
Smithheld, N. c., Feb. /.