The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1897-02-24

| II the sons of Delaware have any infiu
| ence with tho future action OF the Lezis
lature OF this State, upon the propo sod
| new constitution, the time honored whip
| ping post will be maintained. With over
| whelming majority the believers In the
| post as an adequate deterrent and correc-
tive of crime carried the day at the debate
| on the adjustment OF that mode OF
punishment last evening III the rooms OF
the Sons Of Delaware, and there was nc
| doubt as TO the approval Of the audience
when the judges, I. Layton Register, Dir.
Theophilus Parvin and John NJ. Comegy 8
decided In favor Of the negative. This de-
cision was on the merits OF the debate, but
1T cannot be doubted that beyond the de-
bate itself the feelings Of the audience
were entirely with the maintenance Of
Delawares unique Institution.
10 give the decision the Importance and
weight the society thinks 1t should have as
decision rendered by men in hearty sym
pathy with the little State" a copy Of
the debate will be sent to the Governor
and Legislature of this State Richard
Fisher, president of the society and pre-
siding officer last evening, especially som
graduated the members ON this oppor-
tunity they would have Of at once show
ing their loyalty to Delaware and OF EVIL
dencing what they felt as loyal sons con.
sidering one Of the Important proposed
changes In the laws. 1t was this impor
lance which gave q more serious tone to
the discussion than i5 would otherwise
have received, q tone at times almost
forensic. This added to the interest
Charles Heber Clark, speaking first on
the affirmative, referred to the almost uni
versal use of corporal punishment one
hundred years ago. and its almost com.
piete disuse now, with consequent rise
In the level of public mortality.
-, All the civilized nations" he said,
have abolished flogging for offenses and
the only people retaining that form Of
punishment are the Russians, Turks
Chinese and the people Of Delaware" He
argued that this form of punishment does
not prevent crime.
The criminal hits society, but society
hits him back, and in all probability the
criminal remains criminal smarting un-
der the blow, and hits back in his turn at
the first opportunity. Humanitarian re-
form, making the criminal a useful men,
Der Of society, was Mr.. Clark's ideal aud
he met any objection as to its practicable
lily by saying that If 1t was possible to
save one criminal out Of Thousand and
turn him into man honest an the effort
was worth while.
Furthermore, If reform wouldn't cure.
whipping wouldn't cure, and the speaker
said thar he preferred to have hopeless
criminal locked up than one whipped and
let o Z, Do,0., mad. in hi. ,,.um.nt u.,o
the degradation to the spectator as well as
the eternal disgrace to the criminal, the
fewer convictions owing to the harshness
OF the punishment, which makes the jury
give the criminal the benefit Of the doubt,
and the placing in an executive officers
hands the lower to make the punishment
fatal, severe or ridiculously mild
Norris S. Barratt followed Mr.. Clark in
the negative. and made a plea based on
historic grounds and on practical results
obtained In the past. Mr.. Barratt is the
club historian, and his able exposition Of
the splendid record the post has had in the
past as deterrent from crime was we'll
received. He was in his turn followed by
W. W. Smithers, in the affirmative,
who took more basic ground than
any of the other speakers, and
from the results of the Investigation of 4
the modern Lombroso school, showing
that crime Is moral disease, claimed that
the duty of the State was to endeavor to
cure the disease. The practice of his
theory was evidenced by the results in
Elmira and Buffalo Reformatories, which
turn out over 80 per cent. cured"
His other argument was that the indi. |
viduai has never given the state-an ag. |
gregatlon OF lndiyiduals-the right to |
punish in spirit of vindictiveness. The |
state, he argued, should have no other OBJ
ject in view than to command the Grimm
al not to do harm to his neighbor again to
give his aid to the sovereign power and TO
pay the tax in support of the government
The whipping post served none of these
ends
The debate was brought to a conclusion
by Avery ID. Harrington, and it was due
to his able rebuttal of his
opponents arguments that the decision
rested finally with his side. His strongest
arguments were that Mr. Clark had been
too sentimental, and that. Mr.. Smithers
too theoretical in there view of the case,
and that TIE Delaware whipping post as
evidence by tie decline of crime in Della
ware, had served its purpose as an excel. |
lent preventative. Bishop Coleman also
spoke.