The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-01-26
A TANGGED PROPOSITION.

Cod and Plymouth Rock contemplates having a tussle with the wife beating proposition. The bill being consid-
 cred in the Senate of that State pro-
 vides that any male person who beats, I bruises or mutilates his wife or any other female, unless by accident or | In self-defence" shall be fined ten dol ! lars But that isn't all, for 1t goes I further and provides that he shall be
 flashed upon bis bare back to the
 number of not exceeding thirty. by means of a whip or lash of suitable proportion and strength. by the sheriff
 or one of his deputies, within the ih- closure of a court jail. and in the pres ence of duly registered physician or surgeon and one witness to be appoint ed by the court. but in the presence of no other person."
 The first thing that strikes us in the bill Is the ambiguity contained in the words, "or any other female" for any fair Interpretation of the language would make the man liable If he beats any female animal. The word 'fe- male" Is no more confined to human beings than the word "male' is. It will be noted that they don't give the other party any chance to side step. for 1t specifically speaks of ''any male person." and that cinches the man all right, whether he Is the husband or the owner of the female who is beaten.
 There is another peculiarity in the proposed bill which gives the man pretty good lodging ground, however, for he is not to be punished if he hurts the female by accident or in self-defence." The old proverb tells us that ''accidents will happen in the best regulated families" and they will happen in Massachusetts pretty fre- qu}ntly. If the man throws a boot jack at a cat and cripples female not the cat however-he will claim that itgwas an accident. and who can disprove his plea? And if he kicks at the dog and lifts his wife over the bannisters how will the court prove
 that it was not an accident? It couldn't be done, unless the wife could testify against him, and ten to one she wouldn't do 1t. if the law al- lowed it.
 Then that plea of self-defense is sure to worry the courts in all cases under this law. If the man swears that the female was coming at him with a shovel or rolling-pin, and that he spatted her win a hair-brush in self defence, that will be a. valid plea, will 1t not? That would clear him unless there were witnesses to the little transaction. and there generally are none. for when a man sets in to whip his wife he isn't apt to make a public display of his brutality. If a woman should charge her husband required to prove it, we presume, just as all other offences must be proven before the offender can be convicted and punished.
 But if all these difficulties and com plications are successfully surmounted another presents itself, taking the bill just as ie reads. for he4lashing- they don't call 1t whipping-must be done 'by means of a whip or lash of suit
 able proportion and strength" We do not know that any provision is made l for determining what is suitable pro- portion and strength" but presume
 that will be left for the officials to
 settle, and also that the size of the
 instrument will Joe proportioned to the culprit who is to get the benefit of 1t. s
 It will be noted that the entertain ment is to be private, and that the list of spectators is quite exclusive. The Bay Staters have changed some | what since they used to whip Quak- CTS and others who dissented from the Puritan form of religion, inc,uding reputed witches. Then the white man or woman was tied to post and pub l liely whipped on the bare back. They
 have become more humanized since that day and the whipping will be a private function. That will not dimin-
 ish the physical pain, but will make 1t less humiliating to the culprit-that is. If any such bill becomes a law, which we doubt. And we may also doubt if the proposed remedy would be effective. As The Richmond Times Dispatch says:
 It may be that a wife beater can be l reformed by flashing him at the whip ping post, but the experience of those commupities, which have tried it, is that it tdoes not tend to prevent wife beating, but rather to protect the wife -beaters. The wife, who would be willing to make a charge in court against her husband when she knew that his conviction meant imprison- nent, would almost invariably be de- tered from making the charge If she knew that conviction meant d public Aogging. The cruelty and disgrace of such a punishment for the man whose name she bore, and for the family would prevent almost any wife with ordinary feeling and pride from bring ing her husband to justice under such circumstances. She would be far more apt to shield him, no matter how un- mercifully he had beaten her, and experience shows 1t. Brutality can not be a remedy for brutality. The whipping post for wife-beaters would be almost sure to defeat its own end The Cincinnati E,nuuIrer save. ..Eo.