The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1914-03-31

oL1 CONSTITUTION OF 1919 a0DSASl1A I
imprisonment for debt a. we'll as all
corporal punishment
We also know from the history -
those times that even n England
prisoners had no allowance from the
government for food and We're indebt-
ed TO the contribution OF charity or
10 the consideration OF the jailer for
their daily s-ustenance and that wher
acquitted OF discharged they were de-
talned by the Jaller till the debt for
their support q lQuiLated. by their
friends when il was proposed n
Parliament that the government
should pay the jailers a salary and
should afford food for the prisoners
at the public eXpense a most serious
and prolonged opposition was made
against the mourning Of such expense
10y the public.
Under the agitation begun by the
Investigations OF Howard and main
tanned by the ability Of jeremy Ben
tham. a reform Of prison discipline
was begun which has alleviatet u
some extent the tyranny. often infliCt-
ed upon those who were till then
treated as il deprived Of all rights as
human beings because deprived Of
their personal liberty Ii has been
found that il is unsafe and unjust 20
entrust to the discretion of men.
often OF bad Judgment and sometimes
OF evil passions. the inTliCtion OF cor
poral punishment upon helpless pris-
oners who protected by no publicity
and without any trial for breaches of
discipline are subjected to the arbi-
trary poVer OF those in charge of
them.
Further back in the sO-Called days
of c~hivalry, throughout Europe every
baron and lordling, had beneath the
lower floor Of his castle a cellar into
which he cast without trial and often
without food, ia the mire and ooze.
any who displeased him. Their only
avenger were the diseases which ris-
ing from much pollution often devas-
tated the families Of those on the
upper floors who spent their time in
dancing and reveiry While the unhap-
py victims without light. often with
out food, We're grooming in the under
ground receptaCles where amid pol
luton and filth they passed TO miser-
able death. From that state of things
] to the condition found ly John How
ard was a gradation but very far from.
! what now obtains generally through
out civilized countries. The usual ap
s peal for the maintenance of abuses &c
; the usages of the common law anG
= of past ages can not be maintained.
In 9 CYc. 81 it is said: "A Convic'
who violates any of the prison G
lati0ns may be subjected 10 SOlitar,
confinement or such other REASONABLE
punishment as the statute may au
thorize, Boone Y. State & Lea Glenn.
739; but corporal punishment car no
lawfully he inflicted without legisla
tive sanction, Smith Y. State s Lea
? Tenn. 144." The survival of floggin
n in a few Of the Southern States Onl
y is doubtless due to the public attitud
J. as to this matter which has descend
d, ed to us from a former state OF sc
d ciety. 1t is utterly tabooed elsewhera
n 7 puoro o~l farxl,oJ rototo 81
Re ging, as a court sentence for wife
beaters"-an admirable a~rrangemeI
As and a most just application of In
le lex t%aliOnis.
l. There can be no analogy TO the co
"a poral punishment which is sCmetin:
inflicted on pupils in the publ
4 schools. In those cases there is tt
utmost publicity as a deterrent again
&c abuse and the protection Of the pa
c, ent. or other relatives, Of the pups
oe Still less is there any analogy to t!
punishment of a child by its paren
r. Ia that case besides the protection
go public sentiment there is the SAT,
I'd guard OF natural affection. The con
lie mon law right of a husband to cha
lis tise his wife was held as late as S.
ID, Rhodes 81 \. G., 453. where q hu
ad band was held not guilty upon a sp
,St cial verdict that he whipped his wi
"a, without ~prOvOcatiOn, with a switch
Ii large as his finger but not larger Tia
81 his thumb" citing S. Y. Black SO
e c., 263, which held that if there "
Al no permanent injury nor eXceSsi'
violence the law permitted the hu
AL band to thrash her TO make her b
Is; have herself" and that if the oul
". interviewed it would i
ed sub~ordination" on the part of wives
Al; But in 1874 in S. v. Oliver, TO n.
Of SO, withou any intervening statute.
OF was held that We had advanced L
ed You'd that barbarism.' Yet the wi
yaS had the protection OF the affection
on her husband and Of public opinlc
a. There is no protection to prisoners
* Jail. They are under a cloud and 1
So, ceive small sympathy from. any OF
rs. The discipline is necessarily perempt
al rv n when punishment is infiict
lay by %fiogging whether it is justly il
Ills posed or not rests in the bosom OF I
At officer who orders it There no
lily uuiry or publicity, either as 10 I