Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1914-06-27

peril unde a statute that another
party claims to be unconstitutional
and void, but where a person will SUI
fer an irreparable injury If the statute
is carried out, the presumption is that
such statute will be observed and that
an injunction should issue to enjoin
the enforcement of a void statute.
Williams VS.. Boynton, lat N. Y, 4av
az N. =. 1S4); Osborne VS.. Bank, 8
Wheaton, 739, $40; 2 High on Injunc-
lions Gath edition., section 80.
Complainant in his verified bill al
leges that the statute is in violation of
the United States constitution in that
it is in effect atb'l of attainder in that
there is to be no indictment or trial;
that the statute abridges his privileg-
protection of the laws; that he is de-
MED due process OF law; that the sta
tute is in conflict with the Iowa con.
stitution in that the statute denies the
~inalienable right to enjoy life, liberty
and to pursue and obtain safety and
happiness; that there is no jury trial
awarded him, and that the statute pro-
vides cruel and unusual punishment.
The case presents important ques.
tons. Statutes like this are of recent
years, the first n upon the subject
enacted less than fifteen years ago.
The question has been before appel
late courts but twice. In one case,
that of State of Washington VS.. Feilen,
1876 Pac. Rep, - "a l.. r. A., N. S.
4lS), the statute was upheld. the
court held that the punishment was
not cruel or unusual in the constitu-
tional sense. That case involved a
most heinous offense, that of the raw
ishment of a female child, and the sta
tute provided in addition to life i'm
pris onment jury and the court might
determine whether he should be sub
jected to the operation of vasectOmy
So that on the question Q presented
there in due process of law in that The
matter Was judicially determined. The
other cases by the supreme court Of
New Jersey, was that of Smith VS..
Board of Examiners, SO Att. Rep, 1863.
In that case the operation was to be
performed upon a woman who was an
%epileptic, an inmate of q state charit-
able institution, and that court held
that the statute was based upon an un-
reasonable police regulation and de-
MED to her and persons of her class
the equal protection of the laws as
guaranteed by the fourteenth amend
ment.
The sole purpose of the operation is
to destroy the power of prOcreatiOn.
The operation as originally performed
was that of c%astration. In the twelfth
century Henry II declared it treason
for any person to bring over any man.
date from the pope or any n in au-
thority in church affairs. This he
made punishable as to secular clergy
men by the loss of their eyes and by
c%astration. Goldsmith's History of
England, volume 1, page SO. In
Weems VS.. United States, 217 U. S,
349, 377, the fact that castration was
once inflicted is recognized-and see
the case Of Whitton VS.. Georgia, Al
Georgia, 3O1.
There is a difference between the
operation of c%astration and vasce-
tony; castration being physically
more severe than the other. But va
sectomy in it's results is much the
coarser and more vulgar. But the
purpose and result of the two opera
tons are enc and the same.
When Blackstone wrote his Com.
mentaries he did not mention castra-
ton as m of the cruel punishments,
quite likely for the reason that with
the advance Of civilization the opera
ton was looked upon as too cruel and
was no longer performed. But each
operation is to destroy the power Of
prOcreation. 1t is, of course, to follow
the man during the balance of his life.
The physical suffering may not be so
great, but that is not the only test of
cruel punishment; the humiliation,
the degradation, the mental suffering
are always present and known by all
the public and will follow him where
soeve he may 60. This belongs to
the dark ages.
AS, of course, all persons concede
that it would be better for society il
some men did not beget children; dis
eased, deformed, mentally weak chill
dren and criminally inclined are
brought into the world, oftentimes to