The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-12-05
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

iHe tCVfTOt Law JOWTVuf, one vi lne
Leading legal periodicals of the country,
lases q tealing editorial on the DEATH
of the detective baby in Chicago and
makes out IA case based both on law and
decisions which required the physician to
operate. 1t refers to the Declaration OF
Independence and to tine amendment Of
tho Federal Constitution forbiduing a
state from depriving any person of lif"
without u process OF law. and also
from denying to ANY person within its
jurisdiction equal protectiOn of the
laws" Tho night of a parent to offcr a
means for rho Impairment of a child's
life or It's destruction Is questioned.
statutes bearing Oh the question are
referred to. among them Il law OF ii.
linois making II a criminal offence to
put n child In peril OF amy injury to
health or limb. Gynam VS.. People, 60
III. App. $50 A New York statute
Furnishes IA "a to "a child the per
hitting Of its life TO be endangered and
taking no steps to save that life, Cow
ley w. People. S3 ~. Y. dGi) The
editorial then gays:
These statutes 60 upon the theory
that every child has Nh inalienable right
TO life and certain persons having tn"
right of custody are punishable for
ncglecting to care for that life. No
where ~ 1t suggested that custody i'm
Poses any other tlan duty 10 a cnliu as
a living senticnt being. II q parent has
merely a duty TO preserve the life and
health of a child it certainly would not
seem TO be the arbiter of tts death. And
one Agreeing with the parent that
neglect to care for it's life is 20 he IN
pursuance OF a purpose that it, death
without care will probably occur APP
pears TO W opposed TO every principle
In our law.
III our Government regards the iiSnt
to life as preserved. instead of further
endangered by our law. what right has
any citizen to agree FOR the benefit Of
society that n particular child IS not en-
titled to the blessing OF HE" And may
any one determine hat there Is no dep
rivation Of the blessing of life ms to any
being? II he l,as a reason that satisfies
him. may not another nave another ir,-
son that SATISFIES him that there IL no
blessing in a particular life? The re-
suit OF uoh reasoning would not he In
furtherance OF government. but in d.
rest support of anarchy. We have
shown. we think. that an agreement with
a parslt for "a child to be permitted -
die from neglect Is one to accomplish n
crime. Ii therefore excuses no one that
he makes such ON agreement. But it
may be evidence against him OF dclib-
cIation to perpctrote a crime. What
crime may this be II death results" ."
The editorial then refers to the con-
tentfVr that the child was permitted to
die because Il was n 'monstrosity in de-
fornity'' and probably lacked brain
"Waiving. however. the question o.
ultimate benefit TO soriety in the child's
not being permitted to live. first It Is
denied that there is any distinction ur-
der our law in the r<ght Of a defective
child to life and OF one that is normal.
Secondly. II there IL such "A distinction.
law ehouid provide the means for It's app
plication. Until this is done the dis
tinctiOn IL nO~n-existcnt. In conclusion
we may say II the physician assumes 10
act for the parent he stands in loco
PARENTS and is hound as the parent
would have been bound for neglect to
save the fife OF the child. If this doc
tors position is right and lawful. then
the cugenics MAJ urge that for moral
Effectiveness a child nay upon on
sent Of a parent be neglected. though he
surely will die from the neglect. The
upshot of all this is that physical or
moral defcH!ves may be submitted To
viyiseSstiOn as the supreme requirement
viii pale is Intellectual fires
we 10 not wish to assail this, doc
tors moral view-we have nothing in a
IaW Journal to say about that. We %
say. however, that he seems never Ia
have asked himself how he, as arbit"r
or ds&uth. would stand as 70 the law OF
the country where he lives
-
An English journal tells OF ,,n action
brought against Il farnc' for haVtng
called another n "rnscally lavyer.' Al
old husbandsran. being "A witness. was
asked II he heard the ,lefenlan, call
the plaintiff a law yer.
81 did" was the reply.
Pray" said the Judge. what is your
opinion OF tn. jmrort of the word
There can be no d.ub, Of that ~.
piled the fellow.
WHY. good man" said the .T,lrn.
I there
II know nothing about that." answered
he. but this ] know, II a man called me
a lawyer ia knock him down"
Why. sir said the Judge, uointlng 10
one of the counsel. that gentleman Is {,
lawyer and ! too am a avycr.'
mo. no. replied the fellow mo, my
Lord. You are a Judge. I know. but I'm
sure you are no lawyer"
A French soldier fighting IA the Ar
COME has lust inherited an estate valued
at $40. 900 from an eccentric army officer
who lived IN the soldiers native village.
The only condition attached to the legacy
is that the soldier must from time t.
time visit the grave OF his ben"factor aud
reiht" thefe some OF ms war experiences
me VIII says: