Year: 1879

An excellent old gentleman who held TO
the theory of non-resistance in its extrem-
est form, was once asked" But suppose
Father M, robbers should break into
your house, and there was danger of their
intiicting bodily harm upon your wife and
children; what would you do thenp' mo
doubt" he replied, with a flash of the eye
that gave emphasis to his words, {" no
doubt. should do very wrong"


What this worthy gentleman had per.
suaded hnlselfto regard as every wrong "
neither human. nor divine law condemns.
No man is required to submit to outrage
or death at the hands of lawess assailants.
Much less is he forbidden to interfere, to
any necessary extent, for the protection of
the weak and helpless against brutal vo-
lence. Human law explicitly recognizes
the right to MAIN OF kill burglar or
highwayman in the actual commission of
his crime, whenever there is a reasonable
presumption, arising out of the circum-
stances of the case, that he will add MUIR
der to robbery if surprised or hindered in
his work. Strictly speaking, one has no
right to shed blood in defence of property
merely. The life even of a burglar is Of
more value than any property. But the
right to defend ones goods from lawless
seizure is unquestonable; and with
burglar in the house, or when suddenly
attacked in the open air, neither law nor
good morals require that we should stop
to ascertain the robbers intentions, place
our own lives in jeopardy.


But there can be no doubt that both law
and morals demand that we should believe
ourselves, or others who have a claim
upon our protection, in actual deadly
peril, in order to make good the plea of
justifable homicide. The courts have
repeatedly decided that in all such cases
the proof of imminent danger must be full
and clear. The killing of human being
is SO terrible an act that only the most
urgent necessity can justify it; and no man
who puts proper estimate upon human
life will take it unless absolutely convinc-
ed that such necessity exists, even
when reasonably sure that II Jury Of
his peers will acquit him of all blame.


The theory of sef-defence, is, however.
often pressed far beyond the limit we have
indicated. Men of nervous temperament
are apt to imagine themselves in danger
oftentimcs when no real danger exists.
They are "swift to shed blood in sup
posed defence of their lives; and public
sentiment, never too severe in dealing
with such cases, is growing lenient in its
Judgment of the act. The habit of carry
ing concealed weapons directly ministers
to this unhappy tendency. Many IL man
who could successfully use his fists-or fol
that matter his legs-in securing his per-
sonal safety, now whips out his revolver
and in an instant adds another to the long
sad list of deaths by shooting which dis
graces our civilization. In nine cases out
of ten he will escape all punishment; but
he has really been guilty of twofolt
crime-he has killed fellowman withou
absolute necessity, and has broken the law
which, in nearly every civilized commuhit
ty, forbds the wearing of concealed weap
ons.


Some recent cases of the use of the pis
tol-notably that of the shooting of his
coachman by Mr.. Blair, in New Jersey
ought to lead to serious consideration o
this subject, and to such revsal of public
opinion as shall make the free employ
ment of deadly weapons less safe thar
now to those who recklessly use them
Every man, rs we have said is entitled t
defend his own or others lives in extreme
peril but he ought to be held to a stric
account if, having disobeyed one law by
carrying concealed weapon, he break


another by using it, without sufficien


cause, to MAIN or kill fellow being


E1aminer and Chronicle.