The motion, as amended, was duly seconded and carried. I move that each speaker be limited to five minutes. The President: Discussion on the report is now in order. It is first necessary to know precisely the subject at issue. The question is not whether the whipping-post to the fullest extent, as administered in Delaware, shall be adopted by this Association, but whether it shall be adopted in the limited form mentioned in the resolution which applies to wife-beating, assaults with slung-shots, sand-bags, brass knuckles, or similar weapons-in other words, applies to those who show that they have abdicated their manhood and ought to be punished accordingly. That is the issue. That excludes, then, the sentimental view of this matter, and brings it down to the consideration of us as practical men. The day of the millennium has not come. When it does come and all men are perfect, then I have no doubt we can dispense with the whippingpost in accordance with the sentimental standpoint taken by some of the gentlemen here. In Delaware the millennium era has not yet occurred, I will say. At the same time we believe we have as honest, as valuable government, and as good as any State in the Union, and that Delaware ideas may well be adopted on this as well as on many other subjects with profit in larger States of the Union. As practical men, we must consider this question from the standpoint with which the law looks at it in the administration of justice; that is, we must view it from the standpoint of the purpose of punitive legislation. That purpose is not chiefly for the reform of the criminal, but it is for the prevention of crime. It is intended, not out of sympathy, to take care of the criminal, but to take care of the public, to take care of the many who are honest and virtuous and not vicious as against the few who make up the vicious class. Punishment, therefore, is intended chiefly to deter others from the commission of crime. When you punish a man who has shown himself to be a dastard and a miscreant among human beings, you set an example to others not to follow in that way and not to become so, or, if they are so, to desist from crime. Now, gentlemen, that is the whole thing in a nut-shell. If you want to know what are the fruits of that policy as against the sentimental policy, as against the view that is urged here by the advocates of the millennial period, as we may call it, by gentlemen who are forerunners of Bulwer's Coming RaceI may say the men sent before, the nineteenth century John the Baptists-if you wish to know the difference between the practical result of the Delaware idea (I may call it, although it is limited here, properly) you may see it by going to Delaware, by studying our statistics, and if I had time I could read to you and can furnish them for publication if desired, which show that, whereas the percentage of crime punishable with whipping in the United States according to its criminal population is one out of eight hundred and thirty-three, in Delaware the percentage is one out of six thousand punished by the whipping-post in our State. John H. Handy, of Maryland: Mr. President, I regret that I did not hear the argument advanced against this resolution last night. This proposition to establish the whipping-post in cases of brutal wife-beating originated in the State of Maryland, which I then had the honor to represent upon the floor of the House of Delegates, and have now in part the honor to represent as a member of this Association. I may say, sir, that as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Delegates of Maryland, I reported that bill and fought it through the House of Delegates, and it became a law, the fruits of which are now being reaped by the public in the State of Maryland, and the good results and effects of which are circling around through this country, and I hope will embrace every State in the Union. We passed this law not upon any sentimental ideas either for one side or the other. We believed that the time had come to take some stringent measures to prevent these brutal assaults by husbands upon wives. Now, I understand that some gentlemen last night said here that we were rolling back the tide of civilization. It is strange indeed that such opinions should be advanced here, when the very essence of civilization is, as I understand it, to afford protection to the weak against the strong. There was a time, Mr. President, when the husband and the master had the right of life and death over his wife, his children, his slaves-and his wife was his slave. The very essence of civilization has been redeemed-the wife and the children of men redeemed from such a condition-and in furtherance of and as protection of that idea this law has been advanced by the Legislature of Maryland. Sir, it is a revolting spectacle indeed to see a man writhing under the lash, but the man who flogs his wife brutally and has the lash laid upon him by the brother, the father, or other relative of the wife is thought to be justly punished by every man in the community who has a spark of manhood in his bosom. How is it, then, that when he is tried by a judicial tribunal where he has all the defenses that he can avail himself of, permitted to him either in denial or mitigation, and is convicted, and that same cowhide is handed over to the officer of the law, to be laid upon him according to the restrictions of the law, and not according to the unlimited idea of the private avenger-how is it, I say, that it becomes so obnoxious? Sir, this resolution and this law cover both modes that deter men from such crimes. Humiliation for some-brutal I admit, because the man who can assault his wife is beyond all feeling of personal humiliation; and it covers the other branch. The sting of the lash is the strength of the law. Mr. President, I remember well what opposition we met with when we attempted to pass this legislation in Maryland. It was fought through the Senate of Maryland on these sentimental grounds. We were told all this matter about civilization and reform. Sir, penal laws are not made to reform the criminal. They are made to punish the offense, and if reform results to the man himself, or if reform results by its intimidating effect upon his neighbors, so much the better; but punishment is punishment primarily, and upon that theory alone has the State the right to inflict it. P. L. Mynatt, of Georgia: Two objections present themselves, Mr. President, to my mind to this method of punishment. While we do despise the culprit, we do not despise his children and his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren. The punishment to them, the punishment to his children, is as great as the punishment to him, except as to the mere physical pain. This character of punishment is more infamous than any. It makes a more indelible stain than any other sort-a stain from which his posterity will never be relieved. That is one trouble I have in my mind about inflicting this punishment. If the punishment stop with the man who whipped his wife I would have no objection to it. But, sir, you inflict a punishment upon his children, even to the third and fourth generation, from which they can be relieved only by hiding themselves. I think, sir, that our free country is different from Great Britain in that particular. There, there is no care or concern about the future generation. In this country our greatest men spring from the humblest walks of life. Let us not put such a stain as this upon any of the children of this free land. In the next place, another objection is that when you have punished the culprit, in three minutes he is out again upon the community. He is not in a place of penitence to reflect. But he is out again, a desperate man, with his wife at his mercy; he is out again with everybody subject to his malice; he is out again to perform all the devilment that is in his nature. I think for these reasons that the penitentiary is the better place for that sort of a culprit and every other sort of one. THE SECRETARY CORRECTS HIS ANSWER. E. F. Bullard, of New York: 77 Mr. President, I have been in favor of aggressive discussions and resolutions in this Bar meeting, but it seems to me that this resolution goes a little further than belongs to the lawyer branch of the Government. I am in favor of every sort of resolution and action and discussion here which pertains to legal questions, but this is more of a social and political question, and one at which we cannot arrive at any unanimous conclusion. We might as well take up the temperance question or woman's suffrage question. We all know that ninety-nine out of a hundred wife-beaters are drunk on the occasion when they beat their wives. If whisky was taken away from them, there would be no beating of wives by husbands. Therefore, I submit that that question rather belongs to the political branch, and I hope this Association will not pass a resolution which shall be criticised by the whole civilized world. I, therefore, move that the whole subject be laid upon the table. Orlando B. Potter: I second that motion. E. O. Hinkley: I ask to correct an error The President: We cannot allow any discussion except by unanimous con sent. W. T. Houston, of Louisiana : I rise to propose an amendment. E. O. Hinkley: I simply wish to correct something I said last night. The President: You may do that. The Secretary: In my remarks last night I gave a wrong answer to the gentleman who questioned me. I have slept over it and now I wish to correct it. Blackstone tells us that on certain occa |