THE LASH.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 154, 1 July 1901, Page 2

THE LASH.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Your correspondent "G." so kindly calls me "a splendid correspondent" that perhaps he will excuse me if 1 say that I was sure of my ground when 1 said that child-ruin was common in England half a century back. An author whose books are still widely read had to ily the country, a well known judge hanged himself, a schoolmaster got several years imprisonment for this very offence, all within a very few months. I can give "G." the names, as oil the men were former acquaintances of my father. Perhaps if I were "to tell "G." how garrotting wa« squashed by a woman—a girl of 23 —in one big city at Home he would think I was exaggerating in another direction, but there again I can supply names and dates. Were this remedy adopted in assault cases here they, too, would probably cease to exist. "But that is another story." All of us have mot pure, good women. They are to be found in all lands and amongst all classes. But that does not at all alter the fact that in the Australasian colonies, and especially where the climate is warm theyounger generation of females are seldom moral, and in almost every instance lack Relf-respect. If the male sex is aggressive—it is to its own sex I will admit—we women of the older civilisation were taught to hold our own, and can do it anywhere.—l am, etc.,

EX-MOTHER

P.S. —The two persons who tell me what they think of me in to-night's "Star" wax warm with indignation, but neither of them has taken the trouble to read my letter' properly. Clement Kirkby is rather rude, but a* lie expresses a doubt as to my genuineness, I will tell him that I am an average woman, considered nicelooking, tall, and with golden hair. Originally born in the English professional class, I became, by force of circumstances, poor, and have been for years an ordinary working woman. To S. E. Collings, I merely say that "Ex-Motherf' means a woman whose children were lost to her in early life. If S. E. Collings cares to pay me a visit, you, sir, are at perfect liberty to give any lady my name and address, and 1 will prove to her the truth of all my statements, and tell her a good deal more of which she appears ignorant. Ido not h••' . ■

the lash.—Ex-M,

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Your correspondent A. C. Smyth and "G." don't grasp the great difference in punishment awarded by different New Zealand judges. Why, I ask, should Aubrey, or any other man similarly convicted, be singled so out? His offence certainly was pun--ishable, which no one denies. But compare three cases tried South—one to three years for the same offence, and notably one man (presumably a rich one) gets the option of a fine. Is that just and right? Another case, similar to Johnson's, gets one year down South. Johnson gets three years sentence. All will agree that the child-ruiner got a just sentence. Bnt we want to see justice equally administered.—l am., etc., ELLEN HOLMES. Spring-street. (To the Editor.) Sir,—l am conviaced that once this degrading and diabolical foran of torture is introduced into New Zealand a woman will have to face the chances of murder as well as rape—one is bad enough without the other, as the very terror it would cause would make the authors of such crimes remember that '•Dead men teJl no tales." I have noticed in Australia a case of rape has repeatedly been followed by murder. The penalty is death there. The Gatton murder theory seems to be (according to the police) one of rape and then murder. As for Aubrey's case, I consider the sentence barbarous in the extreme. Why not Siberia at onoe?— I am, etc., HUMAiNITY.

"Egroeg," commenting on this case, says: "It is time that something was done—either form a petition or let the matter drop."

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—When writing- my letter of the 24th I had no intention of entering the lists again for the present. In expressing my thoughts then I said "no doubt A. C. Smyth had taken up his pen without much thought." Now I find I have set him thinking, and the outcome of conflicting thought leads him to believe "that my letter (seems to imply) that none but women of good character should be protected from criminal assault." I thank him for those three words "seems to imply." They express doubt, and I most willingly attempt to make myself understood by A.C.S. I would have both good and bad characters protected. Likewise the accused should be protected in Court by an able counsel. If he is unable to employ one, a etnms«l em-

ployed by the State should defend him. I admitted the lash was deserved by some, but such cases seldom occur. —1 am, etc.,

GAY

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Mesdames Collins and Kirkby have done well in demanding from the State full protection for their sex. I hope they will continue to insist that as far as possible the law shall afford them this right. In all past ages it has done so, and only varied its administration according to the needs of the times. Four-legged wild animals and two-footed beasts must be taught or destroyed, in spite of soft-headed friends or companions, otherwise mankind will have to throw up the sponge. The strength and quality of the Anglo-Saxon race mainly depend* upon the purity and virtue of our women. As far as the law can help it .'fudge Connolly is in dead earnest; evidently he is perfectly sick of hearing these infamous cases, and having the rascals before him, and all right-minded men and women agree that something more must be done.

It is nothing to the purpose that .Fudge Conolly may differ from other judges; each case must stand on its own bottom according to its merits or demerits, but the administration of the law is not to be perverted or justice hindered by a howling mob in order to please a lot of ruffians, otherwise it may become necessary to form vigilance committees in order to uphold the law upon this question.

Mesdames Kirkby and Collins need not fret themselves about "ExMother," as the letter evidently was intended for a jest; perhaps written by some old man with a disordered liver, with a view of producing a laugh, or to bring the subject into derision.—l am, etc.,

A GRANDFATHER.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —A resume of correspondence up to date establishes public opinion that

1. Cowards who violate weak children should receive the lash, possibly the noose.

2. Assaults on women of maturer age .should be judged and rewarded on the merits of each ease..

3. All Buch cases should be tried before a "professional" jury on account of the anatomical and psychical elements involved.

4. That equity is broken if criminals are punished mainly as deterrent examples. True justice—"A.? is the sin so the reward."

5. That sins of the flesh are not to be singled out as greater than other crimes, for they are not even equal. All arise from Satanic power. .6. That mercy and intelligence will use the rod of severity." 7. That women who are bidding for equality with men are the enemies of their sex, reversing nature.—l am, etc., JOHN C. EARL.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I see there is a great stir about the infliction of the lash in cases of rape. Are we to understand that those who are opposed to the punishment sympathise with the offence. Such creatures are only amenable to an infliction of .that kind. Something is due to our wives and daughters for their protection, and it is evident that mere imprisonment is not a sufficient deterrent. I see another punishment was suggested by one of your correspondents, which lie would have offered to the offender as an alternative to the lash. I would make no such offer, but as a matter of justice and for the good of society the man Avho cannot or who will not control himself, but who seeks the violent and illegal gratification, should be simply deprived of it. When a woman has thoughtlessly or otherwise laid herself open to such an assault, the extreme penalty should not be inflicted, but in all clear cases of rape, criminal assaxilts on children, or unnatural offences it appears to me that would be the just punishment. We read of those who, for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake, submitted to that deprivation—Matt, xix., 12. Those perils to society, and the most defenceless portion of it, should be rendered harmless in that respect.— I am, etc, CW.