particularly, his wife and children, these and many other reasons cry out in unmistakable language against the unwise, inhuman and barbarous practice. We give slight weight to the question of economy. There is no data tending to show that it lessens the expense of the administra tion of the criminal statutes. Even if it did, which we question, it should have slight con sideration as against a condition which guarantees the best and most orderly social state, let the cost be ever so great. That is what human governments are for, and the question of cost is a minor matter and of slight consequence.
We are assured that the restoration of whipping as a punishment for crime is an exceedingly remote possibility in this country. As Dr. Henderson truly says, "the danger of abuse has been thought to be so great that this method of punishment has not often been incorporated in penal law. It is confidently submitted that whipping would be the revival of the antiquated doctrine of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." It does not deter men from committing crime. It does not lessen the number of offenses committed. It does not make men respect the law.
A FLIRTATION UNDER THE BLUE LAWS. BY SAMUEL SCOVILLK, JR. IT is profitable in these flippant days of unconsidered kisses and general atten tion without intention, to hark back to the times of our Puritan forbears and note their views on flirtation and its accessories. The legal status of a kiss, unfortunately, is not yet clearly determined, but the trend of the modern decisions seems to be toward the view that osculation in moderation is cer tainly not tnalum in sc. This would be indi cated by the verdict in a recently reported case wherein the plaintiff brought suit for an alleged breach of promise, and showed by her testimony that the defendant had escorted her to a church sociable and on the home ward journey had not only once, but repeat edly, kissed said plaintiff with the utmost enthusiasm. This perilous course of action was not denied at the trial, yet the jury, after protracted deliberation, brought in as a special verdict that the defendant had treated the plaintiff with great courtesy and once with ice cream—by implication evidently including the acts complained of in the cate gory of courtesies.
No such flippant verdict would have ob tained in colonial days, with a jury composed of the men who, eschewing may-poles, mincepies and other devices of the devil, came to these shores to achieve the liberty of con trolling their own and their neighbors' con sciences. Their very names well indexed their characters, and it is impossible to imagine light-mindedness among such worthies as Stand-fast-on-high Stringer, "Kill-sin Pimple" or "If-Christ-had-not-diedfor-you-you-hacl-been-damned Barebones," pleasingly shortened, as shown by contem poraneous records, to "Damned" Barebones. Contrary to popular opinion there is no reference to unauthorized osculation in Roger Ludlow's Code of 1650, commonly known as the "Connecticut Blue Laws." The case of People v. Murline et al., decided on May Day, 1660, as appears from the New Haven judicial records, affords, however, an indication of the treatment accorded to un licensed kissers and kissees in those uncom promising times. On the above-mentioned date, Jacob M.
