Greensboro Daily News
It is true that Gulley and Tyler, as well as Joe Armstrong, were the victims of a “vicious system,” but that does not lessen the guilt of Gulley and Tyler nor remove the stain from the good name of North Carolina.
The only answer that can be mad to the question at the head of this article is that it is North Carolina’s system, North Carolina’s vice, and North Carolina’s disgrace. The mere fact that the men in the Rocky Mount case were punished does not change the system nor remove the danger of further exposure and disgrace. The only solution of the problem is to absolutely abolish the system. We have reached the parting of the ways.
Flogging prisoners in county convict camps must be prohibited by law or the county convict camp must be abolished. The two things cannot exist at the same time consistently with the honor of the State. Flogging has never been and never can be regulated. As long as it exists under any regulation it will be brutally abused as it always has been. The difficulty is that in most of the camps there exists a system of intimidation and concealment, and it is generally impossible to obtain evidence of the barbarous brutalities practiced. The superintendent of the Rocky Mount camp has been in charge more than a half dozen years and yet until the recent explosion the county and road authorities were ignorant of his cruelties, so perfectly did he keep them concealed.
The Attorney General’s office recently stated upon the authority of State Vs Nipper, 166 N.C. 272, that the question of flogging prisoners in county convict camps was left entirely to the discretion of the county authorities. I do not so construe the opinion in that case. That case went to the Supreme Court on appeal from the opinion of that great Judge C.M. Cooke, who held that “After full consideration of the subject, he had reached the conclusion that under the Constitution and the laws of this State the authorities who have control over convicts have no right to administer whippings to them for causes of discipline and that this feature was eliminated from the further discussion of the case.”
The opinion further holds that “The question whether flogging can be used as part of the discipline in our county prison camps depends not alone upon the constitutional provision but also upon the question whether it is reasonable and authorized.” It goes on to say “We find no rule or regulation of the county commissioners authorizing the flogging of convicts and . . . . such regulation by the county commissioners would be void and no protection to the defendants if it had been made.”
There is no statute authorizing flogging of convicts in county camps, the only statutory authority being for discipline that is reasonable and necessary, the Court holds that there could be no defense for flogging.
The only statute on the subject applying to county camps is C.S. 1361 unless the laws of 1925 which I have not seen has changed the law. That section provides only that county convicts “Shall be under the control of the county authorities, and that county authorities shall have the power to enact all needful rules and regulations for the successful working of convicts on the public roads.” It will be noted that this statute confers authority to do only that which is “needful,” and the Nipper case holds that in the absence of any statute expressly authorizing flogging, “Whether any given measure of discipline can be authorities by those in charge of . . . . county prisoners depends upon whether the measure of discipline is reasonably necessary. In view of the enlightenment of this age, and the progress which has been made in prison discipline, we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that corporal punishment by flogging is not reasonable and can not be sustained. That which degrades and embrutes a man can not be either necessary or reasonable.”
. . . .
From the front page of The Enterprise, Williamston, Martin County, N.C., Friday, June 19, 1925
newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92073995/1925-06-19/ed-1/seq-1/
The remainder of this article may be read at: newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92073995/1925-06-19/ed-1/seq-3/
