Peter Hallock, committed on a charge of abducting Lena Dinser, a young girl thirteen years old, whom, it was alleged, her father, George Dinser, had sold to Hallock for purposes of prostitution, was again brought yesterday before Judge Westbrook in the Supreme Court Chambers, on the writ of habeas corpus previously obtained by Mr. William F. Howe, the prisoner’s counsel.  Mr. Howe claimed that Hallock could not be held on either section of the statute for abduction.  Under the first section the complaint, he insisted, should set forth that the child was taken contrary to the wish and against the consent of her parents.  On the contrary, the evidence, he urged, showed that the father was a willing party.  Under the second section, it was contended that the prisoner could not be held, as there was no averment that the girl was of previous chaste character.  Judge Westbrook, a brief counter argument having been made by Mr. Dana, held that the points of Mr. Howe were well taken, and ordered the prisoner’s discharge.

Here was a father who, as the newspapers allege, had previously sold two other daughters, body and soul, and against whom the evidence seemed to be in this case clear.  Yet through the defectiveness of the statute, or the remissness of the prosecuting attorney, he goes free, without even a trial, to carry on his infamous traffic for other children.  Grant that the points were technically well taken and irresistible,—­though this is by no means certain,—­it is very sure that there should be laws that should reach such atrocities with punishment, whether the father does or does not consent to his child’s ruin; and that public sentiment should compel prosecuting officers to be as careful in framing their indictments where human souls are at stake as where the question is of dollars only.  It is upon such matters that the influence of women will make itself felt in legislation.

INDIVIDUALS vs. CLASSES

As the older arguments against woman suffrage are abandoned, we hear more and more of the final objection, that the majority of women have not yet expressed themselves on the subject.  It is common for such reasoners to make the remark, that if they knew a given number of women—­say fifty, or a hundred, or five hundred—­who honestly wished to vote, they would favor it.  Produce that number of unimpeachable names, and they say that they have reconsidered the matter, and must demand more,—­perhaps ten thousand.  Bring ten thousand, and the demand again rises.  “Prove that the majority of women wish to vote, and they shall vote.”  “Precisely,” we say:  “give us a chance to prove it by taking a vote;” and they answer, “By no means.”