The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-01-18

natures ana thai the only Teiource ~ iuch
cafe, was to be found in The Common Law,
which iimply impofrd fine and imprisonment
H.. therefore, thought that the ieeinature ought
to interfere, and that fome higher punifhment
was absolutely necehary. This punihment
ought to be exemplary, and the degree of it
could be determined nv no better rule, than the
one which he had already defguated it Mould
be IN proportion to the injurious confcquences
OF the offence upon the welfare OF fociety.-
Forging was perhaps more injurious than muir
der, arion, or rape. It was like treafon it
fsriSeS at the very foundation Of TIE fate: it
frikes AT Its revenue. II wounds Individual
wealth. 1t diicretlits the circulating medium.
He differed from thewortny fpeaker in think
ing that there was any real difference in the
Qualification of The crimes OF countsrfeitiag and
altering Bank Notes. Perhaps eventhe act of
pstiing bad note was WORT than the rnechani-
cal aet1f counterfeiting it. He who merely
coun'erfeits note does no mitchell. II is on
~ when the note finds its way into the cOmmu-
nitY, that 1t ahumes noxious character. With
ontaiders and abettors, the mechanical counter
feiter can produce no effect and no injury. 1t
isthen the man who circOlates the note that
ftaHds on the hiFhcR point af crimnaty, and
who ihould iuffer at leaf an equal puniif-
rnent.
A cafe has been cited from the records of the
conviairg acounterfeiter, fhould he be made
liable TO capital punithment. From the fate
ment which has been given OF this cafe, it is
plain that the offender was acquitted on the
two hrit indictments; but it is ALTO evident.
that he was convi6fed on the two aft. 1t is
clear then from thi, very cafe, that there is al
waysa certain degree of evidence, which would
be fufiicient TO fatisfy jury and convia the
offender: ndjuftice would thus be admnher
ed, whether confinement or death fhould be
the penaltiesof his offence. Mr.. Tazwe declar-
ed he entertained more exalted opinion ofthe
condolences OF Jury: He believed that if they
were once certain OF the facts, they would rot
he!itate to find proper verdict. They will
not expaiiate upon its consequences, if they
could once be iats6ed Of its legality and iuf-
ticc. They would not Eav a long imprifon-
ment or an end!efs death viii he the cortequer-
cesofourverda :huttheywouidg 60 ontodotheir
duty, becaufe their condolences would ratiiy Che
act.
Mr.. TnSzveN declared that feven years expe-
rience of the pententiary fv0en had not con-
WINGED him Gifts compleat utility. He did not
perceive, that il was adequate to its original
defign. So far from diminihiug. it had iucreaf-
ed offences: and year after year the melancho-
ly Increment appears to be certain. The
number of crimes, as fatei by the authentic do
cuments before the Houfe, appears 20 he great
er ard greater during every fuccceding year
He thought that the great error of the peniten-
tIary iyitem, conftted in the aSual apportiou-
ment of pwnihments to crimes Ii was his
opinion, that adegvate Duniihments were not
infl'csed upon ali the offences, which demanded
greater rigour in the law.
Mr.. Tbompfon moved an amendment, 20 A.
TO iuhftitute the puniihmcnt Of confinement 70
that OF death and to make the term of con-
Life fh1u %
years.
Mr.. Bar6ou' was in favor of the principle Of
the lAit amendment but he fubmitted it to
the mover, whether il was not beft to limit the
term of confinement to lefa than 10, & not more
than 90 years. Mr.. Barbour thought it was
more confident in the Legislative body TO pur-
fue the plan which they had already begun and
F1ot raiii,y reInquili ,h~ psnito utiary fyGe.r
Already had they efablifhed the principle of
graduating puniihments to crimes and in the
practice of this principle, they had fubie6ed,
treafon and murder ofthe frf degree to capital
puniihments, while murder of the ftcond de-
gree, and arfon and rape ~ere Puniihed by diff
tcrent terms of confinement Reafontoo had fame
toned the proPriety of this principle. 1t is the
certainty of Dunilhnrnts which cnnffit,,tes the
only autidote 10 crimes. Turn to an luxurious
Empire, where the policy was adopted of A.
bandoning all capital punih uents, and vet
the h'ftory OF that country afures us that crimes
were almot altogether prevented.-The gen
| tleman has Obierved, that the nunS,er of crimes
is yearly increaiing. But what proof has he ad-
duced ofthis antrtion If there be any evil
dence OF the fact, why did he not adduce It ,
He certainly infersit from 4 comparison ofthc
number of criminals, who were convicted I'M
der the former laws, with the number of con-
victs under the prelent pcnitcntary fyNem.
Yet it might even be admitted that this GONNA
rifon was predicaed upon indifputablc facts,
and that the number of criminals has appa-
rently increaied, and yet even thefe facts would
not fupPort the propoftion he has advanced.
j he reaion is obvious. No one who has fire.
quented our Courts OF iuitce is unacouaiDtcd
with the operation Of oHr milder fyitem. E
very one knowsthat fn1aller degree of evidence
is efficient to fatisfy jury, and to conv6
criminal, no70, that his punifhment is milder &
more adapted to his offence than 6rz,erls
when he was punlhcd in the nor rigorous and
hnguinary manner
What tronger arguments could fau1cous
advocate defrc than thoie whics he might ev
tract from the very penalties of this bloody
code When he placed before the iurv the
fate ofhis unfortunate client, when be laid at
their doors the entire Responsibility Of putting To
death an innocent man or man who had not
been guilty of atrocious charges when he
could employ (uch means to play upon the i
imagination, and harrow up the ienfbiity of bis