The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-01-22
ENQUIRER.
RIcAMoND, YANgARr sg, So.
on THE B,LL TO AMRNp THE PENAL LAWS
or VIRGINIA..
(De5afe coacIHdeA.J

m Tae1ueH was forty trefDafs 70 frr,
sucntly upon the patience of the HOufe : but
&c hoped tsat the Importance Of The fubjett
would furailh GtisfaStory apology.--lt has
been alItrted that the harmony of our criminal
code would be done away, ihould the Lecjla-
turc annex The pnniih7,ent Of death to the crime
ofc ,unterfeiting bank notes for they would
then afTix the heavieft Dunhnec: 20 eGer of
fence. MIR. Taz~el flid That the actual appor-
tionment of pvuirhmcnts and crimes, ado ,5ted
By our pentrntary fyitsri, was a yilionary AID
perncious idea: and he thought it had been
Efficiently r'futed by experience. Thole who
di(agreed with him IL ms point, would howe
yer agree with HIN in the plain application of
their favorite principle and they would admit
that the 'ole queA;oQ which was ueceiiary TO be
fettled, was what was the real grade of offence
which the act OF counterteiting bank notes
onght to occupy If ais opponents would adj
init that it ought to be ranked as high as mBr-
der, then there was no difference OF opinion be-
tween them. If they world not admit this If
theycontendedthat II ought not to be placedhjgh-
er than rape or murder of the fecond degree, Or
offences OF lirailar nature, il would be eafy
, to raiie fbem up TO the fame grade with murder,
ifiultice and policy required it. But in appor-
tioning punithmcnts to crimes, there was no
principle which appeared more invariabe or
more likelyto fix IN accurate ratio, than the one
which he had already fugge6ed Of determine
ing the degree of crin1Ility of any offence by
the extent OF the injury, which it inih9s upon
focicty.
why is trcafon punilhed in the mot excm-
pllry manner? Not bccaulc the traitor lhows
greater maiignty of dGpoIitiou, but becauf- the
cHnfrquences of his crime are 20 diirftrOuq. In
the Game manner it is incumbent upon the L.
ciliature 10 climate the offences of The coun-
terseitcr; and not to regard Them, rs if they
were fitting in court OF confidence, but as cool
and calculating politicians.
When murderer acts, he may rob a family
Of It's principal fupport and fociety of one Of its
members. But conrterfeiter does not top at
petty iaiuries; he may not only deprive a "a
r1y Of its fupport by his pcrncious fraud, but
he t;ps the foundations Of iocety iticlf. He de-
b'les the current coin of the country. He plants
general dittrnf IN place OF general confidence.
II the crime of the murderer therefore tcrmi-
mates in the lof9 of one man and in enc ruin of a
few others, the counteyfeiter may be involving
millions IN deftrutton.
But fnppofe that we even reject this criterion
of crininality; and adopt new rule, derived
from the motives and indictments OF the offend
ers; fuppoie we Ultimate the degree of crimi-
naiiSy by the maGgnity and the infamous in
crtemeHts of the criminals; even then tie ba-
lance OF guilt is not always on tie Eide of the
murderer. The murderer may fometimes plead
in his indication the power OF PATTON and the
jufaefS of his refentmeDt. But TIE counter
feiter has no fuch plea and extenuation. 1t is
bis office to plot in the coolef moments aganft
the peace and credit of focety, and from the
moavcious and mercenary motives.-In what
eveSs point of view then we climate The offences
Of murder and counterfeiting bank paper, they
wonld appear equally entitled to the mot exen-
plary pnniihment.
MIR. t. obferved, that fome objections had
been made by the gentleman who preceded
him, lie viswWhich he had taken OF The pc,
niteP.:ary FIFTEEN. That gentleman had vindi-
Gated the humanity and jutice Of this defgn,
and be had denied THAI experience had fdrniih-
ed any fatisfactory proof of the annual incre-
rnent Of crimes fuce its efahIiihmect. Mr. T.
Thought for his own par, that the principal de-
f-6t ofttis fyHem proceeded from f7fe appor-
tionment Of prniihnents to crimes from affxiny
TTrtu ttiuliiiIrncnt5 iu major crimes. lie Lao
however proof Of the la'nsHa6le augaenta-
ton Of crimes in the fate which 40 one would
be willing to diputc. 81 was not any proof
drawn from carlparfon of the number Of
criminals condemned fnce TIE adoption Of this
fyftem, with the number of criminals condemn
ed previous to its adoption: but il was com
PARTON OF the number OF criminals condemned
in different years 6nce its adoption. H ncld n
his hand, Mr.. T. faid, an authentic document
drawn up by the iuper1tend1nt of the rcniteh-
tlarY, oI The number Of criminals confined there
during thefe eqral periods. IN 1900, eherc
were u criminals within it's walls: IN 1901,
there were 80: IL 1902, ~: In 1909, there
we've 81 criminals and in 1904, there were -
brought to the Pcnitentiary. But let not the
houG- fuppofe, faid MIR. r. that becauic there
were IA lefS during the lait than during the pre-.
vious year, the number Of crimes and criminals
has diminiIhed: no. The true method for *
planning this apparent diminuton was to be
found in the ftatute book itfeif It aries from
the law of the laG Legislature which confers the
power of punihing petit srcenics upon the
county courts, and varies the metbod OF punifl-
ment. Hundreds have been profecuted there,
who would have been condemned under the for
Incr i,ws to a confinement in the Pcnitentary.
BY this document then we are enabled to de
terrnine the proportion between the numbers
Of criminals at different times, 6ncc the Peni-
Tertiary was carried into operation. And what
IS the refut? tits, that the number of crimes
has nearly multiplied during four years in =
three fold degree.
This document, MIR. T. faid, furrilned him
wTth another view Of this fubie6t. Il not only
demonstrated the increaling number of crimes,
but aiio the great depravity of the criminals.
There are at the prefcnt time SO convi6s in the
y, riteutiary,6 of thele, 5Ihaye been condemned
for crimes IF an atrocious nature. Mr.. Taz.
well here fated the number Of each: that there
p,syi,, tad Hssn l,I e