Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-01-17
HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
FRIDAY JAsUARY 9, 1924.
DEBATE ON TILE BILL FoE THE RELIEF OF r.
DUUIHAT.

rn,nAy JAsuAKY 9, 1894
DEBATE ON THE BILL For THE RELIEF OF RIO.
MIR. EDGiNGroN spoke in opposition to The hill
lie had listened wuh s',imTaInn To the eutIne
OF the gentleman lr"m Charles Guy. Bui he did not
think the sni,erf pf ihr hill which the
feelings of the House should I've tursrd hut that
u should he decided by sober dictates OF reason
lie considered IT his duty proiec, the laws of The
country aud thai part al the grntien,aps argument
which RELAXED tn the cnnstiiuiionaiy and the policy
oi The law had gwen him pieasurehut the gentleman
had wandered from the subject. He did not think
that the solIcude of the people oi Charles Civ in
t,vor OF the applicant, ought NJ all influence the
House and he uugi,I 10 he permitted 10 pursue the
ORDINARY comse--and appeal Tor pardon the
i've branch oI the government. ~" argued thai
u relief he grInird IN this case the House would he
ovetrun with similar applications. The applicants
would FORM corps whose solicude and repeated
enrris WORLD III tine break down its patience, and
ultimately triumph over The law. The case under
consideration he could think harder than the
aggregate OF the eases winch had occurred under the
law and u reiIrl WAS extended also them the
zeal aud the numhris OF then friends would ~ oure
acounttrvaIl'ng n'pmr!s public uuiu,D, which
might deprive Socieiy oi - safeguard heretofore so
h'ehiy appreciated. MI. T.. then went into
aniaton OF the circumstances Of mtg alton lallee ell
IN behalf OF Nj. - 'uIhn, and cunien,ed that il was
against The Ind Scrron and upriuosy oI ,onih thai
'he Inv was principally Intended to provide The
poverty al The nti""der, nor The circumstance of the
insult be'ug gwen IN open court, did his
opinion Va, m sui!irent excuse. That class of
ceIy 10 which he belonged, had already receives so
much projection and countenance from our iaws, tina
they ought To hr exceedingly scrmpuluus how they
violated any OF their provisions. He concluded hy
deprecaiing the precedent sought lie esalli by
the passag" al the hill
Mr.. hicFARLANE then rose to address the
House
participate in the feelings which are said
10 he felt by the people of Charles City in
relation To The bill now under consideration
They are not the only people who feel Il deep
interest IN the passage of This bill. The gem
teman who last addressed you, would have
you To believe, that there prevails in the state
general feeling of hostility and opposition To
the relief of the prtiiionrr--in this he is mis-
taken. Permit the bill To pass, and the pro-
pie will say To you, you hare done right. This
bill ought to be discussed as every other bill,
which proposes To exempt an individual from
the operation of II general law In consider
Ing whether it is just and polite, in any in
stance, to relieve an unfortunate offender from
the penalties of the dueing act, il will not he
contended surely, that IA igor and severity
are TO be observed, which are not praclsrd in
relation To other laws. There is NOT IN offence
known To your laws, unless the offence of du-
ellIng IS To be exception, which may not
meet with forgiveness either in the legislature,
or before another branch Of The government.
The pardonng power of the government has
often interpOsed to protect the homicide from
punishment the cOnvicts of your peDitentia-
ny, however base and criminal, have been, in
many instances, restored to liberty by par
don. before the period Of their confinement
had expired. Conlrition and tlle appearaDce
OF reformation have been urged successfully
IN behalf Of some Of your worst marfactors.
call, then, upon the friends Ofthe pardoDng
power, there are none present, trust, who
would say ii ought not TO EXIST la assign the
reasons of making the offence Of duelling, the
only offence, which can neither be extenuated
m far cp tunr tod nv
will not do so much violence TO my own
feelings, nor be guilty of So much Injustice to
the worthy gentleman whose petition we are
considering, as To compare his case TO thai Of
the various malefactOrs who are sometimes
pardoned. No can mpute to him dishO-
nor ;and hard as may be his destiny, in having
his humble petition from time to time denied
and rejected, there is more glory in his misf0r-
tune, Than if hr had preserved his privileges.
but lost his honor. This House requires not
TO be- told, that when the honor Of gentle
man IS assaiied, resentment becOmesa duty
Il call upon every man who hears me, to say,
whether the petitioner was not bound in some
10dy to resent the foul imputatiOn, thus public
Iy charged upon him. Would you, sir, CON
s'nt to- forgive your brother or your friend, If
~ were TO submit to be called, and publicly
charged 10 he lar ? If one who was held
and esteemed gentleman, were IN show no
resentment ,Wnen mus puDHcly INSURED, lstnerF
man present. who would not cry ont, thou
art forever disgraced What Then was the pc
tltloner To do ? He must tiDherseek personal
rencOunter, or demand satisfaction IN The field
81 hcnor. The place in which the insult was
gwen forbad the idea of personal contest. In
another place, and under other circumstances
the petitioner might have gwen way to that
impulse Of feeling, which would have led To an
immediate rencOnire. But respect for the
court and its authority admonished him Of the
proprlety Of seeking another opportunity Of OBJ
tanning redress. II is true that he might after
wards have made personal attack but
sating the disparity in the years and strength
W The two gentlemen, which would have ex-
posed the petitioner tr inevitable bodily iBju
~, - there net great reason To- believe that
me Consequences ofsuch meeting would have
peen infinitely more disastrous than the most
fatal duels' Some meetings Of the kind here
contemplated, have TO my knowledge growa