Litchfield enquirer., 1829-05-28

| the choice Ot asSOciage Su43o Ot tue supreme Court of Errors. Mr. Hitchcock proposed an amendment, postponing the election to tomorrow at o'clock, which was carried: and the resOlu- tiOn passed.
 Committee to inquire what measures are necessary to prevent mischiefby dogs, report ed that the present law is defective, with a bill, which was once read.
 ThwrSday. May 2l.
 Prayer by the Rev. Mir. Bently.
 Committee on the petition of Samuel Smith, to be restored to privileges, reported a resolution favorable to the petition.
 Messrs. Russ and Kimberly expressed a hope that the resolution would pass, as the petitioner gave evidence of being reformed man.
 MT. Hart was in favor ofhaving the resOln- ton pass. The object ofpunishnlent wasthe reformation of the criminal, and that object being accomplished the law was satisfied. MT: Foot said 1t was true that one object of punishment was the reformation of the of fender; but another object was to deter otl- CTS from committing similar offences. The | community, he thought. had claims upon the legislature as well as the criminal. live par don in this case we shall be obliged to do so in others, and the dangers arising from the precedent to the community would he great CT than the benefit arising to the individual from the pardon. ," MT. Miner agreed entirely with the gentle l man from Cheshire on this subject. By par doning one man and restoring him to the priv ileges of other citizens, we induce other Of- lenders to hope for the, same mercy extended | to them. It is the certGinty of punishment which deters men from committing crimes, and the removal of that certainty would, he thought, be very injurous. Persons when tempted to commit crimes should understand that there is no possibility of pardon. This idea he believed deterred more from crime than imprisonment itself Persons can be- have very well for few months before leav- ing prison, and for some months after, from motives of selfinterest only-for the mere purpose of obtaining pardon.
 Mr.. .McCnrdy differed from the gentleman from Litchfeld in reg ard to this particular case. The question before the house seem ed to be, whether, in no case whatever, a par- don shall be granted for if there be case where it can be done. this is one. Hethought that where mans word was doubted by no body, he ought to be heard in court of jus tice. K
 Mir Kimberley was not aware (as had been stated by other gentlemen) that other peti- tions would be affected by the decision of the house upon this. Every petition. he thought, should stand upon its own merits. 1.-the pe- titioner was a radically reformed man, as had been abundantly proved to the committee by the warden of the state prison and other wit nesses-he was fully of opinion that pardon should be granted.
 Mir. Hawley thought that where the eyi- dence of reformation was satisfactory, a par don should be granted. He thought encour- agement should be given to, criminals to re- form.
 MT. Storrs thought that the public, more than the individual had san interest in this petitioner has become changed man, the public interest requires bis freedom. He may, in some cases, be in possession of facts the suppression of which. on account of incOmpe- tency to testify, would be of great injury He had generally by his vote been as much opposed to granting tho petitions of criminals as any other member; but he was decidedly in favor of granting the pardon asked for in this case. aSes s
 MT. Sterling expressed himself in favor of pardoning the petitioners; but thought 1t would be in opposition to. section of the c0n- stitution of the State, which he read. N
 On his motion, the resolution was laid up- on the table. <. Committee on the petition of Thomas Curtiss, to be restored 10 forfeited privileges, reported favonrably, with resOlution which was laid on the table.
 ! Committee on new towns reported against the petition of the inhabitants of Barkhamp- sted, to be united to Hartford county. Re- port accepted. @ Atternooa.- hour having arrived for the choice of an Associate Judge of the Su- preme Court of Errors. in place of James Lanman, resigned, after five ballots Clark Bis sell, Esq. was elected to that office. The fol- lowing is statement of the votes. BALLOTlNG. lst. I'd. Sd. 4th. 5th. Clark Bissell, 65 8S 95 lO1 lO5
 Andrew T. Judson, s6 Al 62 79 8i
 Samuel Church, 25 so % "A 2