Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-02-10
vs.. hIsd by TIE House as the day % which the BIZ
bill was ordered TO be printed. WV

cOnsiuered.-On of
| bill was ordered to be printed WV
SUPPRESSION OF DUELLING.
w 'no"o" VI MIR. brodnsx, the bill TO amend and
Oh sc, Tor ,he 'npPreHion Of Dutlliug. wac
TAKEN up, and me amendments agreed 10 in the Gem
uit'se OF the Whole, brit under COT thew
were severay adopted
Mr.. Brodnax moved subs'i'uo fer IN. Oh ...,,oo
weed to- "
Mr. II y urtn mccsdi 10 amend he g., section ,v
tt'iS,g out It 81 thu ord murder ,he following w,d
" ehd snd-r death Nv h, ing hsrged BY the n, ct"
hd in-"r' !" 'hir s,ssd ,hes. wods and ,h,i H..
10 undergo confinement b. thu public i., and
rem e"usy house Tor period %. IN N l2r,I,r
GA moh'b. nor more that 10 ere. al the sicr-,o,
| OF jury" " N''N'1
Mr.. IT, cuprcred III. motor, ~ hcb hs IN. .e.., .,
| 90 away capital punishmen, ia ea.vp OF dn.,In M
the ground that he former law was so .r,s,s =. -,
Vehi us e1ecnou. He a'so considered ,h,, ,h.-. ~.
cases IN witch killing person in duel would M, n.
cc"Foereo murirr in the hr.' degree |, impri.on
men IN the r. ni,entisry we're substituted for
n'shmen many persons, who bad no -xp.c.,inn %
ohee Hnu would not be deferred by confederation M
the test oSst'-. would he pc, vented rom -p,aginv In
dueis s"s'"k 4"
Mr.. BrodnsS preferred the provision OF the fo,m,r
law. The chief obi -c'ion The sm.ndm.n, o. ,h,
IL would confuse the CONNIE on law p.oc,i.. "a -.
9uce unnece'saey dls'i eons in the doin ion Of mur.
der lie ttorght there would he danger in ai,.,;n.
tn low which had op rated tece6 ia!ly and which hd
en- founded on he principle, that whose shed. mans
~ nd, ny man s,al his bI oil he shrdn ~ the 49,
ePie o, the Rent!en,ans amendment were approye,s
~ me blouse, I've hopedt would he mod e. d. end with
"s,Vi"w he offered an amendment 10 the arenameot
r.. Iyh q lonss
."I ny subs iuti' thee words. Shall be
"r'u Rniy al murder, In the fret or second decree
'corI 10 me circumstances under which such dwell
may rave been fought, TO BE determined ayrseoh On
W. rules OF Law. applicable 70 CHER cases OF rnn,der
aud SHAH udr dea' by hanging by the neck or mr.
defso contnemrn in the Public J.iJ ar psnit.,i.
~ house, Tor period ess than five nor mor. th.,
10 years. De- a'esrsoned aud judged 10 other ca
| seP ri murdsr."
Mr. Ha'yburiou, az consonsnt with the feeiing.
OF The people. snd more likely to be enforced. He
agreed WIN The gentleman from New Kent, that there
wa ehs' OF men on whom the test oath did %, cpe.
rae a.. preventive 20 duelng, who would pause nj
he idea OF Tie di.erace of Imprisonment, in the Peni.
tert sry Urder the presept law the wss me-
yer CARR into effect. Resides an about 10 engage
in duel nigh, not regard the qrences of the pr-
My OF d,1'' he might say my life IL in my own
-rmsihing dsesre+she ia being barg d. tha dread of
the d"grnce OF imprisonment in the Penrn'ary would
4 operate mo pnwett ily 10 prevent the practice
Mr.. Maxw II opposed tie alteration. He agrses
with the gentleman from Dinwiddre that this p,onos,.
ioh would confuse the co omon law rrnriple on the
'uhec OF homi' ile. The eommon law made mn .uch
dist ncticn as was here proposed They could MOI, in
consistency with rePufl can principle make one law
fT s"aemen OF h!nour and another fer common peo-
Pe HE law ought TO keep ts ground, aud instead
OF stoopng TO the OF public opinion /, ouxht TO
&c them The g-ntieman from y. X M had argued
that there were cas,s in which killing IN duel sbouh
not he considered murder. Mr.. NJ edmitted that here
were in which The crime had MANY ,lIisiing cir
Gums anc's Blu, the law could make the disiinc-
ten The law had prnvid d me ans hy which The
provoca ion TO du light be redressed and in cas-
when death ensued from duel, the Law oug bt TO take
its The feeling in favour OF a luest ,yb;ci,
thr geutiemsp from New Kent attributed to the Jury
would operate equally, his opposition ado,teJ il
'ueh cling really exis,d A. to hanging, which
N gentleman from Orange admitted was dsagreeable
NJ M thought il iuil ns dissrace fol as the Peptep-
usry an "a her painful.
} MIR. Bfcdpax wNs fomewhst surrrised TO hear the
gentleman hou Ofatge advocate the motion of a. q
geun man f,on New X NJ. II thew were Issis,a,;ns
asalns' the puhlic o. nor, what we've the motives r
the ,,g nal Trainer OF the awl He ~, sumtd ,bsv s
rec eli I,,c,
linen OF Intelligent pc sons had materially changed
since me due lin act Mt into ope alton; nDd tia II
was 70" looked upon in a favorable light There on "a
10 oe no dI'ihction between a mud committed b,
an ignorent individual, aud purpetrated bya rem
q renau N the mos approved snd gentee manner. Mr.
D. made some further remaks general ptinepie
o! thr act,
The sps .ksr observed ,an they were no, relevant
The question was then taken on Mr. srosn.x,,
'meodm nj which was rejecied-ss was also the mo-
ton Of Mr.. Haiyburon
; The question Ihen REQUIRED on the eng oasment
was adopted
Mr. EPpes opposed the bill in a speech of consider
ell length. H. aked If there was single offence
IN entc0ed in the bill which not already an offence
punishable by the lave OF Virsia Es-ry one knew
here net Aud IL wss question vhether thev,
should provide distinct puuhm- Mt for an ostcs for
o Which pnri'hmeut was already provided. A man
"he killed ms entasoni-t in duel, was considered
entity OF murder before the du- Hing act va.
o he sec'isn di;qnalllyng from cfce any no had
been engaged la duel, III commended was contrary
10 The Constitution IN hch no such uualb6 atom "
10 be found IL was impossible for the House 10 add
a. TO or diminish the qualifications tor Office fixed nv the
con tuition. He objected srons The nature oS the
oath, by which Individual called 90 prove hi .
innocence guilt !, method of trial utterly mn
known TO our institutions. IL the Individual had com
mit,ed the offence, ard took the OATH he was periured
II he refused, whe her innocent guilty he ives CON
sidered guilty Suppose of this House ahouId
reu to take the o1h; ia .equence OF which his
seat re:u ed him; and the people send him
back their rePresrmtotive-couId the House expel
him' They could not 20 il, and members never could
he made take h4 oath The law was not in con.
fMuity sci h public opinion. Tina had often been tried
He read The Federal Constitution 10 shev at this os,b
"as in violation OF its proyson-s also the Bill Of
Rights OF Va The legislature had no 20 yer 10 force
man TO swear what might make him smenabIs 10 nun
iShmen, under the law. Mr.. T. urged MANY o,ber ar.
euments in opposition the hill, which we cannot M
tce in ti'i' brief ske,ch.
Mr. Il loo said he had intended 10 let the hill pae.
TO lie engagement without word from him Bnt a,
the friends OF the hill had gwen their views in ia fa
r; those opposed TO were forced defend their op
posiiion II intended moving strike oui the 81 seq
on cor taiong that abOminebe oath of purgation bot
no u too late discuss il farther TO-DAY ba
! would move 20 lay The bill on the table Agreed IN
o. motion OF Mr. Bntt'ot, he Hon adjourned.
Eetrdct Of letter from a nien.b.r of C0norss, 70
| the Eifor Of the Philadelphia Gasetfe dafed
/ January 3lsf.
The petition Of The iron workers from Phil,de1nb;a
has caused more sensation here than any hing else
have ever bearing the tariff and do not doub,
It IL had come sooner that their practical good sense
would have riumphed IN producing a change in the
dute, upon ron' accommodated 10 their views. shall