Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1831-02-17

+, gentleman from New Kent attributed 70 the IN
| ~, would operate eqaaiy, we're his prapo-
siion adopted II such feeling reslly e1is'
TED IA To hanging which The gentleman from
orange admitted veg dtsagrsesbie MIR. NJ.
thought II full as dftgraesfUf a. The Peoiteatia.
| ry, and rather more psinf1l.
Mr. Brodnax was somewhat surl,ri sed 10
hear The gentleman IRON ofange adyocats tho
motion OF The gentleman from New Kea n
they were leg'siat'ag sg,inst the public opin.
ion, what were he motives ofthe original fra j
'ner o. the law He presumed they were "a.
correct public opinion. II was vel known
that the sentiments of intelligent persons had
materially changed since the duelling act went
inio operaiIon---and thai II was now look ed up-
| on In n fas orsble IiR hi. Thsfs ought to be no
diItinction between murdsr committed by
nn ignorant individual, aud one perpsirated by
gentleman 10 The most approved and gen
teel manner. Mr.. b. made some further re-
marks ON the general principle OF tina, act,
whsn
Inc Speaker observed that they were no, re.
leyant q the motion.
The question was then taken on Nj. Brod-
var amendment, which was sejsciud--ss was
aiso The motion Of Mt Hal yburtan.
Lie ques ION then REQUIRED on the ensras.s
M, nj.
Mr Broduax submineda preamble 10 m. ,,pt
"hsh WAS adopted.
Mr. bppes opposed the bill in so,e.h ~
eonsidefsble length. He asked IL ,herc 90.
s"sio oltnca me ntooeh la he bill wl,ici, -.
no. airead, an offence punishable by m. ~.
OF Vhglnia Every, one knew there wa. a.,
and II was question whether they .b,,.''.
provide disiingi punishment for an olIs,.a ~.
whieb pnnishmen, was already nrov,d.d
man who Killed his antagonist in n duel wa.
considered guilty OF murder before m. daelli'
In Il.
RON Office any one who had been caya.od T.,
n duel, he commended was contrary 10 tna -
slIniioo, IN which 40 such qus6catian u.n.
10 % found IL was impossible for tha tto,,s
TO add 10 or diminish the gaHli6cntion. r..
oillte fixed by tho constitution ue .,l,i..,..
strongly to the nature OF the oath, by which n,
individual was called 10 prove his innocence ~,
gum u was method OF trial utterly uuhno
TO our institutions. If the indiytdoal had 60
mtlnd the offence, md took the oath n. 90.
peJ"red, u he refused. whether mnoer,, ~,
guily, he was considered guilty. y ,pnose I.
inember oil this House should refuse 10 lake I'M.
oath IN consequence VI w!ich his seat wos rs
inshd ilin-and the people would send Li,,
back as Their represent iiyo--could the uons.
erpe BIN They COULD not do il. and me-.
hers never could be made 10 take th, nah
ihu ~" was ho' III conformity with public %
pinion- That had often been ttied lie -
| tue ederal Constitution TO shaw tbnl ,his o,,t
was IN violation oi It's provrsons--as stsn H.,
biil OF Rights DIVA. 1ks legislature had ~
power 10 iOice man TO swear wbnt mf.n,
make MN ainenable 10 punishment under 9l,s
law. MI h. urged many other arguin,n,.
IN Opposition TO the bill. winch we ea,loo, nn-
| tee IA tbis b, ief sketch.
MI buriooI said he had intended 10 let IN,
bill pass to its engrossmeni witboui p. wo,t
100" him. Bat as the frieds of the bill had III
ven 'he,f views !" IT'S fayo,--ibose opposed 10
u were forced TO defend their Opposition Hs
'ntensed moving TO strike ont tue Sd s.c,,an
containing that abom,nabl. oath of uu,es,,a
o"' va was nov too late 10 discuss !, I.,tbe,
,y""y "e would nova 10 lay The hill IN IN, ;,
BILE. Agreed TO. "' '"
ned. "'j '''-