The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-12-04
Capital Punishlnent.

correspondent of the Tribune" under the sig.
nature oil Justice, very properly remarks that with
those who believe In higher authority than merely
pubic opinion, the question on capital punishment
Tor murder should be SIMPLY this lslt Divine law
or comm aud
To rnose then, who entertain no doubts as to the
uuth Oh Revelation, single answer 10 tins question
VIII De suihcirnt 10 show, well the Justice as
the lndlstenstb able obligation OF our observance of
TINS VI law Now, we mad among others In the Sacred
Voiunc, the following passage =" Whose sheodeth
mans blood by man shall his blood be shed" In
this significant sentence briefly contained beth the
sPecihcauon oi the crime and the penalty annexed
- IL, oy the express appointment command OF
Eoa. WIN this view, therefore, the correspondent
ABOVE referred 10 very justly and emphatica ally con-
cludes as follows that there IS no other punish
ment which can, with the sanction OF the Bible be
inflicted upon the wlliul murderer, bul-DEArH"
and now, Mr.. Editor, what the replies which
we hear 10 The above statement In the fist place
then, some who profess to doubt in the inspired
ruin OF the sacred record, very gravely inform
tndt tue above named command Is abolished BY the
new dspensation. and that II IS therefore, direct
rebellion LII man 10 execute law winch his Maker
mas annuiled As the number, however, Of such
are comparatively small, and as the in IT.
sell Is SO obviously weak and absurd, think il
quite unseservlng OF "a serious answer.
But the replies Of the editor OF the Tribune " al
though no less absurd, too amusing 10 ne passed
over IN silence. He II seems, admits that the above
sentence is not abohsed, but that 10 by no means
acomnand TO man, Ia any sense whatever Since
then, IT Is not according to him, divine Z" CON-
mdhu, IL Is, nc Insists, nevertheless, divine ap-
polntment y thus making the merits OF the question
consist In ianced difference of his own between
the mere Specification of the two above named
words.
The appointment, then, he explains by quoting
another passage as follows He that killeth by the
sword shall be killed by the sword" This, he says,
evidently shows that man is not required 10 kill the
murderer, because a just retribuon is the uner-
ring law OF God who oimsef takes OF execu-
ton" Ill argument, therefore, In the case OF Colt
must mean, IT 1t means any thing ,-thst, since he
Was aot exccu ed according to the law OF man, God
himself took care oi his execution by uniailing
order Ut his providence, or, other words accord
Ing 10 his own law In another way.
Again, he says, that II the government Is to take
upon itsef the du.y of executing one law OF God az
such 1t necessarily follows, according to his (the edl
tors) Judgment that II must do with all he rest Of
Gods laws. Under these circumstances" he adds,
I'VE should have more than unlon," that is, as he
d. hnes 1t, perfect consolidation OF church and
state!'
Again, he says, I" We accept and insist on the
command: Thou shalt not kill, '"-as il reads and
without qualification. His own inference, there
fore, Is that governments states by this very
command OF itself, expressly forbidden to put tho
murderer to DEATH! but while he admits, nay in
ssls that this Is a divine Command 10 man, the
other sentence referred TO is only divine appoint
nlent, and, moreover, one with which man has
nothing to do
While some, therefore, plead against capital pun
lshments on the ground that this law OF God Is abo
lished, others again, appears in the above Case.
contend that the law, far from its being
abolished, expressly iorbids Us to punish the mur-
derer by death-snse, without qualification, reads
:" Thou shalt not kill 20
His conclusion OF The whole matter is that, as he
cannot make room for long discussions questions
so alb tract" he leaves his readers, as ne says.
Ito nil up the oullne"-and which, we doubt not
they will readily do, with their own amusing com
ments PHILo JUsIlTIA