New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1843-02-11
VOL. iii. NO. 26I.

this " Kings Counsellor" ought to be received, in
such a case with allowance, He may be pre-
sumed to be too good courier, also, not to find
the benefcent effects of a favorite measure of his
gracious master. And as to the I" anti-killine
philosophy" of Leopold, who, it is we'll to remem
Der, was imposed upon the Belgian people by the
bayonet of the foreigner it more probably was
what we vulgarly term "popularity"-a thing
which, of course, is not be found in the philosophy
of some Of your fellow phlanthropists.
Now for Tuscany. You afirm, on the alleged
authority of European writers Of high character,
that after the abolition of Capital Punishment,
in this State, (after 177e) the number of murders
greatly diminshed-that they were far fewer dur
ing the twenty-five years exemption from legal
blood shed-less than they have been since death
was rcstered-far less than in other parts Of Italy
in the same period" AS you omit to refer to
these writers, j, will De uncourteous TO remark
upon your statement, in the first place, that it is
improbable. 1t is the prevalence of crime that
would suggest the enactment, as it is It's decrease
| that would prompt the abolition, Of apenay But
more positive and complete answer TO it (thc
declaration exccptcd) will be found in the follow
ing extract from Maize Brun. And here | would
disclaim any ialenton to sheer at the learning OF
my opponents by calling them back TO a school
book-it is only that this is the sole authority at
my desk.
During the long reign of the Duke Leopold, up
to the period of your statement, "the punishment
of death" says the well.informcd writer, was
almost unknown, for it was only once inflicted du-
ring his reign" Again" These improvements,
which are honorable to the greatest prince that
ever governed Tuscany, prepared the people to
adopt without reluctance the French laws; but
during the late changes, part of the old system
was amalgama,cd with the Napoleon Code-aew
abuses were introduced, and the ruscans. whose
madness is properbial, have ventured to COM
plain" Compare this thonghtfuy with the seve-
raj parts of your statement and will trust to your
candor and selfrespect for future silence on the
Tuscan argument.
Russia alone remains. To this case conceive
Mr. Cheevers abundant answer: That Pital
punishment has not been there abandoned; thatit
has only been transferred from the constitution or
laws to what you admit generally to be more ex-
ceptionabie depository-,hc wild will of the
lespot.
Finally, as to what you, after Mr.. O'Sallivan,
call the philosophy of the matter. {" 1t puzzles
the advocates OF Capital Punishment (says the
rribune) TO see if hanging will not deter men
from killing, how perpetual Imprisonment i, to do
IT. Very fairly put, it adds. In which agree !;
and only complain that am not enabled to return
the compliment to the answer. This answer, in
its italicized soemnity, is 2" That men are led 10
take vengeance on those aoho they feel hGve
acronged then, after the example Of the State"
Here, confess, can discover neither philosophy
nor relevancy. The question is not what may
have been motives TO individuals to commit
murder, but which of two given motives or of all
that influence human action is uniformly and unt-
cersaYy the most powerful to deter from commit
ting it. The PHILOSOPHY" of this should be drawn
from the human heart, not frem barren statistics,
and should have been made the leading argument
in this Debate. For while every mans bosom
assures him of the paramount influence Of 1.-THE
King Of Terrors, '-vainly would you labor to con-
vince him of the contrary, whether on the one side,
by " balloons of cloquence," on the other, by
volumes of statistics, which he cannot apply and
you cannot authenticate.
have not adduced an argument for Capital
Punishment. have not marshaled Gas you have
done by those of your side) even the arguments OF
Mr.. Cheever, the consummate ability OF which
take this occasion gratefully attest. My object
was only to show that neither you in your paper q
had No, the pleasure of hearing you debate,) nor
Mr.. OS. whom have heard, Il can hardly add,
with pleasure, has made out even plausible case
I have shown-That you have yielded the question
Of morelity-That in the question of Expediency,
YOU have evaded, or neglected, the argument from
principle or priori-and that, as to the statstl-
cal argument, or that posteriori, tbs facetious
clergyman did not libel its logic by the image Of
shorsc placed behind the cart. {. y. /.
Tuesday.