Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-12-25

MN iniougn ms unofiendng family. lie WOulu
not believe that we were willing 10 cul ourselves
loose from our organic law, and shut our eyes 10
The uncivized principles which are here pro
posed more suited 10 The days of baIbarism lie
thought that we should punish the guilty, and mol
The innocent
Mr.. DORMAN desired that The Legislature,
instead OF relaxing should add stronger and more
stringent features TO the anti duel.ing law. He
did not desire TO see the same scenes which had
b,en enacted in Kentucky, where lew years
since they passed general bill OF amnesty, AMI
where year after year memorials are presented to
the Legislature, until as a matter Of necessity
they have been compelled to pass these bills an
nuaily. He was aware that the gentleman from
Fauquier would bring up this argument OF tn
"price OF blood" bul, as TO that, We have now
upon our statute book penalties which are he
"prce Of blood" The whole Literary Fund is
made up OF penalties. which were the price oil
blood We all know how our whole Stale was
shocked some years since, not By a duel, but by
most foul and alrocious murder; the criminal
forfeited his bail Of 20 900 dollars, and an attempt
was made 10 appropriate this money TO the widow,
who had been rendered penness; but this was
refused by The Legislature. Bat they did indi.
rectly The same thing, for they purchased DAVIS
Criminal Code for distribution among IN" justices,
lhe benefits of which would be reaped by her. He
did not introduce his amendment TO cripple The
BILL Tor he had feelings oil personal sympathy
that almost tempted him 10 disregard The dictates
OF his own judgment
Mr.. SCOTT hoped that nothing that fell from
him induced the gentleman 10 think that he in
tended 10 say that he desired 10 impede The pas
sage of this bill He would no. impair in The
slightest degree The force Of this bill, were The sole
power of egislaling upon il left with him; and
did he think that The passage OF this bill would
have the slightest effect in reviying This most
oiious practice he would he the last man to vuie
for it, appear here, said MI S., as lis advocate,
because il is commended 10 me by my own sense
OF Justice. He could moi Conceive how the gen.
lleman from Rockbridse could think that The pas
sage uf this bill would impair the force Of The anti
duelling law; for The preamble expressly declares,
that the law shall remain in iull effect: and one
Secln OF il embraces those who are not now
considered to be embraced, within The Limits Of The
present law. The bill i;scli declares, that this
law OF amnesty is confined solely 10 those VII"
had incurred lis disabilities and it oilers no hope
ofrelet 10 those who may hereafter offend. de
thought that this law Of amnesty was within The
, spirit OF The same Constitution under which We
hold our place in this body. That The members
o the Convention OF 1899, thought that We wond
pass these acIs Of amnesty, is a fact that n op-
ponenl OF this bill en- deny; and in his opinion,
this was the proper occa sion for lis passage. lie
said there was an abundance in the preamble IL
show conclusively that the law was not TO be
rendered less stringent or effective. The gentle
man from Rockbridge tells us that The money for.
feled by the young man for the murder Of The
lamented Professor Davis was given 10 his
widow. He begged leave 10 differ with The gen.
eman in his view of this case. The gentleman
may search The Criminal Code in vain TO find
that The Legislature has enacted any law By
which any person found gully OF murder should
pay sum Of money, or be subject 10 forfeiture
of his lands, tenemcnts, &c. The money thai
was paid Tin The case above referred TOY was thr
failure 10 appear, and was not The price oil blood
The Legislature refused Ia gire her the money,
but they agreed to purchase the book which her
husband had written. This was a fair contract,
and no one can say Mrs. Davis received dona-
ton. He contended that this was forfeiture Of
recosnisance and not the price OF blood; and The
gentleman must search among the records Of The
darker ages Tor parael-lhis case was not one.
Ii has been suggested 10 me, (said Mr. S. tha,
no such proposition, as has been referred to 10y
the gentleman, was incorporated into The Con-
sti,uton Of Louisiana. tIe remembered having
seen something in the newspapers al The Time
that they were remode!lng their Constitution OF
the proposition alluded 10 but he had been in
formed, and il was his own impression, that ii had
been rejected He trusted that The gentleman
was in error on this point.
MIR. DORMAN denied that there was any
provision in the Constitution or the Bill OF Rights
which gave any such power as is asked Tor by
this bill. The gentleman from Fauquier mas no
doubt fallen into error by confuunding The Bill Of
Riqh.s with the statute for The trial OF free per
sons.
Mr.. SCOT L said, il the gentleman from Rock
bridge would only look at the time that statute
was passed, he would find il was colempo ane-
Gus with the Bill Of Rghs.
MIR. COOKE moved an amendment, which
was rejected.
Mr.. NEWMAN offered substitute.
fThe amendment and substitute were both pub
lished on Friday last
Mr.. SCOTT said II he understood the amend
ment las, offered il granted an amnesty only to
those who had volunteered for This war, and 10
continue only during its existence. "We ask for
fish, and they give US a serpen';-we ask ioi
bread. and they give US stone" This PROPOSE
lion is to pass By those cases Of peculiar hardship,
and to confer the favor only upon those who may
find il expedien or may be forced by necessity, 10
volunteer II we adopt this last substitute, We
would send our officers ont ofght our battles and
TO keep our honor uniarniShed, and, no matter
how much they may signalize ihemselves-no
matter how they may cover their bIows with Ian
rels, we send them furlh 10 danger, telling them,
that, alter they have ionsh! The good fight, they
will still have TO incur The penalties oi the anu
duelling Law, should they return to their native
State Although all are petitioners Tor the mer-
cy Of the Legislature yet this substitute only Sc
lecls lcw-and some of them may have been
guilty of The most cdious acts Of aggression
Wills, il refuses relief to large number who
have been forced TO ACT upon The defensive,
and whose situations are those really OF peculiar
hardship. lfyou grant any amnesty, you must
grant il to all. II you pass any law OF relief, you
have no right 10 discriminate. But, il we did
discriminate, we should do ii correctly; we should
appoint committee 10 examine into The facts
But he considered this mode impracticablc, be
cause, should we appoint such committee, we
would give them more work TO DO man II Wouln
be possible for lhcm 10 perform during The extent
OF The session. Gentlemen have argued, that, u
we pass this BILL We establish such precedeenN, as
has been sci by Kentucky. The cases are differ
ent In Kentucky they are in the habit ofpassing
individual acts of amnesty; but our policy has
been entirely different, for we have uniiormlyre-
fused and refused properly, 10 pass any such bill,
although We have had applications and some OF
them might have deserved such iavor
How does Ibis substitute comport with maj
oenllenans sense OF justice? whilst we adminis-
Ter Justice il should b: tempered by mercy. What
sorii of code would we have were we Ia dIvesl
ourselves OF this feeling oil mercy? il would be
as bloody as that Of Draco.
He would ask if there is any society, either
moral or religious, who would reject this bill OF
pardon7 Y,u may question The people upon
your court-greens, and al your precinct elections;
nav. he would 60 further, he would go into your
churches, he would 90 even 10 The society Of
friends, who were notorious for their love Of
peace, and lie would pledge himself lha,.hey would
grant il. He would tell Them that he had violated
he law; lha, he confessed his error, and that he
asked for mercy and forgiveness Would they
deny him? How could lhey2 For what purpose
was their temple BULL? for what object were they
then assembled? In The ACT of petiiionins Tor
mercy ON high, and on Bonded knee con'essins
their own sins, could they reject liz No. Then
why should we refuse in We grant pardons 10
The meanest felons in our Penitcniiary The
gentleman from Campbell prcPounded The ques-
lion 10 M, if | had ever s en- law which grants
a general amnesty TO all CRIMINALS, would ask
him in return if he could show me any law fixing
eternal punishment uron burglars, murder.rs,
&c.7 The Governor can pardon the Thief and
the murderer; but he cannot remove The disability
of This act-lhat power is left alone 10 the Legs