Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-12-22

we should moi scrulnise loo closely lis paIIicu-
lars.
1.-THE quality of mercy is not stranedi;
II droppeth, as the gentle rain from Heaven,
Upon the place beneath II Is twice blessed
II blessetlI him that gives, and him that takes:
'Tis mghtiest in the mightlest; II becomes
The fhroned monarch better than his crown:
His sceplre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute TO awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptre'I sway,
IL is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
II is an attribute To God himself:
And earthly power doth then show lkest Gods,
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore. Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider lhis,-
That, in the course of justice, none OF Us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all 10 render
The deeds Of mercy.
Mr. Mosby said that If he thought ne could, in
his legislative capacity, listen 10 The eloquent cry
OF mercy of the gentleman from Fauquier, il
would give him more pleasure Than II did him
10 make il; When we mix up The haldships OF
individual, cases with The law, we do great
wrong 10 public policy. He would regard The
passage the bill of amnesty as agains! the po-
iicy Of the Constitution. Before The meeting OF
the last Convention, this antiduelling law had
been in force 10 years, and when cases OF pecu-
liar hardship were brought before the Legislature,
they were refused. Those persons then attacked
the organic law The Convention Of 1929 de-
cIared that the Legislature should have The pow
er 10 pass such an sct He granted, that in pass
ing this law in Convention, that section granted a
general amnesty 10 all VINO may have incurred
The penalties OF the ani-duelng act OF 1910
The Convention may be considered as having
said 10 all who may be engaged in duel, that
lyon may have been in error, and we now sci
you Tree; but attend to il hatyou sin no more"
Al The very next session of The Legislature alter
the Convention adjourned, they passed the
Ia tuhirh paScp1 ISM He
thought that The Convention intended that il
should be passed, and he held The doctrine that
whenever any law is proved to be unwise, il
should be repealed, but il wise, il should be cn-
forced; and il should be understood that il would
be enforced If The duelling law is wise one,
enforce il. il nol repeal il; but do not pass this
hill OF amneses, which virtually reneals IT, In
connection with tbs subject he would refer 10
Kentucky They have duellng laws SINH
lar 10 our own. They passed bill Of &C.
neral amnesty, and fiom that lime 10 this.
year alter year, they have had petitions Tor
individual and general amnesties. They have
had 10 enact The one year instead OF The 10 year
system as appears 10 be The time proposed here
II we pass his bin, what right have We 10 re-
fuse any future application Il would be better
10 repeal the law al once, than TO pass this bill OF
amnesty. He believed that The decline of duel
ling had beer caused principally by The salulary
influence Of thai law. By The passing OF the bill
before the House, instead Of continuing On in The
anne stream Of benefit, we would 60 back To the
same position which we occupied anterior 10 1910,
wren dues were Of a mosl every day occurrence.
| grant, said Mr.. NJ, that We give pafdons 10
burglars and muFderers; bu. | would ak ihs
gentleman from Fanqnier, well rersed as he IS IL
The law, if he ever saw Or heard OF general
pardon for all murderers? In reply to the gen.
ii nfe ha IIaf ho
that genllemans construction Of the debate in The
Convention was correct. But he also thought
hat il was intended 10 apply 10 cases of peculiar
hardship. Suppose man thinks that he is called
upon by his honor 10 fight duel he will refec,
ard know he is forbidden from holding any Office
either OF profit or emolnment. But ii you pass |
this general bill Of amnesty, he vii! reason further
and say, shat as the Legislature has passed bill |
OF amnesty, he would be justified in going 10
Them for relief" lfyou pass such bills, they will
become weapons Of party warfare 10 punish some |
be in the minority. Suppose, for instance, that |
The gentleman from Fauquier should fight duel
and thereby incur The disabilie, Of This aci, and
belonging 10 that pany which was in minority.
does he believe that they would remove his dsa
billy il they could get id oil his sledge-hammer
blows lie would assure the House that he
meant no disrespect to The party that was now do
minant, bui he lofesaw that no mailer what party
might have The majority, these bills OF par
don wouh be used as Party engines. He desired
that all men, from heir fenderest youth up 10 the
veteran, should understand that The policy Of The
State and Of their fathers adverse to duelling.
II he could listen 10 he voice Of mercy, he would
do so with pleasure bur he believed that The law
against dnellinG was good one, and thar by con
si!ering cases OF peculiar hardship, we would be
too apt 10 confound them with the true policy oi
the Stale.
Mr. Irving though, hat the bill was so impor-
tant as 10 justify any member in submitting his
opinions upon II. tle considered that The gentle.
man from Fauquier had placed this question on
imrregnahe ground, 50 Tar Is principle and pre-
cedcnl was concerned tle had no doubt tiatthe
gentleman from Campbell had no, interpreted
correctly The action of the Convention, when he
said The Article in the present Consi ution against
dueling was put in il 10 remove doubt as 10 The
cons!ilulionalily Of The law Of 1910. There was
nothing in the old Constitution to warTan; the de-
duction otthe gentlemen from c. He had been
misled no doubt by he opinion Of Judge Roanc
in The case "cr poric Leish," who expressed
doubt whether the dueling law could dssuality
persons from being members OF The Legislature,
as the old Constitution has prescribed their quail
ication, but here was no doubt about any other
persons Ii has been said that if this act be pass
ed, il will repeal the ant-'uelliGs law. This is
mol Sc. Bloody as that law is, il will still remain
on our statute books in its pristine force and vgor.
There is one part oil that law which authorizes
persons who may have gore beyond The limits
81 the State, for The purpose q fighting duel, to
be brought back and tried. Ii was not proposed
BY this bill TO abolish that section. There was
anoih,r provision, which enacted that The second
who goe> in The field with the prs ewoIthy desire
of stopping bIoodshed might be tried as murder
er; even that section we do not propose 10 touch
We propose only 10 remove certain disabilities
thai he has incurred. II man incurs these dis
abilities under the present law, there is no statute
of limitations for his relief. He may be punished |
for them forever. The gentleman from c. says |
that this may be made parry engine. When
proposition shall come Tor individual relief, then
will be the time for The gentleman 10 urge his
objection. He had always nsdered this |
law as infringing civil liberty. II you en-
make a man ahjure the commission Of crime and |
sea il with the most solemn oahs, you have The |
right 10 make religious and political tests The |
second, the man who is imrelled solely BY feel- |
ings OF humanity, who goes upon The field OF ho
nor 10 save human life, is subjected 10 The penal
ties o! this law He is no, allowed 10 serve his
country in any capacity. Blu, the criminal. from
his dungeon, can look forward 10 relief and have
an opportunity Il distinguishing himself in bis
cuunirys cause contend, said Mr. l., that The
SOHfCHki0H ISiuoeu ~ pusS "a" iShHSihS
these disabilities Constitutional, because they
thought that the Legislature should pass these
acls Of amnesty. If this be lIne, what reason,
then, is there why we should NOT pass this bill 7
II the Convention intended To gran, 10 The Legis
aiurc The power Of passing bills Of amnesty. wha,
combination If circumstances could be stronger
Than are PR senIed 10 us now, when our country
is engaged in foreign war, aud many gallant
spirits a,c painting 10 serve her, but are restrained
because they labor under the disabilities of this
law7
MIR. Thompson, Of Jefferson asked if The Con-
yenlion OF 1879 had intended 10 make The dsabi
lilies OF lie antiduelling law perpetual, why did
they not cmbodya clause 10 that efrc, in The Con-
>lilulon II was we'll known that this matter
wa, aby and conclusvely drbaled in The Conyen-
lion, which was wise body, and comprised
combination OF more talent than has ever been
assembled in Virginia, and had they thought il
polite 10 make The disabilities perpetual, they
would have so determined. They were familiar