New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-03-25
Capital Punishment.
Reply 10 Bigot, 4; Co.

out as beng contained on pages sol, oo2 aA
small portion ST page 800 OF a late work. Inc 0p
pon ents OF Capital Punishment were requested &c
place that argument thus specified nmns'|aseo
before their bearers or readers, and then sho" i!s
sophis,ry. One OF your correspondents pretended
10 reply 10 il, although without complying with the
very fair conditions proposed. He takes only one
of TWO syosisn,s which we must again here sci
forth although we wish TO be as concise as pos
sible:
Tho punishment, of death for murder is that has
q ,aturat tendency to make revengeful and fero
ciousro perver sense OF right and lessen the nat
urs horror the thought Of shedding bood-o teach
doctrine and set example helping to form men io
the commission OF murder.
| The punishment, OF death for murder is one which
the Almighty God established in express -erms Tor
nation for whom &c cOnde=ceacedto celsapS Us MS o"
peculiar people. -.
the natural tendency OF which Is TO make men revenge
full and ierocous which perverts the sense oil rsht
teaches Lesson and sets example helping TO form
men for the commission of murder"
Now con6ning ourselves for the present 10 this,
without dwelling upon the cowardy omission OF
that with which il was essentially connected as one
argument and which had been so carefully pointed
ont to them By precise metes and t0unds-we say,
first that there has not been the slightest attempt to
answer it. even If such thing were possible. The
first premise is u softened representation of the
common language of anti Capital Punishment Lee
turers. The second no one will deny. The conclu-
SIGN which inevitably follows is either infdel or
blasphemous. There has been no attempt even to
answer plain, or deny it, The silence OF the ad-
yersary is en- admission of its impregnabilIty
A resort however is attempted to a method which
we often employ, and to which in itself, we have
no objection when brought against ourselves Ihey
use the argumentum ad homnem-it we are lnti-
dels so are YOU. DR.. Cheever had said, page 2l2,
There can be no doubt that the undue frequency
of punishment by DEATH through its abuse In the APP
pcation 10 minor offences, does inevitably tend 10
produce sentiment of injustice both in the view
Of the criminal and OF the community: a similar
opinion may be found in other parts OF the book
| This is taken as the first premise The second Is
! an exaggerated statement of what the writer IS
pleased to style minor cGeaceS, other than murder,
which the Jewish law punished with DEATH The
conclusion is that those who assert the first premise
are guilty OF lnfde!ity, &c
| We say first of this argument ad hominem, that
even if well taken it does not, in the least, weaken
the mpregnabe position against which II IS direct
ed, but only proves that somebody else has been
! guilty of inconsistency or If you please, nhdel-
| itv Now, in regard TO ourselves if this can be
made out, we have but one plain course before US.
| If we have careessly, or otherwise, used language
charging with innate or natural evil tendency any
!
mighty nothing would deter US from at once giving
{ I'm The opinion and expressing the most unieigDed
| sorrow for The declaration. The Bible IS with US
every thing nothing, and from the time when, IN
view of ali its difficulties most deliberately TOOK
! it as oGr only light IN dark world we have felt
| that there could be compromise. IL must be our
trusted guide il all questions OF moral science GER
tainy in all questions relating 10 crime, desert and
| punishment. VIII our opponents come upon the
/ same ground
But secondly, We deny the pressure otthe argument
| upon us a. all We never have charged the jewish
! law with Furnishing with death minor offences. The
very fact that God ordered them thus be punish
ed is TO us all the argument We need that they were
| not and are not minor offences We have never
changed any statutes of the Jewish law with being
unjust in themselves, with being bad in their ten
| dencies if they were now the law OF the land
| in which We live. Our declaration, however, Is
meant OF those of national character, OF crimes
| which might be committed among anyother people,
and not OF such as refer to religious rites which
| have long ceased TO exist. 1t many OF these ure
not punished in present legislation, we war not
with il on this account; although we should fear for
| any people that should CONTEMPORARY REJECT Tue
divine legislation any guide 10 their own This
is our position, plainly declared in the assalled
| book, and for which we have been vllined as
holding that adultery should be punished with
death. On this question we shan no responsibility.
| By minor offences we never meant those atrocious
| sins of unceaupess and rebellion which were pun
| ished capallv in the Jewish law. The context
shows that we had reference alone TO thatow stand
ard which takes for lis guide political economy IN
stead of the moral sense, and elevates offences
against property 10 the same rank with those that
str1kc at tie rery lJe of society. Even, therefore,
if our consistency of any consequence whatever
! in comparison with right and truth, the argument
! 0d h0m5nent has no application 10 U.S. Inc same
remark may be made OF DR.. Cheever; whatever his
! sentiments may be with respec; 10 Furnishing CAPT
! tally any other crimes he TOO was speaking directly
OF theft and other offences to property as punished
| by the English law.
| We proceed now to the main part Of our reply in
which we directly charge upon Bigot & Co the
meanness of mutiiatiug an argument they are inca
pabe even of attacking, without such muuaiion,
and which they could not answer, even after this
was done. We have no hesitation OF avowlnS our
views of the Jewish law and lis eternal righteous
ness, aud yet we were aware that Others, who
thought with US In respect 10 murder might reSar
some parts of il as being severe, and therefore
unjust although right in their applications 10 the
Jews themselves The argument was therefore care
fully constructed, in such way as 10 put q broad
and unmis,akeabe line of distinction betweea the
iavorite position Of our opponents and any which
might be held respecting other offences than muir
der Had our opponents assumed the ground which
has been so often presented TO them, namely that
the death penalty right for the Jews that was
intended (eher in addition to, without the prin-
ciple OF retributon) TO restrain from murder, and
consequence of the great dimnuiion of the crime,
former severity might be relaxed Ia position which
is perfectly consistent in regard TO those Others
stved minor offences)-had they assumed this
ground they would still have had no small difficulty
with Genesis ix. g. and small trouble in proving
a few at least of the facts which their hypothe-
sis rested Had they. however, unequivocally Ia
ken this position, which they sometimes seem 10 do
when hardly pressed, Notwithstanding they ever fly
from it the next moment, We should have anticipa-
ted no difficulty in refuting their argument, al
though we should never have charged them with
intidety.
But this was no, their ground. Instead of main
tanning that the law had restraining Posoer proper
and sufficient for the Jews but unnecessarily severe
for the more advanced moral condition OF modern
tines they deny such restraining power-they as
sail H. not in lis incidents but in lis very essence
and represent the statute as not only 'barbarous
and fendish in itself but as having natural ten
dency TO make men revengefu 10 ince 10 muir
der. and form them for The very crime it was intend
ed to prevent
Another thing distinguished this statute from all
other parts of the Jewish law. Besides its cornec-
ton, by most striking similarity of language $50
strong especially in the original thar no scholar can
mistake it, with the primitive universal law or prn.
civ Genesis TX il mad also 1nnere6 ,,ost "a.