Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1846-01-13

Fauquier, peskns, Slillman, Saunders, Wall,
Gather, Jones, Callison, Edmunds, Thompson
OF Hampshire, Lee, Flowers, McRae Turner,
Iowner, Patrick, Gaines, Gresham, Mcintyre,
Taylor, Elizey, Gordon, Bagley, Banks, Clayton,
Adams, Alexander, Wade, Hamilton, Edmond
son, Michael, Kilby, Cabel, Newton, Waits,
Harper VERIFY, Oliver, Mcpherson, Talum,
Syme, Tunstall, Lanier Arbogasl, Cooke, Fair
lax, Dey, Brawner, Long, Stroller, Gold, Marz,
hirlley, Dcnison, Ta,c, Sebrel, Holiday, Cninn,
billiard. Hall of Taylor, Laird, Wesl, Funston,
Goodson, Rice and Neal-90
The twelfth resolution declaring the votes Of
John Randle, Richard HARDWOOD aud JOSEPH l..
HARDWOOD TO be illegal, was agreed 10 BY the
House
The thirteenth resolution, declaring the votes
OF William Harwood ard Joseph L. HARDWOOD
to be legal, was also agreed o-an unsuccess.
full motion having been made by MIR. STOVALL
10 amend the same, SO as 10 reverse The decision
OF the Committee
Mr.. STOVALL sustained his amendment,
and Messrs. SCOTT and HOWARD opposed it
The fourteenth resolution, declaring the votes
of John L. Walker and James Walker legal
and The fifteenth, declaring the voles OF 'fhos.
Ii. Wilcox and James Nj. Wilcox legal, We're
agreed to-an unsuccessful motion having been
made by Mr.. LEAKE 10 amend the said IF
eenth resolution, So as 10 reverse the decision
OF The committee.
Messrs. LEAKE and STOVALL opposed
the resolution, and Messrs. HOLLADAY,
STROTHER and BANKS sustained it.
| The sixteenth resolution, declaring the vote Of
Daniel Robins 10 lie legal, was also agreed 10.
! Mr. GOODWIN moved that The House adopt
The following resolution:
| Resoiucd, That the Committee for Courts OF
Justice enquire into The expediency OF so amend
ing the criminal laws OF this Stale, as 10 auho
rze the Governor and Council 10 commute The
punishment OF death 10 confinement in The peni-
Tertiary in certain cases specified, and that they
| report by bill or Otherwise.
| Mr.. GOODWIN stated that he wished this
House 10 take immediate action on this subject,
since il was intended 10 extend The benefits of The
act 10 an individual in his section of country who
was al present under sentence OF death. The
change in the law was desirable also from con-
siderations OF general policy.
MIR. KlLBY regarded this proposition as a
most important and valuable suggestion. The
present law authorized the Governor to commute
the punishment of death in The case of negro,
and there was no objection lothe extension OF The
power OF The Executive over the punishment of
The white man. He thought confinement in the
Penilenlary might in most eases be substituted,
with advantage, Tor capital punishment.
Mr.. LYONS opposed The resolution. He re-
garded the proposition TO confer on The Executive,
in addition 10 the power of pardon, that OF super
vising the decisions OF the Judiciary, as most ex-
lraoIdinary and monslrouS. Ii was an applica-
ton TO authorize the Governor TO determine whe-
Their particular offence was 10 be regarded as
murder in the il;S; or second degree. He desired
10 recorthis yolc against any such innovation
and concluded by calling for the ayes and noes.
Mr.. GOODWIN said this proposition was
made not at the suggestion OF The Governor, but
of private individuals. The Courts had indeed
decided in the case before alluded to- but The pco-
pie had The right to be beard through their repre-
seniativeS.
Mr.. ktLBY said there were, frequently, in
cases before juries, circumstances which could
not be made TO appear at the trial. and hence in
nocent persons have sometimes been condemned.
In the instance before alluded to, the individual
was guilty TO certain extent and deserved pun
ishment but not that of death. The Executive
could not, as the law now stood, assign punish
ment proporiioDate TO the offence, and conse-
quenty must either pardon or condemn 10 dealh
Ie regarded this proposition as an entering
wedge which would ultimately result in the abo-
l;tion Of capital punshmens. He hoped that
such would be lis result, and that this relic of
barbarous age might be obleraed from our cri-
minal code.
Mr.. STROTHER had no objection to The re-
solution, since il merely proposed an inquiry into
the expediency OF the change The Governor
had at present the greater power OF pardon, and
there could be no valid objection 10 law confer
ring upon him the lesser power TO commute the
punishment Of offenders in certain cases. Now,
man must, for certain offences, be either hung
or acquitted. There should be intermediate
punishmen,s, which the Executive might impose
al his discretion. When the bill should be brought
in by the Committee, il would be time enough Tor
the gentleman from the City OF Richmond to
slate his objections
Mr.. GARRETT moved to lay The resolution
on the table, in order that more thorough exami-
nation might be had into its merits. He was OPP
posed TO the infection of capital punishment, and
thought that the very worst use man could be
put 10 was TO hang him.
MIR. LYONS was surprised that the gentleman
from Rappahannock should have favored such
proposition. Its avowed object was the reversal
OF the decisions OF The Circuit and of the Gene
raj Court upon the trial Of Hunter Hill. This
trial had progressed through all The stages known
to the law, and now that he had been condemned
TO death by the judicial tribunals oil his country,
an effort was made by an appeal to The Lessla-
lure, to a tumultuous assemblase, 10 rescue from
the galows this blood-stained murderer He
must enter his earnest and solemn protest against
this measure. Where was justice to be found, il,
when Il e facts Of case were so strong that It
was impossible for the Executive to exercise the
pardoning power, an appeal might De made The
Legislature2 The gentleman from Essex has
said that the worst use 10 which man could be
put was to hang him; but he would ask what bet
Ter disposition could be made Of the man whose
hands were imbrued in innocent blood, who had
sent his fellow man unanneaed 10 his long home,
than 10 hang him as high as Haman2
Mr.. STROTHER did moi regard this propo-
sition as intended merely for an individual case,
but as having general application. He reci-
procated the surprise of the gentleman from The
city Of Richmond. The gentleman should look
beyond this individual case TO the policy OF the
general law. A provision might be introduced
into the bill, requiring that il should have no ap-
plication to cases heretofore determined by the
judicial tribunals. The Legislature was The true
fountain Of power, and il might vest this power
OF committing punishments either in The Execu-
tive or Judiciary, which were subordinate depart
ments The Legislature might exercise This
mower itself or authorize others 10 exercise IT,
lie would express no opinion as 10 The proprIety
Of iniicling capital punishment; yet he was de-
cidedlv in favor Of vesting in some State func-
,ionary the power of intictng Intermediate pun
ishments.
Mr.. PENDLETON would vote for the reso-
luton II was a mere resolution OF enquiry,
general and not particular il confers no greater
power on The Executive than al present exists
Where it was proper that punishment should De
commu,ed, the power TO accomplish il ought to
exist II should be cniended 10 This case as well
as 10 Others il il should appear upon examina-
ton 10 be proper. LIE, the resolution 60 TO the
committee, and il a general law should be Inc
result, Hunter Hill would still be in the hands OF
the Judiciary, who must decide whether the pro-
visions of the act extended to his case. This was
a question OF great importance and il was due 10
the people and the members who had advocated
this measure, that it should be referred to the
committee. ;.
Mr.. SYME considered that this application, il
granted, would involve violation OF the Const'-
tuition, which limited the power OF the Executive
TO a repieve or pardon. Hunter Hill had been
fairly tried and condemned, and This House should
not reverse the decisions ofthe courts.
Mr.. McRAE agreed with the gentlemen from
Petersburg and the CT y of Richmond in their OBJ,
jeclions to change in the present law, yet ne had
no objection TO reference Of The subject 10 a
committee merely for the purpose of inquiry.
MIR. KIRTLEY was in favor OF The resolu
ton and would approve of general law on this