Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1852-07-14

common law doctrine of universal obser.
vance aud unaltered by the Statutes Of
Virginia. that if person engaged in an
would not be fel0nious, commits homicide
contrary to his desire or intention, the le-
gal offence will be naanslangltter unless
by legal fiction an intent different from
what he really entertained can be pre-
sumed and attributed to him from the In
strpment used. together with the manner
of using it. While the whig report of the
committee of Courts of Justice agrees
with Governor johnson that the intent of
the slave was to avoid chastisement, it
taciIly acknowledges the soundness of the
legal position here taken, and relies
alone on a mistaken view Of the cha-
racter of the instrument used to, Justify
the conviction and sentence of Hatchar.
Here it will be observed, that the only
difference of opinion between the Govern
or and those who condemned his act or
his message, is, as to the question, whe
Their in this case, the instrument and the
manner of using it were such as to autho-
rize the Court to impute to Hatcher tic
titious legal design or intent. If the Go.
vernon were right in his view of this iso-
lated question, then Hatcher's offence
was but manslaughter, for which slave,
under the laws of Virginia can not be
punished with death. Such, then, being
the view taken of this case by the Cover
nor, supported as he was in every partic-
ular by the sixty distinguished citizens of
Richmond, and the Wing members of the
committee who made this report and the
members of the House who endorsed it,
fully cOncurring with the Executive as to
the real intent of the slave, and tacitly
acknowledging the legal views involved
in the Governors decision, and relying
alone, as they did, on gross misrepre-
sention of the official record in order to
condemn either the act or the message
the Governor may we'll sag That the
penalty under such circumstances should
be death, though perhaps authorized by
the letter OF the law, is, believe against
the spirit of our laws and of the age, as it
is contrary to mercy and humanity, which
are designed for and extended only to the
unfortunate and the guilty" If this slave
was convicted of an offence which all
either directly or indirectly have agreed
and said he did not commit and had the
Executive under these circumstances, and
contrary to his own Judgment and con-
science, permitted the sentence of the
court to be executed, he would have been
untrue to the spirit of the age and the
laws which he has sworn to properly exc
cute; untrue to his own conscience and
his God; and would have outraged the
principles of mercy and humanity, the
right to exercise which, the humane spi-
rlc of the age has by express provision of
the Constitution and laws, placed in his
hands
But the Governor further says If
Hatcher had been white man the utmost
he could have been charged with would
have been Unsuitable homicide or involun-
tary manslaughter, and IN tbs case" ne
adds, sit was manslaugnter without in
tent to kill" l have always thou El1 this
an unfortunate sentence. While the reEe-
renee to what the legal offence would
have been in white man, was wholly
unnecessary, this sentence is not techni- |
cally correct in legal point of view By
our Code, however, the punishment of |
slave is made TO depend on what would be |
the punishment Of white man for the |
same offence aud it is evident that this !
was what the Governor had in view at |
the time he wrote it. But, yet, this sem
tence is no: subject to the criticisms which
have been made upon it. Under the de-
clsion of our courts, it Hatcher had been
a free white man when he was whipped
with Il cow-hide, the almost he could have
been charged with would have been crcu.
sable homicide. If he had been white |
apprentice being whipped by his master,
Ia 4
nol invot0ntaty manslaughter. And what
ever would have been the legal offence |
when committed by white apprentice on
the person of his master, it was precisely !
the same legal offence when committed
by IL Jordan Hatcher! Such is the law
of Virginia And hence all this talk
about the Governors placing the slave
on the footing of white man is sense
less Cannon, mauifesling supreme ignC-
rance or utter recklessneSs on the part of
those who engage in it. The Criminal
Code of our State knows no distinction of
color or condition save in the mode of
trial and the degree of punishment, so far
at least, as these higher grades of crime
are concerned. The legal elements ne
ccssary to constitute the offence of MUIR
der in the first or second degree, or vol
untary or involuntary manslaughter on
the part of slave, will constitute the same
legal offence on the part of free white
person. On this point find myself mis-
represented Internationally in the pub
lshed speech of Mr.. Scott of Fauquier.
never intended to say that the same acts
committed by free white man, would
constitute the same legal offence as if
committed by a slave. The whipping of
free white man with cow-hide would |
be to him provocation to kill the assail |
ant; but tit would be no Provocation to the
slave even to resist his overseer or master. !