Richmond semi-weekly times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 184?-1853, 1852-06-11


and the suffering from the lash, were treated
circumstances to extenuate the offence. That
not atoned for. In fact nothing is retracted;
all that is offensive of the first message remains
not only unretracted. but by the strongest and
most necessary implication, e-affirmed and inss-
ted upon. The second message simply disavows
an influence, and comedies merely that neither the
passion Of the moment. the smart of the lash
furnishes excuse or justification for the resist
of the slave. 1t does not say, consistently
with the first message it could not say that taken
together they not to be regarded as circum-
stances or ertenuation. Before this could be said
the first message must be retracted, and the par
don deprived of a reason to rest upon. But to
this condi ion his Excellency will by no means
consent.
Mr.. Scott sad To make the matter more clear
ly understood he begged leave to explain, that in
the definition of offences homicide variously
divided, according to the degree of delinquency
attending the act At common law, the killing of
any human creature is of three kinds justfa bic,
ercusable I'd feloRious.
UNSUITABLE homicide results from some unavoid-
able necessity, created by the law, or by the act
of the party killed, without any manner of fault
in the party killing. 1t is of several kinds:
l. Homicide of public enemy in the prose-
cution of war. g Homicide in the execution
of Justice. 3. Homicide in the advancement of
justice. a. Homicide in defence of person or
property under circumstances of necessity. In
these the slayer is in no kind of fault what
soever, and is therefore acquitted and discharged
with commentator rather that blame.
Excusable homicide is of two kinds; either of
misfortune or misadventure or in self defence
In these cases some fault is imputed, but so slight
that the common law excuses it from the guilt of
felony, and our law from all punishment.
Felonious homicide is act of very diffe-
rent nature from either of the former, being the
killing of human creature without justification
or excuse. But in this there are degrees of
guilt which divide the offence into mansLdugiater
and murder.
Neither iustifiabe nor excusable homicide, con-
stitute offence nor to the commission Of either
is'any penalty attached. 1t was obscure, there
fore, to talk of person being charged with JUS
tifable or excusable homicide But manslaught-
er is an offence to whicha punishment is affixed.
1t is below the grade of murder, being wanting in
those ingredients of deliberation and malice
quisite to constitute that high crime, and attended
by circumstances of extenuation proper to relieve
the perpetrator from the penalty denounced
agaist the murderer.
Manslaughter was itself divided into voluntary
and Involuntary; the former being punishable by
our laws. in the case of a free person, by confne
ment in the penitentiary; but both being punish
able, in the of a slave, as a misdemeanor
merely.
| Now in the second message the Governor says
that the chastisement by the master neither Jus
6fed nor excused the resistance Of the slave
That is to say, the killing, consequent upon it.,
could not be regarded as either ercusable or Jus
afable homicide. And this is all that he does
say.
! He still holds to the opinion of the extenuating
influence of the passion and suffering, and thus
leaves the great vice of the first message in full
force and vigor; nowise retracted, mitigated or
explained.
He objected, therefore, to the resolutions with
which the substitute concluded, as insufficient to
express the just condemnation of the mischievous
doctrine, and he objected more to that part of the
preamble which expressed an edacquesence
in the condition in which the case was left by the
second message
/ As far as this message went he concurred in its
legal views, but it stopt very far short Of the pro-
per point, and for that reason excited his oppo.i-
ton.
Entertaining these opinions of the substitute, it
followed that he was more strongly opposed to the
resolution of the committee. That contained an
undisguised approval of the doctrine of the first
message, for it was only against the inference, sup
posed enormously to be deducible from it, that the
resolution expressed objection. With the expla-
nation of the second message, the committee was
satisfied and this House asked to concur in
the report and declare, also its satisfaction to the
public.
! That no injustice may be done to the members
of the committee, by whom the report was sub
mitted, he would quote their resolution yerba-
tim
"Resolved That while this House respectful
| w, but distinctly dissents from the doctrines ex-
pressed by the executive in the message Of the
| 18th of May, as generally understood and inter-
/ preted previous to the message Of the 10th May,
it expresses it's satisfaction at the sentiments pro-
claimed in the latter message, aud its concurrence
in the egalviews of the executive contained there
in; except so far as not 70 express an opinion OF
the correctness of the conclusion Of the executive
as to the propriety OF the Communication OF the
punishment of the slave"
| 1t was with the first message, as generally I'M
derstood AMI interpreted previous to the explana-
tory message, that these gentlemen were dissatis-
fed; in the legal views OF the latter they entire
ly concur, and not content with declaring this
concurrence, they 60 the whole length, and ex-
press s'satistdction' at the sentiments proclaimed
in it, and then they studiousy avoid the express
sion of any opinion touching the propriety of the
communication granted by the executive.
| As between the report of the committee and
the substitute, therefore, Mr.. Scott said he should
vote for the latter, as more proper to be adopted
by the House, and as approaching more nearly to
what, in his Judgment, the occasion demanded
Under no circumstances would he vote for or sane
ton the resolution of the committee.
He had nothing to do with the motive that in
fuenced the executive: he was free to say he saw
nothing in the proceedings to impugu his mo-
tive. What he was dealing with, and what the
| House had to deal with, the doctrine put
forth in the reasons assigned for the action. This
he believed to be unsound in law, and fraught
with consequences destructive of our peace and
security. The 'sreasons had been communicated
to us pursuant to the constitution 1t was our ght
to consider, and our duty to reprobate them.
An impression seemed to prevail with some gen5
tlemen that, except to punishment, the white
man and the negro stood in the same relation
precisely, to all offences-that is to say, whatev-
err would constitute an offence in one, would equal