Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1862-11-06

was once decided by the House 10 aplue pV
that decision, He was opposed TO the amend
ment and argued in favor of the necessity OF
having the law certain and fixed, not subject
to the discretion of the court--especlally IN the
punishment of criminals.
Mr.. Miller moved to amend the amendment
by extending the time TO one year and SIX
months
Opposed by Mr.. Cook, OF Cabot, who SAID
il was an attempt to dodge the force of the
amendment proposed by the gentleman from
ludlow mir. Bach). He cited the case
of the Centers from Cabot, who were indicted
for the murder Of young lady, tried and con
victed. aud then admitted to bail by the court,
and had been on bail for the last Two year.,
The court holding that there was no! sufficient
evidence 10 convict He was IN favor OF the
amendment prop, sed by Mr.. Balcb and for the
purpose of bringing that question directly be-
fore the House.
The motion was disagreed to--yeas 81,
neys II.
Mr.. Hubbell said ii was now simply aques-
ton of whether we would have definite aud
postive law, or whether we should have some
| hing eouivocal and indefinite, Now we all
/ know, If we leave it to the discretion Of ms
neighbors or friends TO fix the time when a
murderer shall be hung, that none Will be
hung. So this was simply question whether
we should abolish capital punishment for muir
der or not.
There was no need of Disgusting the ques'
ton at all This was the question only III
different form. He then advocated the conuh
uance of the law as it was at present nc ci'e'
the trials and instances in other States, where
the abolition of capital punishment had psr
tanned, and some cases where the community
had taken the execution into their own hama
the law, in their ju gment, not measuring
, out Justice to the criminal
! He said there was no danger of hanging a
innocent man under our law. There were III
teen months after the conviction for the DIS
coyerv of new evidence, for all excitement |
subside, and opportunity for new trl to pc
tition the Legislature and all the additions
SAFEGUARDS as to the selection Of Jurors quit
e enough, in his opinion, for the protection
the lives of citizens against murderou' 81"
: saults. \,
IS The question was further debated by NJ
IF Balch in favor, and Mr.. REYNOLDS against an
IS the yeas and NAYS taken on demand OF M
# Rounds. Yeas "a, navs 1872; 50 the amen'
ment was lost.
+ Mr.. Cushman of Rochester moved to strl
l., out the word three and insert nine in one SO
V ton, so that the warrant might issue for Il
(; execution of a murderer in one year and nj
months after the conviction. Agreed II --ye
/ IS, nays Sand the bill was ordered to
Or read third time.
< Title /, chapter | of the revision entitle,
ne "Of Elections" having been made the spec
order for Tuesday m, at 10 o'clock, was
N zen M. pending the motion Of Mr. Roed
lg redistrcting the State 49,.
Of Mr. Henry said there were certain dIHSo
which were natural and others were unnatur
p if the amendment of Mr. Reed should lalI,
would move an amendment, restoring tue eoV
o tv of Washington to its original position,
IT. putting the county of Chittenden with AID
vt, son, Bennington and Rutland. The motion
o. Mr. Reed was rejected.
eel Mr. Henry then moved to insert the coui
~. of Chjttenden in the first district and Washll
Use ton in the third. Opposed by Mr. Gardn
lily favored the districts remaining as they u
Is are, they had got along we'll for the last
III years.
re- Mr. Henry said he was not captious, lie IN
ed the amendment only as an act of justice
the citizens of Washington county. He
never been to Montpelier but what he he
complaints of this unnatural connection;
in the west part of the State.
Mr. Gardner said Washington county
ay had the member of Congress for eight out
the last ten years under the present syst
dr. He thought they had no reason to complain
,ks The House then refused to make the anne
rs ment, and the districts remain as they
are.
IA, The bill was further amended, on motlol
to Mr. Selden, and passed.
,nm