Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1862-11-14
Vermont Legislature.
TUESDAY, Nov. 4.
HOUSE.

der, should be executed after one year
and three months, and then only in the
discretion Of and upon the warrant Of
the court. He advocated the adoption
of this amendment as a safeguard and
protection of innocent persons. He re-
ferred to the case cf the Bournes, where
it was longer period than fifteen
months before the supposed murdered
man appeared, and it became evident
that the Bournes had not murdered the
man-although they had confessed it
themselves.
Mr.. Chandler opposed the amendment
on the ground that it placed an unreason-
able requisition upon the court. The
law should be made certain and then
our courts would execute them. There
had been some law of this kind once,
bat was unsatisfactory to the court, and
soon repealed, He had become tired Of
the so oft repeated reference to the case
of Bournes; he considered it rather a
perverSion of justice that they were not
hung, for they intended TO have killed
the man, and supposed they had-tbe
broising they gave him did not kill him
that was all there was to that
Mr.. Henry said ba won,d mt bove
occnnied the time of tba bor,o e ho
gentleman from ludlow mr. RaIcbl had
remained silent He considar,a tbot tho
House had nassed on this orostion orco
and his rule was when q matter was once
decided bv the House to abide bv that
decision. He was opposed to the amend
ment, and argued in favor of the necrs.
sitv of having the law certain and fixed
not subject TO the discretion Of the court
especially in the purishm,n. of crjmi.
mails.
Mr.. Miller moved to amend the a
meudment by extending the time to one
year and six months.
Opposed 10y Mr. Cook Of Cabot, who
SAID 1t was an attempt ,o dodge the force
OF the amendment proposed by the gen
Ieman from Ludlow (Mr. Balch). He
cited the case OF the Centers from Cabot
who were indicted for the murder of a
young lady, tried ard conv cted and ther
admitted to bail by the court, and haC
been on bail for the last two years. The
court holding that there was not SuHicien
evidence to convict. He was in favor
of the amendment proposed by Mr.
Balch, and for the purpose OF bringing
that question directly before the House.
The motion was disagreed to-yeas
81, nays II.
Mr. UnhoIl said II wos row s;,,rIv o
or wbo,hor , o,,1l L
dofoite and nositive Iow ,r wb.,bor ro
sbonld have somatb;ro .o,;,oooI o,d
;ndofoito Now ma o1I ,.uo,,, g o,.
Il 70 the disorot;or oeb:- no;a,,o
friends 70 fix the TINA wb,D q n,rdoror
shall he bpoo that mona will bo b,,c
So this was simnlv o,,stioD wbs,bor
we sbould abolish can;,al Drpisbrert for
uurder or not. There was no need Of.
lisonising the ouostion o., III T,is wos
he question only in a different FORM
He then advocated the continuance of
he law as it was at present. he cited the
rials and instances in other states, where
he abolition of capital punishment had
and some cases where the
had taken the execution into
heir own hands-the law in their judg-
lent not measuring out justice TO the
riminal. He said there was no danger
f hanging an innocent man under our
iw. There were fifteen months after
be conviction for the discovery Of new
for all excitement to subside,
nd opportunity for a new trial, to peti-
I II