Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1870-12-02

1.-The eye, also of the adulterer, waiteth for
the twilight, saying-Ne eye shall see me, and
disguiseth his face.
For the morning is to them as the shadow
of death; if one know them they are in the
terrors of the shadow of death.
He is swift as the waters; their portion is
cursed in the earth; he beholdeth not the way
of the vineyards"
But, gentlemen, it may be said that the
ideas of the writers of the Old Tesla
ment were exploded by the New, and that
this law of Moses was not sanctioned in
the New Testament. Permit me to quote to
you from st. Paul, LIST Corinthians, 9th Chap.
9th verse, in which he says that neither forni-
Gators nor adulterers shall inherit the King
dom of God.
And yet again in Hebrews, 18th chap. and
4th verse, he says. Marriage is honorable
in all and the bed undefiled; but whoremon-
gers and adulterers God will judge"
SO you see, gentlemen, that we are invok-
ing here no new idea, no new principle, but
one sanctioned at the earliest period of which
we have any history Of man, or any history OF
the institution of marriage.
Now, gentlemen, coming down to the law,
know that the common law of England, the
rules established some two or three hundred
years ago, held that if a man take another in
adultery with his wife and Stays him, it shall
be manslaughter-thatt the justitiation was not
sufficient as justification entirely, but it was
a provocation which would reduce the crime
to manslaughter. That rule was adopted in
England when adultery was not crime, not
known to the criminal calendar of England.
not punished as a crime, by people that did
not regard it as one of the crimes for which
man should be punished and still they pun
ished larceny with death at the same time.
Rut q fhaD q
deemng adultery crime, held that it was so
great provocaton that it reduced the killing
from murder to mansaughter. l will read
from Russell on crimes:
"Where a man finds another in the act of
adultery with his wife, and kills him or her in
the first transport of passion, he is only guilty
of manslaughter, and that in the least degree;
for the provocation is grievous, such as the
law reasonably concludes cannot be borne in
the first transport of passion"
This was the law adopted in England CEN
turtles ago, when they did not punish adultery
at all, and the judge in the which is cited
as authority directed that burning in the hand
be inflicted gently, because there could be
no greater proyocation.
This was the old technical rule of the com
mon law of England The common law of
England was adopted in this country; but it
has been the boast of the common law that it
was law of principles, that its rules were
based upon principles, upon common sense,
and that thos elrules were sufficiently yielding,
sufficiently ductile, so that they might be con-
formed to the varying wants of society, to the
improvements and Announcements that might
be made from time to time, as new cases came
up, as public opinion changed aud as the ne
cessities of the community required, these
rules might be bent and changed to meet the
new cases which might arise.
Now, | wish to address the question
to you as question of principle, because
as have said, it is new in this State. 1t
is well recognized rule of law, that a man
in the defense of his house, in the defense
of his home in the defense of his castle,
as the law terms it, is perfectly justitica-
bic in killing any one who attempts to break
it, so that if burglar attempts to enter
your house in the night and steal your
watch or your money, you are perfectly Justi-
ficable in shooting him down, before he
comes in or after he has entered. The law
throws that protection around castle. But,
shall it be sid, that man is to be justified in
shooting the burglar who has attempted TO
break into his house and steal his watch, and
that he shall not be justified in striking down
his neighbor, who deliberately plans the Sc
duction and ruin of his wife, and enters his
house with the felonious design to commit the
crime of adultery? Is his watch more prec-
ious and more valuable than the purity of his
marriage relation? May he defend his cas-
tie, and not defend the precious casket which
contains all that is valuable to him in life, his
own honor, the purity of the blood of the
children which he must acknowledge from his
marriage relation, and who shall inherit his
estate, the name which they must bear in hon
or or disgrace? May he not defend these
rights by striking down the felon, who DELHI
erately plans the entering of his house, for
the purpose Of running his wife, and running
him forever; for we all know the ruinous eff
fects it has upon the husband as well as the
wife, where the marriage relations are broken
up, and the husband is forced to regard the
woman of his choice, the woman that he had
sanctifed in his heart as pure, as an adulter-
ess. The home is broken up, the children are
disgraced, all of them ruined, so that life it
self is burden and worse than death itself;
and still the counsel tells you he may defend
his castle; but if an adulterer, if a seducer
enters his door for the purpose of seducing
his wife and running them all forever, he
throws before him copy of the Revised Stat
utes and says to him, come no farther, stop;
there is the law you shall be indicted | will
bring against youa suit for damages. Oh gen.
t!emen, it is not in human nature to do that.
1t is not manhood to do it. No man who is
worthy to be called a man can stand for a
moment and say or do thing like that. God
has not created man in that way; He created
him for the institution of marriage He Great
ed him with an instinct to protect that insti-
tuition, and protect his rights Is it not right
that he should protect them, right upon prin-
ciple2 ask you, gentlemen, as men, il you
would regard man worthy to be called
man, as having any manhood left, if, when he
found his neighbor in the act of adultery with
his wife, he should turn away and go to a law
yer to bring suit tor damages, or go to the
prosecuting officer with complaint of adul-
terry. Why, gentlemen, was that the idea that
Solomon had? No, his idea was, that the
husband would not spare in the day of his
vengeance, that he would not accept a ran
som, that he would not accept any gifts as a
satisfa ction. But the rule which the learned
counsel for the government invokes, is that
when the husband finds his Heighbor in such
a situation, he should not touch him, he
should not interfere he should walk away,
call some one as witness, becaus, he could
not institute criminal prosecution without
witness for it is the established law of the
land that the husband cannot testify in an in