Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1875-02-19
Mr.. Gn1NpIr snid this hospital 4 and must be /

l
| has had leg amputated may choose HON popathc
as the subsequent medical treatment. But every
| surgeon knows that the subsequent medical treat
ment is often absolutely necessary to secure the
success OF surgical operation, and is it ANYTHING
but fair and Just that the operator should in every
case have the entire control of his patient till he
| has rccoyeredf
The amendment was adopted.
| Mr.. LEAvIrT moved the indefinite postyone-
nent OF the resolve, which he said he did at the re-
quest of the petitioners and the friends of the
measure. If it is passed, they will utterly refuse
the money.
MI W iLsoS c, posed TIC motion. In the inter
eats Of humanity, the IN t,.Eton ought 10 be sus-
| tanned.
The Honse refused to indefinitely postpone
the resolve, and passed it TO be engrosscd
On motion of Mr.. TALBOT, bill in relation to ex-
ecution Of sentence in capital cases taken from
| the table, the question being upon the adoption OF
| the amendment offered by Mr.. PILLsBURY, which
| leaves it to the di.crction Of the court to say
| whetA,I mp. isonm Mt for life or death shall be
| executed.
Mr. pILLsBuRY moved and the House ordered
that when the question be taken il be by yeas and
| NAYS.
Mr.. TALBOT SAID that it is we'll known that our
| aw IN relation to execution Of sentence in CAPT
| tai cases, as it exists is liable to a great deal
| of objection. There are defects and inconsisten-
cles. and such is their nature that the legislature
| have not only been invited but urged in less
| than eight messages of the governor, TO change
| the law so that it shall be free from defect. 1t
was decided By 3 committee of the last legislature
| TO introduce a bill similar to the before the
House, removing the objection to the present
law. And If that bill failed Of a passage, then
| the bill abolishing capital punishment should be
| taken up and considered. That course was pur-
sued, aud it was found that all nearly all of
those who were IN favor Of abollshng the death
| penalty voted against making the law certain
thus filling their quiver with just such weapons
| as they wish to use in arguing in favor of doing
away the death penalty, and making one of the
chief argument which they use-thc Inconsistency
and the objections TO the present law-arguing
the danger of conyictns the innocent, and the
difficulty OF convcung the guilty: The
same subject came before the Judiciary
Committee this year. A bill was reported
squarely abolishipG the death penalty. That ques-
tered TO place our law upon the statute book in
such form that it shall be free from these objec
tons 10 which the attention of the legislature has
been often called The ls sec the bill reueals
the act making the Governor and council trlbun-
al to revise aud overthrow the decision of the ju-
dietary. The second section merely provides that
when the court find person guilty of crime
punishable with death, they shall sentence him
| Just they do in al otherCascs Of conviction for
| crime the day of the execution Of that sentence
shall not be less than six months nor more than
one year from the day of the sentence. The pro-
| vision by which the proceedings and record OF the
case is forwarded to the governor and council, is
sti Il retained. 1t is also provided that the Cover
nor shall issue his warrant for the execution of
the sentence fixed by the court, unless he shall
fit, in the exercise Of that power which the Consti
tuition gives him, with the advice and consent of
the council either to pardon, or to commute the
/ sentence.
The amendment offered, proposes that it shall be
optional with the court or jury whether the death
penalty shall be executed. We have heard great
deal about the uncertainty OF juries in capital cas-
cs. Did the gentleman from Pennington pills
| bury propose to make it more secure by leaving
to the decision Of jury these great questions ;
Is he going to shift the great question from the
law which fixes the penalty, to men that he saws
are liable to err He thought the amendment was
subject to greater objections than the present law
and he hoped it would be rejected.
! Mr. Powers advocated the amendment. The
same twelve men who pass upon the guilt or in
nocenee OF the prisoner, having before them all
the evidence and all those side-shades which make
those slight circumstances tending to produce some
doubt, though not what would be defined a rea-
sonable doubt, are very proper persons to decide
whether the punishment shall be imprisonment
for life, or for a term Of years. When the gentle
man from East Mschias talbot calls to mind the
uncertainties of jury verdict, he should bear in
mind that that uncertainty applies as much to the
finding of whether person is innocent or guilty,
as TO anything else and it was ON account of this
uncertainty that he (Powers) would rather err on
the side of mercy than in any other way. 1t had
often been said and truly said, that it is better
that ten guilty should escape than that one
innocent man should suffer. Any person who is
acquainted with the criminal Jurisprudence OF this
country, knows that innocent men have been trled
convicted and executed, and that after their exc
cution 1t has been proved beyond doubt that they
were innocent. No writ of error runs to the
| grave, and there was DO chance for a remedy in
| these cases, there would have been had the
! punishment been imprisonment for life. He be-
! eyed the amendment TO be in the interests OF hui
mainly, and he should therefore sustain it,
! Mr.. TALBOT said that there is q law now which
gives what the friends of the amendment ask for.
The jury are authorized to find the degree of muir
der, and the sentence is in accordance with the
finding.
Mr.. WILSON declared himself opposed to CAPT
tai punishment. The matter had been fully dis
cussed, and the House had solemnly determined
to retain the death penalty, by such majority as
! to make it decisive. The bill before the House
was reported by direction of the Judiciary Com
mittee. He had always believed that the greatest
detriment from the commission of crime was not
III the severity of the punishment, but the certain
ty of some punishment or other; ard he had held
that imprisonment for life for the crime Of mul der,
made sure and certain would be greater deter
rent than the death penalty, with the great diff
Guilty there is in getting CONVICTIONS when that was
the absolute punishment. He did not believe in
the law as 1t now exists on the statute book. In
asmuch there had been this expression of the
House, and inasmuch he believed the amend
ment would tend to make the punishment for
| crime more uncertain he was therefore opposed
TO it, and hoped the bill would pass.
Mr.. TALBOT said that the amendment read ''as
the court or jury shall determine" lie found no
provision as to which should determine.
Mr.. PILLsBURY replied and thought the bill was
perfectly plain. As the law now stands, jures in
capital cases have but two alternatives Ii is their
duty in capital case to render such verdict as
to cause the death of an individual, or else they
have got to turn him loose again upon the com.
munty. lie thought gentlemen that had voted
against the abolition of the death penalty, could
consistently vote for this In very aggravated cas-
es and where the testimony is beyond doubt they
have a right to hang the criminal Juries are liza
BILE to mistakes The testimony in capital cases is
almost universally crcumstantia and therefore
there are great doubts. If, after having heard the
evidence, there is a possibility of doubt, they
can exercise the right Of imprisonlng for life, in
stead of turning the individual out upon society.
Mr.. WILSON believed if the bill passed that it
it would be but very short time before the death
penalty would be abolished, through the opera
tons Of the law.
Mr. WHEELwRIGHT opposed the amendment.
| Mr. POWERS did not believe we should do evil
that good may come, but rather let lis vote for
that which Is right now and trust that good may
follow right actions. He denied that there was
any law that would answer the purpose of the
amendment. In most eases jures must find in the
first degree or acquit.