Daily Kennebec journal., 1883-03-02


mission. Those of the present year seem tr
be accompanied with deeds of violence equally
atrocious. The future protection and safety OF
our citizens demands most rigorous enforce
ment of all statutes for the security of human
life" In the language of the Prison Inspec-
tors: "We respectfully renew our recuinmen-
dation made in the report of 1850 Some
law should be passed infiicting further pun
ishment than is now known in the law, for
the crime of murder or an attempt thereto by
convicts upon officers Of the prison. Since
the abolition of capital punishment the per-
centage of life sentences is increasing yearly.
The only purpose in life these men have is to
get out Some of them will not hesitate to
commit any crime to accomplish that object.
They know very well how the law stands
towards them-that there is no more punish
ment for them than is contained in the SEN
tence under which they were committed.
In the language of the Warden: "The rapid
relative increase of the number here under
life sentt nee, evolves a condition of things
which invites consideration and a careful
scrutinv of existing laws bearing upon crime
and prison discipline"
And now for the history of this matter. For
years previous to 1875 the death penalty was
so far abolished as not to be an object of
terror to murderers. In that year the Exec
utive of the State, in obedience to the de-
mands of public opinion, ordered by his war
rant the execution of Gordon and Wagner
for their crime of triple murder. The sub
ject was thus brought before the legislature
of 1876. Numerous petitions, and also nu-
merous remonstrances were presented. The
same influences which you have seen at work
here, were then active in getting in petitions
and scattering documents. public hearing
of three or four days was had before the Ju-
dietary Committee. Gentlemen of ability
from various parts of the State were patiently
heard By majority only of that commit
tee bill was reported abolishing the death
penalty, and after full discussion, passed the
House by majority of seven. Al
that time more than one days session
of the committee was spent in listening to
arguments against the abstract right to take
human life as punishment, and more than
another day in arguments that Imprisonment
for life was perfect safeguard as to the
prisoner-the remainder of the argument was
as to the effect of the death penalty to deter
from crime. Upon these questions the argu-
ments of to-day show progress, for by the ad
missions of the gentlemen before the com
mittee, apd nearly every speaker in opposi-
tion to this bill, they are in favor of the
death penalty for the murderer of the warden,
conceding the right. acknowledging the lack
of security, and holding up the penalty to
deter from the commission of the crme-else
where is the additional security of the war
den? In 1873, Attorney General Emery,
who IN 1876 was a member of the Judiciary
Committee. and very active advocate for
the abolishing Of the death penalty, was the
attorney general of the State, and in his Of
fetal report for that year uses the following
language. ain contemplating three murder
trials in one year, and fourth terrible
murder yet waiting for vindication, the
people will naturally consider whether the
present penalty of Imprisonment for life is
adequate Capital punishment has now been
three years abolished in this State, and un-
doubtedly many desire its restoration. The
accumulation of horrors in this one year
will tend 20 create a demand for the death
penalty. The natural sentiment is that the
perpetrators of such awful crimes ought to be
hung. 1t is difficult to resist this desire for
vengeance but it must be laid aside in con-
sidering the amount of punishment. Equally
the opposite sentiment that society has no
right to take life in self-defence must be laid
aside. The question simply is, whether the
death penalty is best for sOciety-whether it
furnishes better protection
Two years ago at the request of the War
den and Inspectors of the State prison. bill
was reported, making death the penalty for
murder of the Warden by convict in the
prison. That bill was tabled on motion of
a gentleman well-known in the State, and
never taken up for consideration. and is the
one which several gentlemen on the other
side have seemed to favor. And now we are
brought face to face with this great question,
regularly and officially calling for action,
the fact of the increase of crime, the dan
ger to society if proven, and candidly admit
ted by most of those who have addressed this
House. Our duty is plain, to inquire into
the cause, and devise a remedy, a remedy
which shall give every nan. woman and child
in the State, not doubtful. not yet a per
feet security against the murderer but as per
feet as is possible in human legislation
MFR. Talbot then argued that there had been
sufficient time for trial nf the present law
On this question we may and do honestly
differ. But before coming to that, let us dis
pose Of another argument for delay. Let us
not fight shy" as the saying is, and endeavor
to evade or postpone the duty Of the day, but
let us manfully meet the question, and with
due regard to the opinions and the sensibili-
ties of all, determine what is best, and do it.
1t is said that the present law has not yet had
a fair trial. and the gentleman from Read
field has said, ''there was sort of under
standing that it should have the test of ten
years" I know not by what authority it
comes, but for myself, never having before
heard of it, 1 wish to be absolved from the
disgrace of any such experimental legislation.
My friend from Houlton suggests merely that
% years would be proper time for trial. Let
US see what are the facts. Within two years
past there have been 10 murders in the State.
FIVE innocent victims by three different mur-
derers-one committed by brother, another
by son upon his own mother, the third by
husband and father upon his wife, mother.
and his own child-and in each one of these
cases. the fact is as well established as pos
sible. that before committing the crime each
one of them reckoned on imprisonment for
life as the penalty with the risk of conviction,
and there is not much doubt but that other
murderers acted from the same motives. But
taking FIVE as the average for two wears, then
according to the compromise of the gentle
man from Resdfield. at least more innocent
beings must be sacrificed and according 10
the gentleman from Houlton, 8 years more
of experiment would call for the murder of
IS innocent persons. Let US turn away from
this picture.
And now for the remedy. Does the present
Law afford the best protection against the
crime Of wilful, malicious, murders The
necessity Of some Law being Admitted.
the question is not what are
the best means to prevent murder,
some time hereafter, whether by education