Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1883-03-12
Dailp Kfnntbfl JournaI.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
Abstract of the Arguments Made in the
Senate, March 7th,
On the Bill Restoring the Death Penalty
for Murder.
By Mr.. Lebroke of Piscataquis and Mr.
Rust of Waldo.

Bill an act to restore the death penalty for
murder in the first degree. as amended BY the
House, came up by assignment in the Senate
at II O'Clock on Wednesday. March eth, and
was debated at considerable length. Mr..
| Young of Cumberland moved TO refer to the
next legislature, and spoke in support of his
motion and in opposition to the bill. He was
followed by MIR. Wentworth of Penobscot
who spoke in support of the bill, and in op-
position to the motion to refer. At the con-
clusion of his address, the Senate adjourned
to meet at 30 in the afternoon. when the bill
Piscataquis and Rust of Waldo. After pro-
tracted discussion, the motion to recommit
was lost, l3 TO l5, and the bill passed to be
engrossed. 10 to .. Following is an abstract
of the arguments made by Mr.. Lebroke of
Piscataquis and Mr.. Rust of Waldo.
Mr.. LEBRoKE OF PIsCArAQUIs.
At the beginning of his remarks Mr.. Le-
broke stated that all agreed that the matter
under consideration was one of great impor-
tance; it is important to the individual, i'm
rortant to society. and important to the State.
| he reau tne nrsl section OF The OIL wnlcn is
as follows: "When murder Is committed
with express malice aforethought or IN per-
petrating attempting to perpetrate crime
punishable by death, Imprisonment for life,
or for an unlimited term Of years, it shall be
deemed murder of the first degree and pun
ished with death" Mr.. Lebroke criticised
the verbiage OF the section. and said that he
greatly doubted if there was any man in the
Senate chamber who could give constrnc-
ton OF this sentence with which he would be
satisfied. If there was no other objection,
the doubt and uncertainty connected with this
section would be sufficient in itself to deter
him from voting for the bill. II person, IN
the attempt to commit some offence punish
able by Imprisonment for life or for an un-
limited term OF years, should accidentally
kill person, he might be liable, under the
provisions OF this bill, to be hung. Suppose
two boys should plan to commit burglary.
one watching at the door, and in the execution
of their intention should accidentally leave a
ltrap-dcor open. through which some person
in the house should fall, receiving mortal
| injuries. In this case not only the boy who
entered the house, but his accompllce
who remained outside to watch probably
would by this bill be adludged
guilty of murder in the first degree,
band be liable to death by hanging. though
neither ever intended to take life. Here Is a
substitution of intent. We are discussing
law by which person may be executed when
he never intended to commit murder. because
somehow or other, in perpetrating crime
punishable by imprisonment for an unlimited
term of years he has unfortunately taken hu-
man life Under the laws of Maine there are
"a offences punishable by imprisonment for
life or for an unlimited term of years. ard If
in the commission OF one OF these crimes hu-
man life is sacrificed the guilty. party is to be
punished by death upon the gallows; no mat
ter whe ther the homicide was deliberately
planned or was committed in the frenzy of
t moment.
1t is utt rly impossible for any body of
men as large as a legislature in the brief time
allotted to us, to exercise that care and delib-
Grafton which should characterize the con-
sideration OF matter OF this Importance,
especially when their attention is occupied
with so many other weightv questions. In
the midst of biennial session of the legislf-
ture, with the accumulated business OF two
years to be disposed Of, with great constitr-
tional questions to be settled, with the State
to be apportioned for members OF the legis-
lature and representatives to Congress, with
the revision of the statutes. with rush OF
business,-right IN medids res, comes an order
asking that the committee on the Judiciary
consider the expediency of restoring the
death penalty. Ten thousand remonstrances
poured in against capital punishment, able
men appeared before the committee on both
sides. and finally bill was evolved which
received the support of the majority of the
committee while the minority reserved the
right to oppose it. The bill went to the
House, and was debated there for days;
amendments were abruptly proposed, and
hastily adopted, part of which were subse-
quently rejected. and in this uncertain and
fragmentsry form the bill comes to the Sen
ate for consideration
| Mr.. Lebroke said that he objected
to the bill IN toto and seridfim
He read the House amendments, COM
menting on each. claiming that they were
offered as sops for the purpose of coaxing the
bill through the legislature, because it could
not pass as first reported Some of them
might be well enough in their way, but he
was opposed to the whole principle of capital
punishment. especially as set out in the bill.
He regarded this bill as very faulty, uncer-