Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-02-13


the object OF which was TO turn over TO
other hands the duties the Legislature
should have performed. The gentleman
from Fairfax had probably heard from
MS constituents. he said. The effect Of
The resolution would not be TO retrench.
but would only add an additional ex-
| pense 20 the State, in order that five or
SIX gentlemen might be given an oppor-
tunity TO have good time. Talk was
cheap" he said, but every member had
been given an opportunity to act. and
II they were really in favor OF reform,
they should have availed themselves OF H.
| Mr.. Willard replied to the delegate from
portsmouth. by stating that, as far as
his (Willard's) position on the subject Of
retrenchment was concerned, he did not
see the necessity Of dragging II into the
discussion. His record was open for in
| spection. and the journals OF the House
would show it.
NOT A WISE COURSE
Captain Parks thought the adoption Of
the resolution would be unwise at the
present time. IL 1t was agreed 10, 4
would go out TO the people OF the State
that their representatives were either in
competent, unable, or unwilling 10 do
the work committed to them IT was
saying that the Legislature was power
less TO act, and had surrendered.
Mr.. Saunders offered an amendment
providing that the commission be in
structed to inquire into the existence OF
trusts, and the evil they did, and report
as TO that matter.
Mr.. Winborne was opposed to surren-
dering thus early. He, for one was not
ready to lay down his arms, and heartily
concurred with the delegate from Page
Judge Watkins spoke in favor OF the
resolution, which, he said, was in the
very line Of business legislation.
Mr.. Hicks then called the pending ques-
ton, and the resolution was defeated by
vote Of 43 to r.
REFORMATORY BILLS PASSED.
DR.. Winstons bills. providing for the
government Of the Prison Association of
Virginia, which were engrossed Friday.
were passed.
veto message on Bill No. 316 defining
the criminal Jurisdiction between Frede-
rick county and Winchester), was re-
ceiyed from the Governor, and the Execu-
tive WIS sustained by vote of 56 to o.
Mr.. BAILEY TO SPEAK.
resolution was offered by Mr.. Pitcher.
which was adopted, inviting Hon. Joseph
w. Bailey to address the General As
sembly on the 18th of this month. on the
pohtical situation of the day This was
amended by the Senate, making the date
the I'D, and the House agreed.
WHIPPING-POST BILL.
The Murphy whipping-post bill came up
at 1870 o'clock, and Or. Quesenberry
stated that he intended TO offer an amend
ment striking out every provision OF the
measure providing for the infictlon Of
stripes
Captain Parks then spoke to his sub
stitute for the Murphy BILL the former,
providing that for the second conviction
for larceny the offender should be pun
ished by the infection of stripes
Mr. Saunders made a strong argument
In opposition TO both the substitute and
the original bill. and explained the bill
CNo. 4l0 introduced by himself. His bill
he said. provided that a party convicted
of petty larceny. who had been hereto
fore convicted of petty larcney, grand
larceny, or other felony, shall, upon proof
of the former conviction be confined In
the penitentiary for a period Of not less
than one, nor more than two years. The
objection to the bill offered by Captain
Parks, was this: That it provided for the
punishment Of stripes for the second
offence Of larceny. and not for the first.
The result, therefore, would be that but
few people would be reached by the law,
hence there would be no saving of crimi-
nal expenses but, on the contrary an in
crease. Parties now charged with lar
ceny and convicted by justices submit
TO the punishment without appeal, but If
the punishment of stripes was annexed
to the second conviction of larceny. all
such criminals would appeal to the
county courts in order to take the
chances Of acquittal by jury. The trial
of these appeals would be expensive,
hence the substitute was calculated 10 in
crease the expenses of the State, so that
we would have TO carry the odium OF
such a law without any compensating ad-
yantaees in the reduction of expenses.
Mr. Saunders said the effect of the bill
offered by him would be to send parties
convicted for the second offence Of lar
ceny TO the penitentiary, where they
could be worked to advantage, thereby
effecting a saving in criminal expenses.
Mr.. Walker agreed with Mr.. Saunders.
OPPOSED TO INFLICTING STRIPES.
DIR. Quesenberry was opposed to any bill
reviving the whipping post as mode or
punishment. If such law was enacted,
the State of Virginia would place itself
in opposition to the whole civilized world,
with the exception OF the single state or
Delaware The white men would not
come under the operation of the law
L
while II would be apparent that IT was
aimed at the colored race
Mr. Parker was heartily In favor OF
this substitute and would even like to see
the original bill enacted into a law. de
drew a comparison Of the parent whip
ming a child and the operation Of this
law, one was no more brutal than the
other.
CAPTAIN Parks said he had not intro
duced the bill I'm order to make the pun
ishment more severe, and If the morals
of the people would prevent them from
committing crimes. he would not be In
favor of any punishment.
THE BILL DEFEATED.
The question then came up on agreeing
m the substitute for Bill 4Sl, and the
former was defeated by vote OF 43 TO z,
recorded as follows;
Aves-Nfessrs. Bland c. T. Booker,
Duke. Fitzpatrick, Folkes, Hanson, lvey,
IT. d. Jennings, Jones, Kizer, James
Mann. Maupin Murphy, Parker, Parks,
Powell Snead, Turner, Willard, Wood,
and Mr.. Speaker-2.
Noes-Messrs Anderson, Bauserman,
Derrev. Blakemore, Buford, Caldwell,
Campbell. T. J. Darlington. Chaplin,
Cooke. Digs. Elswick, Embrey, Garnett,
Goad. Hale. Hatcher, Hicks, Lovelace,
Newberne, Palmer. Pitcher, Quesenberry,
Reddy. Saunders, Sayers. Settle. ]. p.
smith Charles Smith, Stubs, Surgener,
switzer. Taylor, Turpin, Wallace, c. II.
walker. S. II. Walker. Watkins. Well
cd Wharton. williams, Winston, and