Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-01-14

No l3-To regulate sale of cider n
Highland county.
No. ii6-To amend section 2s72 Of Code
IN relation to limited partnerships.
SENATE BILLS PASSED.
No. G5-To amend section 3l7 Of the Cod,
TN relation TO Increase Of the number ol
stan Of State militia
No. Ito provide for the funding Of
| the public debt.
NO so-For the relief OLA s. swindal
ana others
No. 17-Bil 20 incorporate the Ware
house Company OF Richmond
THE SUGAR-BEET BILL.
On motion Of Mr.. Turnbun the Senate
! reconsidered the vote by which the
amendments to the bill Incorporating the
| Virginia Sugar Refining Company were
adopted Tuesday. when the bill came up
on its second reading on that day. The
bill then went over.
The senate adjourned at 215 o'clock.
House of Delegates.
The session OF the House was largely
devoted TO a discussion OF Mr.. Murphy
whipping-pOst bill, and an exceedingly
interesting and lively debate was had
on the measure. Mr.. Murphy made a
strong speech in advocacy OF his bill
Messrs. Parker and Folkes, both Of
whom made able addresses. Mr.. G. NJ
Wallace, Jr., opposed the measure, and
made strong speech setting forth his
reasons therefor. a vote was not reached.
The bill having been made special
and continuing order for / 80 o'clock, was
called promptly at that hour. and Mr.
Murphy took the floor lie spoke for an
hour or more and made a most logical
ffN lI.fr Ia ftI L.,
he gave a most interesting history OF
the whipping-post law from its enact
ment in 1925 10 its repeal I'm lSS2. tracing
10 through its various vicissitudes and
amendments. Discussing the contention
which has been made that this mode OF
punishment Is cruel and barbarous. he
called attention To the fact that during
the many years the law stood on the
statute books the ablest and best mer
the State ever produced sat in the halls
Of legislation. They never asked for
the repeal of tAe law. nc said. and it was
not repealed until the State went into
the hands OF its enemies
ONLY A POLITICAL ARGUMENT.
The only argument of any weight
which has been urged against his bill, Nh
Murphy said. WAS a political one. and
this contention was the one that was
frightening the Legislators and causing
them 70 quake in their boots. lie wanted
IL distinctly understood that he was not
afraid Of his constituency where ques-
ton Of right was involved. and he pur-
posed doing his duty, as he conceived Il
whether he was reelected or not.
The speaker then submitted some facts
and figures concerning the law. He said
That in 1881. while the law was in ope-
ration, there were 1893 criminals sent 10
the penitentiary, and In 1897 there We're
5iJ sent there: IN 1851 the States crimi-
nal expenses were $l3l 900. and in 1885,
they were S322.0OO The State during this
time the gentleman continued, had been
spending SlOO1,00O per year TO educate its
children and still its criminal expenses
had increased nearly 300 per cent. while
It's population had increased only about
l6 per cent-l.i3 cOlOred and 1924 white
Discussing TIE contention of brutality.
Mr. Murphy said If the law was brutal
it was sanctioned for years by the best
Christian men OF the State. He then ar
gued the question from standpoint Of
economy, and after setting forth that the
$4,000 increase in interest on the States
bonds will soon have 90 be provided for
he asserted that by the introduction of
a whipping-post law the State would save
great sums I'm criminal expenses. and
would not only prevent crime but would
pile money up in its Treasury.
At this juncture Mr. Murphy delved
into Biblical history 10 show the justice
of the law and Mr.. Reddy asked If the
Bible didn't teach that they were about
to scourge Paul. and did not do it be-
cause he was a Roman citizen.
At this Mr. Parker sprang TO his feet
and said that they did not scourge the
Apostle because he had the right of APP
peal 10 Caesar.
SOME LESSONS AT HOME.
After this little dlt alr. Murphy pre-
scented some more figures showing that
in the Richmond city Jail there are now
22l criminals who are being boarded at |
cost Of $4,000 per year 10 the State lie |
asserted that Virginia was paying S7O,CO0 |
q year for feeding prisoners i'm the va |
IiOus jails within a stones throw of the |
Capitol, and cited an instance Of a negro |
I'm the city Jail who has been there for
four years and six months. costing the
state 500 for his keeping, and growing so
fat as TO make il almost impossible for
him 10 walk. He told OF another case
in HcnrlcO, where a man was convicted OF
the theft of SIG and given thirty days In
JAIL At the expiration Of his term he
was given an S suit of clothes by the /
state. and had really been paid S2l and
board for doing nothing for thirty days.
This, he argued. was placing a premium
on crime.
SUPPORTED by MIR. PARKER.
When Mr. Murphy concluded. Mr.
Parker took the floor and announced
himself as being heartily I'm favor of the
bill. lie was opposed, he said to the
popular fad Of giving sympathy TO crimi-
lals and was sisgusted when he read OF
aides visiting and sending flowers TO
prominent criminals. In order 10 prevent
certain crimes, he said. the law. must in
iict punishment, no matter how cruel, If
Q would have the desired effect II the
stripes were too cruel TO be administered,
ranging should be considered i'm the same
.ategOry. Hanging. he thought. was more
'ruel than whipping but still il was the
most humane method of nhicting capital
and capital punishment was
considered an absolute necessity for the
protection Of the community.
After calling attention 10 the fact that
he late John Il. Minor frequently eX-
oriated the Legislature for its repeal OF
he whipping-post law Mr. Parker dis
ussed the question of the disgrace that
{ IS contended attaches 20 stripes. Ask
ns the question. What constitutes the
Iisgrace? the speaker answered it with
he assertion that the penal offence itself
isgraced the prisoner, and not the lashes
he received. Mr.. Parker then asserted
hat many law-breakers did not fear i'm
Irisonment, but rather liked II. and con-
luded with the statement that all harsh
less had been eliminated from the bill
" the exception from its operations OF
men over 60 years Of age and women,
nd by the grant Of authority TO magis-
rates TO substitute Imprisonment where
here were eytenuating circumstances.