The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-16

record ninoty-six per cent. OF cures.
my absence from the city this paragraph
appeared in the Richmond Dispatch:
Since it has been learned through the
Dispatch that the committee which inves-
tigated the charges against Judge y. 5.
Turnbull Of Brunswick county Will re-
port vindicating him. there have been
rumors OF a probable movement to i'm
peach Delegate F.. p. Buford, who was
the accuser.'
As do not know positively who is re-
spongible for the rumors alluded 10 in
this publication. am in doubt as to how
l should reply to it.
If am to Judge the other members OF
this House by those whose personal ac-
quantance It has been my pleasure TO
form / should say there is no sentiment
in the House which warrants this PUBL
cation / have not seen member VINO mas
heard OF such a movement as the DIS
patch has referred 20. And as the Dis
patch Is the only paper which has heard
the rumors 81 has published, ! am con-
WINGED that these rumOrs did not originate
in this House.
have not yet seen the report OF the
Investigating Committee, but II the com
mittee have prepared a indicative re-
port. and will say that Judge Turnbull
is M person to be made judge Of
Brunswick county. II is an affair for the
consciences Of the members Of the COM
mittee. rot mine. know that the
facts. which under sense of representa-
tive duty, I have stated upon this floor.
are true. and no man in this State knows
II better than Judge Turnbull himself
have stated that ] do not believe the
rumors which the Dispatch has heard
originated in this House. II l am mis-
taken i'm this belief. wish to be distinct
~ understood as challenging the most
scrutinzng investigation both as TO the
facts which ! have stated and the motive
by which / have been actuated.
do Injustice, however to the members
Of this House in even surprising the exist
ence of desire 10 degrade a member for
discharging his duty but as this publica-
tion has been made and as 7 believe it
places the members of the House as well
as myself I'm false attitude. | considered
it my duty 10 reply to it as have done.
OFFERS A SUBSTITUTE.
Mr. Parks then addressed the House in
opposition to the bill. lie spoke substan-
TALLY as follows
IL cannot support the bill under discus
sion for Il two-fod reason. In the first
place. it provides in its first section that
stripes shall not be inflicted on women or
men over sixty years Of age, but it does
not provide punishment Of any kind
for those two classes of people, but alb
solutely relieves them from any Kind of
punishment In the second place, l think
this bill, If il should become a law,
would be unconstitutional, for while 1t
provides for an appeal in case person
has been sentenced to stripes, 1t does not
make any such provision for any other
punishment
The sole argument used in favor Of the
bill before Us has been that its enact
ment would save the State money, and
that II was public policy TO pass such a
bill / am not in sympathy with such
sentiments. and do not think that such
a law would cause much saving, If any.
IT, on the other hand, relief was offered
by the bill in some form, | would not op-
pose 1t.
In my county during the past two
years only three cases of petit larceny
have been tried that ended in convic-
ton. and, If the experience in the other
counties of the State has been similar
one then | cannot see where great
saving should come from by the enacting
of such a law. one source OF unnecessary
expenses may be found in the long~con-
hnement in Jail after conviction. and a
practical illustration has been furnished
by the gentleman from Richmond, who
cited a case where a negro had been con-
yictcd of six cases of petit larceny at the
same time. and in each particular case
WAS sentenced TO imprisonment in jail
for six months.
IF il should be necessary for the cor
recton of evil, l am willing 10 nave
stripes imposed. and l now offer sub
stitute for the bill under discussion. the
provisions of which j may be permitted
TO explain briefly
THE present law provides as punish
ment for petit larceny confinement in
iail for from fifteen days TO six months,
or a fine of from five to a hundred dol
lars or both. My amendment, as express
ed I'm the substitute, provides that the
confinement in Jail for petit larceny
stealing less than the value of 500 shall
not exceed thirty days. IL retains the
fine of the present law of from hve 10 a
hundred dollars or both punishments.
For a second offence. however, under the
provisions of the substitute, the sullly
party shall be punished with stripes not
less than five nor more than thirty, ana
this punishment shall not be optlonai WIN
the court. but mandatory
SHOULD BE FELONY.
Mr. Saunders. of Franklin. suggested
that II might be advisable to make the
second offence a felony. and send the
guilty person 10 the penitentiary. mas
much as the inmates of that institution
were no longer a burden TO the STATE
No action was taken on this SUGGESTION
III has been argued on this floor. CON
tnued Mr.. Parks. that If II was leit
optional TO the court to infiict stripes no
h. 1thinn4N
opinion is that II a white man steals he
should be more vigorously punished than
the colored man. II either one commits
a second offeuse OF petit larceny then let
him be striped.
"If this provision Of my substitute 10
/ carried out then II will be necessary TO
amend another section Of the Code which
now provides that second cenvicuon
OF peti. larceny shall be punished with
twelve months In Jail"
DR.. Winston. Of Hanover. wanted to
know II 1t would not be . rather good