Year: 1876

terests but with human life-the dearest of all in
terests. They should be considered without pref
udicc or prejudgment, our only anxiety being to
know the truth. Passing over all questions touch
ing the sacredness of human life, laying aside for
this discussion the authority Of the Bible, which
deem conclusive, admit the right of the State to
take human life-provided always and ever that
the great preliminary fact is estabishcd-that such
taking necessary for the protection Of the State
and the lives Of the citizens thereof. These two
facts must be afRrmativey proved and that beyonda
reasonable doub., before there be found a
shadow of right to take human life 1t must be
shown that the longer living Of the homicide is a
menace to the State and the lives of the citizens
thereof before you may even presume to touch the
life Does the living of the homicide end anger,
and put in jeopardy the lives of the people,


God, who knows oil things, did not SO regard it,


in His dealing with Cain. the murderer of his
brother Abel just the reverse. lie protected Cain
by Divine dictum. If Caiu's living was men
ace to the lives of the living, then God was un-
mindful Of the lives of His children. This we
know could not be. Here was the first murder
the first recorded death. God was with His chill
dren in this their day Of afflction, teaching them
how to deal with the wicked and erring, even with
the murderer. In that dealing there was to be NO
revenge. no life for life the judgment He then
and there endered was to be the rule by which
His children were to be governed in like cases.
1t was the Divine law. touching murder.


Let us examine the history Of the death penalty
and see how far its history demon trates neces
sty for the taking Of human life, how and in what
manner it has been or is protection against
crime. England in l1SS, had two hundred and
fifty crimes, the punishment Of which was death.
To-day she has but two-murder and treason.
Yet life and property were never more secure in
England than to-day. Some States Of Europe
have wholly abolished the death penalty, with the
most happy results. The Grand Duchy of Weimsr
abolished the death penalty in l849, in 1866
it was re-enacted, in 1852 motion made in
the Diet TO abolish it again. During the discus
sion it declared, aud not denied, that between
lS49 and 1857, when there was no death penalty,
only two murders were committed, but that since
the re-enactment, they had increased tenfold. The
Diet abolished it again and it so remains.


The same may be said of Belgium. In Liege,
Limburg and Lu1emburg. there has not been an
execution in forty-fve years; and the same au-
thority adds, Thus the charge of murder is very
rare" Hollands example and experience is the
same. Portugal and Tuscany may be cited as
showing an experience largely against the utility
of the gallows as q protection against homicide.
In our own country several States have abolished
the death penalty with like results, Wisconsin,
Rhode Island, Michigan, Iowa and others. In
Wisconsin it has been abolished twenty years,
in Michigan many more, with results most salts
factory 1n all these States different punishment
is inflicted, more certain, more effective, as the
above facts conclusively show. From the above
facts argue that the death penalty is not neces-
sity, because it does not prevent crime, does not
render life more secure, it does not reform the
homicide. The above facts and history and many
others Of like character that might be cited, and
the undeniabe fact that must impress itself on the
minds of all thoughtful men, that in the States
where the gaows may be truthfully said to be 10
constant operation as in New Hampshire, Massa-
chusetts and New York, there the crime of
homicide i, fearfully on the increase show most
conclusively that the galows is protection to
human lfe that the peace Of the State, the secur-
ity of the individual, is not enhanced by bloody
enactments. Granted that the State may do all
things to save the lives of the people. it may do
nothing for revenge, and when it undertakes to
take AS. life because A. has taken BIS. without
afirmatively proving necessity for such taking,
it is murder. The rule of law that is to govern
the individual should govern the State. If am
assailed, assaulted, my life threatened, l am to
use no more force than is necessary to repe the
assault If can lay hold Of my assalant and
hold him till deliverance come may do that, moth
ing more. 1t is only when l am driven to the
corner that / may harm his person even, much
more touch his life If harm his person even, !
am to show afirmatively a necessity for my act
If take his life l must show affirmatvely that
such taking was necessary for the preservation Of
my own or am murderer under our law. Can
the State be held by rule less strict Imprison-
ment for life as in the States and countries before
cited, gives all the protection and more than the
gallows, then the Stetc must stop there. To 60
further and take the life would be revenge-life
for life-a right not delegated by mana crime
forbidden of God. 1t was said last year in answer
| to this question, by q learned gentleman from
Portland, that we don't know how much protec
| ton the gallows give to human life. Don't know
then you have no case. Demanding blood, without
knowing why Erecting the gibbett and guessing
| at the necessity for victim won't do --on such
peadipgs you must 60 out of Court. Let me say
to that gentleman, and to all others who demand
the life OF the homicide that you have no right to
make such demand, until you show necessity
by proof affirmative that the longer living of the
homicide is a menace to the. State and the life Of
the ciiizen--that his executive will give greater
security to human life, than his imprisonment fol
life would give; that the former is remedy


more certain and effective than the latter. ii.
|


William Lloyd Garrison is confined to his room
by protracted illness.