Year: 1873

HON. B. f. SPRIGGS,


Of Noble, in the Ohio House Of Repre-


sentatives, April l, 1873, on House


Blu No. 447, BY Mr.. Pillars, to repeal


the Death Penalty.


MR. SPEAKER: The very able, and
rather exhaustive, Report presented to
this House by the minority of the Com
mittee on the Judiciary. would seem to
leave but little to be said by the friends
of this bill 1t would be presumptuous
in me, perhaps, TO suppose that anything
| may be able to say now can effect the
result of the vote about to be taken 1t
is probable that everv gentleman on this
floor has his mind made up as to how
he shall vote. But in view of the great
importance of the question presented;
in view of my very decided convictions,
and of the fact that have the opportu.
nifty now-an opportunity that | may
never have again--to raise my voice as
a legislator against the continuance of
what / cannot but regard as very great
wrong, feel constrained to ask the in
diligence of the House, for short time,
to permit me to present some of the rea-
sons why l believe this bill ought to
pass.


Should I fail to avail myself of the
opportunity now presented, should not
feel that l had done my whole duty
Having assumed the responsibilities, al
though may be but one of the hum
best of the lawmakers Of this great
State,I feel it to be my duty to do what
ever can do to accomplish the pro-
posed reform. If we fail, and legalized
murder, conducted under the forms Of
law, is to continue to disgrace the State,
l for one shall feel that the blood Of the
unfortunate wretches who in the future
may yield up their lives in obedience to
the stern demands of sanguinary and
harbarous law, will not stain my hands


/ know very well how tenaciously we
cling TO long established institutions !;
how hard it is TO get out Of the old
grooves in which we have long been &C
customed to run, and how difficult we
find to convince ourselves that laws,
customs, and usages, that come to US, al
most unquestioned from remote antiqni-
tv, perpetuated by the appreciation Of a
long succession of ages, require sweep.
ing radical changes. 1t is we'll that it is
so. For although all reform.in the very
nature of things, presupposes change,
vet change is not always Improvement.
y is best, therefore, that we should well
consider before we adopt proposed chan-
ges in long established systems While
this is true, however, it seems to me,
that where, from altered circumstances
or conditions, a reform is clearly deman-
ded, we should not hesitate, although to
accomplish such reform, we are required
to turn our hacks upon customs as old
as the primitive rocks themselves.


Now, l do not insist that capital pun
ishi'ent is wrong per Sc, any more than
l would claim that killing in self-defense
is inexcusable. Both are justihab.e un-
der certain circumstances, ,and both upon
precisely the same ground-ahsolute
overpowering necessity. The taking of
human life, in my judgment, whether by
the individual, or that aggregation of
individuals, that we call State, can be
justified upon no other ground. Now,we
hold the individual justified who,to. save
his own life, takes that Of his assailant;
provided, always, that no less amount of
force could, with reasonable probability,
etfectually protect him against the mur-
derous assault. But if it is clearly within
his power to prevent the injury by the
employment of less force, and he
through anger or revenge takes the life
OF the wrong doer-if, being assailed. he
repels force with force, and having disa
bled his antagonist, still persists and
takes the assailant's life, he is not justi-
fable he has passed the line of justifa-
BILE homicide, is himself wrong-doer,
and proper subject for punishment
To put strong case: Suppose strong,
stalwart, powerful man is attacked by a
mere child-a small boy armed with a
deadly weapon, and with mnrderous in
tent. The man thus attacked, would
have the right to prevent the contempla-
ted murder, even if to do so, he should
he compelled to kill the attacking party.
But suppose he; by reason of his supe-
rior physical power, is able to seize and
disarm his weaker assailant, and having
done so, and after the danger to himself
is past, and his unresisting antagonist is
completely within his power, he deibe'
rately takes the life Of the fist wrong.
doer, all men, think will concur. in de,
claring the act not only high crime, ,btt


mean and dastardly in the extreme.


The State is only an aggregation oi
the people, or individuals composing it
From the people it derives all its just
powers. The stream cannot rise above
the fountain. A right not abstractly
possessed by the people, individually
cannot be acquired nor delegated by the
people, collectively. We Cannot dele
gate powers that we do not possess
That which Is criminal in the individual
cannot be commendable, or even limo,
cent in the State That whch is mean


cowardly, despicable, in the individual
citizen, cannot become brave, noble ano
grand because performed by the State -
The case of the infieiion Of punishment


by the State so far Is can see; doe


not differ, SO far as the principle is in


volved, from that of the individual al


ready supposed The State, by the pun
ishment of the murderer, does not un


dertake to restore the murderer's victim


to life. nor do anything for the benefit o


the victim That is indeed beyond til,


reach of human laws. The only objec


of the punishment is to prevent the com


mission of other murders Nor can th'
law operate prospectively save by exam
pie. Before you can punish for murder


murder must be committed. The murder


er must be arrested, tried and convicted
Now it is to prevent another crime, not tt
unlo the one already committed,tha tn
+ law lays its heavy hand upon the often
der. Before he can be punished at all
he must be rendered completely power
less, for either aggression or Defense
He must then submit to whatever pun
shment may he inflicted. The State ha
him completely within its power; can ca
silly contine him for life, and thus make
it impossible for him to further moles