The Debate ON Capital Punishmen''
{"character_count": 6329, "word_count": 1130, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9645000100135803], "ccnet_perplexity": [2093.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
And colonze the moon. .. V. ".


The Debate ON Capital Punishment.


To the Editor of 1hs Tribune:


SIR: have been made of late the object OF nc
amall amoun, of abuse, both in sorae of the papers
which are strongly enlisted in favor of maintaining
the Punishment of Death, ahd in the articles o
correspondents in your own columns. Io all this
far from retorting, I shsl not even reply. That
parallelis,n of mind and character which should
suggest the juxtaposition Of my name with that o.
observation-disclosures, at the outset of the French
Revolution, before its sIuces Of blood were opened
he was an advocate of the total abolition of the
Punishment of DEATH must fain leave to be
traced by those who know me. To your CORES.
pondent g. I~will simply suggest that it nigh,
have been well to read the article in the Demo.
cratic Review before indulging in language in re-
laton to it so little in harmony with at least my
aheory of what is due from gentlemen to him.
self, from Christian to bis neighbor, and from
every man to the obligations of justice and truth


With respect to the article in question in the D
II. entitled g The GalloUs and the Gospel, an Ap-
: peel to Clergynaen opposing Themselves to the
abolition Of the One az the name Of The Otser,'
e-this alliterative connection of term, may may
.rot have been in the best Of TASTE Frankly, do
not think it was. 1t might have been more pro-
dent too, to have couched in more delicate phrase
she idea referred to at its commencement, of the
special manner in which portion Of the Clergy
have undertaken peculiar professional patronage
and protection of the "instisution" and the "irdi-
viduaP' which it seems forbidden 10 style in plain
English the Galiows and the Hangman. But there
=sas nothing init ieither unjust unknd to any body
Personal offence was expressly deprecated, and it
was Ia terms admitted that al those whom it could
st all reach were " sustained undoubtedly by full
sense Of right, In both its religious and moral as
poets - and that the cause they so vehemently
tond for TO them is good one because they re-
gard it so" And one higaly intelligent paper thar
has fallen under my eye, the Pathfinder, remarked
of it, that it does not like the aruce because ii
treats the Capital Punishment bgsts too dainlily,
but perhaps it is as we'll to be courteous"


The whole article was closely ergumentative
and critical, defying and inviting reutatou, avow-
edly editorial, and offering the pages of the Re-
view itself for that purpose with frank lberality
and trust in the truth, Of which ! regret not to
have seen more on the other side in this controver
sy. The opening expressions which have excited
no much bitterness of resentment were perfectly
within the scope Of fair controversy, for the pur-
pose of shedowing forth what regarded as
the real character Of this movement, in support Of
the galows antagonist to the true spirit OF the
gospel, in terms of strength calculated to arrest
strongly the thought and conscience of the Glass
addressed, even though they seemed at first to
plant rather rough and painful wound. The
feeling which they have caused thus to forth
proves only the depth TO which the sharp probe Of
lhe truth they contained, struck home according
TO its aim. l can readily forgive the personal
abuse thus elected, nor have allowed the kindly
cslnness of my own mind, on this subject, 10 be
IN the least ruthed by it all. However may re-
gret to be personally the object OF such uncomfort
able feelings of the most unjust bitterness the
part of any one, yet l cannot but be glad to see
such Involuntary and unconscious tributes TO the
truth,--for why, shy should it be felt be so in.
sulsing, the imputston TO a portion of the Clerg.
OF the special championship of the Gallows and
ths HangmaB, if the former be indeed SO high and
sacred institution of God, and the latter its ne
cessary and hsayen-ordained miuster2


few words to your correspondent of this morn.
ing, Justice, on some points of fact, on which he
has placed himself directly at issue with me. had
not intended TO say any thing further this head,
but when thus drawn out by his most extraordinary
misstatements, Will now say most emphaticaly.
that on the occasion of the so-called Debate IL
the Tabernacle, the most unequal and unfair ad.
vantage ,cas taken of the side advocated by me
such advantage as may be taken once Of any man.
but not easily fsoice. alude more par,icular,
TO the proceedings Of the second evening. I hao
always understood, and stated from the beginning
that on the two allotted evenings Of debate each
side was TO have alternately the privilege OF clos
ing; thar on the 6rse evening was to occupy the
first and Mr.. Cheever the latter half of the even.
ing, and that on the seoend, rice rerse 1 was to
have the reply TO him. / should certainly have
never consented to any other arrangement M,
understanding was derived from the gentleman
through whom it was made, Mr. Wedgwood, who
was the author and manager of the whole cours.
debates, and corresponds that still entertained
py MIN. | accordingly, on the drss evening, EN-.
ptacea within my hour both of the tive leading
psaaenes OF the question-thae of Biblical author.
Ny ana OF practical expediency. The reader cat
Juuse how iar that understanding was confirmed By
Inc opeplnS words of Mr.. Cheeveg's reply on tina,
evening, wa'ch was to the effect that he would d.
S'oe a's soment into two par,s-the 6rs, on the
Scriptrral question, TO which he would piy. ,ha,
evening, and the other on the question Of n,,;cv
which be would reserve for the succeeding on. !.
IF be did not then understand the arrsnssnen,
q. it was understood by both Of the o,be
parties in ii, he al least, most certainly in this re-


specr, acted as if ne did. On the intervening Mon.
day evening, unwilling 10 be again subjected to
the obvious advantage, on the other side, of hsv.
ing written discourse in reply occupy the con.
oladtng half of the evening, sent Mr. Wedgwood
TO Mr.. Cheeyer to make sure that there was no
misunderstanding on this point. He brought back
reply that on the contrary Mr. Cheever wishec
again to have the latter half Of the time. Tothi>
replied Peremptoriy that would never Consent
TO it. both for the sake of the Importance of the
privilege itself, and on account Of what regarded