found, by universal experience, to produce a condition the very opposite of that which we desire; viz., instead of its being an example for good, it is an example for evil, as we have abundantly proven by an appeal to facts, during the progress of this work.*

The third object of punishment is, Restitution or Compensation. It is no more than right, if a thief steals my purse, or a robber enter my house and carry off my property, that he be made to restore it. I am aware that this principle is not recognized in our penal codes. A man may steal a thousand dollars, be convicted and serve out his time in the penitentiary, return to the world and become wealthy; but the law does not demand that he restore the stolen property. This is wrong. Individual as well as general interests should be recognized and taken care of by "the powers that be." Reparation should be madc. Both the law of Moses and the Christian rule demand it. "If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep."+

Now, if the principle of restitution were incorporated into our penal codes, and offenders should be made to recompense a fair equivalent, either in money or by their labor in prison, those whom they had wronged by theft or robbery, it would not only approve itself to their minds as an act of reason, but it would enforce a lesson of justice, which must prove beneficial, while at the same time it would serve, in part, as punishment for the offense.

But what we desire to say in this connection is, that even if our penal codes were based on the principle involved here, the killing of one man could never restore the

* See the xii. chapter of this work, in which this point is fully discussed. + Exodus, xxii. 1.

life of his murdered victim. It could not give back to the weeping widow and sorrowing children, the slain husband and father. He is gone, and the sacrifice of ten thousand lives could not restore him to the arms of those beloved, or return him in health to society. No reparation can be made for this dreadful deed save it be by the positive repentance of the heart of the murderer, manifested in a constant desire to employ a whole life of labor for the welfare and happiness of those who specially suffered by the death of the slain victim. Thus do we see that all the legitimate aims of punishment are denied by the gallows. Strangling men on the gibbet till they are dead will neither reform them, prevent others from the committal of crime, nor bring back to life the murdered victim.

Now, with all these plain reasons against the Death Penalty, shall we still continue it upon our statute books? "I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say."

CHAPTER XVI.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

The Murderer not fit to Live-Give him time to Repent, then hang him-Not entitled to Live Sufferings of the Innocent-Interesting Incident Lecount and his Mother -Col. Hayne and his Son-James Dawson and his intended Bride Conclusion.

We close what we have to offer in this work on the Death Penalty, by a consideration of a few objections which are sometimes brought in favor of the gallows.

'THE MURDERER IS NOT FIT TO LIVE!'

But is he fit to die? May be you are a professed Christian. Be cautious; you tread on dangerous ground here! Suppose the sentiment so generally taught in Christian books and Christian pulpits be true; viz: that the sinner who dies with his soul unregenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit, will be consigned to a hell of infinite and endless anguish, can you have it in your heart to hasten his exit from this state of probation? He is a murderer; and "ye know that no murderer HATH eternal life abiding in him!"* I appeal to you, fellow Christian, in the name of mercy, and of Him from whom you expect mercy, I ask, will you hasten the doom of the wretched victim? You have him safely secured by bolts and bars. He can no longer injure any living creature. Will you deny

him the poor boon of life a little longer? It may be he is innocent. Will you take him from his stone cell, from his wife and children, from father and mother, and thrust

1 John iii. 15.

him speedily out of life, where he might have repented, down into a never dying hell, where repentance can never, NEVER come?

"BUT I WOULD GIVE HIM TIME TO REPENT."

Yes, you would give him time to repent:-you would prepare his soul for the purity and bliss of heaven; make of him a saint fit for glory, and then with your Christian hands strangle the life out of him on a gibbet. Yes, if he were innocent you would do this, if you conceived him to be guilty. You would do it for your "brother in Christ." Many a Christian has been thus strangled by the hands of Christians:-In our own country, the act is perpetrated every year or month-whilst the "minister of God" stands by, with Bible in hand, and pronounces the doomed culprit a "hopeful subject of immortal felicity."

Now, to us there appears but little really Christian or necessary in all this. "As I live saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the sinner THAT REPENTETH, but rather that he should turn and live." If God has no pleasure in the death of a REPENTANT sinner, why should man? Why should society? Christian society? especially when the offender is now a pure, good Christian with a heart full of love to God and love to man, and, therefore, just fit to live. How singular that we should conceive it either necessary or in harmony with the demands of Christianity to kill one who, after weeks or months of prayerful exertion, God has converted into a saint. He is no longer a murderer, but a brother Christian. Why should we kill him? "If thy brother trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him."* The friend of the gallows will give

*Luke xvii: 4.

the murderer time to repent, he says, but after he repents, what then? Will he "forgive" him? Not he. But he will administer to him the eucharist in his stone cell, then lead him, with a halter about the neck, to the gallows, make a hypocritical prayer over him, pull down the cap, give the hangman the wink, and as the drop falls and the body of his brother sways to and fro convulsed in death, he rolls his eyes up to heaven and asks God to have mercy on his soul, when he himself will have no mercy, not even on his body; for in an hour it will be cut down and sent to the dissecting room.

It may be said here that this same argument may be employed against the law that would imprison the repentant criminal. We answer, that the two cases are not parallel. Strangling or beheading or shooting a fellow creature is a work of blood and vengeance, and the worst and most unchristian use you can put him to: while by a proper imprisonment, he is taken on a sort of probation, and may be instructed, disciplined and blest, through the very means of confinement. Indeed, as we shall show in the second part of this work, this should be the leading object of punishment by imprisonment.

"BUT THE MURDERER IS NOT ENTITLED TO LIVE.” Would you say that, my Christian friend, if he were your father, or husband, or brother? Oh, my God, how heartless and inconsiderate we are! "When we see a

man led to the gallows," says a thoughtful Christian writer of England, we should say, "there goes my father -there goes my son." If this were the spirit which pervaded society, could we say, "the murderer has no claims to life? Why should we be so indifferent to the wretchedness that is the necessary consequence of hang. ing, simply because those who suffer are strangers to us?