The New Northwest

LETTER FROM OLNEY.

To the Editor of the New Northwest:

In your journal of the 10th of April, I noticed an article, written by Burnham Wardell, of New Jersey, from which I clip the following:

"If the wicked are turned into hell with all those who forget God, hell must be a very large place. '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 hath no pleasure in the death of a repentant sinner, why should man? Why should Christian society? especially after the one who is to be choked to death has become a pure, good Christian, with his heart full of love to God and man, actually praying for the hangman who is adjusting the rope about his neck. Is this in harmony with the demands of Christianity? I think not. Why should this man be killed? '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 article was headed "A capital communication on capital punishment," thus giving it at least the appearance of your endorsement. The quotation given sounded so strange and unfamiliar that I took some trouble to examine my concordance and Bible in search of it. The nearest approach the most diligent search has made to it is the following (Ezekiel 33:11): "Say unto them as I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live." The writer appears to mix up his ideas on the question he attempts to explain, seeming to be opposed to both Christianity and to hanging a human being for taking the life of a fellow-being, because we are taught to forgive a common trespasser that repents seven times.

The principle of forgiveness is a noble one, but the principle of preserving human life is superior to that of forgiving the one that willfully takes away human life. We may forgive the criminal, but he has forfeited his life in taking that of a fellow-being or brother. In doing so, the law fulfills the first principle of self-preservation for human life. Human nature is such that experience has taught that repentance in view of the gallows is not a safe-guard against a repetition of the same crime. But "why should this man be killed?" He has repented and become a Christian; why not imprison him for life? Several of the States that have experimented on that Utopian idea have been compelled to erect the gallows and choke to death the murderer, not for the purpose of getting rid of the murderer, but in consequence of the mildness of the prison penalty and its influence upon such as are disposed to commit the crime. Christian professions and dogmas give no protections against drunkards, liars, thieves, robbers or murderers, hence the honest, moral, virtuous and religious element of society must unite to protect its own existence. The law of self-preservation is the only one that can be relied upon, hence it must conform to rules, mild or severe. The halter is a terror to evil-doers. The prison is not. Penalties are designed to be reformatory upon the violator of the rights of others. In the case of taking life every other life is exposed. The halter is the most common instrument and the most effectual safe-guard of life among civilized nations. Among the savage tribes, the knife, the arrow, the rifle or a deadly poison is the instrument of death.

The writer of the article under consideration appears, like many others, to think that the God who created and peopled this little earth, and set it and its accompanying planets in motion, cannot find a place in his universe to confine those who rebel against his benevolent designs. He forgets that the same God who created life and thought for him has established, first, the law of love to care for, feed and clothe him, and that the same kind care is over him in all his unbelief and waywardness, notwithstanding he is inclined to doubt the capacity and existence of such a being and law of love, and makes a plea against the God that gave him life, and then attempts to plead for a life that has violated the first law of love and taken the life of a fellow-creature. The law of life for life is the only safe law of life.

But Mr. Wardwell asks, when the rope is about the criminal's neck and he forgives and prays for the hangman, "Is this in harmony with the demands of Christianity?"

We answer most assuredly, it is. The crime is committed; none but the criminal should suffer the penalty.

Respectfully yours,

X.

Olney, Oregon, April 29.