sometimes rather ludicrous than severe. In the town of Arlington
lived a doctor who openly professed himself a partizan of
New-York, and was accustomed to speak disrespectfully of the
Convention and Committees, espousing the cause of the New-York
Claimants, and advising people to purchase lands under their
title. He was admonished by his neighbors, and made to understand
that this tone of conversation was not acceptable, and was
requested to change it, or at least to show his prudence by
remaining silent. Far from operating any reform--these hints only
stirred up the ire of the courageous doctor, who forthwith armed
himself with pistols and other weapons of defence, proclaiming
his sentiments more boldly than ever, setting opposition at
defiance, and threatening to try the full effects of his personal
powers and implements of warfare on any man who should have the
temerity to approach him with an unfriendly design. Such a boast
was likely to call up the martial spirits of his opponents, who
accordingly came upon the doctor at an unguarded moment and
obliged him to surrender at discretion. He was then transferred
to the Green Mountain Tavern, in Bennington, where he was
arraigned before the Committee, who, not satisfied with his
defence, sentenced him to a novel punishment, which they ordered
to be put in immediate execution.
"Before the door of this tavern, which served the double purpose
of a court-house and an inn, stood a sign-post twenty-five feet
high, the top of which was adorned with the skin of a Catamount,
stuffed to the size of life, with its head turned towards
New-York, and its jaws distended, showing large naked teeth, and
grinning terror to all who should approach from that quarter. It
was the judgment of the court that the contumacious doctor should
be tied in a chair and drawn up by a rope to the Catamount, where
he was to remain suspended two hours--which punishment was
inflicted in the presence of a numerous assemblage of people,
much to their satisfaction and merriment. The doctor was then let
down and permitted to depart to his own house."
_Salem Observer_, April 12, 1834.
-------------------------
From the "Essex Register," Feb. 19, 1820.
Burning of a Negro in Georgia.
From the Augusta (Geo.) Chronicle, Feb. 1.
_Execution_.--On Friday last two negro men, named Ephraim and
Sam, were executed in conformity to their sentence for the
murder of their master, Mr. Thomas Hancock, of Edgefield
District, South Carolina; Sam was burnt, and Ephraim hung, and
his head severed from his body and publicly exposed. The
circumstances attending the crime for which these miserable
beings have suffered, were of a nature so aggravated as
imperiously demanded the terrible punishment which has been
inflicted upon them.
The burning of malefactors is a punishment only resorted to
when absolute necessity demands a signal example. It must be a
horrid and appalling sight to see a human being consigned to
the flames. Let even Fancy picture the scene,--the pile, the
stake, the victim! The mind sickens, and sinks under the
oppression of its own feelings. What then must be the dread
reality! From some of the spectators we learn that it was a
scene which transfixed in breathless horror almost every one
who witnessed it. As the flames approached him, the piercing
shrieks of the unfortunate victim struck upon the heart with a
fearful, painful vibration; but when the devouring element
seized upon his body, all was hushed. Yet the cry of agony
still thrilled in the ear, and an involuntary and sympathetic
shudder ran thro' the crowd. We hope that this awful
dispensation of justice may be attended with such salutary
effects as to forever preclude the necessity of its repetition.
COMMUNICATION.
If any Massachusetts man can read the above without shuddering,
and experiencing alternate emotions of horror and indignation,
his heart must be harder than a millstone and colder than the ice
of the poles. We know not the particular circumstances of the
crime for which this poor wretch suffered, but as far as we can
learn from the public prints, it was for the murder of his
Master. The probability is there was some provocation; for such
dire deeds are not perpetrated without a strong and powerful
impulse. It is however of no consequence; no matter what was his
crime, such a punishment was abominable, and could not be
inflicted, even if the laws permitted it, in our State. If that
monster who committed the Stoneham murder in cold blood, impelled
solely by avarice, had not put an end to his own life, but had
awaited his conviction, had been sentenced to such a punishment,
although he would have merited, perhaps more than any other
offender who has appeared in our times, the greatest sufferings,
yet such a sentence could not be carried into effect. The people
would have risen at once, animated by one sentiment, and without
the least previous concert have prevented it. Every man in the
Commonwealth, waiving all distinctions of condition or age, would
have been seen, without consulting his neighbour or considering
consequences, putting a new flint in his musket and girding on
his sword. Thank God! our feelings and love of order and
obedience to proper authority can never be put to such a trial;
for the moment we became free, and created our own political
institutions, we made it a fundamental article of our Constitution
of Government that "no magistrate or court of law shall inflict
cruel or unusual punishment." In Georgia such a punishment would
not be inflicted upon a white man for any crime; and in the name
of Heaven, who deserves the greatest punishment for offences,--the
white man, who is instructed in the principles of religion and
morality, and is therefore justly accountable for his actions, or
the negro, who is kept by the policy of the laws and the power of
public opinion in a state of absolute ignorance of his duties,
lest he should obtain a knowledge of his rights? D.
-------------------------
Singular account from the "Salem Gazette," April 13, 1824.
ARREST OF THE DEAD.
The United States Gazette says:--
"While the papers from the south and the west are bringing back
to us the report from Mr. Degrand's paper of the attachment of a
dead body in Boston, the Eastern papers are bringing us
assurances of the total illegality of any such act, and a
contradiction of some of the important parts of Mr. Degrand's
tale of horror. At the time of the first appearance of this story
in our city, a gentleman of information assured the public
through the medium of our columns that any such act was unlawful.
The Salem Gazette appears to think that no act of the kind was
ever lawful in Massachusetts. The Boston Courier states that in
Feb., 1812, the legislature of Massachusetts passed a law making
it highly penal for any civil officer to take the body of any
deceased person, and the writer who furnishes this information
says that 'he never heard that any such act of barbarism was ever
attempted in that Commonwealth,' but that the law was enacted to
guard against the possibility of such an occurrence, by a mistake
in the application of the terms, 'we command you to take the body
of A.B.' &c.
"This writer undoubtedly knows better than we both the laws and
customs of his own state. But we have some recollections of an
event of this nature transpiring in the southeastern part of
Massachusetts. If we have not forgotten the events (or remembered
some that never took place), a Sheriff in Barnstable county, we
think in Brewster or Dennis, attached the body of a deceased
debtor on its way to the grave, about the year 1811. A
circumstance that fixes this event the more firmly in our mind is
that it transpired about _this_ season of the year, the time of
the gubernatorial election in that State, and was used as a
subject of reproach to one of the political parties; and we
incline to believe that this act, or, if it never took place, the
report of it (for it _was_ talked of), gave rise to the law
mentioned in the Courier.
"It is proper, in concluding these remarks, to state that to
attach a dead body in Massachusetts is now _against_ the law; and
if the act ever took place which is detailed by Mr. Degrand, it
was done by the advice of an _ignorant_ attorney."
We are enabled to give an accurate statement of the event to which
the editor of the U.S. Gazette above alludes; we copy it from a
publication made at the time:--
"On the 20th October, 1811, Capt. Chillingsworth Foster, jun.,
Æt. about 41 years, departed this life; on the same day
Benjamin Bangs, Esq., of Harwich, with one Mr. Scotto Berry, of
the same place, called at the house of the deceased for payment
of a sum of about one hundred and thirty dollars, due said
Bangs, and requested the father of the deceased to give him his
security, said Bangs well knowing the parent to be in low
circumstances, and about seventy-five years old, and the mother
about the same age. The father refused to comply, stating
his inability to answer so great a demand without suffering
immediate distress. The said Bangs then declared that if he did
not comply, it was in his power to arrest the body of the
deceased. The father still refused, and Bangs left the house;
and a most distressed one it was, this being the last son out
of three, left these aged parents, the other two being lost at
sea, or died.
"The Monday following was appointed to have the deceased
buried, when Col. Jonathan Snow appeared as Sheriff, with a
writ to serve on the body. Here the melancholy scene commenced,
a part of the relations being assembled, with the aged parents
convulsed in sorrow; no one can paint their feelings but those
who have children and are denied them the right of Christian
burial. The usual ceremonies on such occasions were however
performed, and an appropriate prayer was delivered by the Rev.
John Simpkins, and the funeral procession formed and proceeded
with the corpse about one and a half mile, and very near to the
spot of the grave, when the said Sheriff arrested the coffin,
without any service on the body, and it was set down in the
middle of the highway nearly abreast of said Bangs' dwelling
house, and forbid proceeding any further. A large company who
followed, with the mourners, soon after retired, and left the
officer in charge of the body. After lying in this situation
for some time, one of the Grand Jurors ordered it out of the
high road; this was complied with by the Sheriff, by placing it
under the window of the said Bangs, and about sunset still
further removed it into Bangs' dwelling-house. By this inhuman
proceeding the aged parents were deprived of seeing their last
and only son buried, as were the widow of the deceased and five
children. So distressing a scene never was witnessed in this
place, and perhaps not in the most barbarous nations. Between
seven and eight of the clock, the same evening, the body was
buried by a few individuals, and by the consent of said
Benjamin Bangs, Esq., after he had inflicted all the wounds he
could on the feelings of the poor grey-headed parents and their
relations."
The barbarity and illegality of this conduct of B. Bangs, Esq.
(an influential democrat of that day), were viewed with
indignation from all quarters. The statute of Feb., 1812, on this
subject was not passed to render _illegal_ the arrest of a dead
body of a debtor, for that was _always_ illegal, but its object
was to fix the punishment, instead of leaving it to the
discretion of the Courts. Many undoubtedly recollect the instance
at Portland several years before, in which a debtor who was on
the limits was suddenly taken sick and carried out of the limits,
where he died. It was then decided to be the law that the
debtor's bond was not broken unless his body was out of the
limits by his own agency and will.
So disinterring dead bodies of men was always a misdemeanor, but
in 1815 a law was passed by our General Court to fix the
penalties.
-------------------------
The case of Stephen Merrill Clark is remembered by many people in Salem
and its vicinity.
_Supreme Judicial Court._
At the present term of this Court in Salem, Andrew Dunlap,
John Foster, and Solomon Whipple, Esqrs. were admitted
Counsellors, and Asa W. Wildes, Esq. an attorney of said Court.
_Capital Trial_.--On Tuesday Stephen Merrill Clark, a lad about
15 years of age, was indicted for the crime of ARSON alleged to
have been committed in Newburyport, was arraigned the same day,
and pleaded _not guilty_. The day for his trial is not yet
fixed.--The Court assigned him Leverett Saltonstall and John G.
King, Esquires, for his counsel on his trial.
_Salem Observer_, Nov. 4, 1820.
Clark was subsequently convicted of the crime for which he was tried,
and executed upon Salem Neck in 1821. He had made a confession of his
guilt; but considering his youth, and the circumstances of his having
been instigated by others, as was believed, to the commission of the
crime, many humane people thought there should have been some
mitigation of the punishment.