arrison and Wendell Phillips were in favor of the abolition of capital
punishment. Many of the clergy, especially of the orthodox clergy,
opposed the change, and for support quoted the laws of Moses. Sermons
were preached from the text: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall
his blood be shed." If this text is treated as a philosophical
statement, based upon human nature, that those who resort to blood to
avenge their wrongs will get a like return, then the proposition has
wisdom in it; but it is the essence of a bloody code if it mean that
either the State or the individual sufferer should take a human life
either for revenge, punishment, or example.

At a session in the Forties the House was made indignant one morning by
the introduction of a petition by Mr. Tolman, of Worcester, asking that
the clergy who approved of capital punishment should be appointed
hangman. A motion was made to reject the petition without reference.
I interposed and called attention to the similarity between the
position the House was thus taking and the position occupied by the
National House of Representatives in regard to petitions upon the
subject of slavery. The suggestion had no weight with the House. The
petition was rejected without a reference.

The next morning the messenger said Mr. Garrison wished to see me in
the lobby. I found Mr. Garrison, Wendell Phillips and William Jackson
with bundles of petitions of the kind presented by Mr. Tolman. They
assumed that as I had advocated the reference of the Tolman petition I
would present others of a like character. I said, "Gentlemen, when
petitions are presented by a member upon his personal responsibility I
shall always favor a reference, but as to the presentation of
petitions, I occupy a different position. I must judge of the wisdom
of the prayer. In this case I must decline to take any responsibility."
The petitions were presented by Mr. Tolman and the House retreated from
the awkward position.

George T. Bigelow was one of the ablest, if not the very ablest, of the
Whig leaders. His style of speech was plain, direct, and free from
partisan feeling. His statements were usually within the limits of the
facts and authorities. His temper was even and his judgment was free
from feeling. He possessed those qualities which made him an
acceptable judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and afterwards, when he
became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, gave him a conspicuous