Rensselaer Standard, Volume 1, Number 7, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 August 1879 — THE CODE OF KENTUCKY. [ARTICLE]

THE CODE OF KENTUCKY.

Bixhop Smith on the Ancient Rule of a Life for a Life. ’ * “The code of Kentucky is peculiar in the manner of taking life. The ancient rule of a life for a life is recognized and to some extent put in practice. Among some nations where this rule was held it was the practice of the avenger to shoot down his victim without hint or warning, but a Kentuckian would scorn this. He announces his purpose, it is talked of by friends of both men that A *lll shoot Bon sight. There is no attempt at a shirking of the consequences! of the meeting, and though A should know almost to a certainty that friends of B would deal out swift and sure vengeance to him, he carries out his threat to the letter. 4 There is something of manliness about it, but oh! how cruel, how unforgiving and unchristian.” “Who supports the system?” “All classes, men of family, of position and of standing in the church, - when they sit on juries look at a case f brought before them entirely from the standpoint of their early training. The law is recognized only as a shield to protect the prisoner from the consequences of the law, and time and time again I have seen the verdict of justifiable homicide brought in in cases which by us of New England and the North would be considered cold-blood-ed murder. In e ery other way and on all other points these men will recognize the sanctity of the law—will fight for It—and the record of Kentucky statesmen Will show that they recognize the blessings of a lawful liberty as keenly as any people. But this unfortunate lesson does exist, and has existed for ajl the years within my memory. How it originated is hot so easy to determine. It may have come with the blood which left Virginia for the new State of Kentuchy. The other States of the Southwest have this same bent of thought to a' certain extent. But in Kentucky it is characterisffe, and stamped out there it would soon die out entirely. You have a very recent ease, about which It would not perhaps be proper for me to venture an opinion, but it illustrates the system, and if Buford is convicted

it would be a very wide departure from the established ruie or practice. Clergy and press seem alike powerless to meet this evil; or, rather, shall I say that these two elevated forces are bound in with it to a very large extent. I suppose that in time it will die out, but in tbe meantime how much of Unpunished crime will there be? How much of that which is a blot upon our civilization? The war may have had some effect upon it, but does not seem to have ha 1 any very strong curative effect. My own duties as Bishop of a State which was the center of so much active hostility compelled me to pass and repass the lines of both armies continually.’ The clergy of the State were divided, and for myself I left them very much to themselves in their conduct ofi worship. Some prayed for the President of the Con federate States and others for the President of the United States. I could not be so good a judge of the local surroundings as the clergy in the immediate charge of the parish, hence my deference to their opinion in the guidance of theiraction. For myself, my position was a fixed one. I did not know disunion except as a thing to be deprecated, and whenever I was called upon teg officiates .I have seen members of my congregation start as if they had been struck when the words were uttered, and the women especially, would look black and unutterable things; but the love ot the church was supreme, and never at any time was I subjected to the least show of disrespect or annoyance for my frank expression of views. Ido not know that it would have made much difference had such a repressive policy been attempted.”—[lnterview with Bishop Smith In N. Y. World.