Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1801-02-10

5s9srtn1eot OF or officer thereof" In his !
opinion lie law is 70 efer,ially neceiIary, !
that without ii toe goycrnmeHt would be |,
uaraiizsl and itr;p~ed of 81 defence. He |
thougA, IL unreceG y 10 trouble II. houic Z
with farther arcnmcot =, thof, Offered were ,
faficen, in MS opinion, he knew OF no
fron~er oncs-
Mr wss Of opioion, the; il this law is ,
permitted 70 exr'rr, the com 0on ,aw will
he IN force, hy which fine and impriion-- /
rasnt are unlimited and ruth is not al I
lowed to be giscn in publication. BY
fore il is denied to be the law OF me land. |
J. ought 10 Be remembered that the com
ri.on las ID the plrent not only Of the Ii
berry Of this country bat of Engl,rd and
al Europe How differently, he Gaid, we
fssl irora what our suceRors id who were
ready 10 lpiii the laIl drop OF their blood in
its dsfeuce ITO the common law we owe
the trial by jury and many other rights
yet ii 10 ceprobsted j. it not the boaa
even of Virginia Was It not objected to
The contribution in the Virs ala convention
that II did nov recognize The conuon law !!
The contribution Of all the Rates are pre-
dicated OIL che common law, which is made
up % the rules Of right realon fouaded on
tbs experience OF ages. Ii courts are not
bound by ire common law tbev nua be
Go7e ncd By their own arbitrary viii. II
common law is no, biadiog ,betc &c no law
snl gentlemen fuTcly cannot dream of liber-
q itho,,t ia@. If we are governed with.
ou' law, IL Is Hefpotifm, whether govern
r.en: "a ~ the wilt ct one or many. Were
W. lrit the viii OF courts we G1ould be
10 0ate Of uncertainty. We Gioail be
iia6.e - lutFcr from caprice, vice, folly and
sy.ry wesknels. The eziaence of the
common law is of immca!e importance,
wi,hort IL the con!litutiou would be mere
AeIcto1 d-yc,5 OF iinews and nerves and in
capable &C motion.
Gentlemen f-en 20 fuppofe they have
far ed an inforerabie difficulty by aiiiug
waat period you viii SIX on for taking III:
common law, and with OF without The mo-
dihcatioas of different Gatutes.
He would take il as taken b. the fates,
wi,h no more d.fticulties .han our onceaorg
took It. J, was no d'aicult matter to draw
the line. lie would AXE il, az the adop-
tion oF thu contribution IS modified BY the
Ga,p.cs of the Gates. What oAjeaicn
could be made o this Was thcr4 more
csule OF alarm at It's being adoptea by the
United States courts thaa in The courts of
ths ditfcTen: ita'es, where they love the
common law. They cannot furely obica
to !, as il is lifpenf.5 IN all the courts.
re para!,!, Ch- general government and
conine all power 10 the ita:e coar,s % a
iyacm Invariably puriued By Some sentle-
men Oh 'his floor, lie was not therefore
furp'ifc3 tbat they iaold with it not to be
che law Of the courts of the Uhlted Siates.
We mud hosseSer, have one Of the two al
te'Datiyra lake the common !a7 or have
no Ias. The courts niuf be either delpo,ic
or bound b. the common law.
If gcvs'r,uest were given to chic ter
rilory AID Judiciary efat lihed. it would
be al er the common law, Whenever q
coaauu,ion is formed it 10 bot1omed On
the iles Of the common lay being IN ex;a-
ence. The aecient opinion was that the
corna,ou law was the law of the United
STATES. Row Judges are called defpots FOR
deciding By il. r!.ib ia The novel opinion
which iaou!d be lcouted from the Goor Of
the houfe.
Mr z referred gentlemen to the XIth
article o. the amendments, To the couaitu-
ton. which fays, Sc No fact tried by iu-
~, Nan be otherwife re- examined IN any
oor7t Of the United States, than accord
iog 10 the rDles Of the common las.''
Here the exidcncc Of the common law !.
recognized, unieis ths article is wiihou,
rleaairg
supPol. nan conviaed Of treafon and
. m3,ian MADE for new t,ial, mua not
lac determination be By The rule0 of con-
HIou las :
In tLe Sd f.9ion Of lie II article Of the
cooaiu tiou after defining the extent OF
judgment, Il i; laid +" oui tlie party con.
Ycted (hail nege5,hsl.f be iabie and fu5-
Jet 10 Indictment, trial judgment and
p9D;hnen,, according 10 law" 1t could
Be ga!y the common Law here referred
10.
IN cafes ofinPea-hTent how would Sc.
ha;urs form ihcir opinion, The contribution
has givcn no direction, as to ihe manner OF
conducting them The common law only
could dneSt.