Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-12-22

"C' law, NhS lutS OF tns skate snolid gov
I'm, but IN cases under statute where
niles OF decision are otherwise provided.
he iaw al .ks sta,e shall not govern. Con
Zies5 law IN The outset the necessity Of
carrying into effect that great constitution
al power oil establishing couC;s and regu-
iatins their mode Of procedure. Insiezd
however, OF establishing any mode of their
own, ,hcy adopted the modes already ex-
lsnn5 IN the several states, aud there IS
no other mode except ia cases of sdm iral-
y and maritime jurisdiction ifthe laws Of
the state where the oiIeuce has been COM
united, does not apply, WHO possible rule
oil procedure or decision could govern the
court! In what manner is cci,niaal tri-
al TO be conducled? The 3Ath sc3ion
under any other CONSTRUCTION becomes alb
surd and nusa;cry. He did believe that
by the SAD snd 3Ath sections Of the acl es
tabiishimg the Judicial courts, th- Laws of
me several stale. have bsen adopted by
conSress III criminal a. we'll IS ia civil
cases.
blt the gentleman from Delaware asks
rs how We can believe this 20 be the lust
construction, when the able covnss, as
signed TO the defence in this case failed TO
produce hi. law TO the court which would
have procured them .lc dire@ attainment
oi their end. without applying TO the di-
reciion OF the court ! TO this he answer
ed he would not tell why they omitted to
bring forward this objection. This was
not hts concern IL might perhaps have
escaped 'heir memory. But Will /; be an
objection tiIat 6ecsuss they failed, we also
should fail who think this law la. been vi
dated. That the lag of Virginia was the
rule OF condu0 adopted in this case i. prov
sd by every preliminary a. we'll as subse
quent step. If then they did not u AXE
thls exposition of the Law Of the United
States, why WAS the trial IN ali other parts
conducted con>onaut With the la Ss af Vie
GINA. He stated the case in another
point at view; although there is no cons-
mon law jurisdiction OF the United Stslsa
IN criminal cases, yet there il in each state
= peculiar common law generally drawn
ICON. ngiaud but varied so a. to suit their
purposes. Suppose Virginia had never
raoG'hci the common law OF England as
II relates to the law OF descen;s, and sup
pose clam, bro't in the l.. y ates court by
citizen Of North Carolina for 4 traG Of
land In Virginia tit will be as mit,vd that
Congress- Can make no law in relation TO
desccEts). How - the court t, be govern
ed by the law OF descentS IN North Caro-
Ina, or by thgt of Virginia or by The com
mon law OF 1ng!aod. Certainly they must
conform their decision to the rule Of Vir
sin.a where the land lies. - axe this com
men law doctrine then in any other sense
than It's beinE in contradiction TO cur sLr.i-
rally and naAf'tiihc code, and il has no ba
SIS tor common law jUriIdiction, Congress
have nons "a criminal cases rs all such
esses must Sc constituted crimes by a
statute OF Congress, previous to their per
pe:ra.icn, and statute or written law is
me opposite OF common, which /. M an,
written law made up of u@eges time ina.
memorial. II it was. established thst
'this article tended in any shape to estab-
liSh tnS exploded doctrine that ih. United
Stztea had common Ian jurisdiction in
criminal cases, hz would readily vote a.
ge,uS, the article.
hIr Nicholson entertained 70 doubt but the
term Of oonoos law expressed in the statate es.
tSoiiShi3g tic courts O. Tie United States was US
ed as = tern or diGnition and THAI it ought not
20 oe construed 70 give the coG.fs sny additional
jurisdiction, norto a0ridGe them Of any they POS
ieas-d. lie obsecved Ia o.her pa.ts OF the law
that the words common Jaw ara used only TO dIs-
nnEuish ihat ro"e Of procedure iron. what Wac
uiec ia our courts Of Admiralty. Ia England they
has t".ee DIS int corr:s soyerned ~ ti.res Dis
tInd modes OF proceeding unle, t!reeiaws The
common law coug:s. " the courts ~ Wcstmins
ter, aud ira enancery court, zrs governed by tne
common iaw The Admiralty coaris oYe govern
ca b. Inc evil law. aud tie ecclesiastical courts
by the eccie4ia3tical Jaw. Hat IL, and every ore
OF tnese are governed b. ths statute law sut in
their moae Of proceeding, each h&s i;s own nc
cu!iag rules, yet they I'll aie bound 10 conform 10
3 sts ute. 80 If d s.atuie hsG originally given
them Jurisdiction IL our own couts he keliev
ed, IL would DC difficult to conduz trials with
out some provision IS q th= mode Ellis OF e5i
change and lwomissory no,es were not made car
rent al tne tune of sueen Anne. The sal, on
these actions is sill at -pmirOa lsw though the
remedy - givsa by st2,it1. So when an in,li6t
ment 10 made upsu 3 statuts, i, mast be tr!sa by
the rules ot the common Law, as WAS tins csae
mentioned in tbs auiC. And with ths semitic
man from Virginia. he skai in what manner
criminal can be prosecuted but by Inv rules Of the
common Ia" unless you have him TO be tried oy
such arbitrary ones asthe court may make a, the
sine, IN order 70 suit their Own purpose III II
oc true tnag We have no rules of proceeding es
tSs aed Tor our courts OF iJstiC. a. "a hi b r-e