Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-12-26

l
tory and jurisdiction Of the United States
4 lie constitution does not prohibit us from
exercising this authority, any more thar
the constitution OF ary state prohibits j.,
Legislature from granting a similar induI
l8ence to its neighbor. ifJersey was &c
pass !aw authorising the officers of New
iorS 10 pursue an offender, and arrest him
10 Tue state OF Jersey, could it b. com.
Planned o., or would il be said the, The ~
OF sheriff making such an arrest was il.
( regal and that resistance would he ius,i-
napie In fact, Virginia and Maryland
have actually such mutual regulation,
and person escaping from Justice may be
arrested by the officer, under process
from either state.
Wr- }. Randolph said there undorb,e,l-
/ y were difficulties arising out oftbis sub.
Jec,; but generally they h2d been salts
iactor'ly answered BY his friend from Ma
ryiand (Nir. n The situation ofthe u
nited States in relation to the individual
states, 1T IS well known, differs from tina,
OF every other government under The sun.
ne waters in our harbors are general.
y under the jurisdiction of the state GOV
ernNents, while the mouths Of those hor-
hors are under the iurisJliGtion of the u
nited States.--hnd If the position is true
that the United States cannot au,l,ori9c .
state oshcer to execute his process, when
an offender shall have escaped into The
waters under the United States iur;sdif(,.
IN the case is irremliable. And il wilt
DC known that the most daring OUTRAGE;
CC;nr1iIf,.l ,uifi,;p 49,.
by with IMMUNITY, if The criminal escapes
beyond the state boundary into that of the
union. This was do5trine to which he
never could acoede. lie saw no good rea
son why a state nigh, not as we'll have
the privilege granted of executing its pro
cess within The jurisdiction of The Unued
States, as Of retaining offenders Aying
from justice into other parts of the union
lie deemed it prudent 10 Goriiry The arm
iol the state with the strength of the Unit.
ed States. There is, however one par,.
oi The clause that hsdnotbeen satislactori-
y supported 10 his mind He did not IN
dersiand now the congress could enioini il
p1cn magistrate 10 call out The militia 10
execute state warrant. lie was mt sa-
nss1etI either as TO tie right, the cons,itu
lional'ty, or propricty OF the measure
he consultation, when il speaks ol calling
ppt the militia, confines the obieel 10 three
thing5,-to execute the laws of The union.
10 suppress Instructions, and repe[ inva
iions----Coneress may cali forth',he mllti,
to execute the laws of tie United States,
oni not 70 execute The lays OF particular
state. The, states Individually have the
right to call forth the militia OF their own.
s ates, to sXecnte their own laws and The
United States have also She power to call
forth the whole militia Of the union 10 ~.
ecu'e the laws of the union. He had no
doubt oil The proPriety OF giving the sta,es
authority 10 execute their process within
the limits ofthe United States iarisdi6si-
on; bat be doubted extremely the hutho-
Erny OF congress 10 cal out the militia for
The purpose mentioned in The bill: that
fhe conceived to belong to the stale au,ho
rily, aRd the state alone was competent 20
its execution. l.
The doctrine, OF the gentleman (Mr. r.
| Griswold) on another point was rot so cor.
rect 1t will be rscollecl that the indi
v'duai states could neitier raise an array.
nor create feet yet armed,yessels may
commit in our waters, and In or ports and
harbors, The most vioIsnt outrages upon
the persons ard property Of the citizens !;
and THIS miserable qubble is to enable
them to clude nations justice we can
I not, we are told, extend The Jurisdiction
Of a state nor aid her with the national
force; surely he lives and fortunes Of
our citizens are not thus tamely TO be sa.
c!ifcsd. of
suppose Eourder to be committed in the
/ haroer Of New York by cdzen or "a.
ge'gner not bglousips to an armed vessel
< his may be considered as a crime against
the state, and wlIich the state authority IS
competent 10 punish. Bot If uurder ;s
! committed by the crew OF an armed vessel,
IS not sCch al armed force equivalent 10
an invading Zoe IF a man came from Ca.
NADIA INTO Vermont, and was to commit A
similar outrage, would not the civil power
Of the state apprehend him, and punish
him with death, If his crime was Of such
enormity as 70, require Is! ind Shall an
armed vessel be permitted to Outrage the
person and property Of our ci,izsns on The
Atlantic shores, because she has The
strength lie would be glzt,tolsec a re-.
medy more compicts than the one rosn
toned in this Hill. hc tso,,gI H.. -, -