The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-12-20


United States
To illufrate farther, he Rated that Congreis had
the right authorize itate officer TO itate
process within the territory Of the United States.
Have they not the pos authorize officer OF the
rate Of Marylan Virginia execute fate pro-
cefs within the territory Of Columbia. There is
thing in the contution the acts of oeon, that
prevent us. IF then authorize Natc procels
into the diftret OF Columbia ihall murderer flu
gtve from iuitce take refuge here, and elcape pun
iihment, becaue he is beyond the limits Of the rate.
III which the offence committed9 He truned
that iuch refult would not be commended for but
that every gentleman would aid the Object of the BILL
which to prevent in futrr- the commanders of
foreign armed vefiels from nfulting American ihip
ping in ports and harboars in the waters
der the jurildiStion of Coogre.
Mr.. X. Grijfvoid The remark. of the
gentleman have not proved to my mind that
was mftaken. He fuppoies in the firft idea
fuggeted that Consrcf. has right under the
contribution to call out the militia to execute
the laws Of rate, becauie fate being part
of the union, 70 are its laws part OF the laws
ofthe union. II this propofition is true, if the
laws of rate are the laws ofthe union, they
muh bind the union, for it is the nature of laws
20 bind thofe upon whom they operate. Now
will that gentleman tell me that the laws of Il
particular fate are obligatory upon the whole
anion ? The contribution does not bear along
his idea it only means that the laws pafIcd by
Congrefs, are the laws of the union. Ofcourfe
no power isgiven blythe contribution tocall forth
the militia to execute the laws Of particular
fate. locomotives hatunderthat part ofthecon-
ftitutionmaking provihon asainft infurrcctions,
CoDgreismight allforththc militia tofupprefsan
iHiurreetion againit the authority of fate. Be
that AS it may, this bill does not contemplate
sailing out the militia for that purpoie. 1t
merely confines itfelf to the execution Of 4 ma
siitrate's warrant therefore that part does not
authorize the pafiing of a law of this kind. Mr..
Grifwold was aware that the militia might be
drawn out to aid the civil arm, where it could
not ettcc its object with the afiitance of the
foge eomifatus but he had always thought
that the executive of the fate authority was
The proper organ to cali forth the militia to ex..
scute their own laws. And are the natcs to be
BOW deprived of this power By the confttu-
zion Consrefs have the power of orga-
nizing, arnning and diicipliuing the militia,
and governing fuch part of them as may be en-
ployed in the fGrvice of the United States, but,
to the itates is refervcd the appointment of of
ficerS, and training, and he had ever underitood
that the ftates had the right of commanding
their own militia and calling them forth to ex-
ecute their own laws. This being the cafe,
whereas that neceiity FOR Congrefs undertaking
to legiflate on this point The itates having
competent authority for the purpofe, why not
leave it to the fates? If any ftatcs fhould
think il neceliary to call out the militia. they
could do it with as much difpatch and as eff
fettually as the United States and all of them,
he believed, had laws for the purpofe if any
OF them had not, they would foon pats them if
they faw their neceflty.
To the fecond objection the gentleman HI: re-
piled but it cannot be conceived that fhcriff
having warrant can ever be iutihcd in going
Of hsc: a.. Aro..
that the warrant fhall not run into the fate off
lericy not becauie the contribution provides
for retaining the offender, but becaufe the iu-
n!dittion of New-York does not extend to the
fate of New Jeriey. IF this is a rcafon in that
cafe, it NUT be rcafon in this, and a ihcrif
cannot go within the jurifdicton of the United
States TO execute his warrant any more than he
can go into that Of neighbouring fate. 1t
is perhaps, competent to CongrefS % pals law
To return an offender that has fed from jufticc
within their territory; but they cannot extend
the fate procefs beyond what the fate itfelf
directs They may, perhaps, be authorized
under the authority of executive legilation, to
pats law directing offenders who .feek an afy-
lum in the diftrict OF Columbia, to be delivered
up To an offended Rate Bat that is not,the OBJ
jctt OF the prcfent bill, nor is there any provii-
on OF the kind contained therein. Entertaining
fefc fcniificuis nc nusrti to ftrikc Out the fc-
cond fiction.
Mr.. Nie6oJion. The gentleman does not
conhder the laws of the particular fates as
part of the laws OF the United States, becaufc
they are not obligatory over the whole union.
MIR. N. alledeed shat law pailed by fate
conformabe 10 its contribution was as obligato-
ry over all the people of the Union, who went
Into that iurifdi6ton, rs law p81ed by Con-
grcfs was obligatory over the whole people who
refded within the United States. The laws
pafied for the government ofthe dftria of Co
lumbia were alto binding over the whole Uni
mon, though they did not operate upon any
pcrfDn but thofe who are within the ten miles
fquare. So the laws of every particular fate
are binding on the Union pro tanto, for AS
much as they extend to--Bnt the gentleman
makes no remaks upon my f cond obfervation,
that the United States have right TO allow the
officers of particular fate to execute their
warrants within the executive territory and iu-
rifdiction of the United States. The contitu-
ton does not prohibit us from exercifng this
authority, any more than the contribution of Il
ny fate prohibits its Legislature from granting
a fimilar indulgence to its neighbour IF Ter
fey was to pats a law authorizing the officers of
New-York to purfIe an offender, and arrea
him in the fate of Jerfey, could it be complain
ed Of, or would il be iaid that the act of fhe-
riff making fuch IN arret was illegal and that
reliftauce would be iultifable In fact, Virgi.
ni7 and Maryland have actually fuch mutual
regulation, and perfon eicdping from iuftice
may be arrefted by the officer, under procefs