Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-12-05

for the government OF our forts, arsensls. I
&c. where the United States enjoy exclu- |
sive jurisdiction, find hat there IS provisi |
OH r,ade as we'll for the case Of murder as
of manslaugh,er; now with view 10
make our penal law correspond through
out, would suggest 10 the gentlemen en-
gaged in the discussion. whether 1t would
not ne as we'll to strike out all the words
from resisting" in the thirty-eighth line
60 the end of he period, and inert in their
place the following" aad in case such kill
ing am cunts TO murder, it shall be punish
ed with death--and i'll case such killipgis
only manslaughler, then such offender
shall be imprisoned not exceeding three
years, and fined not exceeding 1000 dol
lars"
Mr.Rodney observed, that when death
ensues in the case mentioned by the bill
il must be murder ordinary cases be-
tween man and man, and death ensues by
killing, it might be either murder or man
slaughter. Where are we to resort for a
meaning but as has been said, to the COM
mon law, as known standard, uniform
and Invariablc,--Th decisions in the
courts OF the several states, and its laws
on this head, may vary but the common
law describes each OF these crimes with
accuracy, The definition is founded on
the fAct. IL take a life by beating man
with weapon that may naturally be ex-
pected to produce death, and death ensues,
then my using such weapoR proves ma
lice prepense, for it is an illegal weapon.
SO If resist an officer in the execution
OF his legal duty, and XIII him in he re-
=. 4 F.
ancc was illegal and implies malice
Then according to the language Of this
act, il death ensues, it is murder and not
manslaughter. If man strikes another
upon sudden heat, with stick, upon the
SOUL, land death ensues ii is man slaughter;
but il he strikes with an iron crow-bar it is
purder-thc intention being inferred from
the weapon. While MIR. II. urged the
propre,y of CHASING the present offence
with murder, and consequently furnishing
its commission with death, he would not
he understood as an advocate for that kind
OF punishment, On the contrary, he was
desirous OF ameliorating these severe pun
ishments, and intruducinP system that
should reform the offender, and restore
him. after repairing his offence, 20 his ia
mlly and his country but this cannot at
present be done ofcourse we must apply
the rule Of punishment as we find It to
make it general and uniform.
Mr.. Early, while he concurred in the
general doctrine laid down by Mr.. k. re-
speeding the Common law, was not con-
vnccd thai the manner in which they had
been applied Co this particular case was
correGt--It seemed to be MIR RS opiui-
on that no other offence than murder could
be committed. if death ensued in resisting
the oficer; without seeking far, he would
adduce one case where a resistance TO
death would amount only to homicide.
Suppose the marshal or sheriff does not
conioun himself in all things 10 the in.
struGtions OF the President. or that he de.
means himself improperly, and death en-
sues, will it be held that The resistance
and its consequence amounts to murder.
No certainly; but if he behaves properly,
the killing is murder; hence this double
provision is necessary to provide for the
two cases.
(7o be confinurd.)