Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1805-01-23

. o
objections made by the gentleman from
! Connecticut and the gentleman from Yer
pons (Mr. r. Griswoid aud Mr.. Elliot. }
II lhsy were attentIveiy examined and
compared with The constitution and laws
OF the United States, they would be found
NOT tcnahle. (. One of the ,obie Etions was
that the constitution of the United States
Gid not authorize Congress to leeislate on
any other crimes. committed on the high
seas than those; ofpiracy and felony. ), He
would ask them whether ell other offences
were to go unpunishsd. But he remind
ed them that the words OF the coDs,ilu,i-
on extended further than what had heen
quoted II declared in the same paragraph
THAT Congress had power TO define and
punish offences against the law ofnations.
Is not misdemeanor committed on sozrd
a vessel equitable by the courts of The
union! For instance, ifa gun is dischsrg-
cd at another vessel belonging TO nation
in ami'y with the United States, aud does
considerable damage though il may no.
amount to piracy or felony, is there no
remedy! Surely by the constitution Con-
! gross have the power Of declaring IL q
misdemcanor, and OF Furnishing il accord
,ingly. IL they have this power, and be
believed it would no longer be denied that
they bad it,then the question would re-
solve i,self,into the eSpediency OF exerci
sing 1t at this tine and enqd ny might
be proper 10 ascertain whether the exist |
ing laws provided. for the case. The ael |
81 1870, upon which the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. II. Griswold) relied |
would be found on examination not to ca, 4
brace IT Suppose 10 firing into fore g,. |
vessel, mayhem is committed, ar z |, & or
an arm shot of, is this case provided for |
by the law OF 1870 It is not felony, !
nor is II piracy, the only Two eases proyi- !
/ isd Tor by that act If indeed the case
wa. provided for by ll,e s6t OF 1890, i,
coah not operate as an objection TO insect
| II IN this bill, because the bill was inlcad
1 ed to draw into itself all the regulations
on his head. That Congress had the
power Of Legislation on this point, he trust
ed Sonld no longer he disputed; aud fiav
ing the bower, the necessity Of the case
required its exercise. lfnc,hing f,ir,her
was added 10 the bill than what wa. con.
tanned in the 6rst section, nine ,cnlhs OF
The offences committed at sea would 90
unpublished.
I Mr.. !.iiInt did not msan to giyethe fore.
to the cx,raSt from lie consii .uti.-n quot
ed by him all that range which the gem
ueman Just sat down had chosen 20 ey
tend he however admitted that being a
constitutional question il deserved serious
and solemn deliberslion. 1t had been OF
ten SAID that the constitution of the Uni,
ed States is limited grant of power and
That the powers not therein gran.ed are
| reserved TO the states or TO the people.
Admitted. BY the constitution then con-
gress are authorised to define and punish
piracies or felonics committed on the high
seas; they are also authorised to punish /
Offences against he law OF nations as stat I
ed by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. |
Jsckson) but where is the poser given
them by the constitution TO punish misds. (
meanorsf ii is. however, commended that
misdemeanor may be az offence against
the law oil nations. Mlsdemcapor means
literally, i'll behaviour. He would not how
ever deny that misdcmeanor in certain !
Cases might amount TO an offence against
the law OF nations, and in such an event
might be punIshabls as an offence against
those laws.
by the lew OF 1870 in its 9Th seStion
the crimes Of murder and piracy are pun
Ishable. Does not that law 90 further,
and punish what this law does not provide
Tor. One thing further con,ended for,
which he did not think tehabie, The same
cr'mes that are punishable by the existing
laws arc again To be punished by this
J This was clearly shows by the gen,iem an
from Connecticut, and he would add no.
thiHg more.
Mr., CLARK thanked the gentleman from
Connecticut for the light be had thrown
on the subject; but hewas not convinced
that the crimes attempted to be defined
by the amendment Of his colleague were
punishable by the existing laws Of the u
nitcd States, and ne thought f'he gentle
man would re-examine his argument he
would discover his mistake. The law Of
1900 had relation to a different crime.
But he would not beside positively what
mis", be the opinion Of the judiciary on
that head; they might entertain q con-
siruelion different from that Uf the legis!S-
ture. Yet his own opinion was that 10
provision could be fouild in the las Of 1870
10 restrain and punish the offence of an