Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1805-04-19
In the Senate ef'hs United States,
0IYTIno A.
Higb CeHrf Of Impt0ebm'"f,

OIBVIWV A.
HigbCsvrf Of Imptoebm'"f,
4tA Gsy efFsIrUsry. 4. D. 1905.
tn. United States ~. Samuel Chass.
lJuds. Chase. D.f.ne. .o..inu'd'l
The 6fth article ofimpeaehmeAt sharg-
e. this respondent, with having award.
ed "a capias against the body OF the said
lanes Thompson Callender, indicted
for an offsnee net capital. whsr'upon the
said Calender was arrested and commit
ted to c!sss custody, contrary to law in
that ease made and provided.
This charge is rested, Isl, on The act
Of eongrs,s Of September Gath, 1889,
entitled, an act TO establish the jusliei-
al courts ofIhe United Stats,," BY which
It is enacted that for any crime or Of.
fence against the United States, the Of.
fender may be arrested, imprisoned, or
bailed, agreeably TO the usual mode of
process in the state where snsh otFeader
NAV b. found" Aud adj % law Of
the state of Virginia, which il said u
provide "that upon prsssntmsnt by any
grand Jury, Of an offence nos capital, the
court Shall order the clerk to issue q
summons against the person or Persons
90 offending, to appear and answer such
presentmsnt at the next court" II 10
commended, in support of this charge,
that the act Of congress aforementioned,
made the state law the rule Of proceed.
ing, and that the state law was violated
by issuing = eaPias against Calender,
instead Of summons.
The fret observation to be made o.
this part Of the case is, the date of the
law Of Virginia is AOs mentioned in the
article. A very material omission ! For
it cannot be eoHtended. that BY the act
Of congress n question which was pa.s-
cd for establishing the laws Of the Unit
ed Ssates and regulating the proceed
ings dependant on all future act. Of state
legislatures. The intention certainly
was to adept to certain limited extent.
the regulations existing in states a, the
time Of passing the act. Consequently.
alaw Of Virginia, passed after this act,
can have no operation on the proceedings
uAder it. But BY referring to the law Of
Virginia in question. it win be found to
bear date on November 18th, 1899,
more than three years after thi, act OF
congress, BY which it is said to have been
adopted. But the omission Of this law
of Virginia, is not the most material o.
versight which has been made in citing
it. Its title is" Anaes directing the me-
thod Of proceeding against free persons
charged with certain crimes" Sc. and it
enacts, section asth, I" That upon pre-
sentiment made by the grand jury, Of an
offence not capital, the eoart shall order
the clerk to issue a summons, or other
process, against the person or person. so
presented, 10 appear aAd auswer at the
next Court" II will be observed that
these words or ether process" which
leave it perfectly in the discretion Of the
court what process ,hail issue, provided
II be such as is proper for bringing the
offender to an answer to the preseut-
msnt+ are omitted in this article Of ina.
parchment.
From these word. i, is perfectly mani
fest, that the law of Virginia, admitting
tito aPPlHa did not order a summons 10
be issued, bNtleh it perfectly in the dis
crertn Of the courtJto issue a summons,
or suta other process as they shall Judge
proper. It is therefore a sufsici en-, an
swsr 70 this article to say, tina, this res
Pondent considered a capias as the pro-
per process, aa1 therefore ordered It to
i'sNe which he admits tina, he did, i'm
mediAsely after the pressutraent wa.
found against the said Calender, BY II.
grand jury.
This he i. informed, and expects to
prove, has been the construction Of this
law by the courts of Virginia, and their
general practice. Indeed i. would be
most strange, if any other construction
kal -