Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-09-26
C!rtQlt Court,
oPEv1oMoftAe CoURT--Drlvered on
FRIDAY, September IS.

! FRIDAY, September 1S.
! TWO Questions arise from the present
motion.
1st. Is the Judge who composes this
court, eitheras q court or as magistrate,
authorized to commit any person for trial
in the Mississippi Territory!
2dly. Is the verdict which has been
rendered in this court bar 70 aprosecu-
ton either in the same ora different state,
. for different overt acts of the same trea-
son?
On the first point will observe as pre-
J limnary e. a consideration of Tie act of
congress which is supposed TO give the
power contended for, that / have been in
| clined to think the territorial courts were
erected, not under the 81. art. CT the con-
! sti;uiiCn which defines the judicial power
of the u. States, but under the 4th article
which enables congress 70 make all need
| fll rules and regulations for the govern
ment ofthc!r territories. One reason for
this opinion is that the territorial courts
| have cngaiZance OF cases over which cou-
| grcss under the Sc art. are. incapable of
! givinq. jurisdiction to the circuits courts of
! the U. =. ! dOno. mean to say that thecir-
cu;t system may not be extended TO the
! territories. | only mean to say that the
( existing territorial conrts ar: not created
| in virtue of that article which creates and
defines the judicial power of the Unised
States.
! The act which is denominated the Judi
cial act passed Immediately after the for
nation of the constitution and appears to
have had exclusively for rs ol,ject the or
| gan;Zatiun Of a system aRder the Sd. art.
! of that Instrument.
It's title is "A;l act g establish The in
! dicial courts Of &c y. States ;" and it con-
! tains no reference to a territorial court.
I The-ScCond section divides the United
States iuFo districts, no one Of whicl! in
( C!r!cs any portion Of territory nHt then in
c.adtd Ia so,ac state. II Us section then
the -erm " United States" desisa ates the
states composing the Union in exGlusier
Of that territory VII lcl was governed by
che United States. The word 's3ist;'icr'
in the sarue section oil vinasly means iu-
dici.l district created by the act. The
term is panty used in tho SAINT sense n
the Sd section aud. in every other part Of
the act where il is employed nut with 4
/ plain reference to the Courts ctcatef By
the act: and under this construction The
supreme court has refused TO take cognI-
zaUce OF an appeal from 2 territorial court
/ The SD section aushorises any justice
or judge of ting United States to arrySt ant
commit for any offence against the United
States; and because an offence against TIC
United States may unquestionabiy be com.
mittcd in territory, it is argued thai
these words authorize Judge here to ar.
rest md commit for trial there.
! ii these words stood uuc,Nnnect@d And IN.
controlled by others ] should not cous del
the sentence as absolutely ifCc .r@m d2uAt
iaithcugh perhaps might give it the con
structiun required by the counsel fnr tht
United States. Some DOUBT would lie m
duced ty the subject matter on which tn,
words are empio, ed. An arrest and com
mitment OF an offender is necessarily 70
the purpose Of bringing him to trial, an,
an act creating PARTICULAR courts o. cr:mi
nal jurisdiction in order TO give cG;.ct al
imp"YtsDt article OF the constitution, an
Iauthorisirg The judges of those oHr,sto ~
trcst and commit Chcnd-rs for trial geEe
rally, might be construed without dcpar
ting far from acknowledged rules, to au
ithorise commitment for trial IN thns
d, courts only to which the constitution al.
), the Jaw rt.atcG.
But all doubt upon this subject j, remoY
ed by the particular words CT the act
y Every person admits that ies!s!ativ
act like any other instrument, is 10 be "a
ken altogether, and that general phrase
- may b. explained, aid rest: aiHc q or Mat
ged by other words which dcmoasirat
a the sense in which those general pGrase
were used. Now the sentence auth6risin
an arrest and commitment FOR trial pre-
8. ceeds to say before what court such al.
IA must be had 1t must be before the c0ul
4 which by that act has cognIgance OF tb
ss offence. How then can the authority O.
Il tend TO a commitment for trial, before
= court which by that act has no cogtizauC
ID Of the offence Which derives It's juiI!
a. diction from different act, and is distiH,
e. in It's character and in It's powers In
- woras "such court Of the United States
by this act has Cognlzsucc OF the offence,
are o, scnscless. They arc operat'
words which form an important part Of Oh
&c .cuptou OF the power given. How thC
20 can they be rejected! Tie words W!lic
authorize the district judge 70 remove Il
person committed into that dlstJC,i in whiC
he is 80 be tried most pDyi ovsly mean tn
judicial diStr.ci, and refer rs sidluiy as
OF reference can be made 20 that district,
which the commitment C1, rtssCs thAt q
- ulruacr is TO be tried. On tlns TIE cor
sli mftirg juige decides.
1t his b-tn cOItcuGcl, that because u
- court Tor the Mis>l. siFpi Territory has,
81 Subsequent at Of congress jursIctn
.1. over Ill offences committed within The tc
;n ritory, that the grant Of Jurisdiction 10 ia
court enlarscs tic power OF TIC sOnini
w., TIM magistrates o. other courts,
Thc correctness Of this deduction G