Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-04-28
VIRGINIA ARGUS.

last, has paid us many handsome compli-
ments, intcrmingled with great deal of cen
sure delivered with peculiar asperity. We
return him our thanks for the former, but
shall make no answer to the latter. The
"judicious choice of subjects for which his
praise has been SO kindly bestowed upon us,
will always prevent our devoting the CO.
iumns of the Virginia Argus toperSonal a.
busc, or an Improbable contest of scurrili-
~.
SO far, however, as any arguments, wor-
thy of notice, have been used by him in OPP
position 70 the doctrines advocated by us, we
will endeavor to pay them some attention.
He states that the distinction which the Ar
gus has made between justice * legality, is
not very honorable to the profession of the
law and says, it were much to be desired
"that L!.v should be justice, and that equal
ministered according to LAW"
In this meritorous wish we unite most
heartily with him but as long as human
laws are detective, (and that must ever be
the case while human nature is imperfect)
they must be insufficient to provide for eve
ry case that may occur. If municipal law
could be absolutely perfect, it would be
identified with justice: but, until that hap
py time shall arrive, discrimination will
always be made between Justice and Gazv.
Justice is indeed the end, and ia7vS are
the means by which that end is intended
to be accomplished; but the means are of
ten inadequate to the end proposed. In
such cases, IL becomes necessary sometimes
to vary from the written Law for the pur-
pose of attaining justice itself. We con-
tend therefore, that the sentiment we eX-
pressed was not incorrect and, that the
conduct of gen. Wilkinson, though illegal,
might have been Just.
In one sense indeed, law and Justice are
synonymous for the law of nature, which
that of society was created to support and
enforce, is altogether free from Injustice :
but our allusion WAS to .he municipal law,
and we had supposed that allusion was too
plain to be misunderstood by any Imparti-
al Observer.
He accuses us also of making clubbing
distinction between the acquittai of per-
son accused, and his discharge from custo-
dy by virtue of writ of Habeas Corpus
But surely the difference is substantial and
important between an acquttal on fair
trial, and full examination Of evidence, and
mere discharge from custody, or permits
sion to SO at large The former is bar
against any future prosecution for the same
offence, but the latter is not The former
ought TO clear the character Of the person
accused from all reproach; the latter
leaves it subject to every suspicion tn
which before it was liable; especially
when the discharge is occasioned by the
circumstance that sufficient evidence a.
gainst the rsoner was not produced, and
time enough to procure it has not been al
lowed. We really think the editor of the
Observer, IN making this objection, must
have forgotten for a moment the candor
for which he is so remarkable.
He contends too that the question we
have asked "whether he could say with
truth I" there was no such necessity in the
circumstances in which Gen. Wilkinson
stood )" is ia question not to be asked" s.
"challenges and dehes us to prove that a.
ny such necessity did exist.-Here too we
conceive the worthy Observer has acted a
little uncandidly; because in examining
the Argus of the 21st instant, it VIII be
found that the words immediately following
that question expressly stated the circum-
stances which proved the existence of that
necessity.
AS the rest of the arguments of the I'm
partial Observer are much of the same ma
ture with those we have noticed, and as
we have not space to spare for the purpose
OF paying attention TO the FIVE columns he
has employed in our service, we will say
nothing farther concerning them. Indeed
our abilities are unequal TO the task of fol.
lowing the interchangeable scrbblcr, who
seems to lament that we do not take notice
of all that he writes We will bid hin
therefore adieu ! requesting him not to be
afflicted It he cannot discover who are the
authors OF the communications which ap.
pear in the Argus. He has no right to sup.
pose that any person is the editor Of TIN!
paper, except the proprietor and, fol
our part, we are content not to enquire an.
der whose patronage the Impartial Obscr
yer has lately revived like the Phoenix
from its ashes, nor by whom it is at pre-
sent conducted but will give Mr.. Samue
Brooks, its ostensible editor, all the credi
OF all the excellent observations it contains
DISTRIBUTIONS ON THE HCTS o.
THE LAST GENERAL .ASSEATRL J