The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-01-15

IN either difri6 where any part of the offence
is committed and that when 10 tried. there
thail be bar TO any other trial for the fame Of
fence. So far from introducing new princi-
pie, Mr. B. was of opinion the fame courfe
would be purfued without any fpecia, proviiion,
which, however, was defrablr, as making the
point explicit, and placing it beyond all doubt.
He faid he had no other objection to the COM
mittee riiing, than that arifing from delay.
The fooner the bill was paifed the better; for
although 1t could not operate on paft offences,
1t pafied in feafon, it might perhaps operate
on acts which might take place after its PAT.
fagc.
Mr.. Smile faid the provition in tie bill had
been 10 we'll explained by the gentleman
from Mafachufetts that he was furprifed how
any doubts could be entertained refpeStinr it..
1t was well known~tha in cafe of treafon man
might commit one aa in one itate, and diff
terent act in another fate. Was he i'm this
cafe to be tried twice for the fame offence /?
This would be unconstitutional. So in this
caie' confpiracy might be competed of vari.
Gus acts committed in different fates. Would
gentlemen be for trying the man accufed of a
con!pracy in different ftates, and for every aa
committed by him Surely not.
Mr.. Eppes faid he would call the attention
of the committee to two claufcs of the conttitu.
ton.
The trial Of all crimes, except in cafes of inn.
peachment, fhall be by jury and fnch trial
ihal be held in the fate where the faid crimes
ihal have been committed but when not com.
mtted within any fate, the trial fhall he at fach
place or places as the Congrefs may by law
have diretted.'
fhall enjoy the right to fpeeiy and public tri.
Al, by an impartial jury of the fate and d;;tria
wherein the crime fhall have been committee"
Mr.. N. Williams faid he apprehended, tho
ne was forty to make the obfervation, that the
honorable gentleman from Virginia who obiec-
ted to the Cd fiction of the bill, did not correa.
iiy understand it. That according to his own
understanding, the feetion did not contemplate
the trial of diina offences in any dittrd or ter
lritory in which the offence fhould not have
been committed. The words of the fettion
are " that the trial of the above offences NAV
be had in any of the ditries, and where any of
tie ads contributing the offence fhalI have been
committed, &C." BY this it clearly appeared.
that when the offence to be tried, was made nm
OF various acts, fome of which were commit.
ted in one difrid and fome in another, the of.
fence might be tried in either of thefc diftr;as
MIR. w. faid he fhouId vote againft the poft-
ponement, as he did not fee the leaf difficulty
IN the cafe. The bill contained no new princi.
ple-none that was not known and applied in
cafes of trealon, familiar to every one, and in
cafes OF larceny, in which it was every DAVIS
| practice to proiecute an offender in any coun.
! ty where the goods were found upon him, al
! though tolen in another county. He faid the
bill appeared to him highly important, and he
was forty to dilcover difpoftion in the H,ufs
to delay the bnGnefs under dfcufiion.
Mr.. Alton did not agree with the gentleman
laft up. On the contrary, be conidercd this
ie6tion as exceptionabe. What does it fav
That you may try a man ia any one of the diC
triets where he may have committed an offence.
This was putting power into the hands of the
profecutor to harrafs the accHfed beyond that
which the contribution even CONTEMPLATED.
He thought the fiction might be 70 worded as
to obviate the objections that had been RATED.
Mr.. Eppes faid il was very polible, as fiat.
ed by the gentleman from New-York, that he
did not underftand the fiction correctly, az he
did not pretend to his high genus. His ftrone
eft objection to the fetfion was that it gave the
profecutor right to try the offence in that place
where the ftrongef prejudice might exit acainlt
the accufed. Mr.. Eppes here recapitulated
his firft remarks, and added that, according to
the fecoad fiction, man could be tried for any
of the offences enumerated in the firR fiction,
in any one Of the diitr6s of tie United States.
provided any ofthofe acts fha,l have been oom-
mitted in it. He would afk whether this would
not be a violation of the contribution which
guaranteed a jury of the vicinags to the accui-
ed He would ak how man could be tried
here by an impartial jury collected from New
Orleans, Kentucky and Indiana ?
MIR. Jack(on faid that the fetaion, according
to the contribution given it by his colleague,
was highly Objectionable, and ftared the conlt-
tuition in the face, and ought not TO receive the
patronage Of the Houfc. He, however, believ-
ed that the object of his colleague as well as the
friends of the bill might be effected by taking
middle courie, by combining the trial of the ac-
cufed to the diltret in which he mall be arreft-
ed. This would preclude the poffibility of an
individual being transported for trial from one
place to another, and his being thus dragged to
Il place where the rage of implacable PATRONS
may condemn him though innocent. If fome
fuch amendment were not made MIR. T. fad he
ihould vote for Rrking out the fiction and if
the fiction fhoald neither be amended or
flricken out, he fhouid vote againa ;he bill.
Mr.. Sloan faid that while they were 70 iea-
lorG of the rights Of The citizen, it became them
not to be indifferent to the fafcty Of the com.
munity. He apprehended tia, the intention of
this law was to nip ia the bud plans that were
treafonahe and deltruG;ve of the peace IF the
u. S. The Provifon contained in the I'd fec
ton appeared 10 him highly uecedary to guard
the rights Of the community.
MIR. DAYTON laid it was the opinion of the
committe that introduced the bill, that a man
uuft be tried in the ditri6. where he wac APP
pretended, and this, he confidered as the true
: tpL,