Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-05-27
TUESDAY, May Goth, 1907.

until thenex day, twelve o'clock
TUESDAY, May 26th, 1907. '.,
present the same judges as on Yesterday,
The grand jury were called, and adj.
Journed over till the next day.
On the motion made Yesterday 20 COM
mt Col. Burr on the charge of treason, tho
Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the
Court as follows:--
In considering the question which was
argued Yesterday, it appears to he neces-
LIST; Whe her the court sitting a, a
court, Possesses the power to commit any
person charged with an offence against
the u. 6.
2ndly 1t this power be possessed, whe-
tner circumstances exist in this case
which onght TO restrain its exercise
The hrst point was not made in the ar.
gume mt, and would, if decided against the
attorney for the United States, only change
the mode of proceeding. fla doubt can en-
/ ist respecting it, that doubt arises from tho
omission in the laws of the United States
90 invest their courts, sitting as courts,
with the power in question 1t is expresses
ly given 10 every justice and Judge, but not
to a court.
his objection was not made on the oars
OF Col. Burr and is now mentioned. NOT b.s
cause II is believed to present any in
trlnslc difficulty, but to show that it has.
I been considered.
! : ms power is necessarily exercised by
courts in discharge of their functions, and
seems not to have been expressly given,
because 1t is implied in the duties which
court must perform, aud the judicial act
contemplates it in this light. They have
cognizahce of all crimes against the Unit.
Ell states they are composed of the per4
sons who can commit for those crimes e.
and it is obviously understood, bv the Ies
: gislature, that the judges may exercise
collectively the power which they possess
individually, so far as is necessary to ems
| aDie them 20 retain person charged
with an offence in order to receive the
| Judgment which may finally be rendered
In his case. The court say this is obvious
ly understood by the legislature, because
there is no clause expressly giving to the
court the power to bailor to commit a per-
son, who appears in discharge of his recoe-
nlzance, and against whom the attorney
Ior the United States does not chuse "a
to proceed, and yet the SD sect. of the
judicial act, evinces clear under standina
IN the legislature, that the power to taxa
0all is In possession of the court
1t person shall appear in conformity with
his Tecosnizance, aud the court passes away
without taking any order respecting him he -
discharged. Il new TecogniEance, therefore. or
a commitment on the failure to enter into one.
is in the nlue Of an original commitments. and
this power has been uniformly exercised
Ii Is beIeved IN be correct position, thar
the power to commit for offences of which nc
I has cognizance, is exercised by very court OF
Criminal jurisdiction, and that courts as well a.
! individual magistrates are conserVators of thz
peace.
Were it otherwise the consequence would on
ly be that IL would become the duty of the iudpS
to descend from the bench, and in his character
as an individual m igistIkte, to do that which the
court Is asked to DO.
III the court possesses the power, it is certains
! ly les duty TO hear the motion y, hich has been
made on The part of the ". S, for in cases of the
character of that under confederation, its duty
& It's power are CO extensive with each other. Ii
was observed when the motion was made, and
! the observation may now be repeated, that tho
argum urged on the part Of the accu, ed rather
prove The motion on the part Of the u. s unne-
cessary, or that inConveuiences may resu from
it, than the want ofa legal right to nakeit.
! The first is that the Grand Jury being nov ia
session ready 10 receive an Indictment, the at
torney for the Unicd States ought TO proceed by
bill instead Of applying to the court, since the
only purpose ofS commitment is TO bring the acs
cused before the Grand Jury. This statements
contains an intrinsic error which destroys its o.
peTaiion. The cOmmitmen, IS not made for the
sole purpose Of bringing the accused before q
\ Grand Jury IL 10 made for the purpose Of 5, b.
| iecting hum personally to the. Judgment of ne
law, and the grand jury is only the fret sep to-
! wards tina judgment.
If, as hes bcen argued, the Commitment was
simply 20 detain the person until a Grand Jury
could be obtained then It's operation would
cease on the assembling of Grand Jury but
| auch is not the fact The order &C commitment
retains its force while the Jury is in session, and
if the prosecutor does not proceed, the cout IS
accustomed 10 retain prisoner in Confinement,
or TO renew his fscugnizanos TO a subsequenb
term.
The arguments drawn from the Fen-ral poll
! cy Of our laws. from the attention which should
be Borrowed on prosecutions, inst'tutc1 5y spe.
cia order OF the executive, from nc peculiar in.
convenience and hardshps of this particular
Gaze, from the improper effects which neyiisby
result from this cxanipati n, some OF them
suhirc for the confederation of those Nho make
the motion. rather than Of the court, and Others
60 70 the creumspecuon with which the tes,is
rony IN support Of the motion ought 20 be weigha
ed, rather than 20 The duty Of hearing IT,
{ See Rrfra, drgKs.J