Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-03-08
Mn. CHESS BILL

mass ACT TO 6kpOuuNt NiC Sohotithiioit
and whether that right oashs 70 be cxerci-
.ed on the present occasion. The result of
our reflections has been to determine, (ac-
cordinp to the best Of our iudgment,) both
chose questions in the affirmative. If in
this WE are mistaken, il is an error we
shalI regret: and, whenever it can be de-
nv fair argument, to be such,
we are r-ady TO renounce it; but not till
,hen.
T,be merits OF the bill itself are next to
i,e cons;dered: and here we are sorry to
saw that we find u great deal To disapprove.
Tn extending the doctrine of treason to ca
SEES oe armed opposition to any particular
act of congress, or of an asSenblage TO
take nasssssiep of ary vessel belonging 70
the United States, the Trainer OF this bill
has evidently gone too far
IN the first instance we conceive he has
eoneu intothe error of Judge Chass-in the
i,.;ol of Fries, and classed under the demo-
n,,sa.;on of treason offences amounting on
10 20 /, riot, or solutions asse nb!y; and, in
the seconl, has declared such acts to be
reasonable as constitute not an actual
cr;,ne. hut are merely evidence OF an in
fenti,n to commit robbery or piracy, and
nat treason. IL appears clear TO us, that
the intent to destroy the sovereignty OF the
limited States, either totally, OF. IN some
,,art of their territories. is an essential in
rredient in treason, and that, when such
intent has progressed TO the assembling OF
men for that purpose, the crlme Is then
complete, whether the person, At whose in
s,aAce, and by whose procurement, the as
semblage takes place, be present at the
scene Of action or not, Such we apprehend
was the able and correct definition of the
orr,nre riven by the counsel for the prose-
R,fR.,- in. m
fornity with the opinion of the Supreme
(.ourt in the case Of BotlD,dH and Sgvar-
tzyout. which definition, we believe, has
been generally approved as the true expo
sition of the Constitution, supported by the
best common law authorities relative to the
incoming of the words ''LeUying sca,'. -
All that, on the present occasion, the
pubic gond requires from Congress is, TO
give that definition the sanction of their au-
thority, in opposition to the unintellig iblc
and unconstitutional decision by which it
was overruled. This is necessary to be
done, II preveat a systcm from being eS-
tabished as law, by which traitors would
never be punished, until after rhcy had &C
t,iaIIy 7Uaced as we'll IS lcu.ci war against
their country. and, having she'd, perhaps
torrents of blood and perpetrated innumc-
rable mischisfs, were defeated and taken.
]
ing the meaning OF the words keOging war,
as distinguished from mixing or ragiag
war; and tn us it seems that nothing more
ought to be done, or can be done by Con-
e-css without violating the Constitution.
II may he said that this very difference
of opinion, concerning the extent OF the de-
finition, shews the danger of vesring Con-
eress with the power of expounding the
Constitution, and is an argument To prove
that they do not possess that power at all.
To this we answer; the possibility that a
power NAV be abused is no proof that it
does not exist; nor even that such power
is not, in many cases, cxpedient and ne
cessary. 1t only proves that 1t ought to be
used with great caution and discretion ;
and that those who pervert it to evil pur-
poses deserve the censure and rcprobation
of their constituents
II never has been denied that the Ind
gcs have the power of eXpouading the con
stitution; which, we conceive, necessarily
involves that Of declaring an net OF Con-
eress unconstitutional: Yet this power by
tlrc7n NAV sometimes be eXerted improper
". In the same manner. we say that Con-
ygress possesses the power of declaring the
opinions of the Judges unconstitutional
altho' they may sometimes exert It imprn
perly. If they commit a mistake in so do.
ing, it is at their peril and, If the Jud
Ses are right, and they are wrong, the state
legislatures aud the people. must decide
between them. If this was NOT the case
the Judges might successfully defeat every
provision in the Constitution, or counterac'
every act of congress, ON the pretence u
its being unconstitutional and the only re
medy would be by perpetually Recurring u
amendments TO the instrument itself The
members of Congress also, as well rs the
Judges, take an oath to support the Consti-
tuition Surely, then, the obligation to sup
portit must convey the corresponding pow.
cr of interpreting its meaning SO far, IT a.
M rqtc,' as is necessary to saUe IL from
destruction.
All human Institutions arc imperfec.
and subject to corruption and abuses. Con
gress-men, Judges, State Legislatures anC
the People are all men, and therefore fal
lible or vicious. Such too is the impcrfec
ton IF language, that no words can be useG
IN any written instrument which may 90
be misinterpreted by weak, wicked, Of
crafty men. This being the case, how
ever freq cntly the Constitution Of the u
nited States NAV be amended, diOicultie
will always be found, as well in the amend
ments. as in the original text. The onll
standard therefore which can be ultimate
" resortcd 70, for the purpose Of settlinl
the eon,ending interpretations, which MAJ
be PIT upon it by judges and Legislators, j