Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-03-01
III i-a Gents 5i,.gte. /


turon the trials at Richmond. "It IS true,
i'Shat IN cases after forming the opinicn thar
no treason could BE committed, because no
reasonable asserbace had taken mace.
the court might have dispensed with pro-
ceeding further IN the doctrines of treason.
! But it is to be remembered, that the iSdr.
es might act separately, and perhaps a. the
same time, on the various prosecutions
which might be instituted, and that no an
peal lay from their decisions. Opposite,
| judgments on the point would have Dressn.
ted state of things infinitely to be ,lepyor.
ed by all. 1t was not surprising then thar
hey should have made some attempt TO set.
tie principles which would probably occur,
and which were in some degree connected
with the point before them
"This court is told that If this opioiob he.
incorrect it ought no, 10 be obeyed, because
it was extra-judicial. For myself. / can
say that could not lightly be prevailed ON
to dlsobey 1t, were | even convinced that il
was erroneous, but would Certainly use anv
means which the law placed in my power
10 care fhe question again before the SUI
preme court, for reconsideration, in a case
IN VIII CHI 1t would directly occur and be full
ly argued"
Here we see the chief Justice pathetical-
iy depioring the consequences of opposite.
pm N'ANo'th i'pAHNs aux l1lfGQIs
ing his inability TO bring these cases-isefore
the supreme court. For what He tells Us
10 Stftle H'7ncth(es, or in other words to pre-.
scribe rules tor the government of the cir
cuit courtS-in which, consists the very es.
sence of Legislation. Hence the iudiei3Ile-
lglslatlCn OF the supreme court is to exclude
Congressional legislation, hut he evidently
ADMITS the incompetency of the circuit
courts to legsiate upon this subject and
I n 4 Npf Inn atflsr. a
Ipreme court, u has ~ jurisdiction in cri-
m'nai cases and therefore. there is no le..
gal mode oil bringing the cases before them
! Tor the purpose OF seuFng hr2rclhieS, or in
| other words for the purpose of legislation.
Hcnce VIII result all the confusion which
the chief justice SO properly and pathet.cal-
| fy dePioi'es, Yes, sir, the uncertainty and
confusion resulting from contradictory de-
cis'onS OF your courts uRs the doctrine of
treason against the u 5. Will be such, that
no man can know when an act is innocent
CT guilty and when his innocence or Guilt
viii very much depend upon the cogrt, be-
tore which he may happen to be brought fer
triai Cur SITUATION will be, probably now
IS, Ike that described in England in the
tAne OF Henry the 9TH, after great many
statutes had been pasard, and contradictory
ndJudicatIonS had been made ia relation to
TINS same doctrine OF treason In the pre-
ambie TO hestatute OF the LIST of Henry the
4th, the situation of the nation. in relation
to treason, is thus described - That no
man knew what he ought to know, or TO do.
or to say, or to speak through doubt of such
pans" This, II not now, VIII inevitably
| De the case OF this country, unless some le-
| gislatve corrective of the present system
| be applied. There arc also great obiecti-
ons 10 the forms OF judicial legislation: they
consist too much IN inference, too littlc in
dIctum. They want the words q Be it en-
acted" &c The judges TO blend their tea
snn'ngs with theirinferences, thatitrcquires
great legal SKILL 70 make the proper ana
iySis a plain man Of the best understands
'Hg, could never do it. The cnnc.ing clau-
scs are obscured by the preamble. il isHke
Iehactug our speeches inteTspcrscd with our
'aws.--I IKE for instance the jndiciai OBJ
mons lately delivered in the u. :. upon the
various questions of treason, which have
been brought before the courts, and ask
Yourself this question Do you understand
I me doctrine OF treason now, better thanycl
/ did before the opinions were gwen ! is nor
the subject rendered more confused aud un-
certain Can you tell whether acccsscrial
treasons in England are principal treasons
IA the United States! Judge Chase and o.
theirs say they are. Judge Marshall saws
he does not knoY whether thcv are CT not,
bot hi- reasoning would so to shew thaf they
are not. In the doctrine of trcssnns thi, IS
an aii-important question; and &c the Judges
lcannot agree, how can PLAIN men settle tbs
iquestion And why is it that the peo7le
should be kept IN the dark upon this branch
lot cur penal laws alone it Cannot be GA
iaccount of the Nervousness ct tic oafDce
its dangcrous tendency towards society. nor
is fatal effects to'.t indivIniEi committing.
Bt All these reasons plead loudly in favor
loi tellmg the people plainly, whas the acts
arc involving such consequences than they
may take care ~ avo'o their Commission.
I'o he continued J