Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-09-20
!12 1-2 Gents Singled

puo'c iunctionarIes-such is the right pos
sessed by each Of Us TO his seat UPON this
moor. One OF the greatest writers I'd.
on the nature OF laws, the ingenious and
profound Montesquieu, pointedly cautions
ms readers and all students in the laws.
not 10 confound the rules and PRINCIPLES
belonging 10 these distinct classes ofrirh,s.
The trial by jury meant by .t,,, article Of
me c 'aululIop, is reserved ior the deci.
SION ct questions affecting the civil, aud
10 The political rights of the ci,ixen.--
me sentence is to operate upon his in.
dNduai person, or property, but not upon
ms political franchises. To decide upon
those other courses of proceeding are pro.
sided-courls martial for military men
impeachment for civil ofhcers-and for
members OF The legislative body, The pro.
cess which we are now pursuing.
But 1t is said that If The srna e try and
decide upon offences committed by their
"enbers they will All remain liable &c,
'hdict Uent, and The weight Of such deci-
ION by The Senate, would have an oppres.
s've influence 10 dictate the verdict of The
jury inns argument pays very poor
compliment TO the juries of OUT county.
/. rests upon position which ! tnisris
a'ioge'her uniouuded, that they will be
governed by bias in direct violation of
Their oa.hs. Our Juries, sir, are always
sworn to give their verdiGts according 10
he evidence, Sc certainly no vote of rx.
pnision could be offered in evidence. IN ,
jury upon criminal prosecution.
90 lar as have any experience of iu-
r'es' nave always seen them sufficiently
guarded against any bias of external cir.
c"ms'ances, especially such as might one.
ra'e nniaVoraoly 10 the person upon trial.
IL Us the natural character af our country.
men, anc 1t may be safely relied on. No
jury would ever be warped from the line
o' 'he'r duty TO condemn a person accused
upon esolution of this body, which could
no. be adduced to them in evidence.
we are told that this is the precise dis
tinct'on between the two cases. which have
heretofore occurred in the Senate thatthe
case oil Mr.. Marshall was and that of Mr..
blount was no. an indictable offence, that
tins distinction perfectly reconciles the
proceedings in tlFose two cases. But no
hch distinction appears upon the face of
those cases. From the terms in which the
report against Mr. Blount was expressed.
i would seem as if tha reporters had a
DOUBT ct the opposite kind /; doubt like
that urged on MIR. Chase's Impeachment
NAT Us, whether member could be eXpel.
leu Tor an offence not indIctable--for after
describing at some length the moral COM
plexion or Mr.. Blount's act. thew exnress-
" ada that u amounts to a hfgh DIsdemea-
nor-words which seem expressly chosen
to intimate an opinion that the act was in
dictable; misdemeanor being the tech
meal language of the law, the special cha
racteristIc OF an indictable offence.
Inc Course recommended TO the Senate.
rs substitute instead of that which they
nave pursued, is Itself liable to,obiections.
lhSuperahls To my understanding. do not
ma IN the constitution any authority given
20 the senate TO direct any law officer oft
ohi'ea states TO commence prosecution
at law, against one of their members.
TO be confined.