Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-03-10

. : |1s "a.
,f public law By them acknow,cds y, BIZ,
will observe the Instructions, which may
be given by the President of the United
States for preventing all such violations,
and that due satisfaction shalt be made
for all damages and injuries If any should
he committed contrary 10 the tenor there
of.
A bill from the Senate making further
provision tor the corps of eng 'neers was
twice read and referred to committee
of the whole
INDIAN TRADE.
On motion of Mr.. Newton, the House
resolved itself into committee of the
whole, 81 to IL, on the bill supplement.
tary TO the act for establishing trading
houses with the Indian tribes-Mr. w.
ALsroN in the chair. The bill being
gone through was reported to the House,
and ordered to third reading.
COURTS OF THE U. STATES.
On motion of MIR. Marion, the House
resolved itself into committee of the
whole, 40 TO 81, Mr.. w. ASTON in the
chair, on the bill supplementary to an
act for establishing the courts of the u.
States, The bill proposes an alteration
IN the time. or manner OF hoiding the
| courts Of s. Carolina.1
Mr. Love proposed an amendment 10
the bill, declaring that the laws of the
several states shall be the rules of proceed
ing in all judicial proceedings in the
courts of the U S. provided that il shall
M. affect any process on behalf of the
United Ststes,
Messrs. Taylor and Kelly objected TO
the introduction Of general provision,
embracing such an important principie
into law for special purposs-a prir-
siple TOO the propriety os which was Al
least questionable
Mr.. Loy- advocated his motion: He
Inverted 10 the laws passed in different
states for suspending execution for time,
| He did not express an opinion on the
principle of suspension but whatever
night be his opinion of the principle, he
wished il 10 be extended to the federal
courts in those states, for the sake OF c.
quality and consistency in judicial pro.
|ceedings.
MIR Loves motion was negatived by a
considerable majority.
- III SohuAittcS ToSc anu TCpoItcO tnc
bill.
Mr.. Love renewed the motion which
he made in committee.
Mr.. Gholson advocated the motion a.
some length, and went into an examina.
ion of The laws Of the United States on
the subject Of judicial process and of The
decisions under them, particularly Of
late dscision of the Chief Justice that the
law OF state Virginia. for suspending
executions should not be the rule of pro,
ceedng for fedora. court, whilst all O.
Their state laws not couiravering the laws
or constitution OF the United States were
binding on IT.
Mr. Dana moved to strike out the pro
vision excepting from the operation OF
the amendment all process in behalf Of
the U. S.-Ayes 80, Noes so.
MIR. M Clay conceived the decision OF
the judge mentioned by Mr. 6hoIson to
have been erroneous and all that wa
asked was that the decision should be re-
yersed by an explanation of The meaning
OF the law Of The United States; that a
Judge should not have il in his power to
put up the Law with one hand ADD pu, ii
''N' 'ifC OthCEs oUGei tnlS OtCt6.
ION, merchant 20 whom money was due
IN the state in which he resided, had no.
hing to do but to assign the deb's To-
some one in neigbori1g state, AID there
bring suit on it, ard evade the law of The
state. The foreigner too had adyan,
tages over the citizen IF the sac. as
he could recover debts ant, obtain exeA
cution on the judgment. when The citi
Zen was denied the right.
MIR. GARDENER offered an amendment TO
Mr.. Loves motion, TO this effect, th-t no
citizen OF one state VIII, oh had passed no
law for s.sPending executions should be
prevented from obtaining money in state
where such laws had been passed. For il.
would be unjust to enable the citizens of
one state las Virginia) to refuse payment 20
their neighbo,s in another state, whist the
citizens Of another state las Massachusetts
were compelled to make payment.
Mr.. Rowan opposed Mr. Loves amend
ment, as going 10 approve the dIfferen,
laws on the usubject Of suspension of 6
or different states. lie thought there
was no occasion Tor the amendment, for
byit The House would sweep from the 10.
dlcial code the laws already existing on
this subject land he deprecated all inng-
vations Of the judicial system, where the