Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-04-06

d States, are not defined w,Jh
ot the Unit,
NSu#uient
tu .,,sa,

- ii'iN NSSulISQ ttE NtSllnCS, |
III the case ola mortal blow given at sea
and death OH shore, and vice versa, there
was no place pointed out by the law. Of the |
United States for trial. For the common
Case OF assault and battery on the high seas,
there was no court vested with jurisdiction
To try the offence. Jurisdiction 1t was true,
was constantly assumed 10y the courts, er
ncceSanafe rel, hut 1t was highly proper
that there should be some Legislative pro-
VISION placing this beyond doubt. There
was doubt, under the act relative to scut-
tiinS vessels TOR the purpose of Gefrauding
the underwriters, whether an act of fraud
thus committed OH cOmhany would fail
wltnin theprovisions ofthe law, which speaks
CT Persons both cases we're unquestionably
intended to be embraced by it: So i'm the
case OF an owner directing captain to
SINK vessel, with view 30 defraud tie I'M
uerwr'ters, it was doubted whether such
Captain was indictabe. The whole phrase
ology Of this law was SO extremely obscure
ina. IL was necessary 1t should DC made
more distinct
Another very serious object with me said
MIR. Niilnor, is the consideration of the ques-
ton "hctaer the punishment inflicted by the
Laws ot the United States in variety of ca
sSs ought not 10 tie accommodated to the
prevailing sentiments OF the people, as *
pressed by the legislatures of the several
states III regard punishments. In almost
all the states within few years past all -
meoraton had taken place in the penal
laws, lessening the number of crimes pun
ishab!e withdeath; III Peuna only one was
punishable with death, < n law for abulishinr
that one had been recommended to the early
attention of the next Legislature. Mr. NJ.
spoke OF the disadvantages Of sanguinary
punishments, not the least of wtich was, that
as the evidence must be very strong indeed
to produce conviction, the object of punsh-
ment WAS frequently defeated from the i'm
pulse Of humanity, &c.
Another sabject requiring attention, Mr.
M. said, was the doctrine Of challenge. The
right of challenge of persons Indicted for
penal offences was in some states more ex-
tended chan IN others, not being uniform.
ms inequality arose from inadvcrtence on
the part ol tie legislature, and required
remedy.
Annther object he had in view was to
PROVIDE Tor cases not already provided for by
law. Without gong to others, he would
advert 20 one such: that there was no law.
IN the opinion of the legal authorities, by
which perjury or false swearing in procu-
ring the necessary proofs, preparatory to
Clearance at the custom house, were pun
ishabie. There were various other obvious
ueiects Ill the laws; and 1t appeared To him
there couiu be no better mode of remedy
than laying the subject officially before the
Attorney general, who between this time
and the next session would have ample time
to make up satisfactory report.
The House thenagreed to consider the re-
solution.
mere appeared to be 10 difference in
sentiment in tho House on the object of the
mover, VIZ. revision of the penal code as
co the proprety of which there seemed To
be general concurrence of opinion. Some
difference arose at the mode of accomplish
Ing this object
Mr.. Lacock moved to strike out of the
resolution the words the .dtto,2lsy-eeuer-
Gl u me United stairs be directrd," and in
sert the words 80 q committee 5eahhonifed,"
so as to devolve the duty of making the
necessary revision on committee of this
House.
This motion was supported by Messrs.
Lacock, Macon, Newton, M'Kin. and black
ledge, AHA opposedby Messrs. Smile, Mil
nor, Bacon, Findley, Mitchill and Wright.
The supporters oil The amendment said
thatto Cali on the Attorney-genera for his
OPINION oil the expectancy of measure
would DC undignified; that this was a fair
SUBJECT tor the exercise Of the powers OF this
ftouSs, and one TO the investigation of the
expectancy OF which professional knowl-
ed5ewas not necessary, though u might be
use IN framing the ccrails Of a bill that to
refer i'll this unqualified manner To an Ex-
ecntive officer was surrendering the Repre-
sentative privileges, and blending together
departments of the government which ought
t. DC forever kept distinct. On the other
hand, 1t was said that the experience and
legal talent of the Attorney general must c.
hnnehtly iit him Tor the contemplated re-
vision; that his report was merely to be
tor the Information, not the guidance, ofthe
House that d similar Course had been A.
doptedin several state governments and
aprecedent was shewn at the Cd session of
the 1st Congress of the u. 5. in which a sim
II + course had been t. ken
The motion to amend was negatived, Yeas
SO, Nays 6S.
Mr.. Roberts said that he did not know
mat the House had she power To conpcl the |
Attorney general 20 make such a report, UNI
less their reqnistioh assumed the form Of
law Otherwise the application TO the At
torney-Gcneral should DC made through the
t.Secstive, WHO had The power to require
the opinion Of The Attorney general. As
therc was at least some difficulty about this
business, he moved that The res lotion lie
on the table, to give time for further con-
Soeratlon OF it Motion lost, Ayes 81.
MF'Little moved 10 strike out the word, !
Z" Attorney general" andinsert President |
OF the United states :" who might. nc said
ofhCidlly iequire the proper relort from |
the 10" officer Of the U. Standardization neg |
adVed.
HE question on the whole resolution was |
then taken, On suggestion of MIR Roberts |
twnose o1joctiors we're 10 tac mode and no, !