Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-08-11

~, ~iih Which, The tNe.c!se Oi tins, WOu!i
he Inconsistent. ii u should be said tha,
Congress by vit,ue vi ANY powers vested
IN thrm by The Constitution, mag assume
exclusive jurisdiction IN eases Of Illegal
Imprisonment, under color oil :neir au-
ihOs,ty and may, in such case, proiiibu
the STATES lis Iaw from aulhorisns the
WIT at HubeaS Corpns; /! answer, thai
uiiil they do 50. there Is nothing more
clear than that the authority Of the States
,rrmaius. Whenever they assume the
power 20 prohibit the STATE Courts from
granting the WI, in such cases, 1, will be
time cnongh 10 ask them Tor the clause
~ the Constitution, which coniers the
authority. Al present, allho they restrain
their Own Judges irom extending the Writ
20 prisoners in Jail, under color oil autllorl.
~ from The States, yet in that law, where
'be subject must have naturally occurred
io iheni. we iIud moi Il word about pro-
iib!iins he States Judges from EXTEND
ieg The WIT 10 prisoners in jail. under co ,
tor at authority from the United States.
They made no such provision, because,
presume. they believed they had no con
siituilonal right Ia make it.-As TO the
argument derived FROM the lncomv enie ne
oil permitting all those in the several
States, (epti'led under ordinary circum-
s!aIcss 10 award the Writ of Habeas
Corpus) 10 determine OH The constitution.
ALLY o! a law of Congress, and to release
prisoners ameuable 10 The United States
IN their criminal Courts, ii is entitled at
best 10 very little weight i'm a question
oi this nature, aud il is aiihogc,her obvat-
ed oy the law of Virginia, giving TO the
Judges oil her Superior Courts alone, the
authority 10 award The Writ, and secur-
ny an appea! 10 the Court of Appeals
acre are nunerous cases where the
Judges and the most Inferior officers of
ihe states, are called upon TO determine
cH!ia'cra!iy, The true construction of The
E'usii, uliom and laws Of Congress :; and
u this Is an evil. il is AN inevitable Que,
arising out of the peculiar structure OF
nI, political body
And upon the whole, however disposed
nlgh, be from a principle OF comfy.
7" iejVe cases OF This nature, which should
hs al az Questionable, to The determination
81 the Federal Judges (whose wisdom and
integrity have DO reason tn doubt, } VET,
&c use iie language otC. Justice 7Iighman.
"nen consider ihe situation OF IA Virgin
ian, Imprisoned illegally, by color of a
prctea;!ed authority from the u. States. in
sohe remote corner our extensive terri.
tory, and no Federal Judge 10 whom he
u, GIN apply ieei as iilile inclination.
d. have right, 10 surrender the auihori.
~ OF the Commonwealth.
may add, that iu tie case before me
there Is still less reason for disclaimi,,-
the authority, than in those where Tho
State Judges aud the Legislature have
virtually asserted II! for where the pris-
Qners are actually i'll the custody of a
Nia'e OihceT. by virtue of a warrant from
a State fnnciionaIy. Ii the u. States
can use those persons, as Instruments
h0lli TO commi, and TO delaiu supposed
offenders, can they deny The exercise
~ HE experimenting power, which, in
every other case, has authority 10 restrain
AMI aunui the acts OF those inferior iurs-
d!ciions think not, and therefore
pass Oh 10 the third question occurring
IN the case. 20
That no State Court has any iurisdjc
non over tie offences charged upon the
prisoners Is perfectly manifest. The
jurisdiction OF a nation, is either t.lYitoyi-
~, That Is, limited to offences committed
~ lis own territories: or persoaol, That is.
one Which reaches their onn subjects or
c'Hzeas oaty. 1 single exception is the
case OF Piracy = which is not founded
on The idea that nations have common
jurisdiction at sea, for over many offences.
az private the!is &c. They certainly have
non hui depends OIL principle which
VII presently be stated. By Ike consiitu.
S,on "f The United Siaics, Congress have
HE power 10 defiue aud punish piracies
c"'hmiiied on the higl, seas, ~ they have
hone so. Ot course the iu, iSdictiOm of tie
staies hus ceased. Virginia has in on.
instance Uhe case Of Gaines) and believe
~ one instance only, exerIed her personal
jurisdiction ocer q citizen, for AL offence
ggmaSt citizen, committed out of The
safe, VIZ. in the District of Columbia
SUI al HE laIe revision of the laws, even
'''is personal jurisdiction over her citizens
VAS abolished, aud her courts confined
20 HE punishment Of such offences as are
committed within the Commonwealth.
" lie courts ot The United SiaIes have
jI!iSdiciioD, II must be because these
fnFn have committed piracy by the laws
% Congress, or piracy by the law of ma
lions VIII be impossible 10 bring
mem within tile provisions OF any other
penal laws; nor Is ii pretended.
by The Sih section of an act OF Con.
%Tess passed IN the year 1870. entitled
An Act for tie punishment Of certain
crIme5 against The United States" Muir
'ers and Robberies committed OH The
f!iBii Seas " 6y any person pe,soas" are
made piracies, an. The offenders punish
81 with death. By some, il was al one
hnle supposed that tuis aei ex,cDhcd even
- Foreigners Offending against foreigners;
"n1cr which construction, The case Of
lie~e men might possibly be included. But
~ Supreme Court in Tie case of The L..
"dies W. Pa'mer(3d Wheaton 6iO) de-
-rm M t,iai RoJjerv committed on lie
rtgh seas by person moi citizen Of The
united SAFES. Oh board OF ship b,long.
'Dg exclusively TO subjects OF Il foreign
ate, vas not piracy under that aci, aud
as not punishable in tbc courts Of The
1nIied States. For The same reasons