Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-04-21

| snu M aDilig, with that perspicnity for which
| hs seems remarkable, and Ia avoid the troubIe
ofreterTing you Messrs. Editors. and your
readers. To the Book itself, l musf beg YOUR
permission 10 give a verbatim ct literatini CO.
ply OF the authority: This excellent prin-
ciple the law OF England has adopted in IN.
construction of penal statutes for Whenever
any ambiguity arises in the statute introduce
M new penalty or punishment, the decision
snail be on the side OF lenity and mercy /; or in
favor of natural RICH and liberty or in other
WORDS the decision shall be according 10 the
| strict letter IN favour of the subject. And
though the Judgesin such cases may frtanent.
~ raise, and solve difficulties contrary TO th,
ltntention OF the Legislature. and vet no fur,
ther Inconvenience can result, than that The
law remains as il was, before the statute
! Ano u IS more consoHaut TO the principles of
liberty, that the judge should acquit whom
he legislature Intended TO pnrisi. Than that
ne should punish whom she legislature Intend.
| eu To discharge with impnniiy' Thr. autho-
riiy went conclusively to shew, that when
| mere was an. possibility of doubt about the
| effect or bearing ola statute upos any par
ticuiar case. all Judicial interpretations OF the
statute, must be III fdver OF natural right and
iDeris, or ~ other words. III favor ot the citi-
Zen. Admu thus I" b. true, and the inevitable
| conclusion would be, that there would be no
usqndl h ration ofsec0nds in the ca Sc supposed
| ASah illustration of this authority, the very
| general opinion OF all learned meD, that the
actt>eii rs unconstitutional, will have very
cohsihrrabie force, Persons then having act
Il
conveniently scrupuiUus oftakiny the oath
prescribed ny the law against duellibg.
lhe 1'h section of the ACT. which requires
10 oe .iVenin charge 10 The jury to present
Al persons concerned In carving. sending or
accepting challenge, was relied mon ;,s fur
nishing additional evidence of the disaualit.
Gallon OF seconds: bat this it wosld seem was
Intended To have no other effect, than the ere.
at common law
Again, Messrs. Editors. il was stated, that
u II was the intention OF the law To dsqualiiy
seconds, why was 1t not expressly included IN
TINT section, which disqualifies persons, who
send or accept challenges? Why was that
part OF tue law relative 10 the punishment of
tins class OF persons LETT 10 doubtful construc-
ton. when it should have been the object of
the legislative Will, while framing such a siaiA
nte, 10 place il beyond all manner Oft doubt
Aud why should the oath prescribed. inme-
diate!S follow tie clause OF disqualification.
II IL was intended 10 appertain 10 every part
oil the act or rather n ii was not designed on
ly to have application TO the immediateES pre-
cedDg section!
Rut the principal reason which is stated by
lhose who think the law Iras a disquaiityiu
effect IN case OF seconds is the oath which is
required to he taken by all persons who are
elected or appoint 10 ANY place under the
government OF the Commonwealth The oath
is TO this effect: That the person so elected
or appointed, shall swear that be has NOT been
engaged i'll dnei by sending or accepting
challenge 10 fight a dull or by fighting
duel, or IN any other manner in violation of
the act. sc. The words In vi laiion OF the
act sc were supposed TO have the magical
effect of Disqualification. The whole object
md mt aniug Otthose words, and the only eff
iect or application winch they could possibly
nave was TO designate aud specify those par
''chiar foregoing acts, which should operate
a experimentation; aud tbs Interpretation Of
those word> in any.oIher way but as re ferabIe
10 the previous specified acts, would be 10
involve absolute ,bsnrdiiies.
My object has been, Messrs. Editors TO give
you DTlef sketch of the opinions which are
generally entertained of the effect which the
statute has to SIsqna,fy persons from hold
ing offices under the government The
simple question as L coucieve, is, whe-
ther the bearing OF d chaileuge, or adyi-
sing the acceptance of a challenge are snch
acts, as amount 10 disqualification OF the
persons so concerned, by virtue of the law a.
sainst duelliHg. How far | have rendered
myself inteligible to you, messrs Editors il
Is Tor you 10 judge. have eudeaVoTed TO nm
detsiand this law with all the exertion that
a plain mau with common capacity cOnid be-
stow upon II, but have not been able eifec.
ITALY 10 relieve myself from doubt aud um-
certainty.
II only remains for nae, Nlessrs. Editors, TO
solicit your attention, and that OF your Du-
merous aud aDle correspondents TO the in
vestigation of a subject WHICH believe to
he important aud Interesting TO the public
am conscious that the construction which is
generally given TO the law, will have the eff
who have conscientious scrnples, from ia king
the oath. NO LAWYER
MISSOURI, again.-Messrs. Walsh and
Dwight have found AN ally in poulson's
Philadelphia d. Aduertiser /; from which
we extract the following paragraphs.
We trust liampden is mistaken i'm the
point of fact, that his are the senli-
Inenis Of vi great body OF the citizens of
PeDnsN lvania.
The proposed restriction in relation TO Mis-
souri,, from vaiions causes which must ere long
be brought to the light of day was rejected
She Is not yot, IL is gratifying to state admit
ted into The uuiOp withentit. Should sue, on
presenting herself at the door of Congress
with her constitution in her baud, omit 10 I'M
pose this restriction herself il is confidently
expected and aTdenIly desired, THAT SHE WILL
NOT BE ADMITTED. This by some would be
considered as harsh treatment 10 a minor sis
ter, but her Own welfare and that of The family
imperatlvely demand IL. Suck are The solemn
convictions, il lis beIieved, of "a vast majority
Of the citizens of Pennsylvana which her re-
representatives. will not fail 10 bear in mind
While determination is Thus unreservedIy
expressed, OF the course which will be pursued
IN the case, we add with perfect sincerity that
II has heen deliberately adopted from a tho
rough conviction, that il is due from liz 10 hu.
manity, TO our country, and to our Creator
IL orr OBJECT he not sanctioned by sacred au-
thOTity, we trust ii will not be realized
One word in conclusion, as TO the threats
winch have been addressed 10 our fears res
pecting dissolution of the union. We enter
tam too high an opinion of the wisdom and love
OF liberty, which are cherished by our ssuilI-
ern brethren, to believe for moment that
they will surrender the 81 safe dHchOrage' which
this coufedsracy affords them, for so unwor-
thy an object, as that OF enslatiug their FEG
Low CREATURES. HAMPDEN.
MIR. BurriH of K. |. d" entered inIo
statements TO shew TO the Senate of the
U. Sisies) that II was prac tirable 10 OBJ
tain on,rcsLic cnit....n IL IL. --...-L -