Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-02-15

of making war, the regulation OF commerce, inc
treaty power, &c. &C. as well amongst The States
as toward foreign nations, have all been surIeh
deied by the States.
If Virginia can. by virtue of her sovereign pow
err over the person Of her citizen wherever he goes,
as she il said by rome TO possess. claim to punish
him for the violation of her dueng act, although
committed in sno,hsr State, Maryland, for in
stance she could upon the same ground punish
him for any act he NAV commit in Maryland, that
would be q violation of the law OF Virginia, (if
done here,) although it may be allowed by the
laws of MARYLAND. Or she might, by theVsame
power, prohiti, his migration into Maryland al all
And can i, be contended by any one. that Vir-
sinia can exercise such power over her citizen
as 10 forbid him going. if he will, into the State
of Narylapd-or that che can, claim to punish
him, if, whilst there, he please to engage in the
sale of lottery tickets, or play at the game of bill
lizards; both Of which he is forbidden to do by the
laws of Virginia, but il permitted 10 do by the
laws of Maryland!
If there be any doubt on this subject, I think it
will be entirely removed by reference to the Con-
s,itution of the u. s.. in which we find that the
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the
privileges aud in,munitteS of ci,izens IN the Sc
veral States.''-By which il is evident that the
citizen of Virginia has the right to go into Mary
land at pleasure to stay as long as he WILL acquire
property or do any oher thing whilst there, that
citizen of Maryland can do even TO sell lottery
tickets or play at billiards. Hence, II follows, that
Virginia has not sovereign jurisdiction over the
persons of her citizens, cannot prevent their going
out Of her limits, nor punish them Tor violation
of her duelling or any other act; when il is done
in Maryland. How can Virginia claim Juri-dic-
ton when il cannot be denied that Maryland has
jurisdictions? They cannot both exercise jurislic-
lion over the same case. If they could, 1t might
tend to violate the principle established by another
constitutional provision, which protects an indivi-
dual against being put twice in jeopardy tor the
same offence. Added TO this, it would be calcu-
lated to disturb the peace and harmony between
the two States. for, although. there nigh, be no
difficulty between them III regard 10 the pun
ishment for the violation of the dueliing act.
vet cases might well occur, where under the
rretence of this principle, Virginia or Maryland
might either claim take jurisdiction of case of
outrage by its citizen, against the laws OF the Other
for the purpose merely of protecting him against
the punishment he deserved the hands OF the on
against whom lie has offended. This state of
things would lead to misunderstanding, and other
deplorably bad consequences. But happily for us,
those who have gone before us. were not IN
mindful ofthe necessity To- guard against these mis-
Chiefs and consequently we ind II provided for in
the constitution oil the u ). which declares that
in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall en-
10y the right TO a speedy aod public trial, by an
impartial jury OF the state and district wherein
the crime shall have been committed This,
however, is by some, understand, considered 10
be applicable only TO cases coming within the ju
risdc,ion of the Federal Courts. But why should
i, be so considered2 There is nothing in the
phraseology that gives it that limitation, is
there any inconsistency in giving it the general
application, which the terms plainly import, with
other parts of lhe constitution. On the contrary
! it is in immediate harmony with other provision.
| Of the same instrument, particularly with that
which says that, " person charged in any State
with treason, felony other crime. who shall flee
from Justice and be found in another STATE shall
on demand OF The Executive Authority of the stale
from which lie fed, be delivered up, TO be remov
ed TO the State having jurisdiction of the
crime" These two provisions are not only in har-
mony, but actually give force and effect to esci
other. Then, I say, it appears TO me, that b,
the Constitution oil the United States, il i.
shown that Virginia has not the power to pun.
sh her citizens for acts done out of her territory
therefore, dat part of the duelling act Is uncon
siitu'ional, sad she has right TO subject in
diviLual 10 the oath, -fka, he has lot violated
| law which she had no right to pass.
! debate o lie cUuBugli