Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-06-23

au'ocaies OF TINS prosecution the only ground which
tney could hope even for moment TO occupy. The
tion OF it,
Judge Chace was certainly correct. "1he judicial
power of the u. States" says the Constitution
''shall extend to all in law aud equity arsin
under this constitution, te laos Of tie u Sidies Sc
What laws Of the U. States' The answer must be,
me iaws-the acts of Congress which might be there.
inter passed, IN pursuance of the Constitution and
which being so passed, are declared by the Cd sect
OF 9Th art. to be tho supreme laws Of the land.
But leaving Judge Chace, and reverting to our as
s1ed position ask, what is the real name or de-
scrption ofthe law belonging to that part of Niarv
iand' which was coded to tho u States! The answer
obviously IS, 1t was originally the law of Maryland
ana nothing more When the ccssion took effect il
continued the law of the land, then converted
! oy 'hnt cession into part Of the district Whe-
ther 1t thus continued by virtue of reason OF Justice
ana me law OF nature and nations, by virtue of
the Congressional declaration before quoted is not
material Its true description, its real name after
inc removal is the law OF the dstrct:--no no, of
The opn part of it. The territory coded
oy virginia was placed on similar footing. It's laws
thAt IL the laws of Virginia. however different and
probaoly they were very different, were Of equal
force in the Virginia part of the district An offence
therefore, committed the Maryland side, against
the law of the Maryland part of the district is not
an offence against any law othc u. States; but aoairt
The law of part Of the District Of ColuInbia. And
When there Is no offence against n law of the u.
ment thereof Calling things fairly and legally by
ther right names, we must say that the offence here
supposed, against law Of part Of the district is
an offence against The particular, the local goyernn ent
oil the district, in whomsoever vested In fact il is
vested by the Constitution in the Congress of the u
states. An offence therefore against the law of
either county of the district is ofcuce not against
law OF the u. States and therefore mi aroin fbe
Goper'uent thereof. but against the government of
he District OF Columbia, vested in Congress- or u
gamst the Government of the U. Stntcs in its capac
ty OF government Of the district.
Ia conformity With this idea we find that even
the acts of Congress- relating the District of Col
nmbia, are not considered laws of the u. States
BY the act OF lBiA (lsth April 1914 they are en-
p,cssiy eXciudea from the revised code of the U.
States Even titles of the several arc no, pub
lished in this code The number of TIE chapter Is
| alone given.
The Supreme Court hive also adopted the same
idea In Cohen case, the act OF ConyrUss author
ising Lottery IN the city of Washington was con-
sidercd as law of the district only: and not as
law OF the u. States, which coming into collision with
u state lazy, would supersede that law Nhe,ha,
Congress might not have made ihe LOTTERY law law
OF the u States, by giving to it extra ter rtoral
operation. Is ditcent question. the decision of
which, either alirmafiyely, negatively does not
affect the distinction here Indicated and I think
maintained.
In preserving this distinction between the npyrrn
nent OF the u States i'll IFS general character and
te same government IN its local ard particular char
acter as the sovereign and exclusive legislator ofthe
district, confusion will be avoided. An offence not
against the laws ofthe U. States but against the
laws OF the district, either part oft, may be pros
n
gainst the government thereof conStutonaly vested
IN the Congress of the u States, or as an offence d.
gains tie Congress of U. States, possessing en-
ercsiug The powers of government i'm the district II
on the otter hand an act described by statute MS an
offence against the u. States be committed in The
district 1t may be prosecuted aud punished there IA
an offence as INST the peace and dignity ofthc gov
eminent OF the u States. Iftherc he 10 snch s, at
ute, thore can be oiIencc against the government
Il republican government is cInphatically govern
men oflaws, an act therefore which violates no law
I n fDnnt mot oo.
ernmc mt, or its peace and dignity
am aware that by m act of Coprrcss relatinr 70
the district Of Columbia, passed Sd March 1901 mo,
published among the laws of the u S,atesA il il de
cared that all indictments shall run in the name of
the u States and conclude against the ncace "aud
government thereof" But this Legislative declara
ton cannot alter tue nature Of things II cannot
affect the position of q power consitutionaiv loco
ted and arranged II is not probable that Tie ooin,
here presented was Thought OF; but If this declara
ton had been advisedy aud Intentionally made ,lot
Intention could not convert one thing into annthor
thing: II could not make two things essentially and
coustuticna!ly different, thing: it could not cum
vert an offence, against law of part Of the district
OF Columbia, into offence against the U. States
whose lnws were no! disturbed
One government docs not punish an offence A.
gas4St another government, offence against I'M
| other government, wbcu committed ms NAV b,
sometimes the case within It's territory. an Of
fence against the u States, even an offence prohibit
cd by express statute is punished by any State
by state prosecution. IF the Congress of the q,
States, had remained Mt Philadelphia, removed 10
Baltimore il is clear that the act here CHARGED cnuId
not have been prosecuted. It seems then accop-
ding to the hypothesis, which the pending prosccu.
ton ussumcs that act the part of m officer oC
inc general government, which the statute law Of the
u States does not mention which no state law cnn
reach, and which TO the common law is utterly mac
cessblc, may be prosecuted an offence nganst he
taD Of hc .b1ry'nnd part Of The district NJ Coluul
btd" Thus the inferior md dependent government,
canwntch over thcsuperior government sovereign
Its exclusive legislator it prosecute as an OF.
fence against the superior government al act not 81
d:fned ny the toner, and furnish from the multiGar-
Gus provisions ofthc common law, drbblnp upou tho
u States, through the crcvcc Of the district code
on the subject of frauds and false precnces and acts
contra bono morcs,--a criminal CODE ofhe existence
OF which, the people of the u States arc even now
profoundly Ignorant Is not this view of the subject
sufficient? Are not the very terms OF tho foregoing
propositions sufficient to stamp upon them the inde