Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-06-23
For THE CoVsTIruTIov..L " .IrGs.
w ATKINS,S (,AS,N

The circumstances constituting this case. lca he
fore the public. 1t is, therefore, deemed uuneccs
to repeat them here.
The question is, whether the act aiielod in the
Indictment. be offence, within the purview OF arg
f1,o IF Ike u. StrtcS?
It is assumed ia this essay, rae, that ii citizen
be pyosrcnicd Court ot the ii. States, Tor
the conaissiu:l OF act, charged To he offence
against the Government thereof, the charged,
must be offence against some law of the u States
If there be no law, there Le.no offence, although
there may DC moral wrong.
In this case all dnit that there is statute law,
mo act of Congress embracing the subj oct. Some
other source Of nrisicoa must therefore be ndica-
ted The 18th SIC. OF the act OF 5oth April 1880
for the punishment of certain crimes against the u
States does not touch it.
ltis alleged that the described in the Indictment
is IN offence az common law: and that therefore tho
circuit court of w ashngton County, authorised to I,
offences in that part OF the district, has cognisance Of
fsee the act of Congress, eth Feb f30I-ilo p;.1-
Iished among the laws Of the u. States III the refs
ION of 1850
This broad proposition 7 shall not discuss, In
Wossars case p Dali 334( even Judge Chace, hgh
toned in all hrs doctrines aud bold in The assertion oE
them put upon it the mark Of his unqualified repro
baton. This event took place in 1893 Tie Lcgis-
fire of virginia, during tie memorable session of
i798- 90, noticed, conbated and rcutod i.s propo-
sition. (Sce Mr. MaAisons report.( In .sa session
OF l799-I800, the same body protested against it,
in their Instructions to their Senators. In IGi2 the
Supreme Court decided against it, Judge Johnson, in
delivering the opinion ofihe Court, saving this Qnes-
sion thong brought up for the first time,
slider long since, settled in the public opinion j.
States VS. Hudson & GOODWIN, II Cramch 32)-- aud
in 1850 U States VS.. Coolidge, !, Wheaton 41J the
court certified their opinion IN conformity with the
decision Of 1919. This question discussed
thirty ago. 1t Is needless to discuss 1t now.
The point is settled.
But it is suggested that this Indictment is stistain-
able, in the District of Columbia, ON grounds pccu-
liar to that place!! The law is said, and no
doubt truly said. to be part Of the law of Maryland
and the law Of Narvand, where the acts of ConHrcss
are silent. is the law of that part of the district in
which me offence is alledged to have been commit
ted The act of Congress, accepting the ccssion
from MARYLAND provides "tbat the operation Of the
"lews Of the State, shall not be Effected by this accep
lance until the time fixed for the removal of the
.aScat of Government thereto and until Congress
shall otherwise by law provide" (S5c also act OF
eth Feb. 1909
That the inhabitants of the coded territory, even
without this provision, would have retained tileiI
laws until altered by Congress, cannot, think be
doubted Even conquered province, retains Its
laws, until changed by the new government. shall
rot howaver discuss this pont 70 those who think
shat this provision was necessary, concede that il
was necessary.
This fimple statement carries US back to the point
from which &c sat Quito the position assumed, III
tae commencement 81 This note, to I've true, "the
oHance charged mas: be offence against some t1'c
81 he Y. Stqtcs" II was assumed, because being
self dydent, IT was nsusccptb!e of proof
repeat then that tie act charged in on indictment
Jnnst be an offence against some law Of the United
Stafes.i Judge Chace goes farther: tie offence hr
says nast be against statute ''The question IS,
lie proceeds tn say, "whethcr the courts of the u
states can punish for act, before it IS dec!a
Tgfhy law Of the u. States TO be criminal. Row
appears to NV mind. 20 be as essential that Congress
should def,s me offences to be tried and apportiol
Ire punishmeu,s to be Inflicted, that they shouIt
erect courts 10 try the criminal, or to pronounce
sentence c,iDyictOn. (s5ee Worralls case betor'
qIoed,) I'haS the Judge is corrcc' ID THIS opinion,