Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-10-22
Foa THE CoNsrr.UFroyAL VINO

"
The Wing OF the ed June last contains a. shor,
essay OIL the subject of prosecutions for ofi.ncns
against the u. Status l. co:nrDencen by ASSUMING
as true tie proposition, '-rhat II citizen be prose
''aon OF an act chafgcd be offence against the
government thereof, the charged must be an
Offence agoins; some law of the q. States"
In the decisinn on this case this proposition was
neither admitted denied. at may on it may not
be correct say The CouN. (See National journal
ct the 18th juy, 1921 The proposition it seems
Was deemed iurnaerai; IL did touch the matter
III debate.
The essay then proceeded to shcw, tia, there was
no oct OF Congress- describing an offence the act
Imputed 10 Watkins; and that this uct could not be
reached by the Common Law, there being 10 com
nca law IN fufce under the government of the o.
States
This position nl-0, it seens, was mmateria INe
act was declared TO De liable TO prosecution through
IN" nw Of Maryland, which forms the lay not even
OF the District, hut Of that part of it which was CO.
dcd TO the L. States by Maryland! OF this lazy of
AtarJ!and, the common law formed part, ind the
cOInmon awit vas said, embraced the case
IN ts essay 1t was also contended, that there was
an essential Glherercc between the government If
the u States and the inferior dependent Territorial
government Of Coi";..-ia and that it was ebs,,rd
that the latter should undertake to punish as an Of
;ehce dsaS t!e =, otatcs, an set lot deemed such
by the laws Of The u. States.
This proposition is put aside, If compreh,nd ibix,
part OF the subject a. jujrnly exhibited BIZ The AS
sumption, that although the act done as nm ofanca
against C - plaLGs u was zone by the offender
his Individual Character, and that therefore the Of
fence Is punishable in the District according 10 its
LAYS. do not mean TO discuss this matter for ii
reason which viii presently appear: but must 70
marh mere, that the press is not true and tat if it
were tue, the conclusion does not follow.
Jne essay also said, shat tine question in cuse Of q
"dstf1ct prosecution will always depend on the cha
''racer Of the acl, charged offence 1.-THE act
cor the effect oftbc act be injurious to the IT, States
''or the government thereof, louk into the Jaws
cot the u. States TO whether it be Described as
can offence, and how il is TO be punished 1ftiesn
claws are silent OH the subject, the matter is at
"end, or rather never rad q beginning"
This proposition it seems, was deemed totally rrro
neous. The question whether A prosecution in fhe
district, for an offence against the IT, States ran i
sustained, does not depend on the character nf tho
act done. but the ci0rdctcr' in udich tie, 6Ginl.
octed 1.-The docs the act complained Of in his iDdvi
dual character, nc may he punished under the district
law; although tho act is directly injurious 10 tho r.
states, committed by officer Of the Government
by the employment Of means empaticailv nrd dxcIu-
syely Official, and could not nave been coiDutied If
he bad not been in Office. Aud Watkins is sbid IN
have acted in his individual character!
do rot mean to argue any of these points nh
many the bare statement of them Will be soliicjc ,
Those no arc disposed 10 make further ipouiry =, II
do well to road Atr. CoXe's speech 90 tic Jurv VIII
ished in the National Journal of the 18th EuTnsf
aud his speech on the motion for q new trial poJlisb
cd in the Journal of the nth. Without nneaniuo, tn
COMMIT t0yscl as To egt,y proposition which he I'D