Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-10-21

argue the points here presented But tba,o too,
one suggestion on this subject which shall be br;e
noticed. The suggestion is, that where there ;s NO
law ofthc u. States, relating to a matter within ,bo
sphere OF Congressional Legislation, tho local Law
may operate. This proposition supposed to he
Illustrated 1T not proved. by the admitted fact, that in
case the General Government does not choose to
ercise IFS power, to pass uniform laws on the sub
lect OF bankruptcies throughout the u. States" the
states themselves may pass insolvent modified
bankrupt laws. The fact is conceded; and the
proposition which 1t Is brought forward to sup
port, might be also conceded with slight mo-
dihcation But this modification covers the whole
ground now IN debate. The truth is this where the
General and the State Governments hive hofl, antbo
rty to act on given subject. bankruptcy for nstn nee
there the local law viii Prevail If there be no statute
OF the u States. But the argument suppnscs this
sort OF concurrent jurisdiction to exist. Now in the
case before III matters of personal and criminal
law II docs not exist. Aunface against the limited
States GS sch cannot BE- the subject of local or
legislation. Each Government acting for itself emu
nrhes ana describes The offences which it chooses
70 condemn and to puniSb and fan done. hr real
= an offence against the u = ates. look to their
inws al'inr Tor III description aud its punis hmeni Ii
thls dch be corrcc, IN reference to sovereign and
independent State, it may certainly be applied. with
Columbia.
1t may be, siill. readily conceived tina, particular
act may oe offensive at the TING TO n State
Government as well as 70 the General Government
y State Government, if Congress chose 10 rernuiu
silent rs 20 the forgery OF nnies @" tire Bank ofthe g.
States. might well pass law punshng such forgery
But The State acts for itself and properly punsles
Inc i1nv'Lual, who hy courterfei ing notes flripr
part OF tie circulating medium, NAV practice frauds
To Inc great injury of individuals aud OF tho cu,niv
Even IN tuch case statute oG Congress. would sl-
porcede the State law.
In he. preceding remarks, beg that I may not DC
understood az saying. or meaning to say any thing
disrespectful Of the Judges. know the Inen aud
believe thai they have acted most cnnscientolsly
But as firmly believe that they have greatly erred
that they have totally mistaken the noint, on which
ihe prosecution hung The charge against them Of
elnmg towards Inc pr lonor is silly as it is indie
corous aud unjust. If they have erred as am very
Siir thcv have" thcir error hrs ne against tic accG
sel. they have erred in favor ut the prosecution.
ana 1t IS my deliberate ih-uqh perhaps erroneous
conviction, that the unprecedented conduct of the
Prcss, III relation to the court, the grand Jury the
district attorney, aud he fShal produced course
" proceeding, and u result In which dispassionaie
and unhaFscd inquiry never could have led.
Will not leave topic of this sort without saving
that never was more sensible than at this moment
~ the public well "a individual loss sus aimed II.
the death of the late President of ne Court oil vpals
Jfe lrGS mum who spoke wiihOat fear. truth. or
what he believed 10 be- truth. "Serrc sans pcur'
was not his motto, hut he might lave stunned it with
unGnestloned propreiy. He neScr ould have conn-
tcnanced even for moment the uuconst hut nnal i'm
prlsOninent OF citizen OF the u. States whatever
might be his opinion OF the weakness or of the vice bv
which that Imprisonment was pruduc"d.
PHOCGON.