Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-11-26

jurisdiction merely, but 70 all courts, State as well as Fee
deral, from the highest to the lowest u the Supreme
Court oil Appeals OF Virginia should assume original ju-
tdicton civil cases. undertake TO mpanncl jury for
the tiia oil a criminal offence their proceedings would be
simply an merely voJaad 40 State Judge, on a sppca
ton q Habea Corpus, or IN any other in hich
the question should come before him. would hesitate
decide The Federal Coui stool upon no ground
NIr r. sail, there authority IN the Circuit Cou,
OF Aiexa"a To issue the orgiu. subpoena nor award the
subsequent attachment in this h. ond the iini OF
the District Thu l.. section OF the Act the 27,h OF
Feb lSol, concerning the District o Columbia - Story
stat 2os9 declared that the laws OF the State Of Virgin"
as they then existed should continue in force in that part
oi the D',tiet cedeL 10y the said State.
Dd 'i,'- section ronter the power Ia question! The Laws
ot Virginia lid and could confer on the courts OF
that Safe power send beyond her territorial Ii
units Couli they be supposed To coulter the OF
the ,.ri. IN. la. c,isJ! IL may be saL that the Laws
oi Va ,eu la authorised process To issue from Alex
a,,ia TO any part OF the State aud being continued in
force tlr award such process con
i.J. Such construction ould lead this aturJi,y
that the al izens Of Virginia would remain .be to o..
hsrassrd 10y all manner OF process, original, she anJ
insl from the courts oil the District oi COLUMBIA, whilst
those oi no other State in the Union (excepi Maryland
which IN r.qtal Of her grant would be equally privrg
ed,) could be reached.
Mr. RHODES saI he had moi, conteu!ed for such con.
strucon.
MIR. ROBERTSON said. as the claim was no, asserted
under the referred to- he would waive any farther
comm may upon IT,
Was the power then derived FROM the 81 section of the
same act which Processes TO confer the Circuit Court
and Judges OF the District Of Columbia all the powers
vested in the Circuit Courts, aud Judges vi the Circuit
Courts Of the u. s.!
The p0tcer must he taken or used synonimousIy
with jurisdiction. IL related to the within the
cogn'zance OF the court. and the methods OF proceed
ing The power ol court was one thing, its process
suo,her
But ii II regularly properly included process still
would be but fair construction TO suppose such pro
cess authorised within the limits OF the District, the Cir
CUT courts might properly award within the limits assign
ell % them respectively. The clause exceedingly in
deh",e II did not admit oil literal in,erpre ,aiion.
Fo, Them would follow that the Courts OF the D,c,
"a a al Of,.
shifted within the limits OF the u S.-becau-e each Of
the Circuit Courts had power all offences ais the
laws OF the u ;. committed within its peculiar limits.
ana Ibis court OF this particular district had in terms, all
the powers belonging TO them all
Againi the clause in ques ion re late process
subsequently repealed modified, by the 81 section OF
the supplemental act OF Sd March, 1901 which declared
mat the Crci, Court Tor the county Of Alexandria should
possess and exercise the same and jurisdiction, c
vii aud criminal then possessed aud exercised by
The District Courts oil Virginia" lie had already showi,
the absurd quences which would result from claim
TO extra jurisdiction founded upon the laws OF
Virginia; aud the result would follow from at
tempt 10 found OH the powers jurisdiction belonging
TO her courts.
But, il just construction OF the several clauses
to- had authorised the Circuit Court OF
The original subpoena the subsequent process OF attach
menr, under which Mr. Peas,nts has be en- arrested was
unauthosed-indeed, expressly forbidden, both by
the Constitution OF the u States, aud the laws filming
the powers OF that particular lie read iron the
Constitution ln all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right of speedy and public al by an
Impartial jury oil the SiGte or District where the crime
shall have been comnuted."-(Amendts to Const u 3
Art $50 by the 5,h section Of the Act Feb 81 1901
before referred to- tits declared that the court shall
cognzance Of all crimes and offences committed ,oihin
sda instruct The process OF attachment devised
WIN view. NOT merely 10 compel the witness TO testify
OUT 10 punish h's dlsobedence This dsobedience
an imputed offence IL SO, where was il committed
Within the State Of Virginia 1t was not pretended 10
have been committed within the District OF Columbia
and could not possibly have been unless Mr. Peasants
sessed the attribute Of ubquiy and could be actually
corporealy n two distinct and distant places the
time. Would it be sad that contempt of eourt was no
nj he finfin, fill.
ing OF this law? IL was ofence-an offence against
public jusce-one that under the laws OF u. S. might
be visited with severe penaleshe penalty of unlimited
hne and interminable imprisonment 1t might proved
mat contempt was no offence, when should be proved
mat hne ana imprisonment were no punshment.--Gran
II was no offence then, there right to punish
anu u no right to punish no right 10 arrest commit with
a view TO punish.
Mr.. r. said, lie would assert that Congress had no
power to authorize the Courts of the u s. to punish Tor
contempt. He would contend, however, that they had
never yet in any constitutional mode given such authority
lie knew there was an act OF Congress expressly de-
ciarng IT, the courts ght in such fine impr
son at er discretion He referred 10 the I7th section
OF the Judiciary Act Of 1889. But the arbitrary conde
nation and unlimited Imprisonment of Citizen the dis
cretion OF judge or court, compatible with the
genius OF free institutions and soemnly forbidden by
those under which we lived. The Constitution OF the u
s. provided that the trial of all crimes except in cases of
impeachment, should be by jury; and that such trial
should held in the State where the said crimes sbonjJ
have been comued-Art. Ill, q 3.-Agaii--B BY the
W. Art OF the amendments already cited, il was more
broadly declared, that in all criminal the ac
6y an impartial juyY
Congress had power in any criminal prose cutons TO
dispense with tile trial by jury. They had right
TO confer OIL Tie judges the power Of unlimited fine and
imprisonment Tor this offence, than for any o,her-no more
right TO subject the property and liberty If the citizen
The dcreuon OF the judges, than the discretion of
Presdent-and, Tor one he Hing that rights OF
his fellow citizens, his own, should upon so slight
foundations Ii might be urged that such power in the
courts was necessary, indispensable usurpaiions
oil power may be and usually defended upon this pea
oil necessity lie denied the necessity The punislne nj
OF one who should dIrngly obstruct the course of Justice
surely be left safely TO the verdict impartial iry
as one who stood charged with treason, any other
manner endeavoured 10 tear the foundations OF civil
ciey III s offence be one against the public, there
no necessity nor reason Tor departing from the ordinary
and constitutional modes of trial ii against the Judge az
an individual, he The all men on
earth, TO whom the power OF pUDs hing dscre
TO be entrusted To obruct The ofjusce or due
execution OF The law, equally offence whether The
injury he done TO the legislative, executive or judicial de-
Pdrmeht oil the government There greater neces
SHY 10 protect the one class OF public by arm
ing them with unlimited power, than the others never
could be necessary or proper to repeal the CONSTITUTIONS
NO such dispensing powers were given 10 Congress- Con
might provide for the prose cuon of all offences but
could IN 10 case deprive the accused of the trial by uIy
aud their omission TO provide constitutional method of
tai could not justify the TO one
again he TRIAL OF all offences required be in the
STATE or District where committed Congress had never
yet authorised the courts TO dispense with this provision
aud the proceeding against Mr. Pleassnts was
nnaohorised and nugatoy. IL could rob him of the
securities guaranteed to every citizen Of the United States
But had The act OF Congress expressly 10 the court
what both the law and the Constitution xpressly
The power 10 tfy man for offence committed with.
III The limits oil the district there could be but one course
Tor 'is court to purtue-io decide that such law was
unc0nsfHHiOn0l, null and U0id lie used the terms not
IN The sense in which they understood by modern
polcidns-wbo acknowledged the right Of the State a
lhones to declare an act OF Congress unconstitutional