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

out the Union. confer upon ia. courts of Ae District all
pcIer: necessary aud proper to enable them to exercise
with elect not only such portions OF the general Judicial
authority oil the u States be conferred
but such jurisdiction also. could only be communicated
to them under the power OF exclusive legislation.
But, Mr. Robertson had asked IL the DOW err of exc,n.
sive legislation the District had been granted to c.
claimed oil sending process Of the District have passed.
No. IL that the only grant OF power hut IL coupeJ
with another; declaring tina, the laws passed by virtue
thereof should be supreme and paramount those of the
States making the grant, then the power here asserted
would have passed.
lie said, IL had been contended that the Federal Courts
could not take under the Constitution the pow to punish
for conemps such being IN violation OF that clause
of the Constitution which secures to the citizen jury
trial This objection, he said, wac addressed with III
grace TO Virginia Court in the constant practice Of
e-g the same power under State Constitution contain
ing the same provision.
But !, has been objected, that q contempt in Virginia
cannot be punished Ia Alexandra. Offences must be pu
n'sn"o where eo'ted-This objection, ALSO is at war
with the daily practice Of all the Courts, State aud Fede.
raj This court cannot try offence committed in Chrs.
te'hed; but may aud pepetualIy does. attach for
contempt OF its process Ia Chester field The Circuit
Court Of Virginia cannot try offence committed i'm
Maryland: may attach o contempt Of process there
Why The answer is the In both cases. and IL an.
plcabe this. contempt the court, is in
ton OF law, contempt at the court
MIR. ROBERTSON said, that as Mr.. Rhodes in his reply
had taken views not developed in his opening
ani introduced much new matter, he would ask leave
bri, lily to reoin
Introduce mere party politics Yet he did not perceive
how cases like the present could be discussed, without
curing INTO the pocaI power oil the government oil the
81 when the extent Of that power was the very point
in issue.
Mr. Rhodes had denied the right Of the State Courts to
examine the legality OF commitment made under coour
Of the authority Of the u States The question was one
Of ranscendan Importance II the power did exist,
there tame submission or iorcble re-
sislance unconstitutional laws usurped authority-
The Federal Courts mgh entertain jurisdiction in
ton OF ejectment between two citizens of the Sate try
man for murder or other offence within the exclusive
cognzance Of the State Judiciary Such would
be more valid than ii before The any foreign
md Ina Stat b..a b..
afford complete redress But il said it would be
less tor them TO in'erpose, since the Federal Government
the strongest. and their jurisdiction asserted would
be maintained. And submit to a manifest en-
enactment upon lights because if redressed It might
be repealed! He had not expected TO have heard
gument like this. II said, the of of the
States had refused to assert the right claimed II
other States chose to surrender vital privileges was
reason why Virginia should abandon hers.
MIR. Rhodes had admitted what indeed he could not
well deny, that all offences must, under the
be tried in the State where committed But he
ed obviate the objection this case by supposing that
the contempt OF the process Of the court where
the offender must by legal ntendnent be regarded
all offence at the cour-ta is the place where the Court
sat Thus, consequence Ct this principle, Mr. Plea
SAINTS, who, for the sake Of argument he would suppose
had never passed the limits Of Virginia. might be punh
ed for offence committed in the District Of Columbia
ought not TO be permitted that rights by the
Constitution should be taken away by legal fiction,
creating constructive presence in place where in fact
and in truth the party By this specious argu
men the Federal Courts might drag the citizens OF the
u s. before them to be tried for offences committed
the most remote parts of the Union.
The doctrine OF conempts had originated in the pecu-
liar laws aud institutions OF England Its in
the immeasurable depths OF the common law, and might
most probably be traced to the royal prerogve,
when the kng sat- or was presumed to sit, in the courts
common law for definition OF terms perhaps for
thods OF proceeding in cases within their cognzance but
The law was Of
than the civil law The courts be justified by the
common law. nor even by an as OF Congress in punish
The court here suggested TO MIR. Robertson, that The
Constitution gave TO all persons accused of criminal Of
fence, the right to compulsory process to bring their
into Did this involve the power TO pu
nsb Tor cohtemps?
Mr.. RoBrRrsoN confessed that that view had no, pre-
seted itself TO his mndbut properly
ed to sustain the ground he had taken.
1t was power inherent in all courts, VIII, the
cessi'y oil giving by express grant If claimed under
this grant, then it be confined where com
puory process required by of criminal
offence; which was not the under consideration But
again, could be exercised other cases than those
specially designated in the clause by which supposed 10
be gven yet the offence OF dsobedence could only be
tried and punished in the mode prescribed by the Con.
sIituon ltmay be lawful to punish. but not by unaw-
full means.
Mr.. r. ssid in his former argument he had enuuired
whether any foreign government could have claimed the
right TO issue process into Virginia. had the District
Columbia been coded such Mt nsea of that
Of the u s. To this lit was ered that such would
have been claimed had there been prior grant power
lsgislae over the State of Va but there such
grant Of paramount power the U. S. which united with
the subsequent grant OF exclusive legislation for the Dis
uict warranted the claim. The claim of admiralty aud
riy expressly given to legislae the District
to the general powers given by other parts Of the Cons-
ution and would have properly belonged TO Govern
ment, upon the principles Of national law, TO whom the
right OF exclusive legislation should have been given.
Mr.. RHODES said, he bad moi denied nor doubted the
right or duty OF this aud every other Stale Court de-
eide upon the authority Of the laws and executive and u-
dcial proceedings OF the General Government and its
departments and tribunals in any properly coming
within the cOgnZin Of such FL had denied the
right OF State Court to interfere in this form between
court OF the United States and party under
therein The Attorney General had again
treme cases, (such he had expressly excepted1 such
had never arisen, and in respect likely
TO occur When they shall happen, they would receive
their own consideration He said, argument was more
certain 10 lead into than that, which should apply
cases OF ordinary occurrence principles deduced from
strange and improbable suggestions. The argument ab
erfremis was usually al n6surdum
IL had been again Dded, that the power Of excu.
sve Legislation the only power by Congress
over the District-The ment il sound Of little
sequence; but IL sound Is The District OF CouDba
exempted from the obg alton, deprived OF the benefit
the general provisions duties aud powers contained in
Constitution The District oil from Union;
the contrary, IL more closely attached to- more
nearly incorporated with itand the
deprived Congress OF its general powers lar the Dis.
tric concerned would also release Congress to the
same extent from the restraints imposed by the Consu
tiona consequence, which could not be tolerated, and
yet inc itabie.
The right OF court to punish for contempt is again de.
MED inconsistent with that clause OF the Constitution,
which secures the trial by jury in all criminal prosecu-
tOns.
In interpreting Constitutions and laws, " e are of.
ten obliged TO 10 those OF the parent country.
There find the process Of attachment old the
law, and 1oursbng this day by the side Of Magma
Chdrfd which contains provision in favor OF The tiis by
jury quite as broad in its and aning the
vision in the Constitution. They have never been sup