WORKS z/

T HE HONOURABLE

JAMES W ILSON,L . L. D.

LA T E ONE OF T HE A S SOCI A T E JU S T ICE S OF T HE SUPREME

COUR T OF T HE UNI T E D SN T E S , AND PROFE S SOR OF LAW

IN T HE COLLE G E OF PHI LADE LPH IA.

PUBLISHED UNDER T HE DIRECT ION

BIRD W ILSON,ESQUIRE.

s r UN n Au z N'

r Uu s L I B ER T A T I S, QUA u mu ma. “s ome

OMNES s z n vx w u u s , U T L I B E R I as s t Pos s u ms .

VOL . II-I.

“ e h

PHILADELPHIA

AT T HE LORENZO PRESS; PRINT ED FOR BRONSONANDCHAUNCEY.

1804.

DIST RICT OF PENNSYLVANIA z—T O W IT .

(L.

BE IT REMEMBERED , T hat on thefifth day ofJu ly,i n thetw en ty n i n th year of the i n depen den ce of the

Un itedStates ofAmer ica, BI RD W I LSON, E s qu i re, of the saiddi s trict hath depos ited i n thi s office theti tle ofabook, ther i g htw hereofheclaim sas propr ietor , i n thew ords follow i n g , to w it:

T heWorks oftheHon ou rableJames W i l son , L.L.D.

“ lateon eoftheA s sociateJu s tices of theSupremeCou rt oftheUn itedStates ,an dProfes s or ofLaw i n theColleg eofPhi ladelphia. Publi s hedu n der thedi rection ofBirdW i lson ,E s qu ire. Lex fu n damen tum es t l ibertati s , quafru im ur.Leg um om n es servi s umos , ut liber i es sepos s im u s .

”

Cic.In con form ity to theact of theCon g res s oftheUn itedStates en

titled An act for theen cou ragemen t of learn i n g by secu r i n g thecop ies ofmaps , charts ,an dbooks to theauthors an dpropr ietors ofs uchcop ies dur i n g theti mes therei n m en tion ed an dalsototheacten titled An act s upplemen tary toan act en titled An act for theen couragemen t oflear n i n g , by secu r i n g thecopies ofmaps , charts ,an dbooks totheauthor san dpropr ietor s of s uch copies duri n g thetimes therein men tion ed,

” an dex ten di n g theben efits thereoftothearts ofdes i g n m g , en g ravi n g , an d etchi n g hi s tor ical an d other

D.CALDWELL,’Clerk ofthe

Di s trictofPen n s ylvan ia.

CONT ENT S

OF T HE T HIRD VOLUME.

LECT URES ON LAW.

PAR T III.

CHAPT ER I. Pas tthe nature of crimes ;an dthe n eces s ity an dproportion

ofpu n i shmen ts .

CHAPT ER II.

Of cr im esagai n s t theri g htofin dividuals totheir property.CHAPT ER III

Of cr imesagai n s t ther i g ht of i n dividuals to liberty,an dto

CHAPT ER IV.

Ofcrimw agai n s t theri g ht of i n dividuals toperm al safety.CHAPT ER V.

Ofcrimes im mediatelyagai n s t thecomm u n ity.CHAPT ER VI.

Ofcrimes affectin g several of the natural ri g hts of i n dividuals .

CHAPT ER VII.

Ofcr imes agai n s t the r i g hts of i n dividuals acquired un der

civi l govern men t.

CHAPT ER VIII.

Ofthe per son s capableofcomm ittin g crimes ;an dof the

thesamecrime.

iv 3or T HE T H I RD VOLUME.

CHAPT ER IX.

can s u sedby the law to preven t offen ces .

CHAPT ER X.

s teps prescr ibedby thelaw , forapprehen dan dpu n i s hi n g offen ders .

On thehi s tory ofproperty.

Con s ideration s on the naturean d ex ten t of theleg i s lativeau thor i ty of the Br itis h parliamen t. Publi s hed i n the

year 1774.Speech deliveredi n thecon ven tion for theprovi n ceofPen n

s ylvan ia, heldat Phi ladelphia, i n Jan uary, 1775.Speech deliveredon 26th November, 1787, i n thecon ven tion

ofPen n s ylvan ia,as sembledtotakei n tocon s ideration thecon s ti tu tion framed, by the federal con ven tion , for the

Un itedStates .Oration deliveredon 4thJuly, 1788,at theproces s ion formedat Philadelphiato celebrate theadoption of thecon s ti

tution oftheUn itedStates .Speech on choos i n g the member s of thesenate by elector s ;

delivered, on Sl s tDecember , 1789, i n thecon ven tion of

Pen n s ylvan ia,as sembled for thepurpose of review i n g ,alter in g ,an damen din g thecon s titution ofthes tate.

Speech delivered, on 19th Jan uary, 1790, i n the con ven tion

ofPen n s ylvan ia,as sembledfor thepurposeofreviewi n g ,alter i n g ,an damen din g the con s titution of the s tate;on am otion that n om ember ofcon g res s from thi s s tate,n oran y pers on holdi n g or exerci s i n g an y officeof tru s t

or profit u n der theUn itedStates , s hall,at thesametime,holdan dexerci sean y officew hatever i n thi s s tate.”

A charg edeliveredtotheg ran djury i n thecircui tcourtoftheUn itedStates for thedi s tr ict ofVir g in ia, i n May 1791.

Con s ideration s on theBan k ofNorth America. Publishedi ntheyear 1785.

LECT URES ON LAW,

DELI VERED IN T HE

COLLEGE OF PH ILADELPHIA,

IN T HE YEARS ONE T HOUSAND SEV EN HUNDRED AND NINE T Y,

AND ONE T HOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINE-T Y ONE.

VOL. I I I .

PART III.

CHAPT ER I .

0 ! T HE NAT URE OF CRIMES AND T HE NECESSI T Y AND

PROPORT ION OF PUNI SHMENT S.

HIT HERT O, w ehavecon s ideredther ights ofmen ,ofci ti zen s , ofpublic]: officer s ,an dofpublic]:bodies : w em u s t n ow tu rn our eyes to objects les s pleas i n g—the

violation s ofthos er i g hts m u s tbebrou g ht u n der ou r view .

Man i s s ometimes u n ju s t : s ometimes he i s even crim inal : i n ju riesan dcrimes m u s t, therefore, fin dtheir placei n every legal s ys tem , calculatedfor man . On econ s o

ls tory reflection , how ever , w i ll g reatly s upport u s i n our

prog res s throu g h thi s u n i n viti n g part ofou r journ ey w e

s hall berichly com pen satedw hen w ereach its con clu s ion .T he en dofcrim i nal juri s pruden ce i s thepreven tion ofcrimes .

4 c 'ru n n s on Law .

W hat i s an i n jury —What i sacrim ei—What i s reparation i—What i s pu n i s hm en t —Thes eareques tion s ,w hich ou g ht to becon s idered i n as eparate,an dals o in acon n ected, poi n t ofview . At s ometim es

, they havebeentoo m uch blen ded. I n s om ei n s tan ces , the i n ju ryan dthereparation havebeen los t in thecrim ean dthepu n i s hm en t.I n other i n s tan ces , thecr im ean d the pu n i s hm en t have,w ith equal im propr iety , been s u n k i n the reparation an di n ju ry. At other tim es , they havebeen kept toomuchapatt. T hecr im ehas been con s ideredasaltog ether u ncon n ectedw ith the i n ju ry, an dthepu n i s hm en tas altog ether u n con n ectedw ith reparation . I n other i n s tan ces

,

thereparation on ly has been regarded, an d n oatten tionhas been g iven to thepu n i s hm en t : the i n ju ry on ly hasbeen calcu lated;bu t n o com pu tation has been madeconcern i n g thecr ime.

A n i n ju ry i s alos s ari s i n g toan i n dividual , from the

violation or i n fr i n g em en t ofhi s r i g ht.

A reparation i s that, w hich com pen sates for thelos ss u s tai n edbyan i n ju ry.

A cr ime i s an i n ju ry , s oatrocious i n i ts natu re, or s odan g erou s i n its example, that, bes ides thelos s w hich i toccas ion s to thei n dividual w ho s uffer s by i t, i tafiects , i ni ts im m ediateoperation or i n i ts con s equen ces , thei n teres t, thepeace, thedi g n ity, Or the s ecu r ity ofthepubl ick.

Offen cesan dm i sdem ean ors den otei n fer iou r cr imes .

A pu n i s hmen t i s the i n fl iction ofthat evi l, s uperaddedto the reparation , w hich the cr ime, s uperadded to the

i n ju ry, ren der s n eces sary, for thepu rposes ofaw i s ean d'

g oodadm i n i s tration ofg overn m en t.

ar u n n s on LAW. 5

Con cern i n gan i n ju ryan dareparation ,an dthemeas u res by w hich each of them ou g ht tobe es timated, it ’

w i ll n ot be n eces sary to say m uch ;becau se, w i th regardto them , m uch con fu s ion or m i s takehas n ot been i n tro

ducedi n to thetheory or practiceofthelaw .

Con cer n i n g crimes an dpu n i s hmen ts ,an dcon cern i n gtherelation betw een acrimean dan i n jury,an dbetw eenpu n i s hm en t

“an d reparation , thecas e i s w idely difijeren ti n deed. O n those s ubjects ,an en dles s con fu s ion has prevai led, an dm i s takes i n n um erablehavebeen com m i tted:O n those s ubjects ,.therefore, it w ill beproper tobefu ll ;an dit w i ll certai n ly beattem pted—I prom i s en ot s ucces si n theattem pt—tobebothaccu ratean dpers picuous .

Froman i natten tion ‘

oradi s regardto theg reat pr i nciple—that g over n m en t was madefor thesake of man ,

s om ew r iters havebeen ledto con s ider cr im es , i n theiror i g in an dnatu reas w ellas i n their deg rees an defl‘

ects ,

as differen tfrom i n jur ies an dhave, con sequen tly, tau g ht,that w ithou tan y i n ju ry toan i n dividual,acr ime m i g ht

be com m i ttedagai n s t the g overn m en t. Suppos e, sayson eofthelear n edcom men tator s on Grotiu s , thaton ehasdon e n either w ron g n or i n ju ry toan y i n dividual, yet ifhehas com m i tteds om ethi n g w hich thelaw has prohibited,i t i s acrim e, w hich deman ds reparation ;becau s ether i g ht of the s uper iou r i s violated,an dbecau s ean .

i n ju ryi s offeredto the

“

di g n ity ofhi s chuacter. How natu rallyon e m i s take leads toan other ! A m i s take i n leg i s lationproduces on e i n cr im i nal ju r i s pruden ce. A law w hich

prohibits w hat i s n ei theraw ron g n oran i n jury-toan y on e!What nam edoes i tdes erve We haves een thatalaw

a2.War.Bib. 15. bAn te.vol.2.p.“3.

LECT URE' ON LAW.

w hich i s m etéiy harm les s w ithoutbei n g tyran n ical, i s ’

it

selfaharm an ds hou ldbe removed.

But thi s doctri n e i s u n s upportedby sou n dlegal '

pr i n

ciple. Every crimei n cludes an i n jury every oEen eei s

al s oaprivatew ron g . i taffects thepubl ick, bu t itaffectsthe i n dm dual l ikew i s e. It 1s true i n deed, that, i n veryg ros s i n ju r ies , w e s eldom hear ofan y sati s fact ion bei n g "awardedto thei n dividual , for reas on s , the propr iety ofw hich w i ll , byan dby, beexam i n ed. Bu t i n offen ces of

an i n feriou r nature, the di s ti n ction , an d, at the sam eti m e, thecon n ex ion between thecrimean dthe i n ju ry i sm os taccurately markedan dpres erved. Forabattery,hew hocom m its it may be i n dicted. Violen ceagai n s tthepers on ofan i n dividual i s adi s turban ce of thepubl ick peace. On thi s di s turban ce pun i s hm en t may bei nfl icted. Bu t i n thecrim ean dthepu n i s hmen t,

.

thei n ju ryi s n ot s u n k, n or i s the reparation los t. T he party w ho

has s uffered the violen ce may br i n g hi s action agai n s ttheparty w ho has com m ittedi t an drecover i n damag es3sat'u faction for thelos s w hich has been s u s tai n ed;

T hedoctr i n e, thatacrim emay becom m ittedagain s tthe publ ick, w i thoutan y i n ju ry bei n g don etoan in dividual, i sas l ittlecon sonan t to thehis tory, as it i s to thepr i n ciples ofcrim i nal juri s pruden ce. Amon g theSaxon s ,as w eare i n form edby M r. Selden , them os tan cien t wayof proceedi n g , i n criti nal cau s es , was byan appeal oftheparty com plai n i n g . Butafterwards , i n cas es w hichcon cern eddamag e, i n ju ry, or violen cedon eto thebodyofaman or to hi s es tate, the ki n g —w ho repres en ted

thepublick—was fou n dtobethereih prejudiced, bes idetheprejudicedon e immediatety to thes ubject :an duponthi s g rou n d,away was foun dou t topu n i s h theofl'

en der

nacr uas s on LAW. 7

by i n dictmen t, bes idethe sati s faction don e to thepartyw ron g ed.

I n the V817 early periods of society, thos eaction s ,even them os tatrociou s , w hich n owareview edan dpenscen tedas s olely crim es agai n s t the s tate, w erecon s ideredan d resein ted merely as private i n ju ries . I n thos e

ag es , thecon ception s ofm en weretoocrudetocon s ider

an i n ju ry don etoan i n dividual, as acr im ecom m ittedagain s t thepublick ; they view ed it on lyas aprejudiceto theparty , or therelation s of theparty, w ho w ereim

m ediatelyaffected. T heprivi leg e of res en ti n g pr ivatei n ju ries , i n theOpin ion ofavery i n gen iou s w riter on thehi s tory ofthecr im i nal law ,

“was that pr ivater i g ht w hich

was thelates t ofbei n g s u rren deredto s ociety. An i ts »

{movemen t i n g over n m en t, s o oppos itetoa' s tron g prevpen s ity of human natu re, could n ot havebeen i n s tan tan eou s . T heprog res s ive s teps leadi n g to its com pletionw eres low an dalmos t imperceptible.

Coi n ciden t, i n avery con s iderabledeg ree, w i th theses en timen ts an d obsewation s , i s apart of the law an dpracticeof E n g lan d, w hichat thi s momen t s ubs is ts i n

i t s full force—I m ean the law an d practice con cern i n g

appeals , particu larlyappeal s ofdeath. An appeal i s the

party’ s pr ivateaction , seeki n g sati s faction for the in ju rydon ehim ;an dat the same tim e, pros ecu ti n g for the

crow n i n res pect of theoffen ceagain s t thepublick. On

an appeal , the ben i g n prerogative of m ercy can n ot beexerci s ed;becau s e, sai th the law , 3

theplai n tid'

has ani n teres t i n thejudg men t. Thi s i n teres t, how ever , may

6Bee.on Gov. 53.

4Kaim s .Hi s t.L. T r. 19, so. 5. Rep. soc.

Q

be releas ed;an d the releas e w i ll beabar to the pro-mceedi n g s on an appeal.

LECTURES ON LAW.

Thes e observation s , draw n from ~

s o man y separates ou rces , combi n e i n theres u lt, thatacrim eagai n s t thepublicl: has its fou n dation i n an i n ju ry agai n s tan i n dividual. Wes hall s ee, i n theprog res s ofou r i n 'ves ti gation ,thatas , i n the rudeag es of s ociety, the cr im ewas toom uch overlooked; s o, i n tim es m ore refin ed, there

has been adi spos i tion , too s tron g , to overlook the iajury.

Con cern i n g the s tan dard, by w hichcrimes s hou ldbemeas u redi n m un icipal law , therehas been much diver

s ity of sen timen tamon g w r iters , even thew is es tan dm os t en l i g hten ed. T he law of.natu re, i t i s adm ittedon all han ds , meas ures cr i m es by the i n ten tion , an dn otby the even t. Shou ldas tan dard, differen t from . thatw hich has been es tabl i s hed by u n erri n g w i sdom , be

adoptedby u n i n form edman ? Shou ldn ot that ru le, w hichi s obs ervedby the law divi n e, be obs erved, i n humble

im i tation , by law s w hich are human .7’ It i s said, n ot;

an di t i s said, that thi s differen cem u s tbeaccou n tedforby thos e pecu liarattribu tes of thedivi n e nature, w hich

di s ti n g u i s h thedi s pen sation s of. s upremew i s dom from

the proceedi n g s of human tr ibu nal s . A bei n g w hose

all- s eei n g eyeobserves the i n m os t reces s es of theheart,and w hos eou ts tretchedarm n o fl ig htor s tratag em caneludeor es cape—s uchabei n g may con s ider an d maypu n i s h every cr ime i n exact proportion to the quan tityofin tri n s ic]: g u i lt, w hich 13con tai n edi n it. Bu t w ith

those to w hom thetru s tan dauthor ity ofhuman g overnm en t i s com m itted, thecas e i s g reatly differen t. Their

pow er an d their kn ow ledg earelim itedby man y imper

LECTURES ON LAW.

fection s s peed may remove, artifice may cover the

object ofpu n i s hm eht from thei r view or their g ras pby them , therefore, cr im es m u s t becon s ideredi n propor

tion to theeas ean ds ecu rity .w i th w hich theyarecomm itted or con cealed, ‘an d n ot i n s tr ict proportion to thei r

deg rees of, i n heren t cr im i nality. Such,or n early s uch,

s eem tobethes en tim en ts ofM r. Paley.

T heMarqu isofBeccar iagoes farther : hethi n ks hims elfau thor izedtoas s ert, that cr im es are tobem eas u redon ly by the. i n ju ry don eto s ociety. They err , therefore,say s he, w ho imag i n ethatacr im ei s g reater or les s ‘

accordi n g to the i n ten tion oftheper s on by w hom i t i s com m it

ted for thi s w i ll depen d. on theactual im pres s ion of

objects on the s en s es , an d.on thepreviou s di s pos ition of

them i n d;an dboth of thes e w i ll vary i n differen t pers on s , an d even i n the sam e per s on at differen t tim es ,accordi n g to the s ucces s ion of ideas , pas s ion s , an dci rcum s tan ces . Upon that s ys tem , it w ou ldben eces saryto form , n ot on lyaparticu lar codefor every i n dividual ,bu tan ew penal law for every crim e. Men w ith the

bes t i n ten tion s , do the g reates t i n ju ry, an d w ith the

w or s t, them os t es s en tial services to s ociety. That cr im esareto bees timatedby the i n ju ry don e to s ociety, addshe, i s on e ofthos e palpabletru ths , w hich, thou g h evi

den t to the m ean es t capacity , yet, byacombi nation ofci rcu m s tan ces , are kn ow n on ly to afew thi n ki n g m en ,

i n every nation an di n everyag e.

S i r Will iam Blacks ton e, i n on epart ofhi s Com m entar ies , s eem s toadopt thes e s en tim en ts . All crimes ,

r 2.Paley, 291. 292. sBac.c. 7.8.

VOL. 1 1 1.

Lxc'

ruas s on Law . 11

ofdoact i s moretobecon s idered than its imm oral ity ?!T o di s regardacr ime, how e‘

ver hei n ou s , becau s e it maybe s upposedn ot to haveabadeffect on society ;an dtopu n i s h s li g ht offen ces s everely, becau s ethey ten dm ore

im m ediately todis tu rbthepubl iclt peace, i s to sacrificem oral equ ity topol itical ex pedien cy. Bu t, i n fact, therei s n o real n eces s i ty for maki n g s uchasacr ifice. Ifw e

w ouldeffectually providefor thelas ti n g peaceofs ociety,w es houldfirs t regardpr ivate ofl

‘

en ces , w hicharethes ou rces of publ ick crim es . T he s ubtle di s ti n ction s ,w hich cas u i s ts makebetw een m oral an dpolitical deli nquen cies ,areoffen s ivetocom mon s en se.

Con cern i n g thes tan dardby w hich pu n i s hm en ts s hou ldbemeas ured i n m u n icipal law , therehas been ,as m i g htbeexpected,as m uchdivers ity ofs en timen t,as con cerni n g thes tan dardfor them eas u reofcr imes .

Publick uti l ity, says M r. Eden , is the m eas ureofhuman pu n i s hmen ts ;an dthat u til ity i s proportion edto

theeficacy oftheexample.

Liberty, says Mon t‘es qu ieu , ’ i s i n its hi g hes t perfection , w hen cr im i nal law s der iveeach pu n i s hmen t fromtheparticular natu reofthecr ime. Then thepu n i s hmen tdoes n ot flow from thecapr iciou s n es s of theleg i s lator ,bu t from thevery natureofthethi n g ;an dman u ses n o

violen cetoman .

Amon g crimes ofdifl'

eren t natures , says Sir W illiamB lacks ton e, those

“

s hould be m os t s everely pu n i s hed,w hichare m os t des tructive to the publick safety an d

1.Dag .335 343. 0 Eden . 151.pSp.L.b:12.c.4.

12 Ls c'

ru s s s on LAW.

happin es s :an d, am on g crimes‘

ofan equal malig n i ty,thps e, w hich aman has the m os t frequen t an d eas yopportu n ities ofcom m itti n g , w hich can n ot be s o eas ilyg uardedagai n s tas others ;an d w hich, therefore, the

offen der has theg reates t i n ducem en t to com m it. q

Much to the sam e.purposeare the ex pres s ion s of

M r. Paley—the pu n i s hm en t s hou ldbe i n aproportioncom pou n dedofthem i s chiefof thecr im e, an d theeas e'

w i th w hich i t i s execu ted.

T heen dof human pu n i s hm en t, says M r. Paley, i nan other place, s hou ld reg u late the m eas u reof its s ever ity. T o the propr iety of thi s ru le every on e w ill

s ubs cr ibe;bu t it throw s u s back upon an other , con cer ni n g w hich there i s an equal var ietyan doppos ition of

s en tim en t.

Cr im i nal s , say s Plato i n hi s book con cern i n g law s ,arepu n i s hed, n ot becau s e they haveoffen ded, for w hati s don e can n ever be u n don e, bu t that they may n ot

offen d.

T hevery learn edM r. Selden objects to thi s doctr i n e,an d says , that thean teceden t cri m e i s the es s en ce of

pu n i s hm en t.

T heam en dm en t ofthe crim i nal i s as s i g n edby s ome

as theen dof pu n i s hm en t. T o pu t i t ou t ofhi s pow er

to dofu tu re m i s chief, i s the en dproposedby others .

«1 Com . 16. r 2.Paley. 290. 121. 287.

t I. Dag .203. Eden .6. 1.Dag . 203.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

LECTURES 03 LAW .

—from w r iters , i n deed, who, on an y s ubject, w ouldde

servecelebr ity.

T o g iveyouahi s tory of thepracticeof crim i nal laww ou ldbeatas k, n otdiflicult, becau se thematerials arevery copiou s ;but it w ou ldbe very di s g u s ti n g both to

youan dto me. I draw the character of thi s practi cefrom on e, w hoappears to haveaheadan daheart w ellqualifiedtofeel an d to judg eupon thes ubject— I meantheAuthor ofthepri n ciples ofpenal law . T heperu salof thefirs t volum eof the E n g l i s h State say she, is am os t di s g u s tful drudgery) ? T he proceed

i n g s of ou r cr im i nal courts at thi s era” - m ean i n g thatw hich preceded the revolu tion are s o di s g racefu l,n ot on ly to thenation , bu t tohuman natu re, thar,aetheycan n ot bedi sbelieved, I w is h them tobebur ied i n obli

vion . From obl ivion , i t i s n either m y duty n or i n cl i nation to res cuethem .

”- No; n or tores cuefrom oblivion

the proceedi n g s of other ag es an dof other cou n tri es ,

equally dis g racefulan ddi s g u s tful. I reciteon lyas i n g lei n s tan ce.

M r. Pope, i n hi s pictures quean d i n teres tin g retro

spect of thebarbarou s rei g n s of theCon queroran dhi ss on ,as ks ,alludi n g to the law s of thefores ts

What won der then , ifbeas t or s ubject s lai nWereequal crimes in ades potick rei g n ?Both, doom

’dal ike, for sportivetyran ts bled,But w hi lethes ti ijeot s tarv’d, thebes st was fed. W

Man y, I daresay, havecon s ideredthisas afin efan cifuldes cription ofthePoet. It has , however , been exceeded

Win dsor Fores t.

LECTURES ON LAW.

by the s tr ict s ever ity of fact. Weare, i n the L ife of

Mr. T u r g ot, toldi n plai n an ds ober pros e, that s o r i g or

ou s w ere thefores t law saof Fran ce even s o lately, thatapeasan t, char g edw ith havi n g killedaw ildboar, alleg edas an alleviation of the charg e, that he thou g ht

it wasaman .x

In thes e lectu res , I have hadfrequen t occas ion to

observean d'

to reg ret the im perfection an dthe im propr iety, w hichare s een too

“

plai n ly i n thecivi l codes an di ns titu tion s of Eu rope: it i s the remark— it i s the ju s tremark of Sir W illiam Blacks ton e, that, i n every

cou n try of Eu rope, thecr im i nal law 18 m ore rudean din iperfect than thecivil.” y I n s teadofbei n g ,as it ou g htto be

, an emanation from the law of natu rean dm otality; i t has too often been avow edlyan ds y s tematicallytherever s e. It has been acombi nation of the s tron g

agai n s t thew eak, ofther ichagai n s t thepoor , of pr idean d.i n teres t agai n s t ju s ticean d human ity. U n fortu

nate, i n deed, it i s , that thi s has been thecas e; for w emay tru ly say, that on the ex cellen ce of the cr im i nallaw , the libertyan dthehappi n es s of the people chieflydepen d.

By thi s tim e, you s eevery clearly, that I was w ellwarran tedtoan n ou n ce, even i n thes u m mary ofm y s ys .

tem, that thecrim i nal law g reatly n eeds reformation . I

added—In the Un itedStates , the s eeds of reformationares ow n . Thos e s eeds , an d the ten der plan ts w hich

from s om e of them are n ow beg i n n i n g to s pr i n g , let it

beou r care to di s cover an d to cu ltivate. From thos e

m ods , lux u rian t an d s tron g , w ith w hich theyare s til li n term i n g led, an dby w hich, if they con ti n ue s o

, they

3Pri .Lect. 297. Y 4.Bl.Com .3.

16 Lacros s e on LAW.

w ill i n dubitablybe choked, let it beou r bus i n es s i n dus

triou s ly to s eparatethem . From thos ebeas ts of thefores t, by w hom ,

ifleft u n g uarded, they w i ll u n ques tionably bedevou red, let it beou r effort vi g orou s ly todefen d

them .

In thefields ofthecom m on law , w hich, forag es pas t,havelai n was tean dn eg lected, s om e of thos e s eeds an dplan ts w ill, on an accu rate i n qu iry, be fou n d. I n the

garden s of theAm er ican con s titu tion s , other s , an dthem os t choice of them ,

havebeen s ow n an dplan tedbyliberal han ds .

T heg en er ical term u sedim mem oriallyby thecomm onlaw , toden oteacrim e, i sfilm y . T rue i n deedit i s , thattheideaoffelon y i s n ow very g en erallyan d‘

very s tron g ly

con n ected w i th capital pu n i s hm en t; s o g en erallyan d s o

s tron g ly, that ifan act of parl iam en t den om inates an yn ew offen ceafelon y , thelegal i n feren cedraw n from it;

i s , that theofiien der s hal l be pu n i s hed for i t capitally.

Bu t thi s i n feren ce, w hatever legalau thor ity it may n owhaveacqu ired, i s by n o mean s en titled to the m er i t of

criticalaccu racy . At thi s m om en t, every felon y does

n ot, i n E n g lan d, receiveapu n i s hm en t w hich i s capi talpetit larcen y i s afelon y. At this m omen t, on e felon y

es capes i n E n g lan d, as it m u s t i n all other cou n tr ies ,

every deg reeof pu n i s hm en t that i s human : s u icide i safelon y. At thecom m on law , few felon ies , i n deed, w ere

pu n i s hedw ith death.

Treas on i s n ow con s idered, both i n legalan di n vernacu lar lan g uag e,as as pecies ofcr imedi s ti n ct from thatoffelon y ;bu t ori g i nally it was n ot s o con s idered. In

L s c'

w as s on LAW . 1 7

an cien t tim e, says m y LordCoke, every treas on wascom prehen dedu n der thenam eoffelon y.

”In deedit was

s o, dow n even to thetimeof Edwardthethi rd; for thefam ou s s tatu teoftreas on s , made i n hi s rei g n , u s es thes eex pres s ion s treas on or other ’ felon y.”

It w i ll bevery im portan t toas certai n thetruem ean i n gofaterm ,

em ployed s o‘

ex ten s ivelyan ds o lon g by the

com m on law , to con vey theideaofacr im e.

I n order toas certai n thetruem ean i n g , it i s frequen tlyofimportan cetoas certai n thetrueetym olog y , ofaterman di n order toas certai n that of theterm filqn y, m uch

learn ed labou r has been bes tow edby ju r idical lex icong raphersan dcr iticks .

Sir W i ll iam Blacks ton eas s erts that its or i g i nal i s u ndoubtedly feudal ;an dbei n g so, w eou g ht to look for i ts

derivation i n the Teu ton ic]: or German lan g uag ean dheprefers that g iven by Sir Hen ry Spelman ;accordi n gto w hom , felon i s taken from tw o n orthern w ords , fee,w hich s i g n ifies ,as all kn ow , the lief, feud, or ben eficiaryes tate an dIan , w hich s ig n ifies pr iceor value. ”Felon y

i s , therefore, thesam eas pretiumfeudz’ , thecon s ideration ,for w hichaman g ives up hi s fief as w esay, i n com m ons peech, s uchan act i s as m uchas you r life

'

or es tate i sw orth. I n thi s s en s e

,

”say s Si r W ill iam ,

“ i t w i ll

clearly s ig n ify thefeudal forfeitu re, oract, by w hichanes tatei s forfeitedor es cheats to thelord.

” Hem en tion s

tw o other derivation s ,an dadds S ir EdwardCoke,ash i s man n er i s , has g iven u s as ti ll s tran g er etym olog y ;

3.In s . 15.

VOL. I II.

1 8 L s cr uan s on Law .

that it i s , cr imen an imofelleaperpetratum , w i th s hitter

or galli s h i n cl i nation .

b

T heau thority of Sir Hen ry Spelman , i n matters oflegal an tiqu ity, i s u n ques tionably res pectable i t i s u n for

tu nate, on thi sas on man y other occas ion s , that hi s Glossary, thew ork‘

hereci ted, i s n ot i n m y power an d, therefore, I can n ot exam i n eparticularly w hathesays upon thes ubject.

Serjean t Haw ki n s , s o n otedfor hi s pai n fu laccu racyan dhi s g uardedcaution , ci tes , i n hi s treati s eofthepleasof the crow n , both the places w hichare citedby the

Au thor oftheCom men tar ies . T heSerjean thadprobably exam i n edboth : he follow s thedes cr iption of m y

LordCoke. From thi s , I i n fer on eofthe tw o thi n g s

thatM r. Haw ki n s either fou n ds omethi n g i n theGlos sary ,w h ich preven tedhi s as s en t to thecon clu s ion draw n from

i t, or preferredtheauthor ity ofm y LordCoketo that ofSir Hen ry Spelman . Thu s , on on e s ide w e fin d Si r

Hen ry Spelman an d Sir W i ll iam Blacks ton e on the

other , m y LordCokean d Serjean t Haw ki n s . I n eachs caleofau thor ity thew ei g ht i s g reat ;bu t, i n both, i t i sequal : thebeam ofdeci s ion i n cl i n es at n ei ther en d.

Ifan es tatecou ldbepu rchas ed, i n s teadofbei n g forfei ted, byafelon y, I can eas i ly con ceivehow thecr im e

m i g htbeview edas thecon s ideration ofthepu rchas e: ifafee s i g n ifiedacr im e, i n s teadofs i g n ifyi n g afief, I caneas ily con ceivehow thees tate m i g ht be view edas the

valueforfeitedby i ts com m i s s ion . Bu t the pretium

feudi ,”appliedi n theman n eran darran g emen t i n which

5 4. Bl.Com .95. l .In s .391a.

LECTURES ON LAW. l 9

theapplication i s madehere,appears , i n m y humbleconception , tobeetym olog y i n verted. Thu s s tan dthepropr ietyan d

.

theau thor ity oftheder ivation adoptedby theAu thorofthecom men taries .

M y LordCoke, w hen he refers themean i n g an dthedes cription offelon y to them otive,an dn ot to theeven t,

to thedi s pos ition w hich produced it,an dn ot to thefor

fei turew hich iti n cu r s , cites , i n themarg i n , -

theauthor i tyof Glan vi lle, the oldes t book n ow ex tan t i n law ,an dtw overyan cien t s tatu tes ; on emade i n the rei g n ofHen ry

thethird; theother i n that ofhi s s on , Edwardthefir s t.W ith regardto‘

Glan vi lle, therem u s t bes omen umer icalm i s take i n themarg i n ;for it refer s u s to thefifteen th

chapter of thefou rteen th book : i n that book, thereareon ly ei g ht chapters . T he s tatu tes I haveexam i n ed you

s hall judg ew hether they s upport that m ean i n g offelon y,for thetru th ofw hich theyarecited.

T hefirs t i s the tw en ty fifth chapter of the s tatu teofMarlbr idg e, w hich was made i n thefifty s econ dyear ofHen ry thethird. It i s very s hort. I n fu tu re, it s halln ot, by ou r ju s tices , beadjudg ed m u rder, w here it is

fou n dm i s fortu n eon ly bu t i t s hall takeplaceas to s uch

as ares lai n by felon y—i n terfecti s per felon iam—an dn ototherw i se.

” Felon y i s herepu t m os t obviou s ly i n acontras tedoppos ition to m i s fortu n e; i n ten tion toacciden t.B u t what i s pecu liarly u n fortu natefor theetym olog y ofS i r Will iam Blacks ton e,aforfei tu rewas i n cu rredat thatt im e,an d,accordi n g to the reprehen s ibletheory retai nedi n En g lan dfor thesakeoffees an dn ot for the sakeofj u s tice, aforfeiture i s s till i n cu rred, w hereahom icidehappen s by m i s fortu n e, as w ellas w hereit i s comm itted

c 4.Bl.Com . 188.

20 c 'ruan s on LAW.

I

felon iou s ly. Iffelon y, therefore, s i g n ifies clearly, ashe says “

s uchacr imeas w orks aforfeitu re of theoffen der s lan ds or g oods ,” thedi s ti n ction men tion edi n

the s tatu te w ou ld beabs u rdan d r idicu lou s ; referri n g

felon y to thepr i n ciple,an dn ot to thecon s equen ces ofthefact, theprevi s ion i n thes tatu tei s ju s tan dhuman e.

T heother s tatu tecitedby m y LordCoke i s the s ixteen th chapter ofWes tm i n s ter thefirs t, madei n thethirdyear ofthefir s t Edward. It di s ti n g u i s hes betw een thos e

crim inals w ho may bebailed, an dthosew ho ou g ht n ottobebai led. I n thelatter clas s areran kedthos e, w ho

aretaken for hou s ebu rn i n g felon iou s ly don e felon i

eu semen t fait.”—Does thi s directou r view tothepu n i s h

m en t, or tothei n ten tion ?

Bu t Iam ableto produce i n s tan ces s ti ll m orean cren tan ds till m ore s tron g . T he M irrour ofJu s tices ,as hasbeen m en tion edoften er than on ce, con tai n sacollection ofthe law , chieflyas it s toodbeforethecon ques t ;an dconsequen tly beforethefeudal s ys tem was i n troduced i n toEn g lan d. I n that collection therei s hchapter con cern i n gi n cen diar ies : theyare thu s des cr ibed-l—In cen diar ies arethos ew hobu rn acity ,atow n ,ahou s e,aman ,abeas t orother chattels ofthei rfelon y dc leur felon y,

”—iatimeofpeacefor hatredor ven g ean ce. Do thew ords ofthei r

felon y des cribethat pr i n ciple, w hich g ives the crim ei tsbodyan d its form i” or do they relatetoafeudal forfeitu re, then u n kn ow n ?

Bu t to put thematter i n ali g ht s ti ll mores triki n gan dclear : i n the n ex t s en ten ce,acas e i s s uppos ed, i n w hich

the i n ten tion ex i s ted, thefact was comm itted;bu t theeffect didn ot takeplace;an d, con sequen tly, thepun i sh

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

LECTURE S ON LAW .

es cheat m u s t u n doubtedly bereckon ed. Es cheat, therefore

,Operates i n s ubordi nation to the m orean cien tan d

s uper iou r law offorfeitu re.

T hedoctr i n eofes cheat upon attai n der, taken s i n g ly,

i s thi s , that thebloodofthetenan t, by the com m i s s ion

ofan y felon y (u n der w hich den om i nation all treas on sw ere form erly com pr i s ed) i s corruptedan d s tai n ed,an dtheor i g i nal donation of thefeudi s thereby determ i n ed,it bei n g alway s g ran tedto thevas sal on the im pl iedcon

dition of dam ben e s e g es s er'

i t. Upon the thorou g h

dem on s tration of w hich g u ilt by legal attai n der , the

feudal covenan t an d m u tual bon d of fealtyare heldtobebroken , thees tate i n s tan tly fall s back from theofi

'

en

der to the lordof the fee, an dthe i n heritablequal ity ofhi s bloodi s ex ti n g u i s hedan dblotted ou t for ever. In

thi s s ituation thelaw offeudal es cheat was brou g ht i n toE n g lan dat thecon ques t, an di n g en eral s uperadded to

thean cien t law offorfeitu re. I n con s equen ceofw hichcorruption an dex ti n ction ofheredi taryblood, thelan dofall felon s w ou ld im m ediately reves t i n the lord, but

that the s u periou r law offorfei turei n terven es , an di n tercepts i t i n i ts pas sag e; i n cas e oftreas on for ever ; i ncas e of other felon v, for on lyayearan daday ;afterw hich tim e, it g oes to the lord i n areg u lar cou rs e of

es cheat, as it w ou ldhave'don e to theheir ofthefelon ,

i n cas e - thefeudal ten u res hadn ever been i n troduced.

An dthat thi s i s the trueoperation an dg en u i n e hi s toryofes cheats , w i ll m os teviden tlyappear from this i n ciden t

to gavelki n d lan ds (w hich s eem to be the old Saxonten u re) that theyare i n n o cas e s ubject to es cheat forfelon y, thou g h they are l iable to forfeitu re for treas on .

”

Ls c'

ruan s on LAW. 23

In s tead, therefore, ofcon s ider i n g felon yas afeudalforfeitureor es cheat, w eare heretau g ht, an dproperlytau g ht, toview them as flow i n g from differen t s ources ,

an d, i n their operation s , n ot on ly di s ti n ct, but i n com

patible.

Havi n g thu s traced the true m ean i n g offelon y, n otto theeven t or part ofthepu n i s hmen t, but to thepr i ncipican ddi s pos i tion from w hich it proceeds ; our n ex t

s tep w i ll be to as certai n , as plai n lyan das correctly aspos s ible, the natu rean dcharacter of that pr i n ciplean ddi s pos ition . It i s characterizedby the epithet felleo.Som eder iveit from theLati n verbfallo, w hich s i g n ifies ,

to deceive, others from the Greek w ord mas , w hich

s i g n ifies an im pos tor or deceiver. I n lan g uag e, thes eder ivation s are differen t : i n s en timen t, they are the

sam e. Perhaps they may lead u s toas ju s tacon cept ion as can w ell beform edoffelon y—the g en erical termem ployedby thecom mon law toden oteacr im e.

W ithou t m utual con fiden ce betw een its m embers ,s ociety , it i s eviden t,

°

couldn otex i s t. Thi s m u tualan dpervadi n g con fiden ce may w ell be con s ideredas the

attractivepr i n cipleoftheas s ociati n g con tract. T o placethat con fiden ce i n all the others i s the s ocial r i g ht, todes erve that con fiden cefrom all theothers i s thes ocialdu ty, ofevery m ember. T o en tertai n adi s pos ition , i nw h ich that con fiden ce can n ot w ith propr iety be placed,i s abreach of the s ocial duty, an daviolation of the

s ocial ri g ht : i t i s acrime i n choate. When an i n ju ry,atrociou s i n i ts nature, or evil i n its exam ple, i s com m ittedvolu n tar ily agai n s tan y on e m ember, theauthor ofthat volu n tary i n ju ry has , by hi s con duct, s how n toall

,

24 L s c'

ruan s on LAW.

that their ri g ht i s violated; that hi s du ty i s broken ; thatthey can n ot en joy an y lon g er thei r r i g ht of placi n g confiden cei n him ; that heen tertai n sadi s pos ition u n worthyofthi s con fiden ce that hei s false, deceitfu l,an dtreacherou s : thecr imei s n ow com pleted.

A di s pos ition , regardles s of social du ty toall, an ddi s covered by an i n ju ry , volu n tary, an datrociou s or

dan g erou s , com m ittedagai n s t on e—thi s i s acr imeagai n s t society. Nei ther thedi s pos ition s eparatedfromthe i n ju ry, n or the i n j u ry s eparatedfrom thedi s pos ition ,con s titu tes acr ime. Bu t thou g h both the i n g redien ts

are n eces sary, they have n otan equal operation i n formi n g that character, from w hichacrimereceives its den om i nation . I n thecon s ideration ofcr imes , the i n ten tioni s chiefly toberegarded.

A s thei n jur ies , an d thebreaches ofs ocial tru s tan dconfiden ce, w hich w ehave m en tion ed, may relatetoag reat variety of objects , an d, i n their ow n natu re, maybem oreor les s ag g ravated, it follow s , that crimes maybedi s ti n g u i s hedi n toman y difl’eren t s pecies ,an dare s usceptibleofman y differen t deg rees .

Some thi n k, that, at com mon law , the di s pos ition ,s eparated from the i n ju ry, con s titutedacr im e. T he

sayi n g , that volu n tas repu tabitu r pro facto,” seem s to“

have g iven ri seto thi s opi n ion . On aclos eexam i nation ,how ever , i t w ill , I imag i n e,appear , that, i n all thecas es ,on w hich theopi n ion i s fou n ded, an dfrom w hich the

sayi n g i s draw ,an i n ju ry was don e, thou g h n ot'

the

i n jury i n ten dedtobedon e.

Ls c'

ruas s on Law . 25

A veryan cien t cas e i s reported i n thefollowi n g mann er . A man ’ s w ifew en taway '

w ith heradu lterer ;an dthey com pas sedthedeath ofthehu sban d;an das hewasr idin g towards the s es s ion s of oyer an d term i n er an dgaol delivery, theyas sau ltedan dbeat him w i thweapon s ,So that he fell dow n as dead: u pon thi s they fled. T he

h u sban d recovered, an dmade huean dcry, an d cam eto thes es s ion s ;an ds how edall thi s matter to theju s ticesan d, upon the

”

warran t of the ju s tices , the w oman an dheradulterer w eretaken , i n dicted, an darrai g n ed. All

thi s s pecial matter was fou n dbyaverdict ;an d it was‘adjudg ed, that theman s houldbehan g ed, hadthew omanbu rn t.“ Here

,i n deed, the i n ju ry i n ten dedan dcom

pas s e‘d—for to com pas s i s , i n legal u n der s tan di n g , to

i n ten d—was n ot carr ied i n to com plete execution :anatrociou s i n jury, how ever , was perpetrated.

An other cas e i s m en tion edto the follow i n g pu rpos e.A you n g man wasarrai g n ed,becau s ehei n ten dedtohaves tolen hi s mas ter’ s g oods ,an dcam e to his mas ter’ s bed,w herehelayas leep,an d, w ithakn ife,attem pted, w i thallh i s force, tohavecu t hi s throat ;an d, thi n ki n g that hehadi n deedcu t it, fled; upon thi s , themas ter cr iedou t ;an dh i s n ei g hbou r s apprehen dedthe you n g man . All thi s

matter was fou n dbyas pecial verdict ;an d, i n the en d,

theyou n g man wasadjudg edtobehan g ed. Qu iavolu n tasreputabitur pro them. Bu t upon thi s cas e i t i s tobe oh

s erved, that therewasaluch m orethan m erei n ten tion :abarbarou s ou trag ewas com m ittedon theper s on ofamanan dwas even thou g ht by theag g res s or tohavebeen fullycompletedi n its m os t ex trem eex ten t. For the you n g

8 3. In s .5.

V OL. I I I.’

I

26 L s cr u s s s on LAW.

man , it i s ’

said, thou g ht that hehadi n deedcuthi s mas ter ’ sthroat. Accordi n g ly, m y LordCoke says upon th i s

s ubject, that it was n otabarecom pas s i n g or plottin g of

thedeathofaman , ei ther by w ord, or even by w riti n g

bu t that s om eoverti '

deedtopian ifes t that com pas s i n g or

plotti n g was n eces sary.

In as pecies ofhi g h treas on ,an di n as pecies offelo~

n y, theru le i s s till obs erved—that the i n ten tion man ifes tedbyadeg reeof i n jury, thoug h n ot thedeg ree iaten ded, con s titu tes the crime. Thi s i s the .cas e i n

com pas s i n g thedeath oftheki n g . Thoug h thi s i n ten tionbe n ot com pletedby hi s death ; thecr ime i s com pletedby w hat i s calledan over t:act, man ifes ti n g that i n ten tionby i n ju riou s an ddi s loyal con duct. I n deedthi s ru lei s s o

s trictly obs erved i n thi s s pecies of treas on , that evenw hen the i n ten tion i s carr ied i n to fu ll effect by puttin gtheki n g todeath, thi s completion i ts elf, con n ectedw i th

thei n ten tion , i s n ot con s ideredas con s titu ti n g thecrime:i t i s viewed on ly as the i n ju riou san dovertact w hichman ifes ts that i n ten tion . Ag reeably to thes epri n ciples ,thereg icides ofCharles thefirs t w erei n dictedas com

pas s i n g hi s death, aud thefact ofbeheadi n g him wass pecifiedan d made u seofas on e of theovertacts to

provethi s com pas s i n g .h

T he s pecies of felon y, i n w hich theruleabovemention ed s till g over n s , i s burg lary. A bu rg lar, says m yLordCoke, i s , by the com m on law , afelon , w ho, 1n

the n i g ht, breakethan den tereth i n toaman s ion houseofan other

, w i th i n ten t to com m it s ome felon y w ithi n i t.

T hei n ten tion i n thi s crime i s tocom m itafelon y bu t,

h Kel. 8. i 8. In s .63.

c r u n z s on LAW.

i n order to con s titutethecrime, it i s n ot n eces sary thatthe i n ten tion s hould be execu ted; the

‘

i n ju r iou s actsdon eat the tim ean dthe placean d i n the man n er des cr ibedare s ufficien t : nay m ore; if the i n ten tion be

com pleted by com m itti n g thefelon y, yet, if it be n ot

com m i ttedat thetim ean dtheplace,an di n the man n erdes cribed, i t i s n otabu r g lary, thou g h i t i s afelon y of

an other s pecies .

T he'foreg oi n g cases , the view u n der w hich I haves tatedthem , an dthe obs ervation s w hich I havedraw nfrom them , s how s tron g ly the s pir it of thecom m on lawi n i ts es timation ofcr im es . I n thos e cas es , the felon yor treas on i s traced to the mal i g n ity of the pr i n ciple,

n ot to them i s chief of the con s equen ces : the crime i s

con s titu ted, thou g h theeven t fai l.

I n other cas es , i n deed, thecom pletion of theeven t

i s n eces sary to the con s titution of thecr im e bu t even

i n thes e, the i n ten tion i s m uch m orecon s ideredthan theact. Actu s n on facit reum ,

n i s i m en s s it rea,

” j i s , I

believe, aru le of im mem orialan tiqu i ty i n thecom m onlaw . If, i n deed, it i s an errour , as theMarqu i s ofBeccariaalleg es it tobe, to thi n kacrim e g reater or les s accordi n g to thei n ten tion ofhim by whom

'

it i s com m i tted,

i t i s , i n thecom m on law , an errou r of them os t i n versrateki n d; i t i s an errou r w hich theex perien ce ofag eshas n ot:been ableto correct. Ju s titia,” saidBraetonman y hu n dred years ag o, es t volu n tarium bon um ;

n ee en im potes t dici bon um proprie, n i s i i n terceden tevolu n tate: tolle en im volu n tatem , et erit om n i s actu si n difl

'

eren s . Afl'

ectio qu idem tuan omen i'

m pon it operi

28 L s cr u n s s on LAW.

tuo. Crim ean on con trahitn r n i s i volu n tas n ocen di k iatercedat. Volu n tas et propos itum di s ti n g uan t maleficia.Furtum om n i n o n on com m itti tur s i n eafl '

ectu furan di. I nmalefici i s s pectatur volu n tas et n on exam .

“

Bu t, on on ehan das w ellas on theother, there i s anex treme. T he i n ten tion g overn s ; the i n ten tion com

m u n icates its colours to theact : bu t theact—the i n j u riou s act m u s tbedon e. Abs tract tu rpitude i s n ot, Iapprehen d, as ubject of cog n izan ce i n ahuman foru m .

T hebreach of ou r du ty to man an d to s ociety alon e i stheobject of m u n icipal reprehen s ion . For thos e s en ti

men ts , for those pr i n ciples , nay for thos eaction s , byw hich n o other m ember of s ociety can beaffected, n o

on e m ember i s accou n table to the others . For s uch

sen timen ts , for s uch pri n ciples , an dfor s uchaction s ,he i s am enable on ly to the tr ibu nal w ithi n , an d the

tribu nal above him . In the human code w e haves een it tobearu le, that w ithou tan i n ju ry there i s n o

crime.

Let u s n ot, how ever, con fin e our con ception s of iaju ry to thelos s or to the r i s k m erely of property. Of

i n ju ry, all ou r r ig hts , naturalan dcivil , abs olu tean dre

lative,are s u s ceptible. Every i n ju riou s violation , therefore, ofan y of thos er i g hts may lay thefou n dation ofacrim e. T he s tri n g s of s ocietyare s ometim es s tretched.

i n the n ices t u n i s on : s tr ike on e, an dall em itacomplai n i n g ton e. I s as in g lem ember of s ociety menacedi.Hew ho threaten s i s bou n di n arecog n i san ceto keep thepeacetowards every other ci ti zen , as w ell as towardshim ,

tow hom theimmediatecau s eofalarm was g iven .m

k Brac es . 1 Id. 136b. m 4.Bl.Com .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

30 Lacr u n s s on LAW.

w ho has ordered it, i s opulen tan d powerfu l. T o the

hon our of\ the E n g li s h law an dof i ts adm i n i s tration beit said, that n odeg reeofopu len ceor pow er w i ll purchaseor com man di mpu n ity to theg u i lty : this as sas s i n w i ll

feel i tsaven g i n g arm . Bu t to the‘

hon ouroftheE n g li sh

law an dof i ts adm i n i s tration cau ‘

i tbeadded, that everydeg ree of i n jury s hall fin d. i ts proportion eddeg ree of

reparation an dthatas theas sas s i n i s n otabovei ts power, s o thosew ho s uffer by theas sas s i nation are n ot be

n eath its care oNo. Thi s addition can n otbemade. T hew idow an dtheorphan s , w ho w ere thew itn es s es of the

crim ean dthe s ufferers by the los s ,are recog n ized i ntheformer , but n ot i n the latter character. They atten d to g ive their tes timon y on the trial. T he r ich

cu lprit i s con dem n edas heou g ht tobe. Theyapply to

obtai n reparation -for ms los s - of thelife? That i s i rreparable—of the i n du s try of their hu sban dan dfather ,from theam ple patr im on y of the crim i nal , w ho occas ion ed the los s ? T o thi s appl ication , reas onablean dju s t, w hat i s thean s w er w hich m us t beg iven i n the spi

r it of the law Hi s property i s forfeitedby thecrime;

n o fu n ds remai n to makeyou reparation for your los s .T heyaredi s m i s s ed, w i thou t bei n g reimbursed theex

pen seof theiratten dan ce i n con s equen ceof their dutyan d the order of the law ;for the ki n g pays n ocos ts .Can thi s beri g ht ?

It was , i n an cien t times , orderedotherw i s ean dbetter.I n theearly part of our ju r idical hi s tory, w efin dthatapart of the com pos ition or forfei tu refor hom icide wasg iven to therelation s ofthepers on deceas ed. Wefin d

l ikew i se, that, i n thos etimes , penalties i n cases ’

ofper

m 2. Hen ry 289. 2.Dag . 90. Eden .217.

Ls c'r l s on LAW. 31

zonal i n ju ry hads o far the natu reofacivil redres s , thatthey w ere g iven asacom pen sation to theper son i n ju red. ’T hu s i t was am on g '

thean cien t Saxon s . Reparation , iadeed, was on eg reat object i n theAn g lo-Saxon s ys tem (if

cr i m i nal law . T hepr i n ciple may betracedto theGerman s as des cribedby Tacitu s . q Recipi tque sati s faction em u n iver sadom u s .

” I n on eof thevery early law sofPen n s ylvan ia, i t i s directedthat thos e n ex t of ki n

s hall becon s ideredi n thelos s occas ion edby thedeath oftheparty ki lle r

An other qual ity oftheSaxon ju r i s pruden ce i n cr im in al matter s des erves ou ratten tion —Iadd, ou r im itationthey i n flictedvery few capital pu n i s hmen ts . Such wasthecas e, w eare told, form erly i n Scotland s uch wasi t or i g i nally i n Irelan d;an d s uch was itan cien tly i n

Wales .

I n every cas ebeforejudg men t, theRoman s allowedan accu s edcitizen to w ithdraw him s elffrom thecon s e

q uen ces of con viction i n toavolu n tary ex i le. T o thi s

i n s titu tion , theform er practiceofabjaration i n E n g lan dboreas tron g resemblan ce. Thi s was perm itted,as m yL ordCokesays , w hen thecrim i nal chos erather “perderepatr iam , quam vi tam .

”On thesam epr i n ciples ,aliberty

was g iven , i n Greece, toapers on accu s edto di sappearafter hi s firs t defen ce, an d retire i n tovolu n tary ban i s hm en t— iathelan g uag eoftheE n g li s h law , toabju retherealmafter the i n dictmen t was fou n d.

l' l . Recv. 12. ‘1 De.Mor.Germ .c. 21. 2.Dag . 77.r R.0.Book A. p.49. s 4.Bl.Com .406.

l .Whitak.278. Eden .31. 2.Gog .Or.L. 72.

32 c r n n es .os LAW.

Sabacos , on eof the leg i s lator s ofE g ypt, w en t s ti l l

further. Heabol i shedcapital pu n i s hmen ts ,an dordai n ed,tlm tsuchcr im i nal sas w erejudg edw orthyofdeath s hou ldbe employedi n thepublick w orks . Eg ypt, hethoug ht,

w ou ldderive m oreadvan tag efrom thi s ki n dofpu n i s hmen t; w hich, bein g im posedfor l ife, appeared equallyadaptedto pu n i s han dto repres s cr im es .

Pu n i s hmen ts ou g ht u n ques tionably tobemoderatean dm i ld. I kn ow the opi n ion advan cedby s om e w ri ter s ,

that the n umber ofcr im es i s dim i n i s hedby the s ever ityofpun i s hm en ts I kn ow , that ifw ei n s pect theg reates tpart of thecr im i nal codes , their u n w ieldy s izean dtheir

en san g u i n edhuew ill force u s toackn ow ledg e, that theOpi n ion has been g en eralan dprevalen t. O n accu ratean du n bias sedexam ination , how ever , it w illappear to beanOpi n ion u n fou n dedan dpern iciou s , i n con s i s ten t w ith thepri n ciples ofou r natu re,an d, byan eces sary con s equen ce,w ith thos eofw i s ean dg oodg overn men t.

Sofarasan y sen timen tofg en erou s s ym pathy i s s uffered, by

-amerciles s code, to ‘

remai n am on g thecitizen s ,theirabhorren ceofcr im es i s , hy thebarbarou s exhibi tion sofhuman ag on y, s u n k i n thecomm i s eration ofcrim i nals .Thesebarbarou s exhibition s are productive ofan otherbadeffect—alaten tan dg radual, bu tapow erful , becau s eanatu ral ,avers ion to thelaw s . Can law s , w hich.areanatu ralan daju s t object ofaver s ion , receiveacheerfu lobedien ce, or s ecu reareg u laran d u n iform execution ?

T heex pectation i s forbidden by s om eof the s tron g es t

pr i n ciples i n thehuman frame. Such law s , w hi letheyexci te the com pas s ion of s ociety for thos e w ho s u fl

'

er,‘

3.Gog .Or.L. 15.

w oman on LAW. 36I

rou s eits i n dig nation agai n s t thos ew hoareactivei n thes teps preparatory to their s uffer i n g s .

T he res ult of those combi n edemotion s , Operati n gvi g orou s ly i n con cert, maybeeas ily con jectured. T he

cr im i nal w i ll probably bedi s m is s edw ithou t pros ecution ,

by thos ew hom hehas i n jured. Ifpros ecu tedan dtr ied.theju ry w i ll probablyfin d, or thi n k they fin d, som edecen tg rou n d, on w hich they may beju s tifiedor , at leas t,cu sed in g ivi n g averdict ofacqu ittal. Ifcon victed, the

judg es w ill , w ithavidity, receivean ds upport everyf the

n ices t, exception to theproceedi n g s agai n s t him an d, ifall other thi n g s s hou ldfail , w ill haverecou rs e to thelas tex pedien t w ithi n their reach for exem pti n g him from

r i g orous pu n i s hmen ts—that ofrecommen di n g him to the

m ercy ofthepardon i n g pow er . I n thi s man n er theacerbity ofpun i s hmen tdeaden s theexecu tion ofthelaw .

T hecr im i nal , pardon ed, repeats thecrime, u n der theex pectation that theim pu n i tyals ow i ll berepeated. T he

habits ofvicean ddepravi tyareg radually formedw i thi n ‘

him . T hos ehabits acqu ire, by exerci se, con tin uedacces s ion s of s tren g than d i n veteracy. I n theprog res s of

hi s cours e, hei s ledtoen gag ei n s omedesperateattem pt.From on e des perateattem pt he boldly proceeds toan .other ; til l,at las t, he n eces sar i ly becom es thevictim of

that prepos terou s r i g ou r , w hich repeated im pu n i ty hadtau g ht him todes pi se, becau seit hadpers uadedhim thathem i g htalways escape.

When , on the other han d, pu n i s hm en tsaremoderatean dm ild, every on ew ill, from as en seofi n teres tan dofdu ty, take hi s proper part i n detecti n g , i n ex pos i n g , i ntryi n g ,an di n pas s i n g sen ten ceon crimes . T he tou r

VOL. n t. 1»

at m em es on LA-‘W.

quen cew i ll be, that crim i nals w ill seldom eludethe“3&lan ce, or bafiletheen er g y ofpubl ic]: ju s tice.

True it i s , that, on s omeemer g en cies , exces ses ofatem porary natu remay receiveas udden cheek from ri g o

rou s penalties bu t their con ti n uan cean dtheir frequen cyi n troducean ddiffu seaharden edi n sen s ibili tyam on g theci tizen s ;an d“

thi s i n sen s ibi lity, i n i ts tu rn , g ives occas ionor preten ceto thefu rther ex ten s ion an dm u ltipl ication p fthos epenalties . Thu s on edeg reeofseveri ty iopen san ds m ooths theway foran other , ti ll, at l en g th, u n der the

s peciou s appearan ce of n eces sary ju s tice, as y s tem of

cruelty i s es tabl i s hedby law . Suchas ys tem i s calcu lated»

toeradicateall theman ly s en timen ts of the s oul ,an dtos ubs titutem their placedi s pos ition s ofthem os tdepraveéan ddeg radi n g ki n d.

T he pr i n ciples both of u til ityan dofju s ticerequ i re,that thecom m i s s ion ofacr ime s hou ldbefollow edbyas peedy i n fl iction ofthepu n i s hmen t. a

Theas sociation ofideas has vas t pow er over the sem i s;m en ts , thepas s ion s ,an dthecon duct of men . Wheatpenalty marches clos e i n therear of the offen ce,agai n s tw hich it i s den ou n ced,an as s ociation , s tron g an ds tr iki n g ,i s produced betw een them ,an d theyareview edi n the:i n s eparablerelation of cau sean deffect. When , onahecon trary, the pu n i s hmen t i s procras ti natedtoaremoteperiod, thi s con n ex ion i s con s ideredas w eakan dprecariou s ,an dtheexecution ofthelaw 18 beheldan ds ufferedasadetachedi n s tan ceofseveri ty, warran tedby n ocog en treas on ,an d s pri n g i n g from n o laudablemotive.

\

I t i s ju s t,as w ellas us efu l, that thepu n ishmen tM id

be i n fl icted s oon after thecom m is s ion ofthecrim e. It

Lacros s e .ON LAW. 85

t hou ld n ever. beforg otten , that im pri son men t;thou g hoften n eces sary for thesafecu s tody of thepers on accus ed, i s , n evertheles s , i n i ts elfapu n i s hmen t—apu n i s h.m en t g elli n g to s omeof the fin es t feeli n g s of theheart

-apu n i s hmen t, too, w hich, as i t precedes con viction ,may beas u n deservedas i t i s dis tres s i n g .

But impri son m en t i s n ot theon ly penalty, w hichan~accu

\s edpers on u n derg oes beforehi s tr ial. Hex u n der g oes

als o the corrodi n g tormen t of s u s pen se—the keen es t

ag on y, perhaps , w hichfalls to the lot ofs ull'

eri n g humau ty. Thi sag on y i s by n omean s tobees timatedby thereal probability ordan g er ofcon viction : itbears acompoun dproportion tothedelicacy of s en timen tan d the

s tren g thofimag i nation pos ses sedby him , w ho i s doom ed

tobecomei ts prey.

T heseobs ervation s s how , that thos eaccu s edofcrimess houldbe s peedily tr ied;an d that thos e con victed of

them s houldbes peedi ly pu n i s hed. But w ith regardtothi s ,as w ith regardtoalmos t every Other s ubject, thereia'an ex tremeon on e han das wellas on theother an dtheex trem es on each han ds hou ldbeavoidedw ith equalare. In som e cas es ,at som e tim es , an dun der s om e

ci rcum s tan ces , adelay ofthetr ialan dofthepu n i s hm en t,i n s teadofbei n g hurtfu l or pern iciou s , may, i n thehi g hes tdeg ree, be salutaryan dben eficial, both to the publi s h

an dto him w ho i s accu sedor con victed.

Plejudices may natu rally ar i s e, or may beartfullyfomen ted, agai n s t thecr ime, oragai n s t theman w ho i s

charg edw ith havi n g com m itted i t. A delay s hou ldbe

allow ed, that thos e prejudices may s ubs ide, an d thatn either the judg es n or ju ror s may, ‘at the trial , act

I

36 n ee-m u s on n ew .

u n der thefas ci nati n g im pres s ion s ofsen timen ts con ceivedbeforetheeviden ce i s heard, i n s teadof the calm i n fl u s

en ceofthos ew hich s hou ldbeits im partialan ddel iberateres u lt. A s ufficien t time s hou ld.beg iven topreparethepros ecu tion on the part of the s tate, an d thedefen ce

of it on thepart ofthepr i s on er. Thi s tim e m u s t varyaccordi n g to differen t person s , differen t Crimes , an ddifferen t s ituation s .

After con viction , the pu n i s hmen t as s i g n ed to ani n fer iou r ofl

'

en ce s hou ldbe i n fl icted w ith m uch expedi -t

tion . Th i s w ill s tren g then theu s efulas s ociation batsm enthem ; on eappear i n g as the im m ediatean du navoidal‘fiecon sequen ce oftheother. When as en ten ceofdeath i spron ou n ced, s uch an i n terval s hou ld be perm itted to

elaps ebefore i ts execu tion , as w i ll render the lan g rageofpoli tical expedien cy con s onan t to thelan g uag eofrelig xon .

Un der thes e qual ification s , the s peedy pu n i s hmen t

of cr imes s hou ldform apart i n every s ys tem ofcrim i

nal Ju r i s pruden ce. T he con s titution of Pen n s ylvan ia:declares , that i n al l cr im i nal pros ecution s , theaccu sedhas a r i g ht toa‘s peedvtr ial.”

T hecertai n ty ofpu n i s hm en ts i saquality oftheg reates ti m portan ce. T hi s qual ity i s , i n its operation , m os t mettcifu las w ellas m os t pow erfu l. When acr im i nal deter.m in es on thecomm i s s ion ofacr ime, he i s n ot s o m uch

i n fl uen ced by the len i ty of thepu n i s hmen t, as by theex pectation , that, i n someway or other , hemay befortanateen ou g h toavoid i t. Thi s i s particu larly thecase

x Art- 90 ‘ s .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

L ifer-vat s on LAW.

g ros s an drefracti n g atm os phereoffalsepolicyan dfals ephi los ophy. T hedoctr i n es offorfei turean dcorruptionofbloodhave fou n d their i n g en iou sadvocates ,as wel las their powerful patron s .

T herehavebeen cou n triesan dtimes—theres ti llarecoun tr ies an dtimes , w hen an d w heretherule, fou n ded

i n jus ticean dnatu re, that theproperty oftheparen t i s thei n her i tan ce of hi s chi ldren , has been i n terceptedi n i tqben i g n operation by thecruel i n terferen cep fan other rule,fou n dedi n tyran n yan davar ice—thecrimes ofthes ubject

arethe i n heri tan ceofthepri n ce. At thosetimes ,an di nthos ecou n tr1ee, an i n s ult to s ocietybecomes apecu n iaryfavour to the crow n ; theappoi n ted g uardian of the

publiclc secu ri ty becom es i n teres tedi n theviolation ofthelaw 3an d thehallow edm i n i s ters ofjus ticebecomeI

therapaciou s ‘ag en ts ofthetreas ury.

J

A poi son edfou n tai n throw s out its bitter waters i nevery di rection . T hi s ru le, hos ti leto then eares tdomestic]: con n ex ion s , was u n fr ien dlyal so to

.the safety of

thepublick. Ifthei n her i tan cewas reapedby thepr i n cei t was , by him , deem edamatter ofs mall m om en t, thatim pu n ity was s t ipu lated for the crim e. Accordi n g ly ,w earetold, that, i n thethirteen th cen tu ry, on e of them ethods , by w hich theki n g s of E n g lan dan dof otherparts of Europe s uppl iedthei r exchequer s , was thesaleofpardon s for crim es . Y When crimes w erethe s ou rces

ofpri n cely w ealth, i t i s n ow on der ifthey w ereobjects ofpri n cely i n du lg en ce. In thi s man n er w e may natu rallyaccou n t for thedi s order an d y iolen ce, w hich, i n thos e

ages , prevaileds o un iversally over Europe. wt

7 Bar.on St.27.

LECTURES ON LAW

T helaw offorfeitu re i t has been attem ptedtodefen dby con s ideration s draw n from u ti l ity, an d,al so from natu ral .ju s tice. T hehi g hau thor i ty ofCicero i sal so prevdu cedu pon thi s occas ion Necvero m e fu g i t, quams i t acerbum , paren tum s celerafiliorum pmn i s lu i sed

h’

ocpraeclareleg ibu s com paratum es t, utcar itas l iberorum ‘

am iciores paren tes reipubl icaeredderet.” Am icu s Cicero— sedmag i s am icaveritas . For thehi g hau thor ity ofCicero, l certai n ly en tertai n aproportionate deg ree of

res pect ;bu t im pl ici t deferen ce s hou ldbepaidto n ehe.Bes ides i n the

, pas sag equoted,Cicerodoes n ot s peak i nacharacter ofau thori ty . Hedecides n etas ajudg ehepleads hi s ow n cau s eas acu lpr it hedefen ds

,before

B rutu s , ari g orou s vote, w hich he had g iven i n these

nate, agai n s t thes on s of Lepidu s .

But farther ; upon acloser i n ves ti gation , i t w i ll , per-qhaps , befou n d, that the pri n ciple of pol icy, OR A WhiCh

Cicerores ts hi s defen ce,as i t certai n ly i s n ot ofthemos tg en erou s , n ei ther is it of them os t en larg edki n d; s i n ceforfeitu res , far from preven ti n g phbl ick cr imes an dpubl ic]: dan g ers , may have the s tron g es t ten den cy to

m u ltiplyan d to perpetuateboth. When the law says ,that thechildren of him , w ho has been g u i lty ofcr imes ,s hall be bereavedofall thei r hopesan dall their r i g hts

of i n her i tan ce that they s hall lan g u i s h i n perpetual ‘

iadi g

-on cean ddi s tres s ; that thei r w hole l ife s hall be on edark s cen eofpu n i s hmen t, u n i n term i tted

'an du nabatin g ;an d that deathalon e s hall providefor them an as ylu mfrom thei r m i s ery

m w hen '

s uch i s the lan g uag e, or s uch

i s theeffect of the law ; w i th w hat s en t im en ts m n s t ' it

i n s pirethos e, w hoaredoom edtobecom e i ts u n fortu nateI

4.Bl.Cin n . 375, 3Ep.adBu t.12.

40 i n cr eas e on Law .

thou g h u n ofi'

en di n g victim s i—w itbw hat sen tim en ts m u s ti t i n s pire those, w ho from human ity feel, or bv natu rearebou n dto take, an i n teres t i n thefortu n es an d i n the

fateof thos evictim s , u n fortu nate thou g h u n offen di n g 2

With s en tim en ts of pai n an ddi s g u s t—w ith s en tim en ts

of i rritation an ddi sappoi n tm en t—w i th s en tim en ts ofadeadly feudagai n s t the s tate w hich has adopted, an d,perhaps , agai n s t thecitizen s also w ho haveen forced i t.

Vai n i s theattem pt to ran g e thecoldan dtim id. s u g

g es tion s of pol icyagai n s t the vividan d the i n delible

feeli n g s of nature, an dagai n s t the warm thou g h im partial dictates ofhuman ity. Whow i ll u n dertaketo sati s fyan i n n ocen t s on , that he i s thevictim—w how i ll u n der

taketopers uadehi s relation s—hi s virtuou s - hi s patriotick—hi s m eritoriou s ly patr iotic]: relation s , that on e s on early con n ected w i th them i s the victim , w hom the

public]: goodi n di s pen sably deman ds tobeoffered upasasacrifice toaton e for the g u ilt of hi s father ? T he

s on s ofLepidu s w erethechildren of the s i s ter ofBru

tu s . Con trapetrem Lepidum '

Brutus avu n cu lu s ,” sayshevery natu rally i n hi s an s w er toCicero.

An attem pt has been l ikew i s e madeto s upport the

law offorfeitureon thefou n dation of natu ral ju s tice.“All property,

”says Sir W i lliam Blacks ton e, ° i s de.

r ived from s ociety, bei n g on eof thos e civi l 4 r i g hts

w hicharecon ferredupon i n dividuals , i n exchan g e forthat deg reeof natu ral freedom , w hich every man m u s t

sacrifice w hen he en ter s i n to s ocial com m u n i ties .i

If

therefoream ember ofan y national com m u n ity violatesthefu n dam en tal con tractofhi sas s ociation , by tran s g res s

1' 4.Bl.Com . 375. c 1.B1.Com .299. d4.Bl.Com.9“

Lec'

ruar s on LAW. 4-1

in g the m ubicipal law , heforfeits hi s r i g ht to s uch pri

vi leg es as heclaim s by that con tract ;an d the s tatemayvery ju s tly res u m ethat portion of property , or '

an y partof i t

, w hich thelaw s havebeforeas s i g n edhim . Hen ce

i n every offen ce ofan atrociou s ki n d, the law s ofE n glan d have exactedatotal con fis cation of the movablesor per s onal es tate;an d i n man y cas es a

'perpetual , i nother s on lyatem porary, los s of theoffen der ’ s im m ovables or lan dedproperty ;an d haveves tedthem both i n

the ki n g , w ho i s theper s on s uppos ed to be offen ded,bei n g the on ly vi s iblemag i s trate i n whom themajes tyof thepubl ick res ides .”

It has often been said, that, at election s , thepeopleof E n g lan d s ell their liberty for their ow n m on ey ;bu t

th i s , I pres um e, 13 the firs t tim ethat thi s ki n d of ex

chan g e has been brou g ht forwardas afu n dam en tal articleof thei r or ig i nal con tract.

A phi1030ph1zm g i s , on s omeoccas ion s , an u n fortu

natetu rn . It was, weare told, an opi n ion lon g re

ceivedi n Chi na, that the g lobe of the earth was s up

ported ou theback ofan elephan t. T he people w ere

sati sfiedan di n qu iredn o farther. An i n g en iou s philo

s opher , however , was n ot sati sfied s o eas ily. If the

earth, reas on edhe, m u s t be s upportedon theback ofanelephan t, par i ration e, the elephan t m u s t s tan don the

, back of s om ethi n g el s e. E xactly fitted for hi s des i g n ,hefou n dabroadbacked tortoi se., He placed the ele

phan t u pon i t, an d publ i s hed hi s n ew theory of the

man n er i n w hich the g lobewas s upported. U n for tu nately, the

'

s pir i t ofhi s arephi los ophana’z’

cau g ht an dhewasas ked—on w hos eback w ill you placethe tortoi s e? T o

VOL. 3

44 Lacros s e on LAW.

auctores ; n eculteriu s p rog rediatur metu s quam repet iatu r del ictum .

”

A s thepu n i s hmen t ou g ht tobecon fin edto thecr im i

nal ; s o it (fi g ht tobearaproportion , i t oug ht, ifpos s ible,tobear even an analog y , to thecr im e. Thi s 18apri nciple, the tru th of w hich requ ires l ittleproof;but theappl ication ofw hich requ i res m uch i llu s tration .

It i s n ot on ly,”says the,

Marqu is ofBeccar ia, the

com m on i n teres tO

of man ki n dthat cr imes s hou ldn 0t be

com m itted;bu t it i s their i n teres tals o that cr imes ofevery ki n d s hou ldbe les s frequen t, i n proportion to them i s chief w hich they produce i n s ociety. T he m ean s ,therefore, w hich the leg i s lature u s eto preven t crim es

s hou ldbemorepow erful i n proportion as theyaredes tructiveofthepublick safetyan dhappi n es s . Therefore

thereou g ht tobeafixedproportion betw een pu n i s hm en tsan dcr im es .” A s caleof cr im es , adds he, “

may beformed, ofw hich the fir s t deg ree s hou ldcon s i s t ofs uch

as ten dim m ediately tothedi s s olu tion ofs ociety an dthelas t, of the s malles t pos s ible i n ju s ticedon etoaprivatem ember ofthat s ociety.”

T oas caleofcr imes ,acorres pon di n g s caleofpu n i s hm eats

.

s hou ldbeadded,each ofw hich ou g ht tobem odi

fied,as faras pos s ible,accordi n g to the natu re, theki n d,an dthedeg reeofthecr im e, to w hich 1t i s an n exed. T os elect, w here it can bedon e, apu n i s hmen tanalog ou s tothecr im e, i s an ex cellen t m ethod to s tren g then thatas .s ociation ofideas , w hich it i s very im portan t to es tabli s hbetw een them .

i Eden .49. i Id.83. 1: Bee.c.6. p. 17. 19.

Law ton “ on LA-W. 45

I n theg raduation of.‘each of these s cales ,an di n therelativeadjus ttiw n t between them ,

a'perfectaccu racy i su n ques tionably u nattai nable. T hedifieren t s hades bothofcr imes an dofpu n i s hmen ts are s O

'

n um erou s , an dru n

s o m uch i n toon ean other, that icis impos s ible' for humans kill .to mark them , i n every

'

i n s tan ce, di s tin ctlyan d.cor:rectly. How man y i n terven i n g deg rees ofcr im i nalityaretherebetw een alarcen y of~ thepetty ki n dan darobberycom m ittedfw i thevery deg reeofpers onal i n s u ltan dourrag e—betw een aprivates lan deran dapubl ick i n flam matory l ibel-fi betw een as im plem enacean dapremedi tatedm urder—between an u n fou n ded mu rm uran da

,dar i n g

rebellion agai n s t theg over n men t ?

But thou g hevery thi n g can n ot, m uch maybedon e. Ifacom pletedetai l can n otbeaccompl i s hed; certai n leadi n g ru les may bees tablis hed: ifevery m i n u teg radecann ot bepreci s ely as certai n ed; yet thepri n cipal ,divi s ion smaybemarkedby w i s ean dsagaciou s leg i s lation . Cr im esan dpu n i s hm en ts

'

toomay bedi s tr ibu tedi n tothei r properclas ses ;an dtheg en eral pri n ciple's ofproportion an dana.log y may be main tai n ed w ithou tan y g ros s or flag ran tviolation .

T o mai n tai n them i s amatter of thefir s tmom en t i ncr im i nal ju r i s pruden ce. Every citizen ou g ht

‘

to kn ow

w hen he i s g u i lty : every ci tizen ou g ht tokn ow ,as faraspos s ible, the deg reeofhi s g u ilt. Thi s kn ow ledg e i s asn eces sary to reg u latetheverdicts ofju rors an dthedecis i on s ofJudg es ,as i t i s *to reg u latethecon ductofcitizen s .T hi s kn ow ledg eou g ht certai n ly tobe i n thepos s es s ion ofthos ew ho makelaw s to reg u lateall.

I

mar tian on Law .

Optimtl es t lex ,”says m yLordBacon , qua:m in i

mum relin qu itarbi trio judicis .” i f thi s i s true w ith

regardtolaw i n g en eral ; it m u s t bevery true,an dveryi mportan t too, w ith regard to the law of crimes an dpu n i s hmen ts . What ki n dof leg i s lation m u s t that havebeen , by w hich “ n ot on ly i g n oran tan d rudeu n leam edpeople, butals o learn edan dexpert people, m in din g hon es ty, Wereoften an dman y times trappedan ds naredI”Yet s uch i s thecharacter ofthecrim i nal leg i s lation u n derHen rytheei g hth, g iven by thefirs t parl iamen tass embledi n therei g n of hi s dau g hter Mary ;° w hich couldw efl

describe, for i t s till s martedu n der the leg i s lativerod.

T he can dou r ,at leas t, of leg i s lati on shouldbe i n violable.

M is eraes t servitu s , n bi ju s es t i n cog n itum .” When

aciti z en firs t kn ow s the law from thejury w ho con

vict, or from thejudg es who con dem n him ; i tappearsas if hi s lifean dhi s l iberty w ere laidpros tratebeforean ewan darbitrary pow er ;an dthes en seofg en eral safety , s o n eces sary to theen joymen t of gen eral happi n es s ,i s w eaken edor des troyed. But

'alaw u n certai n i s , s o

far ,alaw u n kn ow n . T o ptm i s h byalaw i n defin itean du n i n tell i g iblel—I s it better,

than topu n i s h withou tan ylaw

A laudable, thoug h, perhaps , an improvable deg reeofaccu racy has been attai n edby thecomm on law ,

i n i ts“

des cr iption s ofcr imesan dpu n i s hm en ts . On thi s s ubject,I n ow en ter i n toaparticu lar detai l. T o thedes cription

ofeach cr ime,I s hall s u lfiq i n thatofits pu n i s hmen t ;an d

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CHAPTER II.

I

0! CRIMES AG AINST T HE R IGHT OF INDIV IDUALS T O

T HE IR PROPERT Y.

E VERYcr imei n cludesan i n jury : every i n ju ry i n cludesa.violation ofar i g ht. T hei n ves ti gation s , w hich w e‘haveh itherto madecon cern i n g r i g hts , w i ll direct our cours e

i n that w hich w eare n ow to makecon cern i n g w ron g s .

Ias s umed, thou g h, for thereas on sas s i g n ed, I haven ot yet proved, thataman has ar i g ht to hi s property.

I beg i n m y en umeration of cr imes w ith thos e w hich

i n fri n g ethi s r i g ht.

‘

I haveobservedthat every in ju r iou s Violation ofou r

r i g hts , naturalan dcivil, absolu tean drelative, may laythefou n dation ofacrim e.3 I didn ot m ean , how ever,to i n s i n uate, by thi s obs ervation ,’ thatevery i n jury oug httobe con s ideredby thelaw i n acr lmmal poi n t ofview .

An te. p. 28.

V OL. 1 1 1

LECTURES ON LAW.

For every i n ju ry let reparation bemadeby thecivil code,i n proportion to the los s s u s tai n ed;bu t let thos ei n ju riesalon e, w hichbecom eform idabletos ocietyby thei r in tri ns ickatrocity, or by their dan g erou s example, beres en tedby s ocietyan dprosecu tedas crim es . Ag reeably to thi spr i n ciple, aprivate i n ju ry don e w ithou tactual violen ce,can n otbepros ecu tedbyan i n di ctmen t.b It i s n ot con

s ideredasaffecti n g thec'om m u n ity.

Thi s pr i n ciple, however , s eem s tohavegai n edits fu lles tabli s hm en t on ly by the l iberal i ty of moder n tim es .~

It i s remarkable, thatalaw made on thi s l iberal pri nciple, i n an early per iod

‘

of Pen n s ylvan ia, was repealedby thekin g i n cou n ci l. But thi s i s n ot theon ly i n s tan ce,i n w hichthe im provi n g s pi rit ofour leg i s lation has beenat firs t checked, bu t has received s ubs equen t cou n te

nan ceby latedeci s ion s i n E n g lan d.

W ith the en joym en t an d s ecu r ity of property, the,

s ecu r ityan dtheau then ticity ofits eviden ces i s i n timatelycon n ected. For thi s reas on , dan gerou s an ddeliberateattacks upon that s ecur ity orau then tici tyare cr imes bythecom mon law .

Forgery,at thecom m on law , may bedes cribed the

fraudu len t maki n g oralteration ofaw r i ti n g , to theprejudice ofan other man ’ s r i g ht.

” For thi s crime, the

pu n i s hmen t of fin e, impr i s on men t, an d pillory may,by thecom mon law , bei n dictedon thecrim i nalu l

5 3.Burr. 1703. 1738. R.0.bookA.vol. 1.p. 14;

4 4. Bl.Com . 245.

Li c'

ruaas on LAW. 51

Ambag theEgyptian s , publick n otaries , - w ho forg ed

fal s edeeds , or w ho s uppres s ed or addedan y thi n g to

the w r iti n g s , w hich they had received to copy, w ere

con dem n edto loseboth thei r han ds . They w erepu n i s hedi n that part, w hich hadbeen particu larly i n s trum en tal i nthecr im e.° In Lorrai n , s o lon g ag oas the fou rteen thcen tu ry, forg ery was pu n i s hedw ithban i s hm en t.f

T hefir s tact of parl iam en t, w hichappears agai n s t i t,was made i n the rei g n of Hen ry the fifth. T hi sactpu n is hes it 'by sati s faction to theparty i n ju red, an dbyafi n e to the ki n g .

‘ But thi s firs t s tatutehas been the

fru itful m other ofathou san dm ore. T w oit i s , that thei n creas eof com m erce, the i n ven tion of n eg otiablean deven curren t paper, thei n s titution ofnational fu n ds , an dtheman y com plex s ecurities an d eviden ces of real property haveju s tly ren deredthecrimeof forg ery, bes ide

i ts i n tri n s ick basen es s—for i t i s as pecies ofthecr imenfals i -a-acon s ideration of g reat importan cean d exten t.But i s i t equally true, thatall thi s i s as ufficien t reas on ,w hy, i n almos tall cas es pos s ibletobecon ceived, evervforg ery, w hich ten ds todefraud, either i n the nam eofareal or ofafictitiou s pers on , s hou ldbemade,as i n E n g lan di t i s n ow made,acapital crime3s Pluet s uper popa.lum laqueos .” Therei salearn edcivil ian , says m y LordBacon , w ho ex pou n ds thi s cu r se of the prophet, ofam u lti tudeofpenal law s ; w hicharew or s ethan s how er s

of hai l or tem pes t upon cattle for they fall upon

m om ,

Byalaw ofPen n s ylvan ia, w hoever s hall forg e, deface,s orrupt, or embezzle deeds an d‘ other i n s trumen ts of

e l .Gog .Or.L. 59. f Bar.on St.380. 9 Id. lb.

11 4.Bl.Com .247. 1 4.Ld. Bac.3.

I

£2 L n er uaz s on Laww r iti n g , s hall forfeitdoublethevalueofthedamhg es u s

tai n ed, on e halfofw hich s hall g o to theparty i n jured5

an ds hall i n thepillory, or otherw i se, bedis g racedas afal s epers on d

'

.

Byalaw of the Un itedStates it i s enacted, that ifan y person s hall fal sely make, alter, forg e, or cou n terfeit, or cau s e or procu re to be fal s ely made, altered,forg ed, or cou n terfeited, or w i lli n g lyact oras s i s t i n thefalse maki n g , alteri n g , forg i n g , or cou n terfeitin g an ycertificate, i n den t, or other public]: s ecur ity oftheUn ited

States ;or s hall u tter, pu t off, or offer, or caus e to be

u ttered, put.off, or offered i n paymen t or for sale, an ys uch fals e, forg ed, altered, or cou n terfeited certificatesi n den t, or other publ ic]: security, w ith i n ten t todefraudan y pers on , kn ow i n g the same to..b¢ fals e, altered, forg ed, or cou n terfeited, an d s hall be thereof con victed5

every s uch person s hall s ufl'er death}

T oforg e, say s m y LordCoke, i s metaphor ically takenfrom thes m i th, w hobeateth upon his an vi l, an dforg ethw hat fas hion or s hape he w i ll. T he ofl’en ce i s calledcr imen fals i , an d the offen der falsar iu s an dtheLati nw ordtoforg e i s faLs-‘arcor fabr icare. A n dthi s i s pro.

perly taken w hen theact i s don e.i n the nameofan otherpers on .

lFals ely to make,” says be,arelarg er w ords

than to forg e for on emay makeafals ew riti n g w ithi n thi sact (hes peaks of the s th. E l iz . c. 14. i n w hi ch,as to thepres en t poi n t, thew ords u s edare s ubs tan tiallythe sam e w ith the w ords ofthe law n ow u n der cou s i

i 1. Law s Pen n . 5.l

1 Law s U.S.1. s on g .2. ses s .c.9.s . 14. t 3. In s . 169.

Ls cr uas s ox LAW. 158

deration ) thou g h it ben ot forg edi n thenameofan other,n or hi s s eal n or han d cou n terfei ted. A s ifamadmakeatrue deed of feofi

'

m en t u n der hi s han dan d seal oftheman or of Dale u n to B. an dB. or s om eother ras eou t

' Dan dpu t i n S , an dthen w hen thetruedeedwas of‘

theman or ofDale, n ow it i s fals elyalteredan dmadetheman or ofSale5 thi s i s afal sew r iti n g w i thi n thepu rview

ofthe s tatu te.m

An other cr im eagai n s t theri g ht l

ofproperty i s larcen y.Larcen y i s des cr ibed—thefelon iou san dfraudu len ttaki n gan dcarry i n g away of the per s onal g oods ofan other. nT heM irrou r des cr ibes thecr im eas com m itted, treacherou semen t.

” More i n dictm en ts aretobefou n dforlarcen y, am on g the records of E n g lan d, than forall theother crim es kn ow n to the law . It i s com pu ted thatn i n eteen crim i nals ou t of tw en tyarepros ecu tedfor thi scr im e. 9

Accordi n gas theopi n ion san ds en tim en ts ofmen con

cern i n g property have been m ore or les s correct, their

n otion s con cern in g larcen y havebeen m oreor les s pure.I n deed, i n the natu reof thi n g s , thi s m u s t bethecas e.T heft, or the s ecret acqu i s ition of property , was , atSparta, thou g ht n eitheracr im e n or as ham e. Why ?Becau s eat ‘Sparta, Lycur g u s hades tabl i s hedacom m u

mity ofg oods an dw hen on e g ot holdofalarg er s harethan hi s n ei g hbou rs , es peciallyam on g theyou n g people,i t was con s idered m erely as an i n s tan ce of juven i le

addres s , an das i n dicati n g as uper iou r deg reeoffutu redex ter i ty. T he s enator ial orderat Rome, w earetold

m 3.1118. 169. n Id. 107. 4. Bl.Com . 230.

C. 1. s . 10.2.Recv.42. P Bar .on St. 443.

54 Lacr u n cs on LAW.

en joyedthedi s ti n g u i s hed pr ivileg e ofbei n g exem pted

from every pros ecu tion for larcen y.qWhat i s s till m ore

remarkable,ar s im i lar claim ofpr ivileg ewas , ‘

i n thetim e

ofCharles thes econ d, m s xs tedon by thehou seoflords i nE n g lan d, w hen abill was s en t to them from thecom m on s ,

to pu n i sh— w oods tealer s Thi s an ecdotew ehaveon

theau thor ity ofm y LordClaren don ,apeer , thechan cellor,an dthe s peaker ofthehou s eof

‘

lords'

.

lVIu ch has been said, i n theEn g l ish law books , concern i n g the di s ti n ction betw een g ran dan dpetit larcen y ,

T hedi s ti n ction , how ever‘an cien t, was n ever fou n dedupon

an y rational pr i n ciple an dthefarther it flow edfrom i ts

or i g i nal s ou rce, the m ore u n reas onablean d cruel i t he

cam e. Well m i g ht S ir Hen ry Spelman com plai n , that,w hileevery thi n g el s ebecam edai ly dearer , the

.

lifeofaman becam em orean dm orecheap. Bu t, w hat i s m ore,thi s di s ti n ction , i rrationalan dreally oppres s ive,appear snever to havebeen es tabl i s hedw ithan y deg reeofaccuracy . T heAu thor of Fletasays , ifaper s on s teal s thevalue of tw elve pen cean d m ore, he

’

s hall bepu n i s hedcapital ly. Br itton , i n on eplace, say s , if i t i s tw elvepen ceor m ore. At thi s tim e, therefore—that i s

,i n the rei g n

of Edward the fir s t— it was u n s ettled w hether tw elve

pen cewas s ufficien t, or m orethan tw elvepen cewas n eces sary , to s uper i n ducethecapi tal pu n i s hm en t. A s im i

lar diver s i ty an d u n certai n ty of opi n ion appear s i n the

rei g n ofEdwardthethird.“

I n thedes cr iption oflarcen y, thetaki n g i san es sen tialpart. For every felon y i n cludes atres pas s ;an dif theaBar. on St.491. 4. B1.Com .233.

1.Reev. 485.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

L‘

ECT URES ON LAW

I

obs erves , thi s requ i s itei n dem n ifies meretres pas sers ,an dother petty offen der s .3

'

‘

T he las t part ofthe‘

des cription oflarcen yat thecomm on law is, that the g oods m u s t beper sonal . Lan d, oran y thi n g that i s adher i n g to the s oi l or to the freehold,can n ot i n on etran saction be' made the s ubject oflarcen y .

B ut ifan y thi n g of thi s ki n d i s , at On e time, s eparatedfrom thefreehold, s oas tobecomeachattel ;an d i s ,atan other tim e, taken an dcarriedaway ; larcen y i s n ow

com m i tted

I n differen t nation s ,an di n thesam enation atdifferen ttimes , larcen y or theft has receivedverydifferen tpu n i s hmen ts . It w ou ldbetediou s m i n u tely torecitethem . O n

n o s ubject has therebeen m orefl uctuat ion i n thecr im i nallaw s bath ofGreecean dRom e. Seldom , how ever , waslarcen y pu n i s hed capital lyat Athen s ; n everamon g theRoman s . I n theearly part of theAn g lo-Sax on periodi n E n g lan d, theft of the w ors t ki n ddidn ot ex pos e the

thieftoan y corporal pu n i s hm en t. But thecom pen sationw hich hewas obl i g edby law to make, ren deredlarcen yavery u n profitablebu s i n es s w hen it was detected. I na,theki n g ofWes s ex , declared s teal i n g to beacapitalcr im e bu tallow edtheoffen der or hi s frien ds to redeemhi s l ife, by payi n g the priceat w hich i t was val uedbythelaw .

a

T hedi s ti n ction betw een pu n i s hi n g theftas acr im e;an dexacti n g compen sation for itas an i n ju ry, i s s tron g lymarkedi n alaw .

ofHow e’

l Dha, thecelebratedl eg i s latorofWales : “

,If

,athief i s con dem n edtodeath, he s hall

7 4.Bl.Com. 232. 1.Haw. 93. 2 q 29a.

LECTURES ON LAW.

n ot s ufl'

er i n hi s g oods ; for i t tau n reas onableboth toexact com pen sation ,an dto i n flict pu n i s hm en t.”

I n then i n th year ofHen ry thefirs t, larcen yabovethevalue of tw elve pen ce was , i n E n g lan d, madeacapitalcr im e,an dcon tin ues s o to thi s day ;an d, i n avas t n umber ofi n s tan ces , it i s , by m oder n s tatu tes , .depr ivedoftheben efit ofclerg y. Thes es tatutes , say s M r. Eden ,are s ocom plicatedi n their l im itation s ,an ds o i n tr icate i n thei rdi s ti n ction s , that it w ou ldbepai n fu l, on man yaccou n ts ,toattem pt thedetai l ofthem . It i s am elan choly tru th,bu t i t may, w i thou t exag g eration , beas s erted, that, exclu s iveofthos ew hoareobl i g edby their profes s ion tobecon versan t i n the n iceties of thelaw ,

thereare n ot ten

s ubjects i n En g lan d, w ho havean y clear con ception .of

thes everal san g u i nary res triction s , tow hi ch, on thi s poi n t,theyaremadel iable.5

Byalaw of theU n itedStates , larcen y i s pu n i s hed.w i thafin en ot exceedi n g the fou rfoldvalueof the property s tolen , an dw i th publick w hippi n g n ot exceedi n g

thi rty n i n e s tri pes .c

.I n Pen n s ylvan ia,apers on con victedoflarcen y to thevalue of tw en ty s hi ll i n g s an dupwards ,s hall res torethe g oods or pay thei r valueto the ow n er

,

s hallals o forfeit to thecom m on w ealth the value of theg oods , s hall u n derg oas ervitudeforan y term n otexceed

i n g three year s , an ds hall becon fin edan d kept to hardlabou r :aper son con victedoflarcen y u n der tw en ty s hi l

li n g s , s hall res tore the g oods or pay thei r valueto theow n er , s hal l forfeit thesamevalueto thecom m on w ealth,

b Ea. 289. Law s U.S. 1. s on g . 2. ses s .c. 9.s . 16.

V01 I I I .

58 Lléé‘fvltt s oil Law :

s hall u n dergoas ervitude n ot exceedi n g on eyear, an ds hall becon fin edan dkept to hardlabou r.

Forg ery an d larcen y s eem to be the on ly crimes

agai n s t theri g ht of pr ivateproperty kn ow n to thecom i

mon law ‘

.

Robbery i s g en erally clas sedamon g thecrimesagain s tther i g ht ofpr ivateproperty but somew hat improperl y,i n my opi n ion . Robbery receives its deepdyefrom out4

rag e committed on the person bu t as proper ty al soen ter s i n to thedescr iption of th i s crime; I s hall cou s i -sder .i t here.

Robbery, at thecommon law, i s aviolen tan dfie-ion i cou s talki n g from the per son ofanather, of mon ey or

g oods toan y value, pu tti n g him i n fear . e From thi s

des cr iption i tappear s , that, to con s titutearobbery, thethree follotvi n g i n g redien tsarei n di spen sable I :afelon ious i n ten tion , dr an i n tu s fl eran di . 2. Somedeg reeof

violen cean dputti n g i n {can 8. A”

taki n g from theper .

son ofan other.

1 . Therem u‘

s tbeafaceles s m u s ics ts sweat : he.ccn y is an eces sary, thou g h By n o mean s themos t importan t i n g redien t, Wh ich en ters i n to thecompos ition ofarobbery. T hecircum s tan ces Whicharecalcu latedfl dproper to evi n ee thi s felon iou s i

’

n ten tion , it i s impos s ible

todes cr ibeor recou n t : they i n u s t, i n thi s ,as i n ofl er

crim es , beleft to theatten tive con s ideration of those,

by w hom theper s on accu s edi s tried. T hevalue, however , oftheproperty on w hich thelarcen y i s com m itted,

d 2.Law s .Pen n .808. s .3.4. 3. In s . Haw .95.

m oras s : on LAW. $0

i s ,as to therobbery, totally immater ial. I n thi s res pect,apen n y i s equ ivalen t toapou n d. f

2 . Therem u s t bfi deg reeof violen cean dpu tti n g i n fear . Thi s i n deed i s thecharacter i s tick circums tan ce, w hichdi sti n g u i s hes robbery from other larcen ies .Ifon eas saultan other w ith s uch circum s tan ces ofterrou ras put him i n fear , an dhe, in con s equen ceof thi s fear ,deliver hi s m on ey thi s i sas ufficien tdeg reeofviolen ce;for hewas pu t i n fear by theas sau lt;an d gave hi s m o

n ey toes capethedan g er, 3 T o con s ti tu tearobbery, iti s s uflicien t that the force u s edbe s uchas m i g ht createon apprehen s ion ofdan g er, or obl i g eon e to part w i th

h i s property agai n s t hi s con s en t. Thu s,ifaman be

k n ockeddow n w ithou tan y previou s warn i n g , an ds trip

pedof hi s m on ey w hilehe lies s en s eles s ; thi s , thou g h

hecan n ot s trictly he saidtobepu t i n fear , i s u n doubtedly s mbberyo

8. T herem u s tbeataki n g from thepers on ofan other.T hethiefmus tbei n thepos s es s ion

‘

of thethi n g s tolen .

’

Ifhe g o eyen s o far as to cu t the g i rdle, by w hichapurs ehan g s , s o that it fall to the g rou n d;yet if hedo

n ot takei t .up, hehas n otcg m pletedtherobbery, becau s ethepurs ewas n ot i n hi s pos s es s ion .

i T hetaki n g m u s t

befrom the person ;butthi s part of thedes cr iption i s

an s w ered, .n ot on ly by taki n g the m on ey ou t of on e’ s

pocket, or forci n g from him thehorseon w hich he s e

tually rides , bu tby tak i n g from him;open ly an dbeforeh is face,an y thi n g w hich i s u n der hi s im m ediatean dpers g n d carean dproteg gion . Ifon e, w i shi n g to save

fS. In s . 69. 8 L Raw . 96, 97.

Fas t. 128. 4. Bl.Gem .242. 5 -3. In s . 69.

60 Ltcr u n r s on raw .

hi s m on ey, throw i t i n toabu s h,an dthethieftakeit up ;thi s i s ataki n g from theper s on .

’

Wearetoldby M r. Selden , that, beforethecon ques t,robbery was pu n i s heddifferen tly, by thedifferen t nation s w hocamefrom the con ti n en t of Eu rope. By the

Sax on s , it was pu n i s hedw ith death : by theAn g les ,an dby the Dan es , i t was pu n i s hed on ly w ith fin e Afterthecon ques t, thes e differen t law s w ere s ettled by the

Norman s i n the m ore m ercifu l way ;an di f thedel i nquen t fled, hi s pledg e sati sfiedthelaw for him . Bu t i n

the tim es ofHen ry thefirs t, thelaw was agai n reduced

to thepu n i s hm en t of thi s crim eby death an ds o i t hascon ti n uedever s i n ce.

In thean cien t law s ofWales , it i s expres s ly declared,that robbery s hall n ever be pu n i shedw ith death ; be

cau s e(say thes elaw s ) it i s as u flicien t sati s faction forthi s cr ime, if the g oods taken be res tored, an dafin epaidto thepers on from w hom they w eretaken ,accordi n g to hi s s tation , for theviolen ceofferedhim ,an dan other to theki n g for thebreach of thepeace.”

Robbery , byalaw of theUn itedStates,18 pu n i s hed

capitally.“ Byalaw ofPen n s ylvan ia,aper s on con victed

of robbery forfei ts to thecom m on w ealth hi s lan ds an dg oods ,an du n derg oesas ervituden otexceedi n g ten years ,i n thegaol or hou s eof correction .

53. 1113.69. l .Haw .96. k Bac.on Gov.63. 1 Id.88.

m 2.Hen ry 292.0 Law s U. S. 1.con . 2. secs » c.9.

2:Law s Pen n .802. s . 9.

en cr uu s on Lu v. 6!

I proceedn ow tothecon s ideration oftw oother cr ime.at thecom m on lam - w hich, thou g h property , as i n the

cas eofrobbery,en ters i n to thei r des cr iption , yet receivetheir deep dye from ou trages ‘agai n s t per s onal s ecur i ty.T hi s can n otbeen joyedw ithou talegal g uardarou n dther es iden ceof theper s on .

A man ’ s hou s e i s hi s cas tle” was theexpres s ion , int imes rudean dboi s terou s , w hen theideaofs ecu r ity wasfou n don ly 011 its as s ociation w ith the ideaofs tren g th 5an di n s uch tim es , n oexpres s ion m oreem phatical cou ldhavebeen u s ed. I n happier times , w hen thebles s i n g s

of peacean dlaw areexpectedan ddue - i n s uch tim es ,

aman ’ s hou s e13en ti tledtoan appellation m oreem phaticks till—i n s uch tim es ,aman ’ s hou s e i s hi s san ctuary.Qu id en im san ctiu s , qu id om n i reli g ion e m u n i tius ,

quam dom u s u n iu s cuju s quecivipm i” 9I n to thi s san ctua

ry, thelaw her s elf, u n les s upon the m os t u rg en t emer

g en cies , pres umes n ot to look or en ter. Wehaves een,

on man y occas ion s , w i th w hatadelicate—I may add,w ith w hatares pectfu l—reserve, s hetreats the n ear an ddear dom es tick con n ex ion s . Wemay w ell s uppos e, thats he w i ll g uard, w ith pecul iar vi g ilan ce, the favou reds pot i n w hichafam i ly res ide. Even thos ew hoen deavou r clan des ti n ely to pry 1n to 1ts reces s es— s uchare;eaves -droppers—receive her reprehen s ion :an d u n les s

thepeaceor s ecu r i ty of thepublic]: requ ireit, s he w ill

n ot s u ffer its door s to bebroken , to execute even her

ow n im per ial man dates . When s he thu s s ol icitou s

aly protects the res iden ce ofafam i ly from i n fer iour

i n s u lts , w e may rely, that s he w ill zealou s ly defen d.

Cic. prodom .41. 1 4. Bl.Com . 169.

52 LECT URES on LAW.

it from atrociou s crim es . Such arears on an d bu r.

Ars on i safelon yat com mon law , in mal iciou s lyan dvolu n tari ly burn i n g thehou s e ofan other. 1 Thi s i s n ot

i n ten dedm erely ofthedw ell i n g houseitself, bu tex ten ds

to theouthou ses as thebarn , thes table, thecow hou se,thedairy hou s e, them ill hou s e.thes heep hou se;w hichareparcel oftheman s ion hou se.

Thi s cr ime may be com m i ttedby w i lfu lly burn i n goae’ s ow n hou s e, if thehou s eofan other i s al s o bu rn t ;but if n o m i s chief i s don eto that ofan other , it i s n Ot

felon y, thou g h thefire was ki n dled w ithan i n ten tion toburn thehous eof that other. Bu t ifthein ten tion i s to

bur n thehou seofan other per son ,an dby thebu rn i n g ofthi s the hou se ofathird pers on i s als o bur n ed; theburn i n g of thehou s eof this third pers on i s felon y ;be

cau s e thepern iciou s even t s hal l becoupledw ith thefe

lou ion s i n ten tion .“

Neither themerei n ten tion tobu rn ahou s e, n or even

an acmdattempt to bu r n it, by putt’tn g fin eto i t, w i ll,

ifn o par t'

ofit bebur n t, am ou n t to felon y3but ifan ypart of the hou s ehe bu rn t, it i sars on , thoug h thefireafterwards go out of its elf, or be exti n g tm i s hed.

v No

m i s foun u n e, n or even cu lpablen eg li gen ceor im pruden ce,w i ll am ou n t toar s on : i t m u s t be volu n tary an d mal iciou s . A pers on , by s hooti n g w ithag u n , s et fire to

theroof ofahou s e; thi s was determ i n ed n ot to be

felon y.w

r 3. In c.66. 1.flaw . 105. s 3. In s . s z. Cro.Car.376.3. In s .67. 1.Haw . 106. w l .Hale. P.C. 569.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

LECTURES ON LAW.

T oabu rg lary i t i s n eces sary, that thehou sebebothbroken an den tered. T hebreaki n g m u s t beactual ,an dn ot m erely s uchas the law im pl ies i n every u n law fu len try on thepos s es s ion ofan other. T o open aw i n dow ;

to u n lock thedoor ; tobreakaholei n thewall ; toen teran Open dooran du n latchachamber door ;tocom edow n

thechim n ey to kn ockat thedooran dru s h i n w hen it i s

Open ed to gai n adm i ttan cebyan abu s eoflegal proces s ,or by the m ean s ofacon s piri n g s ervan t ;all thes eareactual breaches . T heleas tdeg reeofen try w ithan y par tof thebody , or w ithan i n s trum en t held i n

,the han d, or

even aloaddischarg edfrom ag u n , is s ufficien t to sati s fythat en try, w hich thelaw deem s n eces sary to con s titutethecr im eofburg lary.

I n adwell i n g hou s eon ly bu rg lary can becom m itted.

Bu tahou s e i n w hich on es om etimes res ides ,an dhas leftw ithan i n ten tion to return ahou s ew hich on ehas hi red,an di n to w hich hehas brou g ht part ofhi s g oods , thou g hhehas n ot lodg edi n i t ;achamber i n acolleg e aroomoccupied i n apr ivatehou sebyalodg er theou t hou s es

adjoi n i n g to the pr i n cipal hou s e;al l thes eare man s ionhou s es w ithi n them ean i n g ofthelaw .

4A s hop may be

parcel ofaman s ion hou s e bu t ifit i s s everedbyaleas e“

toon ew ho w orks i n i t by day on ly,an ddoes n ot lodg e i nit, it i s n ot bu rg lary to breakan den ter it i n then ig ht

t1me.

T oabu rg lary, an i n ten tion to com m it s ome felon y,

an dn ot m erelyatres pas s , i s i n di s pen sable but,as wass how n on an other occas ion , t i t i s n ot n eces sary that thec 1.Haw . 103. d3. In s .64. 4.D1.Cotn .226.

eWOO4.I n n .388. f An te. p. 26.

“ cream on LAW. 65

Telon y i n ten dedbe com m itted;an d it i s im materialw hether thatfelon y beby com m on or by s tatu telaw .

3

By thelaw ofAthen s , bu rg lary was acapi tal cr imeAmon g theSaxon sals o, bu rg es sau r s w eretobepu n i s hedw i th death.

i I n Pen n s ylvan ia, bu rg laryan drobbery re

ceivepreci s ely thesam epu n i s hm en t.j T hepu n i s hm en t

for robbery has been already men tion ed.

I

l 4.Bl.00111. 227. h 1. Pot.An t. O.26.

i l .Recv.485. i 2.Law s .Pen n . 802. s . 2.

V OL O

‘

I l l .

CHAPT ER 111.

or cau ses s cam s r r u n n ear or i n m vm os u T O

Lrs n n'

rv, AND T O n s ro'r s

'

rxon .

L IBERT Y,as w ehave seen on former occas ion s , i son eofthe natu ral ri g hts of man ;an don eof them os timportan t of thos e natural ri g hts . T hi s ri g ht,as w ell

as others , maybeviolated;an dits violation s , l ikethos eofother r i g hts , ou g ht to be pu n i s hed, i n order to be

preven ted. Yet thes eviolation s ares carcely di s cern iblei n our codeof cr im i nal law .

Thi s w em u s tas cribetoon eof tw o cau s es . E ither

this ri g ht has been en joyedi n violably or the law hass ufl

'

eredtheviolation s of it to es capew ith s hamefu l impu n i ty. T helatter i s thetruth : Iam com pelledtoadd,that thelatter, hadas it i s , i s n ot thew holetru th. Vio

latibn s of liberty haven ot on ly been overlooked: theyhaveals obeen protected;they haveals obeen en cou rag ed;they haveals obeen made; they haveals obeen en joi n ed

Lucrom 0] LA' .

by thelaw .

’

I s peak this n ot on ly con cern i n g the s tatu telaw ; I am com pelled to s peak itals o con cern i n g the

com m on law of E n g lan d I s peakthi s n ot on ly con cerni n g thelaw as it was received i n theAmerim Statesbefore thei r revolu tion Iam com pelled.to s peak itals ocon cern i n g the lawas it i s receivedi n them s till : I s peakthi s n ot on ly con cern i n g thelawas it i s receivedgen erallyi n the other s i s ter s tates ; Iam compelled to s peak i tal s o con cern i n g thelawas it i s receivedi n Pen n s ylvan ianay, Iam farther com pelledto s peak italsoof thelawas it i s recen tly receivedi n ou r national g overn men t.

Ou r publicl l iberty w e have i n deed s ecu red -en o

perpetua—Bu t, n otw iths tan di n gall ou r boas tedim provemen ts—an dthey are im provem en ts of w hich w emayw ell boas t—them os t form idableen em y topr ivatelibertyi s ,at thi s momen t, the law of thelan d.

In s om e former parts of m y lectures , I haveltdoccas ion to remark, an dI haveremarkedw i th pleas urethat s ol icitou s deg reeofatten tion w hich thelaw g ives topers onal s ecurity. Its mos t dis tan taven ues areWatchfully g uarded. T o decide ques tion s , by w hich it maybeaffectedi n thehi g hes t, or even i n i n fer iour deg rees ,I haves how n , i n as ublimepart of ou r s ys tem , tobethei n com m u n icable prerogative of s overei g n ty or selected

s overei g n ty its elf. I haves how n , that, byan operationi n expres s ibly fin e, pers onal safety n ever sees thearmw hich holds the s w ordofjus tice, bu t at the momen t

w hen it i s’

fou n dn eces sary that its s trokes houldbemade.In feriou r to per s onal safety on ly, if i n deed i n fer iou r

even to that, i s the con s ideration ofpers onal l iberty.aA.11te.vol. i pd u et s eq:

LECTURE! OI LAW.

A n d yet, w hi le pers onal safety can beauthor itativelyaffectedon ly by the com m u n ity, orabody s electedfrom

thecomm u n ity im partiallyan dfor theoccas ion , thelawim plicitly, ceaseles s ly, u n con ditionally, an dcon ti n uallypros trates pers onal l iberty at the feet ofevery w retch

w ho i s u n pri n cipled en ou g h to tram pleupon i t. I say,u n priuoipled becau s e acitizen , w ho has pri n ciple,w i ll n ot wou n d it by u s i n g theau thority of thelaw . In

every s tateoftheu n ion—i n every cou n ty ofevery s tate,thereare s hops open ed, nay licen s ed, nay es tabli shedbythe law , at w hich its au thor ity may bepurchas ed, foratrifle, by thew ors t citi zen , i n order to i n fri n g etheper

sonal l iberty of‘

thebes t.

From the dis g race of these en orm i ties agai n st theri g hu of liberty, I g ladly res cuethecharacteran dpr i n .s iples of thecommon law . T he hi s tory of the severalproces ses ofcapias , an dorder s an drules ofcom m itmen tw i n s how , w hen We cometo it, that thi s part of ourm u n icipal law i s ofs tatuteori g i nal an dthat i t was producedi n thedarkes tan drudes t, thou g h its ex i s ten cehasCon ti n ued i n the m os t en l i g hten edan dthem os t refin edtru es .

W ith an other part ofthese en orm i ties agai n s t theri g hts of liberty, how ever, impar tial ity obl i g es me to

charg ethecom mon law '

. Man i s com pos edofas oulan dofabody. T o m en talas wellas tobodi ly freedom ,

hehas anaturalan dan u n ques ti tmable r i g ht. T he for.

mer was g ros s ly ‘

violatedby thecom mon law . Wi tn es sthe man y overg row n titles , by w hich thevolumes ofthelaw are s tifl dis ten ded: w i tn es s , i n particu lar, the cu stom s demadedeciman di , an dthew r its dcexcomm u n icato

‘

Ls c'

ruas s on saw .

capien daan ddeheretics combu rm ob. Theseparts I on .ly m en tion becau s efrom theseparts wearehappily re

l ieved: theyareparts of thecommon law , w hich did

n ot s u it thos e w ho em i g rated to America: they were,

therefore, leftbehi n dthem .

But, i n s omeres pects ,‘

privateliberty i s s ti ll the on .

phan n eg lected i n others , s he i s s ti ll thevictim devotedby our m u n icipal law . So i n veterate, i n deed, i s the

vice of the law 1n thi s particu lar, that i t has i n fectedi ts very lan g uag e. T heterm s , w hichden otethe dim i

n u tion or thedes truction of pers onal eddy—h om icide,w ou n di n g , battery,as sau lt—areall primafacie un der.

s toodi n an u n favou rablem ean i n g ;thou g h theyares ome.times excu s ed, or ju s tified, or even en joi n ed, as w ellass ometim es prohibitedan dpu n i s hedby the law : but to

im pri s on men t, the ideaof legal authority seem s , i n lsgal u n ders tan di n g , tobepr imafaciean n exed an dw henit s peaks of the u nau thor izedki n d, it is obli g edtodi sti n g u i s h itbyaddin g theepithets fals eor un lawful.

But leg i s lators s hou ldbear i n thei r m i n ds ,an ds hou ldpractically obs erve—an dwell pers uaded Iam , that ourAm erican leg i s lators bear in their m i n ds ,an d, w hen everthe n eces sary ‘

res ettlemen t of thi n g s afterarevolutioncan . pos s ibly adm it of it, w i ll practically obs erve, w i thregard to thi s i n teres tin g s ubjecti—the follow i n g g reatan dim portan tpoli tical max im z—Every wan ton , or causeles s , or u n n eces saryact ofauthority, exerted, orau thor i zed, or en cou rag edby theleg i s latureover thecitizen s ,i s w ron g , an d un ju s tifiable, an d tyran n ical for every

ci ti zen i s , of ri g ht, en titledto l iberty, mu on s !as wellb41

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

72 “ cran es on Law .

peace,an das m uch res embli n g challen g es -tofig ht.dBu t

it was n otalways s o.

I said, on aformer occas iom ‘that robbery its elfdoes

n ot llow fromafou n tain moreran kly poison ed, than thatw hich throw s out the

’

Waters ofcalum yan ddefamation .I n sayin g s o, I was warran tedby authority res pectablean dan cien t. By thelaw s of theSaxon s , thefelon , w horobbed, was pu n i s hedles s s everely than thew retch w ho

colum n iated. Byalaw , made, towards the en dof thes even th cen tu ry , by Lothere, on eof the.ki n g s ofKen t,

11 calum n iator was obl i g ed to pay on es hi lli n g to him i n

w hosehou seor lan ds he u ttered the calum n y. It wascon ceived, it s eem s

, to difl'

u s eadeg reeofcon tam i nation over thi n g s i nan imate. He was obli g ed to pay s ix

s hill i n g s to thepers on w hom hecalum n iated,an dtw elves hi lli n g s to theki n g . When we recollect, that, lon gafterthi s tim e, as hi ll i n g cou ldpurchas eafattedom ;w emayjudg e con cern i n g the l ig ht, i n w hich defamation wasvi ew edat this tim e. But Edgar the peaceable, w hoflour i s hedabou t tw ocen tu r iesafterwards , made, agai n s tthi s crime, alaw m uch more s evere: i t decreed, thatapers on con victed of g ros s an ddan g erous defamations houldhavehi s ton g uecut ou t, “ les s be redeemed it

by payi n g hi s fu ll w ere, w i thwas called, or thepriceofhi s l ife. This law was con firmedbyCan u te.the g r'eztt.f

By the law s ofE g ypt,adefamer was con dem n edtothe sam e pu n is hm en t, w hich w ou ldharebeen i n fl ictedon thedefamed, ifthedefamation hadbeen true.“ Solon ,i n on eofhi s law s , ordai n ed, thatadeli n quen t in s len der

4 4. Bl.Corn . 150.

f2. Hen ry.593. r I.Gog .Or.L. 58.

LECT URES ON LAW.

s hou ldmakereparation i n m on ey to theparty i n jured;an d shouldal s opayafin ei n tothe‘

publ ick treas u ry.

1“

A libel may bedes cribed- amal iciou s defamation ofan y perw n , publ i s hedby w r iti n g , or pr i n ti n g . or s i g n s , or

p ictures , an d ten di n g to ex pos ehim to publick hatred,con tem pt, or ridicu le.

iIt i s clearlyacr imeat thecom

m on law q

It has been often obs erved i n the cou r se of thes e

lectures , that on eex ti emenatu rally produces i ts oppos ite.A n u n warran tableattempt made i n the s tar chamber,duri n g the rei g n ofJames thefirs t, to w res t the law of

l ibels tothepurposes ofm in i s ters ,an dan effortcon ti n uedever s i n ceto carry thatattem pt i n toexecu tion ,an devento g obeyon ds om eofits w or s t pri n ciples , have, i n E n glan d, los t to thecom m u n ity theben efits ofthat law , w i se

an dsalu tary w hen adm i n i s teredproperly,an dby theproper pers on s . T hedeci s ion ln that cas ehas ever s i n cebeencon s idered, i n E n g lan d,as thefou n dation ofthelaw on

thi s s ubject. It w i ll beproper , therefore, toexam i n etheparts ofthat deci s ion w i th s om edeg reeofm i n u ten es s .

T helibel , pros ecu tedan dcon dem n ed, wasasatyr icalballadon adeceas edarchbi s hop ofCan terburyan dhi slivi n g s ucces s our.

k

T he firs t res olu tion i s , thatal ibelagai n s tamag i strate, or other publick pers on , i s ag reater .offen cethanon eagai n s tapr ivateman , Thi s , i n theu n qualifiedmann er hereex pres s ed, can n otberationallyadm itted. Other

1! l .Pot.An t. 179. i 1.Haw . 193.

i 3. In s . 174. k 5.Rep. 125 51.

VOL. 1 1 1.

74 Lacr os s e on Law .

circum s tan ces bei n g equal , that ofoficeou g ht to in cli n ethebeam , if the libel refer to hi s oficial character orcon duct ;becau s ean officer i s aci tizen an dm ore. Bu t

al ibel ofon eki n dagai n s taprivateciti zen , may certai n lybem oreatrociou s ,an dofexam plem oreatrociou s ly evi l,than alibel ofan other ki n dagai n s tapubl ick officer.

An otheran dam ore im portan t res olution i n thatcas ei s—that it i s im mater ial w hether thel ibel befals eor trueThi s res olu tion i s clearly ex trajudicial , becau s e itappears , from the s tateof thecas e, that theauthor of thelibel was proceededagai n s t on hi s ow n con fes s ion . T he

ru le, how ever, has been follow edby m orem odern determ i nation s ;an d reas on s havebeen oEeredto s upport it

on the pri n ciples of law . T heprovocation an dn ot thefals i ty, says Sir W ill iam Blacks ton e, i s thethin g tobepu n is hedcrim i nally. I n acivi laction , headm its ,alibelm u s tappear tobefal seas w el las s can dalou s ;for , i fthe.charg ebetrue, theplai n tifi'

has receivedn opr ivatei n jury ’an dhas n o g rou n d to deman dacorn pen sation for himself, w hatever ofi'

en cei tmay beagai n s t thepubl ick peaceaan d, therefore, upon acivilaction , thetruth ofshe-acct ,

sation may bepleadedi n bar ofthes u it. Bu t i n acr im inal pros ecu tion , the ten den cy w hich all libels have to

createan im os ities ,an dtodi s tu rbthepublickpeace, i s thes olecon s ideration ofthelaw .

Upon this pas sag e, I observe, i n the firs t place, thatalibel i s aviolation ofther i g ht ofcharacter,an dn ot oftheri g ht ofpers onal safety. It i s n o'

w on der ifthereaen n i n g s on thi s crimeareinaccurate, w hen its very pr i n ci gplei s m i s taken .

1 4.Bl.Com .150.

ar n n n s on LAW. 75

I observe, i n thes econ d place, that thes e i naccu ratereas on i n g s areattemptedtobees tabl i s hedbyag ros s i ncon s i s ten cy. When they refer to the {feats of thel ibel ,they s uppos etheten den cy toproducedi s tu rban ces ofthepeace: w hen they refer to thecau s es of thelibel, theysay to him w ho is actuated by them—you ou g ht, i n as ettled g over n m en t, to com plai n for evervi n ju ry i n theordi nary cou rs e of law , an dby n o m ean s to reven g e

yourself.m Why i s n ot thi s advice g iven con s i s ten tly,

to thepel‘s on provokedby the l ibel ? If hehas received

an i n ju ry—if on that i n ju ry acr im e i s s uper i n duced;

thelaw w i ll repair the former, an d pu n i s h the latteri f n o i n ju ry has been s u s tai n ed, n o fou n dation has beenlaidforacrime.

I obs erve, i n thethirdplace, that S irW i lliam BlackSton e heres eem s n ot to have been s u fli cien tly atten tiveto

'

apri n ciple, w hich .he properly s ubscr ibes i n an otherpart of hi s Comm en tar ies thecrime i n cludes an i n jury : every publ ick offen ce i s al s oaprivate w ron g , an ds omew hat m ore: i taffects thei n dividual, an dit likew i s eaffects thecom m u n ity.

T heon ly poi n ts , it i s said, tobecon s idered i n the

pros ecution for alibel, are, firs t, the maki n g or pub

li s hi n g of thebook or w r iti n g : s econ dly, w hether the

matter becr im i nal.o

O n thelas tof thes etw o poi n ts , acelebrated con trbvers y has s ubs i s tedbetw een judg esan dju r ies ;theformerclaim i n g i ts deci s ion as aques tion of law ; the latterclaim in g i tas aques tion of fact, or,at leas t, n eces sar ily

5.Rep. 125b.a4. Bl.Com . 5. Id. 151.

76 LECTURE S on LAW.

i n volved1n the deci s ion ofaques tion offact. Afterw hat I have said, i n aform er lectu re, P con cern i n g the

g en eral du ties an dpow ers ofj u ries , you w i ll beat n o

los s to kn ow m y s en tim en ts on thi s con troverteds ubject.

I on ly remark,at pres en t, that ifal ibel be, as I thi n k i t

i s, acr im eagai n s t ther ig ht of repu tation , thetr ial onal ibel m u s t bethetr ial ofacharacter , or s om epar tofacharacter. Ofall ques tion s , alm os t, w hich

,can bepro

pos ed, I thi n k thi s them os t remote‘from aques tion of

law .

T hecon s titu tion of Pen n s ylvan iahas pu t thi s matteru pon an ex pl icit footi n g , con s onan t, or n early con s onan ti n m y Opi n ion , to the true pri n ciples of the com mon

law i n all i n dictm en ts for l ibel s , theju ry s hall havear i g ht todeterm i n e the law an d thefacts , u

'

n der the

direction of thecourt, as i n other cas es .” q

T hepu n i s hm en t ofal ibel i safin e, orafin ean dcorporal pu n i s hmen t.P Vol. 2. p.336.et seq. 9 Art.9. s .7. 1.Haw . 196.

CHAPT ER IV .

0 , (231 11 1 8 AM INST T HE R IGHT OF INDIV IDUALS T OPERSONAL SAFETY.

T HE cr imes w hicharen ex t tobeen um eratedan dcons ideredarethoseagai n s t theri g htofpers onal safety. Onthi s s ubject, thecom mon law has been pecul iarlyaccuratean datten tive.

A n as sau lt i s an attem pt or offer, w ith forcean dviolen ce, todoacorporal hu rt toan other ;as by s tr iki n g atn im ;by holdi n g up thefis tat him ;by poi n ti n g s pitch

forkat him ,ifhebe w ithi n i ts reach ;by pres en ti n g a

g u n at him ,ifhebew ithi n thedi s tan ceto w hich It w i ll

carry or byan y otheract ofas im ilar ki n d, don em an

an g ryan dthreaten i n g man n er. An as sau lt l s violen cei n choate.b

A battery 13violen cecom pletedby beati n g an other.An y

”

i n ju ry don eto thepers on ofaman , i n an an g ry, ora1.Haw . 133. b3.Bl.Chm . 120.

LECTURES ON LAW.

reven g eful , or rude, or i n s olen t man n er ,as by touchi n g “

him i n an y man n er, or by s pitti n g i n hi s face, i sabatteryi n theeyeofthelaw . I n that eye, thepers on ofeveryman i s sacred: betw een thedifferen tdeg rees ofviolen cei t i s impos s ibletodrawali n e w ith g reat propriety , therefore, i ts veryfirs tdeg reei s prohibi ted. <1

Wou n di n g i s adan g erou s hu rt g iven toan other ;an di san ag g ravateds pecies ofbattery

Thes eoffen ces may u n ques tionably be con s ideredas “privatei n ju ries ,for w hich com pen sation ou g ht tobedecreedto thos ew ho s uffer them . Bu tview edi n apublicklig ht, theyarebreaches ofthepublickpeace:as s uch theymay bepros ecuted an das s uch they may bepu n i s hed.T hepu n i s hm en t i s fin e, or fin ean dim pr i s on men t.

A battery oran as sau lt, violedceoran offer of violen ce, i s s u s ceptibleofdeep cr im i nal ity from theatrociou si n ten tion , w ith w hich i t i s s ometim es ofl

'

eredor don e. An

as sau lt w ithades ig n to m u rder , to perpetrate the las tou trag e upon the hon ou r of thefair Sex , or to com m itthecr imew hich ou g ht n ot tobeeven named— thes earei n s tan ces ofw hat Im en tion : i n thes ei n s tan ces , toaheavyfin ean dim pr is on men t, it i s u s ual toaddthejudg men tofthepillory. 8

As sau lts , batteries ,an dw ou n di n g s may bes om etim esexcu s ed,an ds om etim es ju s tified. T heparticu lar cas esi n w hich thi s may bedon e, w ill beexplai n edw ith m ore

1.Haw .134. d S.Bl.Com . 120. e Id. 121.

f1.Haw . 134. 4:in .Com.917. x Com .217.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

80 L s cr u n z s on LAW .

makeapublickackn ow ledg men t of their ol en ce, an dtobebou n dto their g oodbehaviour.

It can nbt havees capedyour obs ervation , w ith w hatajudiciou s m i x tu reofpoi g nan t con tem pt thecom m on laws eason s its i n di g nation agai n s t thos e, w hoares o los t totrue s en tim en tas to deem it hon ourable to i n s u lt the

ju s ticeoftheir coun try. Theyare n ot treatedas crim inals ofdi g n ity : theyarecon s ideredi n thevery deg radedview ofcom m on n u i san ces thepu tridofl

'als ofthes hambles areview ed,as w e s hall s ee, i n thesam eli g ht.

Neither can i t have es caped your obs ervation , w ith

w hatadeep kn ow ledg eofhuman nature, thecom m on lawtraces an d pu rs ues duel s to w hat i s frequen tly thei r

cowardly as w ellas thei r cruel s ou rce. Man yarevai nan dbas een ou g h to w i s han das pireat that importan ce.w hich, i n their pervertedn otion s ,ar i ses from bei n g eventhes econ di n aquarrel ofthi s natu re, w hohaven ot s piri ten ou g h to face that dan g er , w h ichar i s es from bei n g thefirs t. Hen ce

,often theofliciou s an dthe i n s idious ofi'

ers‘

offrien ds hip,as it i s cal led, on thes eoccas ion s , by thos ew ho, w ith hearts pu s i llan irn ou s an dmali g nan t, in flame,i n s teadof en deavou r i n g , as thos epos ses s edofbraveryan dhuman ity w ou lden deavou r, toex ti n g u i s han u n happydi s pu te—adi s pu te, perhaps , u n prem editatedas w ellasu n happy—reg rettedas w ellas u n i n ten dedby the imm ediateparties—an dto res cuethem from thecon s equen ces

,of w hich, w ithou tan y violation of theru les of trueho

n ou r , an deven w ithou tan y departu refrom the ru les of

fal s ehon ou r , w hich every on ehas n ot thecalm cou rag etoviolate, n othi n g i s wan ti n g bu tacon ductdiam etr icallyOppos iteto that of thes e preten dedfr ien ds—acon ductw hich w i ll

‘preven tex trem ities , w ithoutw ou n di n gas en ti

Lacr u n s s on LAW.

men t w hich, w ithou t n eces s ity , ou g ht n ot tobewou n ded,becau s e it i s del icatethou g h i tbem i s taken .

An imatedw ithaju s t deg ree ofblen ded res en tm en t

an ddi s dai n agai n s t thecon duct firs t des cribed, thecomm on law '

w i s elyan dhuman ely ex ten ds di s g racean d-cen

s u rean dpu n i s hm en t to,

thos ew ho provoke, even to thos e

w hoen deavou r to provoke,an other to s en dachallen ge.I

On thesam epr i n ciples on w hichaii'raysareprohibitedan dpu n i s hed, r iots , rou ts , an d u n law fulas s embl ies areal s o prohibi tedan dpu n i s hedby thecom m on law . T w o

pers on s may comm itan affray ;bu t toar iot,arou t, oranu n law fu las s embly, threeare n eces sary. A r iot i s atum ultuou s di s tu rban ceofthepeaceby pers on s u n law fu llyas s embledw ithaview toexecu te,an dactually execu ti n g ,s om e u n law fu lact, i n aviolen tan dtu rbu len t man n er , totheterrou r ofthepeople. A rou t i sar iot u n fin i s hedan di s com m ittedby per s on s u n law fu llyas s embledw ithaview to execu te,an dactually maki n g amotion toexecu te,an u n law fu lact, theexecu tion ofw hich w ou ldren der the

riot. com plete. A n u n law fu l as s embly i s an u n fin i s hed

rout ;an di s com m ittedby pers on s u n law fu llyas s embledw ithaview ,

bu t w ithou tactually maki n g am otion , toexecu tean u n law fu l act, to theexecu tion of w hich, if

they hadmadean actual m otion , they w ou ldhavebeeng u ilty ofarou t. T hepu n i s hm en t ofthes eoffen ces ,atthecom m on law , has g en erally been by fin ean dim pr i s onmen t on ly : cas es , how ever , very en orm ou s havebeenpu n i s hedby thepilloryal s o.

m 1.Haw . 156: Salk. 594. 3. In s . 176. n 1.Haw .

’

158.

0 Id. 159.

VOL. 1 1 1 .

LECTURES ON LAW.

Mayhem 18acr im ecom m ittedby violen tly depr ivi n gon e of the u s e ofan y part of hi s body, by los i n g the

u s eof w hich hebecom es les s able, i n fig hti n g , toan n oyhi s adver sary or todefen dhim s elf.P Thi s 18an atrociou sbreach of the publick peacean d secu rity. By i t, on e

of theci tizen s i s di sabled from defen di n g him s elf;byi t, hi s fellow citizen saredebarredfrom receivi n g that secialaid w hich theyareobli g ed to g ive by it, the s tatelos es thos es ervices , w hich i t hada” ri g ht to exact an dexpect. I n an cien t times , thi s crimewas pu n i s hedaccordi n g to thelaw ofretaliation : it i s n ow pu n i s hedw ith

fin ean dim pr i s on m en t. ‘1

T heforcibleabduction or s teal i n g ofamu m from

hi s cou n try, i s ag ros s violation of the r i g ht of pers onalsafety. T o thi s crimethe term kidnappi n g i s appropriatedby thelaw . It robs the s tateofacitizen it ban i s hesthecitiz en from hi s cou n try an dit may be productiveof m i s chiefs of the m os t las ti n g an d hum i liati n g ki n d.By thecom m on law , i t i s pu n i s hed w ith fin e, w ith im .

pri s on men t, an dw ith thepil lory.

A rape i s an i rreparablean damos tatrociou sag g ress ion on ther i g ht ofper s onal safety. Bes ides the‘

thou san dexcruciati n g , but nameles s ci rcum s tan ces by w hich i t i s

ag g ravated, s omemay bem en tion edw ith propr iety. It

i s acr im ecom m i tted n Ot on ly agai n s t the citizen , bu tagai n s t thew oman ; n ot on lyagai n s t thecom m on r i g hts

of s ociety , bu tagai n s t the pecu liar r ig hts of the s ex :

it i s com m i ttedby on efrom w hom , on every virtuou s

an d man lv pr i n ciple, her s ex/

i s .en ti tled to i n violableprotecti

on , an dher hon ou r to the mos t sacred regard.

P l .Haw . l l l .‘1 4. Bl.Com . 206. T id.219.

L s cr'

u n s s on LAW. 83

T h i s crime i s on eof the s elected few , w hich, by the

law s of the Saxon s , w ere pu n i s hedw ith death. T he

sam epu n i s hm en t i t s ti ll u n der g oes i n thecom m on w ealthof Pen n s ylvan ia. O n thi s s ubject, foran obviou s reas on , particu lar obs ervation s w i ll n ot beexpectedfrom alectu re i n thehall theyarefit for thebookan dtheclos et on ly : for even thebookan d theclos es t theyarefit,ly becau se theyaren eces sary.

T hecr im e n ot tobe nam ed, I pas s i n atotal s i len ce.

I n ow proceed to con s ider hom icide, an dal l itsdi fferen t s pecies . Hom icide i s the g en er ical term u s ed

by thelaw to den oteevery human act, by w hich amani s deprived of hi s l ife. It may bearran g ed u n der the

fol low i n g divi s ion s—en joi n ed hom icide—ju s tifiablehom icide—hom icideby m i s fortu n e—ex cu sablehom icidealleviated hom icide—mal iciou s hom icide—treas onablehom icide.

l . 1 . Hom icide i s en joi n ed, w hen i t i s n eces sary forthedefen ceof theU n i ted States , or of Pen n s ylvan ia.At pres en t, i t i s n ot n eces sary for m e, an d, therefore,Idecl i n etoexam i n ethe g en eralan dvery i m portan t s ubjcet con cern i n g the‘

r i g hts of war. I con fin e m ys elf

m erely to that ki n d-of war, w hich i s defen s ive an deven that ki n d I n ow con s ider s olelyaham u n icipal

1.Law s Pen n 135.

t By theact ofas sembly of 22d.Apr il 1794, the pun i shmen t

of thi s cr imei s chan g ed in to im pri son m en tat hard labou r, foraper iodn ot les s than ten , n or m orethan twen ty on eyears . 3.Law sPen n .600. Ed.

LECTURES ON LAW.

reg u lation , es tabli s hedby thecon s titution ofthenation ,an dthatof thi s com mon w ealth.

T hecon s titu tion of the nation i s ordai n edto '

pro

videfor thecom m on defen ce.” I n order to make provi s ion

”for that defen ce, con g res s have the pow er to

provideforarm i n g them i l i tia,”an d for call i n g themforth,

”to repel i n vas ion s they havepow er to pro

videanavy,” to rai s ean ds upportarm ies ,” todeclarewap ,

” n When ever the pr imary 'object, the com m on

defen ce,”

ren der s i t n eces sary , the pow er becom es the

du ty of con g res s an d i t requ ires n o formal deductionof log ick to poi n t to thedu ty , w hen n eces s i ty s hall tequ i re, of m ili tary bodies , rais ed, s upported,an darm .

ed.

” In Pen n s ylvan ia, i t i s expl ici tly declaredupon thevery poi n t, that the freem en of thi s com m on w ealths hall bearmedfor i ts defen ce.”

2 . Hom icide i s en joi n ed, w hen it i s n eces sary for thedefen ceof on e’ s pers on or hou s e.

W ith regardto thefir s t, it i s theg reat natu ral law of

s elf pres ervation , w hich, as w e have s een ,"can n ot be

repealed, or s uper s eded, or s u s pen dedbyan y human i ns ti tu tion . Thi s law , how ever , i s ex pres s ly recog n i s ed

i n thecon sti tu tion ofPen n s ylvan ia. x

T her i g ht ofthe

citiz en s tobeararm s i n thedefen ceof them s elves s hal ln otbeques tion ed.

” Thi s i s on eof ou r man y ren ewalsof theSax on reg u lation s . They w ere bou n d,

”say s

M r. Selden , to keeparm s for the pres ervation of the

ki n gdom ,an dof their ow n per s on s .”Y

Con s .U.S.art. 1. s .8. VCon s .Pen n .art.6. s . 2.An te.vol.2.p.496.

1‘Art. 9. s . 21. Y Bac.on Gov. 40.

Ls cr u n s s on LAW.

W ith regard to the s econ d;every man ’ s hou s e i sdeem ed, by the law , tobehi s cas tle an dthelaw , w hile

i t i n ves ts him w ith the pow er , en joi n s on him theduty,ofthecom man di n g officer. Every man ’ s hou s e i s hi scas tle,” says m y LordCoke, i n on eofhi s reports , an dheou g ht tokeepan d defen d itat hi s peri l;an difan yon eberobbedi n it, it s hall bees teemedhi s ow n defaultan d For thi s reas on , on e mayas semblepeople tog ether i n order to protect an d defen d hi shou s e.

3. Hom icide i s frequen tly en joi n edby thejudg men tof cou rts ag reeably to thedirection s of the law . Thi s

i s thecas e i n all capital pu n i s hm en ts . Thi s s pecies of

hom icide i s u s ually clas s edw i th thos e ki n ds w hich areju s tifiable. T heepithet i s true s o faras it g oes . ' But i tg oes n ot far en ou g h to character ize the con duct of the

officer to w hom i t relates . O n emay beju s tifiable i n doi n g athi n g , i i1 om itti n g todo w hich he may beequallyju s tified. But thi s i s n ot thecas ew ithas her iff, or otherm i n i s terial officer ofju s tice. He i s comman ded to do

execu tion .

I I . A s hom icide i s en joi n ed, w hen as en ten ce of

death i s tobeexecuted; s o it i s s om etim es ju s tified i ntheexecu tion of other proces s from thecou rts ofju stice. When pers on s , w ho haveau thor ity to arres t,an d w ho u s etheproper m ean s for that pu rpos e, areres i s ted i n doi n g s o, an d the party maki n g res i s tan ce ‘

i s

ki lledi n the s tru g g le;thi s hom icide i s ju s tifiable. Ifaper s on , w hoi n terpos es topart thecombatan ts i n anafl '

ray,7.Rep.6. a1. Hale.P.C.547. 4.Bl.Com .223.

5 Eden . 209. Fos t. 270. l .Hale.P.C. 494.

86 Ls crvn s s on LAW.

an dg ives n oticeto them of hi s fr ien dly i n ten tion , i s assau ltedby an y of them , an d, i n the s tru g g le, happen stoki ll ; thi s i s ju s tifiablehom icide. For , i n s uch cas es ,i t i s the du ty of every man to i n terpos e, that m i s chiefmay be preven ted, an d the peace may be, pres erved.

Thi s ru lei s foun dedi n the‘

pri n ciples of s ocial du ty. ‘Ifaw oman , i n defen ce of her hon our , ki ll him w ho

attem pts the las t ou trag eagai n s t it ; thi s hom icide i sju s tifiable. d In the sam eman n er , thehu sban dor fathermay ju s tify the kill i n g of on e, w ho makes as im ilarattem pt u pon hi s dau g hter or w ife. I n thes e i n s tan cesofju s tifiable hom icide, the pers on w ho has don ei t i stobeacqu i ttedan ddi s charg ed, w ith com m en dation rather than cen s ure.

III. Hom icideby m i s fortu n e happen s , w hen aman ,i n theexecu tion ofalaw fu lact, an d w ithout i n ten di n gan y harm ,

u n fortu nately kill s an other . 3 T heact m u s t

n ot on ly belaw fu l, bu t m u s tal s obedon ei n alaw fu l mann er. Ifamas ter , correcti n g hi s s ervan t m oderately,happen s to occas ion hi s death, it i s on ly m i sadven tu refor theact ofcorrection was law fu l : bu t it i s m uch other

w i s e, if heexceedi n theman n er , the i n s trum en t, or thequan tity of thecorrection .

h

Thi s Species ofhom icide, iffou n dby aju ry, s till,

i n s trict law , as i t i s received i n E n g lan d, s ubjects the

u n fortu nate— I can n ot call him the g u ilty—party , toa

forfei tu reof hi s per s onal es tate or , as s om e say, on ly0

0 Pos t.272. Eden . 209. 4 Pos t. 274. Eden .210.

e4. Bl.Com . 181. fId. 182. Pos t. 279.

itPos t. 258. h 4.Bl.Com . 182.Fas t.262.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

88 c r n n z s on i n .

improvemen t. I thereforethi n k,”to u s etheex pres

s ion s ofag reat, mas ter ofcr im i nal law , thos ejudg es ,I

w ho have taken g en eral verdicts ofacqu ittal i n plai ncas es ofhom icideby m i s fortu n e, haven otbeen toblam e.They have, to say the w ors t, deviated from an cien tpractice i n favou r of i n n ocen ce, an d havepreven tedanexpen seof tim e.

an dm on ey, w ith w hich an appl icationto theg reat s eal , thou g h i n amatter of cours e, as thi su n doubtedly

‘

i s , m u s t be con s tan tly atten ded.” l It i s

proper toobs erve that thi s latepracticeof thejudg es i sm en tion edby Si r W ill iam Blacks ton e, i n term s w hich

i n timatehi s approbation .m

IV. Excu sablehom icide i s that w hich, on as ’

udden '

aifray" bew een parties , i s g iven i n the n eces sarydefen ceof him w ho w i s hes an den deavou r s to qu it the combat.Thi s i s carefu lly tobedi s ti n g u i s hed, becau s ei t i s mater ially differen t, from that ki n dof self' defen cew hich i s

ju s tified or en joi n ed to preven t theperpetration of them os tatrociou s ou trag eupon on e’ s per s on or habitation .

T he s pecies of hom icide, w hich Wearen ow to con

s ider, thou g h excu sable by theben i g n ity ofthelaw , i s

.s ti ll cu lpable. It i s don e, w hen aper s on , en gag ed i n a

s udden afl '

ray, qu its the combat befoream ortal w ou n di s g iven ,an dretreats or fl iesas faras hecan w ith safetyan dthen , u rg edby m ere n eces s i ty, kills hi s adver sa'yfor thepreservation of hi s ow n life. P Thi s s pecies approaches n ear to man s lau g hter ;an d, i n experien ce, thebou n dary betw een them i s , i n s omeplaces , difficu lt tobe

288.m 4. B1.Con n . 188. Fes t. 276.

4.BLChm . 183.

n ew “ : on LAW. 89

dis cer n ed: i t i s marked, however , i n thecon s iderationoflaw . In both s pecies , it i s s uppos edthat pas s ion haskin dledon each s ide an dthatblow s havepas s edbetw eentheparties . Bu t i n thecas eofman s lau g hter , ei ther thecombat on both s ides con ti n ues ti ll the m ortal s troke i sg iven ,

or theparty g ivi n g i t i s n ot i n im m i n en t dan g erw hereas , i n the cas e of ex cu sable hom icide, hew ho i sex cu s eddecli n es ,befoream ortal s trok’

eg iven ,an y fu rthercom bat, an d retreats as faras hecan w i th safety ;an dthen , throu g h m ere n eces s i ty, an d toavoid im mediatedeath, ki ll s hi s adversary. q

T hou g h thi s s pecies ofhom icidei s verydifferen tfrom

that w hich happen s by m i s fortu n e yet thejudg es , i n on eas w ellas theother, perm it, ifn otdirect,ag en eral verdictofacqu ittal.

V. T oalleviatedhom icide, theterm man s laug hter i sappropriated. When theepithetalleviatedi sappl iedtothi ss pecies ofhom icide, i t m u s t beu n ders toodon lyas compared w ith that w hich i s mal iciou s for man s lau g hter,thou g h i n thi s view an alleviated, i safelon iou s hom icide.It i s theu n law fu l kill in g ofan other , w ithou t mal ice an dmay beeither '

volu n tar ily, upon as udden heat or provocation or i n volu n tari ly, but i n thecom m i s s ion of s om eu n law ful act. When man s lau g hter i s volu n tary, i t i sdi s ti n g u i s hedfrom excu sablehom icideby thi s cr i ter ionthat, i n thelatteraris e, the killi n g i s throu g h n eces s ity,

an dtoavoidimm ediatedeath ; w hereas , i n theformer,therei s n o n eces s i tyatall i tbei n g as udden act of reven g e. When man s lau g hter i s i n volu n tary, it i s di s ti ng u i s hedfrom hom icideby m i s fortu n eby thi s cri terion

Pos t.275. 277. 4.Bl.Gm .185. r 4.Bl.Com . 188.

OO1 “ 1 1 1.

90 c r uan s on LAW.

that thelatteralways happen s i n con s equen ceoftalaw fu l,the form er, i n con s equen ceofan u n law fu l act. Mans lau g hter , both volu n taryan di n volu n tary, i s dis ti n g u i s hedfrom maliciou s hom icideby thi s cr iterion—Aha}: thelatter i s w ith, theform er w i thou t, malice.

I n En g lan d, man s lau g hter i s pu n i s hedby bur n i n g i nthehan d, an dby the forfeitureof g oods an dchattel s .I n theU n itedStates , i t i s pu n i s hedbyafin en otex ceedi n g on ethou san ddollars , an dby im pr i s on m en t n ot exceedi n g threeyears . I n Pen n s ylvan ia, it i s pu n i s hedbyafin eat thedi s cretion ofthecou rt,an dby im pri s on m en tn ot exceedi n g tw oyear s an dtheoffen der s hallfin ds ecu

r ity for hi s g oodbehaviour du r i n g l ife. V

VI. T omal iciou s hom icidetheterm mu rder i sappropr iatedby the law . Thi s nam ewas , i n an cien t tim es ,appl iedon ly to the s ecret ki ll i n g ofan other ;for w hich

s 4.Bl.Com .193. Law s U.S. 1.con g .2.aces .c.9.‘1 1.Law s .Pen n .846.

V T hepu n i shmen t ofvolu n tary man s lau g hter,by theact of22dApr i l, 1794, (3.Law s .Pen n . 601. s . i s , for thefir s t offen ce, 1m

pr i son men tat hard labou r , n ot les s than tw o, n or morethan tenyears ;an dtheoffen der s hall besen ten cedlikew ise to g ivesecu rityfor hi s g oodbehaviour du rin g life, or foran y les s time,accordi n g tothenatu rean den orm ityoftheofl '

en ce. For thesecon dofl’

en ce, he

s hallbe impri son edasaforesaid n ot les s than s ix , n or morethanfourteen years . In cases ofi n volu n taryman s laug hter, thepros s entor for thecom mon w ealth may, w ith theleaveofthecou rt, wavethefelon y,an dcharg ethepers on w itham i sdemean or ;w ho, on conviction , s hall befin edan dimpri son edas in cases ofm i sdemean or ;or theprosecutor may char geboth offen ces i n thei n dictmen t;an dthejury may i n s uch caseacquit thepartyofon e,an dfin dhim g uiltyoftheother charge. 3.Law s .Pen n .601. s .8. Ed.

LECTURES ON LAW. . 9 1

thevi ll or hun dred where i t was com m ittedwas heavilyam erced. Thi s

‘am ercem en t was calledm u rdrm n . Thi sex pres s ion i s n ow appl ied to thecr im e an d thecrim e

i s n ow con s idered i n avery difi'eren t, an dm uch m ore

ex ten s ive poi n t ofview , w ithou t regardi n g w hether the.

per s on ki lledwas killedopen ly or s ecretly. w

M u rder i s theu n law fu l ki lli n g ofan other w ith mal iceaforethou g ht, expres s or im pl ied. T hedi s ti n ction , you

obs erve, w hich i s s tron g ly markedbetw een man s lau g hteran dm u rder i s , that theform er i s com m ittedw ithout, the

latter w ith mal iceaforethou g ht. It i s es s en tial,there

fore, to kn ow ,clearlya

'

n daccu rately, the truean dlegalimport ofthi s characteri s tick di s ti n ction .

There i s avery g reat differen cebetw een that s en s ew hich i s con veyedby the expres s ion malicei n com m onlan g uag e, an dthat to w hich theterm i s appropr iatedbythe law . In com m on lan g uag e, i t i s m os t frequen tlyu sedtoden oteas en timen t or pas s ion of s tron g malevolen cetoaparticu lar per son oras ettledan g eran ddes ireof reven g e i n on e pers on agai n s t an other. I n law

, i t

m ean s thedictate ofaw ickedan dmal i g nan t heart of

adepraved, perver s e,an di n corr i g ibledi s pos ition . Ag reeably to thi s las t m ean i n g , man y of thecas es , w hicharearran g edu n der theheadof im pl iedmal ice, w i llbefou n dto tu r n upon thi s s in g le poi n t, that thefact has been atten dedw ith s uch ci rcu m s tan ces—particu larly theci rcum

s tan ces ofdel iberation an dcruelty con cu rri n g—as betraytheplai n i n dication s an dg en u i n e s ym ptom s ofam i n dg rievou s ly depraved,an dacti n g from m otives h i g hly cri

m i nal ; ofaheart regardles s ofs ocial du ty, an ddel ibc4.Bl.Com. 195. 3. his 47.

92 Lecr n n n s on LAW.

rately ben t upon m is chief. Thi s i s the truen otion of

mal ice, i n thelegal sen s eoftheword. T hem i schievou s

an dvi n dictive s piri t den otedby it, m u s talways becollectedan di n ferredfrom theci rcum s tan ces ofthe tran saction . On the circum s tan ces of the tran saction , the

’

clos es tatten tion s hould, for thi s reason , he bes tow ed.Every ci rcum s tan cemay w ei g h s omethi n g i n thes caleofjus tice.

In E n g lan d, i n theUn ited States , i n Pen n s ylvan ia,an dalmos t u n iversally throu g hou t thew orld, thecr im eofw ilfulan dpremedi tatedm u rder i s an dhas been pu n i s hedw ith death. In deed i t s eem s ag reedby all, that, ifacapital pu n i s hm en t ou g ht tobe i n fl ictedforan y crimes ,thi s i s u n ques tionably acr im efor w hich it ou g ht tobe

i n fl icted. Thosew ho thi n k thatacapital pu n i s hm en t i sen joi n edagai n s t thi s cr im eby the law w hich i s divi n e,

w i ll n ot im itatethecon duct ofthat Pol i s h monarch, w horem itted to the n obi l ity the penal ties of m urder, i n s

charter of pardon beg i n n i n g arrogan tly thg s rm“ Nos

divi n i ju ri s r ig orem m oderan tes , 8m.” 1

r 4.Bl .Com . 194.

3Murder ,by theact of22dApr il, 1794, i s di s tin g ui shedin totwddeg rees . Mu rder of thefirs tdeg reealon e'i s pu n i shedw ith death,an di s theon ly capital crimen ow kn ow n tothelaw s ofPen n sylvan ia.Mu rderperpetratedby m ean s ofpoi s on , or by lyi n g i n wait, or byan yotherki n dofw i lfu l,deliberate,an dpremeditatedkilli n g ,or comw i ttedi n theperpetration , orattempttoperpetrate,an yan omraps ,robbery,or burg lary, is deemedm urder ofthefirs tdeg ree. An otherki n ds of m urderaredeemedm urder i n the secon ddeg ree. T he

pun i shmen t ofthi s is impr i son men tat hardlabou r, foraper iodn otles s than five, n or morethan ei g hteen years .3.Law s .Pen n .599.600.s . 1. 2. 4. Ed.

LECTURES ON LAW.

V I I. Treas onablehom icidei s com m ittedbyas ervan tw ho k ill s hi s mas ter ,an daw ife, w ho ki lls her hu sban d.Peti t treas on i s thenam eappropr iated, by thelaw , to thi s

cr im e. Itar i s es fromtherelation w hich s ubs i s ts between

the per s on ki lli n g an d the pers on ki lled. T he crim e

w h ich, com m ittedbyan other , w ou ldbem u rder, i s petit

treas on w hen com m ittedby thew i fe, or byas ervan t.

T hepu n i s hm en t of thi s crim e, i n E n g lan d, i s , thatthe man i s draw n an dhan g ed an dthew oman i s draw nan d bu rn ed.a Byalaw , s till i n force i n Pen n s ylvan ia,per s on s con victedofthi s crime, or ofmu rder , s hall s ufferas the law s of Great Britai n n ow do or hereafter s halldi rectan drequ irei n s uch cas es res pectively.

4.Bl.Com . 204. 5 1.Law s .Pen n . 135.

c Every person l iabletobeprosecutedfor petit treason s hall i nfuturebei n dicted, proceededagai n s t,an dpun ished,as i s directedinother ki n ds of m urder . Act of 22dApril, 1794. s . 3. 3.Law sPen n .600. Ed.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

96 c '

ruaz s on LAW .

T o s ecu re the s tate, an dat the sam etim eto s ecu re

thecitizen s—an d, accordi n g to ou r pr i n ciples , the las ti s theen d, an dthefir s t i s the m ean s—the law of treas on s hou ld pos s es s the tw o

' follow i n g qual ities . 1 . I t

s hou ldbedeterm i nate. 2 . It s hou ldbe s table.

It i s theobs ervation of thecelebratedMon tes qu ieu ,

that if thecr im e of treas on bei n determ i nate, thi s alon ei s s u flicien t to makean y g overn m en t deg en erate i n toarbitrary pow er. In m onarchies , an d i n republ icks , i t

furn i s hes an opportun ity to u n pr i n cipledcou rtier s , an dtodemag og ues equally u n pr i n cipled, to haras s the i n depen den t citizen , an d the fai thfu l s ubject, by treason s ,an dby pros ecu tion s for treas on s , con s tructive, capr iciou s ,an doppres s ive.

In poi n t ofpreci s ion an daccu racy w ith regardto thi lcrim e, thecom m on law , i t m u s t beow n ed, was g ros s lydeficien t. Its des cr iption was u n certai n an dambi g uou san d its den om i nation an dpenalties w erewas tefu llycomm u n icatedto offen ces ofadifferen tan d i n fer iou r ki n d.T o lop off thes e n umerou s an ddan g erou s excres cen ces ,an dto reducethe law on thi s im portan t s ubject toades i g natedan d con ven ien t form , the fam ou s s tatute of

treas on s was made i n therei g n of Edwardthethi rd, ontheapplication ofthelords an dcom m on s . Thi s s tatu tehas been i n E n g lan d, ex cept dur i n g tim es remarkablytyran n ical or tu rbu len t, theg overn i n g ru lew ith regardtotreas on s ever s i n ce.’ Likearock, s tron g by natu re,an dfortified, as s ucces s iveoccas ion s requ ired, by theablean dthehon es tas s i s tan ceofart, it has been im preg nablebyall the rudean dboi s trou s as saults , w hich havebeen

Sp.L.b. 12.c.7.

Ltc'ruan s on LAW. 97

madeupon it, at difl '

eren t quarters , by m i n i s ter s an d‘

by

judg es ;an das an object of national s ecu rity, as w ehas of national pr ide, it may w ell bes tyledthe legal Cibraltar of E n g lan d.

L i ttleof thi s s tatute, however, deman ds ourm i n u teatten tion n ow 5as theg reat chan g es i n our con s ti tution s

have s upercededall i ts m onarchical parts . O n eclau s eit, i n deed, m erits our s tr ictes t in ves ti gation becau s e

it i s tran s cr ibedi n tothecon s ti tu tion oftheU n i tedStates .An other clau s ei n i t m erits our s tron g es t regard;becaus e“

it con tai n s an dholds forthapri n ciplean dan example,worthy ofou r observan cean d im itation .

After havi n g en umeratedan ddeclaredall thedifl '

er

en t s pecies of treason , w hich it was thou g ht proper to

es tabl i sh, the s tatute proceeds i n thi s man n er : an dbecau seman y ether cas es of l iketreas on may happen i ntimetocome, w hich, at pres en t, aman can n ot thi n k‘

or.

declare; it i sas s en ted, that ifan y other cas e, s uppos edtreason , w hich i s n ot s pecified»above, happen beforean yjudg es , they s hall n ot g o tojudgm en t i n s uch cas e;bu tM l tarry, ti ll i t' be s how n an ddeclaredbeforetheki n gan dhi s parl iamen t, w hether it ou ght tobe judg edtreason or other felon y.

”

T heg reatan dthe g oodLord Haleobs erves upon

thi s clau s e, the g reat w i sdom an d careof theparl iameat, tokeep judg es w i thi n thebou n ds an dexpres s lin its Qfthies tatute,an dn ot to s uffer them to ru n out

,

“PP“ their 6m opi n ion s , i n to con s tructive treas on s ,W i n cases . which seem to haveaparity of reas on ”

“1 LH“.PA00259.

VOL. 1 1 1. O

98 Lacros s eon Law .

—cas es of liketreas on bu t res erves them to thede

ci s ion of parl iam en t. Thi s ,” heju s tly says , i sag reat

s ecu r ityas w ellas direction tojudg es ;an dag reat safeg uardeven to thi s sacredact itself.

It i s s o. An dit was all thesafeg uardw hich theparl iam en t, by thecon s titu tion , as it i s called, of En g lan d,couldg ive. It was asafeg uardfrom thearbitrary cons truction s ofcou rts : it wasas helter from judicial s torm s :

bu t i t was n o s ecur ityagai n s t leg i s lative tem pes ts . No

parliam en t, how ever om n ipoten t, cou ldbi n d its s uccosa

s ou r s , pos s es s edofequal om n ipoten ce;an dn o power ,

hi g her than the pow er of parl iam en t, was lthen or i s

yet recog n i sed i n theju ridical s ys tem ofE n g lan d. Whatwas thecon s equen ce? I n thevery n ex t rei g n , diefin c

tuati n g an dcapriciou s on e of Richardthes econ d, theparliam en ts w ere profu s e, even to r idicule- nail , i n s un kaSeriou s s ubject, ridicu lecouldfin daplace—iaenacti n gn ew , tyran n ical , an deven con tradictory treason s . T hi s

they did to s uchan abom i nabledeg ree, that,as w earetoldby thefirs t parl iamen t w hich met u n der hi s s ucces

s ou r, therewas n oman w ho kn ew how heou g ht tobe

have him s elf, to do, s peak, or say, for doubt of the

pai n s of s uch treas on s .”

I n the fu r iou s an d san g u i nary rei g n of Hen ry the

ei g hth, themal i g nan t s pir itofi n ven ti n g treas on s reviVed‘

:

an dwas carried to s uchahei g ht of madex travagan ce,that, as w ehave s een on an other occas ion

, the learn edas w ellas theu n learn ed, the cau tiou sas w ellas theunwary, thehon es tas w ellas the viciou s , w ereen trappedi n the s nares . How im poten t,as w ellas cruelan di n c

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Lacros s eon em .

an dtoall , n otas in g lees pres s ion s houldbeEm ail,bu t

'

s uchas coulds how i n its favour , that.it was retai l sm en dedby thematu reexperien ce,an dascertai n edby thelegal i n terpretation , of“

n umerou s revolvi n g cen tu r ies .

T o the exam i nation , an dcm s naction ,an dw ell de

s i g natedforce of thoseexpres s ion s , I n ow solicit you r

s tr ictatten tion .

Treas on con s i s ts i n levyi n g waragain s t theUn itedStates .” I n order to u n ders tan dthi s propos ition atomratelyan d i n all i ts parts , i t may ben eces sary to g ivea.fu ll an dpreci s ean sWer toall the follow i n g ques tibn s ..1 . What i s.mean t by the expres s ion levyi n g war 2”2. By w hom may the war belevied? s . Agai n s tmm u s t itbelev'ied?

eT oeach ofthes eques tion s I mean tog ivean attain i n -Eh

ifp088lblé,‘8 sati s ‘

ihétmyan s w er {bu t n ot in“

theorder , i n

w hich theyarepropos ed. I beg i n w i th the secon ds -byw hom

‘

may thex

war s poken ofbelevied? It“

i saudi t i n ?as con s titutes treas on . T hean s w er then

,

i s thi s them

m u s t be leviedby thos ew ho, w hi lethey levy it,areatthe same time g u i lty of treas on . Thi s throw s u s backn eces sar ily upon an other ques tion—w ho may comm i ttreas on agai n s t ‘theU n ited States ? T o thi s thean s weri s - thosew ho ow eobedien ceto thei rauthority. Bu t

s tillan other ques tion r i ses before us -t—fw hoarethey thatoweobedien ce to thatauthority i‘ Ian s w er—thos ew horeceiveupratectiOn from i t. In themonarchy ofGreatBr itain , protection an dalleg ian ceareu n iver sally w h omlodgedtober i g hts

‘an dduties reciprocal. T hesamepri n sciple rei g n s i n g over n men ts of every ki n d. I u s ehere

theexpres s ion obedien ce.i n otead'of theexpres s ion ai leI

Lfl t n n fi M LAW.

game;because, i n E n g lan d,alleg ian cei s con s ideredasGhettom an na}, as wellas tothemoral pers on oftheki n g ? to‘iheman ,as w ellas to therepres en tedauthori tyofthe nation . I n theUn i tedStates , theauthority o‘fthenation i s the s oleobject on on e s ide. An object s tr ictlycorres pon din g

‘

to that, s hou ldbe theon ly’ on e requ iredon the other s ide. T heobject s tr ictlycorres pon di n g to

authori ty i s , obedien ceto thatauthor ity. I s peak, therefore, w ith propr ietyan daccuracy u n exceptionable, w henI say , that thos ew ho owe'

obedien ceto‘

theau thority,arereceivetheprotection , oftheUn i tedStates .

T hi s close series of i n ves ti gation has led u s to‘a

fifidard, w hich i s plai n an deas y,as wellas preperan dm em es -e s tan dard, w hich every on ecan , w i thout thepos s ibi lity ofam i s take, di s cover by hi s experien ce,asw llas by hi s u n ders tan di n g—by what heen joys ,as wellas by w hat he s ees . Every on ehasam on itor w ithi n him ,

w hich can tell w hether hefeels protection from theauthority oftheUn itedStates : it" hedoes , to thatau thor ityheowes obedien ce. On the poli tical , as w ellas on thenatural g lobe, every .poi n t m u s t havei ts ahtipode. Of

obedien ce thean tipodei s treason .

I have n bw s how n , by w hom thewar may belevied.On «thi s s ubject,ag reatdeal oflear n i n g , hi s tor ical, legal,an d pol itical , m ig ht be di s played an d chan g es m ig ht

eas i ly beru n g on thedoctr i n es ofnatu ral ,an dlocal,an dtemporary,an dperpetualalleg ian ce. I pu rpos elyavoidthem . T hereason i s , ‘

that so m uch fal sei s blen dedw i ths oi ittleg en u in e in tell ig en ce,as to ren deran y discoveryyou w ou ldmakean i nadequate com pen san on for your

e l .BLOGB .371.

103 Lacros s e on LAW.

trouble i n searchi n g for it. T he ri g hts an ddu ties of

protection an dobedien cemay, I thi n k, i n am uch moreph i n an ddirect mad, hebrou g ht.home to thebosom

an dthebu s in es s ofevery on e.

I n ow proceed toan other ques tion—m i n t i s mean tby theex pres s ion levyi n g war3” From w hat has beensaidi n an s wer to theform er ques tion ,an an s wer to thi si s s o

'

far preparedas to i n form u s , that the term warcan n ot, i n thi s place, m ean s uchaon eas i s carr iedon .

betw een i n depen den t pow ers . T heparties on on e s ide

are thos e w ho ow e obedien ce. All the cu riou s an dex ten s ivelear n i n g , therefore, con cern i n g thelaw s ofwaras carr iedon betw een s eparate nation s , m u s t bethrow n

ou t ofthi s ques tion . Thi s i s s uchawaras i s leviedbythos e w ho ow e obedien ce—by citi zen s ;an d therefore

n otbes uchawar,as , i n the natu reofthin g s , citize'

T he in dictm en ts for thi s treason gen erally describetheper s on s i n dictedas arrayed i n awarlikeman n er .’A s w herepeopleareas sembledm g reat n u mbers ,armedw ith ofl

‘

en s ivew eapon s , or w eapon s ofwar , ifthey marchthu s armedi n abody, if they havechos en com man der sor officers , ifthey march w i th ban n er s di s played, or w ithdrum s or trum pets : w hether theg reatn es s oftheir n u mbers an d their con ti n uan ce tog ether doi n g thes eactsmay n otam ou n t tobei n g arrayedi n awarlikeman n er ,des erves con s ideration . If they have n o m i litaryarm s ,

n or march or con ti n ue tog ether i n the pos ture ofwar sthey may be g reat r ioters , but their con duct does n ot

3am ou n t toalevyi n g of war. 8

f 1.Hale.P.C.131. 150. 8 Id.131.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

LBGT VRESan LAW.

take reven g eofparticular per son s , it i s n otawar W ed

agai n s t the U n ited States . It A ri s i n g to mai n tai n .apr ivateclaim of ri g ht; tobreak pr i s on s for thereleas eofparticular pers on s , w ithou tan y other circum s tan ceof'

ag g ravation ;or to rem ove n u i san ces w hich .afi’

ect, or

are thou g ht toaffect, i n poi n t of i n teres t, the partiesw hoas s emble—thi s i s n otalevyin g of waragai n s t the

U n i tedStates .1 I n s urrection s in order to throw dow n

all i n clos ures , to open all pr i s on s , to en han ce the

pr ice of qll labour, to expel forei g n ers i n . g en eral , orthos e from an y s i n g le nation livi n g u n der the protec

tion of g overn men t, toalter , the es tabli shed law ,or to.

ren der it i n efi'

cctual—i n s urrection s toaccompli sh ,thes e

en ds ,’

by n umbers an dan Open an darmedforce, arealevyi n g ofwaragai n s t theU n itedStates .“N

T hel in eofdivi s ion between thi s s pecies of treas q tan dan ag g ravatedr iot i s sometimes veryfin ean ddificultto bedi s ti n g u i s hed. I n s uch i n s tan ces , i t i s safes tan dmos t pruden t to con s ider thecas e i n ques tion as lyi n gon thes ideofthei n feriour cri me. l

‘

T reas on con s i s ts i n adheri n g to theen em ies ofthe

Un itedStates , g ivi n g themaidan dcomfort.” By en em ies ,are hereu n ders toodthecitizen s or s ubjects of forei g n

pr i n ces or s tates , w ith w hom the Un itedS tates areatopen war. But thes ubjects or citi zen s ofs uch s tates orpri n ces , i n actual hos tility , thoug h n o war he solem n ly

declared,are s uch en em ies . T heexpres s ion s g ivi n g.

themaidan dcon ten t”areexplanatory ofwhat i s mean‘

1: Fas t. 209. 1 Id.210.

W 1.Hale.P.C. 146.

Ls cr u n r s on LAW. 105

byadheren ce. T o g ivei n telli g en cetoen em ies , to s en d

provi s ion s to them , to s ellarm s to them , treacherou s lyto

,s urren derafort to them , to cru i s e i n as hip w ith

them agai n s t the U n i ted States—thes eareacts ofadheren ce, aid, an dcomfort. P

T o joi n w ith rebels i n arebellion , or w ith en em iesi n acts '

of hos ti lity, i s treas on i n aciti zen , byadher i n gto thos e en em ies , or levyi n g war w i th thos e rebels .

Bu t if thi s be don e from apprehen s ion ofdeath,an dw hiletheparty i s u n deractual force, an d he take the

firs t Opportu n ity w hich offers to makehi s es cape‘

thi s

fearan dcom pu l s ion w i ll exc'u s ehim .

q

I n E n g lan d, thepu n i s hmen t of treas on i s terrible1ndeed. T hecr im i nal 1s draw n to thegallow s ,an d13n ot

s ufi‘

ered to walk or becarr ied; thou g h u s ually ahu rdlei s allow ed to pres erve him from thetormen t ofbei n gdrag g edon theg rou n d. Hei s han g edby then eck,an di s then cut dow n al ive. H i s en trai ls aretaken outan dburn ed, w hi lehe i s yetal ive. Hi s headi s cut of. H i sbody i s dividedi n to four parts . Hi s headan dquartersareat thedi s posal of theki n g .

In theUn itedStatesan di n Pen n s ylvan ia, treas on i spu n i s hedi n the sameman n eras other capital cr im es .

P Fat.217. 1 0 Haw . 380 4. B10 Com e 82.

Fes t. 216. f 4. Bl.Com . 92.

T reas on agai n s t thes tatei s n ow ptm i shedby impri son men tathard'

labour , foraperiodn ot les s than s ix , n or morethan twelveyeg g s . 3.Law s Pen n .600. For thedescr iption oftreason again s tfiles tate, see1.Law s Pen n .726. 2.Law s Pen n . 83. Ed.

VOL. I I I .

106 Lacr os s e on s .

A traitor i s hos tile to hi s cou n try :apirate“

i s the

en emy of man ki n d—hos ti s human i g en er ic.

P iracy i s robberyan ddepredation on the hi g h s eas ;an di s acr imeagai n s t theu n iver sal law of s ociety . Bydeclar i n g war agai n s t thew holehuman race, the p iratehas laidthew holehuman raceu n der then eces s ity ofde

clari n g waragai n s t him . Hehas ren ou n cedtheben efitsof s ocietyan dg overn m en t : he has aban don ed him s elf

to themos t savag e s tate of nature. T he con s equen ce

i s,that, by the law s of s elfdefen ce, every com m u n ity

has ar i g ht to i n fl ict upon him that pu n i s hmen t, w hich,

i n as tateof natu re, every i n dividual w ouldbe en titledto i n flict foran y in vas ion of hi s pers on or hi s pers onalproperty.

Ifan y per s on , says alaw of theU n ited States ,s hal l com mit, upon thehi g h s eas , or i n an y r iver , has

ven , bas i n , or bay, ou t of thejur i sdiction ofan y particu lar s tate, m u rder or robbery, or an y other offen ce,

w hich, ifcom m i ttedw ith i n thebody ofacou n ty, w ou ld,by thelaw s oftheUn itedStates , bepu n i s hedw ithdeath;every s uch ofl

‘

en der s hal l bedeemed, taken an dadjudg edto beapi ratean d felon , an dbei n g thereof con victeds hall s uffer death.”

By thean cien t com m on law , pi racy com m ittedbya.s ubject was deem edas pec1es of treas on . Accordi n gto that law , it con s i s ts of s uchacts of robbery an dde

‘4. Bl.Com . 71 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CHAPT ER VI.

or es tru s,Ar r s cr m o s even “ . or T HE NAT URAL

R IGHT S OF IND I V IDUALS.

T HOSE cr imes an doffen ces of w hich I havealreadytreated, attack som eon eof the natural ri g hts ofman \

or

of society : thereareother crimes an doffen ces , w hichattack s everal ofthesenatural ri g hts . Ofthese, n u i san cesarethem os t exten s ivean ddiVers ified.

A n u i san ceden otes an y thi n g , w hich produces m i schief,

’ i n ju ry, or i n con ven ien ce. It i s dividedi n tO '

tw o

ki n ds—com m on an dprivate.aT helatter w ill betreatedu n der thes econ ddivi s ion ofm y s ys tem : i t i s adamagetoproperty. Com m on n u i san cesareacollection ofper.s onal i n jur ies , w hich an n oy the citizen s g en erallyan di n di s crim i nately—s e g en erallyan di n di s cr im i nately, thati t w ou ldbedificu lt toas s i g n toeach citi zen hi s ju s tpm

a3.Bl.06m.216. 4.Bl.Com.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

i ts n ew “ : on LAW.

4. T o keep hog s i n an y city or market tow n i sacommon n u i san ce.e

5. Di sorderly hou s esarepublick n u i san ces ;an d, uponi n dictm en t, may bes uppres s edan dfin ed. f

6. Every thi n g ofi'

en s ivean di n ju r ious to thehealthofan ei g hbou rhoodis acommon n u i san ce; i s liabletoapubl ickprosecu tion ;an dmay bepu n i s hedby fin eaccordi n g to thequan tity ofthem i sdemean or.

7. An n oyan ces i n hig hways , br idg es , an d publick

rivers are l ikew i s e com mon n u isan ces .h Other ki n ds

m ig htbeen umerated.

I n decen cy, publickan dg ros s ly s can dalou s , may wel}be

'

con s ideredas as pecies of com m on n u i san ce: i t i scertai n lyan offen ce, w hichmaybei n dictedan dpu n i s hedat thecom mon law .

1

Profan en es s an dblas phem y areofl ’

en ces , pu n i s hableby

'

fin ean dby im pr i son men t. Chr i s tian ity i sapart ofthecom m on law . j

4.BLCom . 167. f m m s n ibid. h Id. ihid.

i 1.Haw . 7. 1.Sid. 168.Wood. In s .412.

32.Str. 834. 4.Bl.Com.59.

CHAPT ER VII.

or CR IME S AGAINST r s s s ron r s or m vm u s t s

ACQU IRED UNDER ervu . GOVERNMENT .

U NDER civi l g overn men t, on e i s en titledn ot on ly tothos er i g hts w hichare natural ; he i s en titled to others

whichareacqu ired. He i s en titledto thehon es tadm in i s tration bf the govern men t i n g en eral : he i s en titled,i n particu lar , to the im partial adm i n i s tration ofju s tice.T hoseri g hts maybei n fri n g ed: thei n fri n g emen ts ofthemarecrim es . T hesew en ex t con s ider.

1.Ex tortion i s thetaki n g ofm on eybyan y ofiicer , bycolou r of hi s oflice, either w heren on e 18 due, or w here

les s i s due, or before i t i s due. At com mon law , thi s

cr im e may be s everely pu n i s hedby fin ean d im pr i s onmen t, an dbyarem oval from theoffice, i n theexecution

ofw hich it was com m itted. “3 I.Haw .170. 171.

von . 1 1 1. o,

LECT URES ON I LW.

2 . Oppres s ion u n der colou r of ofice i s acrimeofs ti ll m ore exten s ivean dof s ti ll m oremal i g nan t im port.T yran n ical partial i ty i s gen erally i ts ihfam ou s as sociate.T hes e

,at thecom m on law , may bepu n i shedw ith fin e

,

w ith impr i son m en t, w ith forfeitu re ofoffice, an d w ith

other di s cretionary cen s u rereg u latedby the natu rean dtheag g ravation s ofthecrim es .

Byalaw of theUn itedStates , it i s enacted, that ifan y s upervi s or or other officer ofi n s pection oftheexci ses hall becon victedofex tortion or oppres s ion i n theexe

cu tion of hi s office he s hall beli n edn ot exceedi n g fivehu n dreddollar s , or im pri s on edn otexceedi n g s ix m on ths

,

or both, at the di s cretion of the court;an d s hallalsoforfeit hi s ofice.

3. Even n eg l i g en ce i n publick offices , if g ros s , w ill

expos e the n eg l i g en t officer s toafin e; an d, i n veryn otoriou s cas es , toaforfeitureofoflice.d

4. Embracery i s an attem pt to i n fl uen ceaju ry corruptly, by prom i s es , pers uas ion s , en treaties , m on ey, oren tertai n men ts . T heper s on embraci n g i s pu n i s hedbyfin ean dim pri s on men t. T heyieldi n g ju ror i s di s ti n g u i shedby s uperiou r pun i s hmen t.

5.Bribery i s , w hen ajudg e, or other per s on em ployedi n theadm i n i s tration ofju s tice, takes an y u n duerewardto i n fl uen ce hi s behaviou r i n omes . At common law,

b 40 BLcom . 1400

.Law s U.S. '1. s on g .3. ses s .c.15. s .39.

d 1. Haw . e 4.Bl.Com. 140;

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

LECT URES Oi l LAW.

who has n otauthori ty by comm on law , or by n otofpar.l iam en t : n either can 'an voathallow edby thecom monlaw ,

or byact of parl iam en t, bealtered, u n les s by actof parl iamen t. For thes e reas on s , it i s m uch to be

doubtedw hether an y mag is trate i s ju s tifiable i n adm iu ls ter i n g volu n taryaffidavits , ‘

u n s upportedby theauthor ity oflaw . It i s m ore than pos s ible, that, by s uch idle

baths , aman may frequen tly men t . the g u ilt, thou g h he

evadethetem poral penalties ofperjury.

It i sapart oftheforeg oi n g defin ition of.perju ry, thati t m u s t bew hen thepers on s w ears abs olutely. I n addition to thi s , i thas been said, that theoath m u s tbedirect,an dn otas thedepon en t thi n ks , or rem ember s ,orbelieves .‘T hi s doctr i n ehas , however , been lately ques tion ed;an di t s eem s , on s ol idprin ciples . When aman s w ear s , thathebelieves what, in tru th, hedoes n ot believe, bepro

n ou n ces afal sehoodas m uch, as w hen he s w ear s abs olu tely thatathi n g i s true. w hich he kn ow s n ot tobe

true. My LordChiefJu s tice DeG rey, i n alatecas e,said, that it was am i s take, w hich man ki n dhad falleni n to, thataper s on cou ldn ot becon victedofperju ry fordepos i n g on oathaccordi n g tohi s bel ief.m It i s certai nly true, says my LordMan s field, thataman may bei n dictedfor perju ry, i n s w ear i n g that he believes ax facttobetrue, which hem u s t kn ow tobefals e.

At com m on law ,thepu n i s hm en t ofperju ry has been

very var iou s . An c'

ien tly i t was pu n i s hed w ith death ;afterwards w ithban i s hm en t, or cutti n g out theton g ue;

1 Id. 166. 1.Haw . 175, m Leach.304.

Lac-roar s os LAW. 1 17

afterwards by forfeitu re; n ow by fin ean dl impri s on men t,

an d i n capacity to g ive tes tim on y T o thes elas t men?

ti n n edpu n i s hmen ts , that ofthepi llory i s addedbyalawofthe Un itedStates .q

7. Subornation of perju ry i s thecrimeof procur i n gan other to~

take s uchafals e oath'as con s ti tutes perjury.It i s pu n i s hed

‘as perjury.r

8. Com pan y i sacrim eofdeep mali g n i ty agai n s ttheadm i n i s tration ofj u s tice. Not on ly thos e, w lfofal s elyan d mal iciou s ly cau sean i n n ocen t man to be i n dicted

an dtr ied, areproperly con s pi rators ;but thoseals oares uch, w hocon spi reto i n dictaman fals elyan dmaliciou s ly,w hether they do or do n otan yact i n the prosecu tion ofthecon s pi racy." From thedes cr iption ofthi s cr ime it i s

obviou s,thatat leas t tw oper s on s are n eces sary to con

s titu te i t.

Hew ho i s con victedofacon s pi racy toaccu s ean otherofacr im e w hich may touch hi s l ife, s hall havethefollow i n g judg men t pron ou n cedagai n s t him : that he s hal llos eliberam leg em ,

thefreedom an dfran chi s eofthelaw ,

4.BLCom .137. i» 1. con g . 2. seat.c.9.5. 18.

qByalateact ofas sembly i n Pen n s ylvan ia(6.Law s Pen n .

it i s provided, that per son s con victedofperjury, or s ubornation ofperjury, s hall forfeitan dpayan y s um n ot exceedin g five hun dreddollar s ,an ds ufi'er impri son men tan dbekeptat hardlabour durin gan y term n otexceedin g seven years 5an dfu rdler, shall thereafterbedi s qualifiedfrom holdi n gan y omoepfhon our, truSt, or profit inthecomm on wealth,an dfrombein gadm ittedas alegal w itn es s i n

r 4. Bl.Com . 137. 1.Haw . 189. Id. 192.

LECT URES ON LAW.

by w hich he i s di s qualifiedtobeaju ror oraw itn es s , oreven toappear i n acou rt ofju s tice: that hi s hou sesan dlan ds an dg oods s hall beforfeiteddu r i n g hi s life thathi s trees s hall be rooted up, hi s lan ds s hall be was ted:hi s hou s es s hall berased,an dhi s body s hall be im pri s oned. T hi s i s com m on ly calledthevillai n ou s judg men t :an di s g iven by thecom m on law . By that law ,all con ‘

federacies w hatever w ron g fu lly toprejudiceathirdpers on arehi g hly cr im i nal .

9. Com m on barratry i s an other offen ceagai n s t theadm i n i s tration ofju s tice. A com m on barrator i sacomm on m over, or exciter , or mai n tai ner ofs u its or quarrels ,either i n courts , or i n the cou n try. On eact on ly w ill

n ot con s titu teabarrator. He m u s t be charg edas acom mon barrator. Hei s thecom mon n u i san ceofs ociety u n deracivil g overn m en t.

A com m on barrator i s to be.fin ed, im pri s on ed, an dbou n dto

'

hi s g oodbehaviour : ifhebeoftheprofes s ionofthelaw ,

_

he i s als o to be fu rther pu n i s hedby bei n gdi sabled, i n future, to practi s e.

10. At com mon law , the embez z l in g , defaci n g , oralter i n g ofan y record, w i thou t dueau thor ity, was acrimehi g hly pu n i s hableby fin ean dim pr i s on m en t.

Byalaw of the Un itedStates , ifan v per s on s hallfelon iou s ly s teal, takeaway, alter, fals ify, or otherw i s e

avoidan y record, w r it, proces s , or other proceedi n g s

u 1.Haw . 193. W Id.243.

1‘ Id. 244.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

120 Leer-

nan on Law .

ofieer , oraprivateper s on , 4 w ho has thecu s tody ofanother, perm its him toes cape, ei ther by n eg li g en ce, or ,s ti ll m ore, by con n ivan ce s uch officer or privatepers oni s culpable i n am uch hi g her deg ree. He has n ot thenatural des ireof liberty to te'

m pt—hehas oficial obli ga

tion s to preven t i t. Ifheperm i ts i t throu g h n eg l i g en ce,

hemay bepu n i s hedby fin e if heperm its it by con s en t

or con n ivan ce, hi s con duct i s gen erallyag reedtoam ou n ttothe sameki n dofcr ime,an dtodes ervethe sam edeg reeof pu n is hmen t, as the cr ime of w hich the pr i son er i s

g u i lty,an dfor w hich hei s com m itted w hether tresms s ,

hr felon y, or treas on .

13. T obreak ‘apr i s on was , at the com m on

capital crime, w hatever m i g ht havebeen thecau se, forwhich thepers on breakin g i t was com m i tted. T hereas on as s i g n edwas—i n teres t reipublicz u t career-os s i n t i ntu to.f Seldom i s there reason tocom plai n of thecom

m on ,as -ofao r i g orou s law . In thi s i n s tan ce, how ever,therei s un ques tionably reas on for com plai n t. T heM ir

rour complai n s of itas ahad law . Its s everi ty wasmoderatedby‘

as ’ tatutemade i n therei g n ofEdwardthesecon d. i f By that s tatute, thebreaki n g ofapri son i sn ot acapital crime, u n les s the party break i n g it wascom m ittedforacapital crime. But tobreak pri son ,w hen law fu lly com m ittedfor an i n feriou r ofi'

en ce, i s am i sdemean or, an dmay be pu n i s hed w i th fin ean dimpr i s on men t.

14. A res cue i s thefreei n g ofan other, by force, fromim pr i s on men t, or froman arres t. In thepers on res cu i n g ,

d 2. Haw . 138. Id. 134. 1.Hale.P.C.590.2. 1n s . 589. 3

l 2.Haw . 128. 4.Bl.Com . 131.

LECT URES ON LAW. 12 1

it i s g en erally the same cr im e, as abreach of pri s onw ou ld have been i n the pers on breaki n g it. T here i s ,

how ever , on eexception :apers on , w ho i s com m ittedfortreas on an dbreaks thepr i s on , i s g u ilty of felon y on lyhe, w ho res cues him , i s g u ilty oftreas on .

i

Byalaw of‘

theUn i tedStates ,j ifan y pers on res cue

on e con victed ofacapital crim e, the pers on res cu i n g

s hall bepu n i s hedcapitally : ifheres cueon ecom m i tted,for , bu t n ot con victed ofacapi tal crime, or on ecom

m ittedfor , or con victedofacr ime n ot capital ;he s hallbe fin ed n ot exceedi n g five hu n dreddollars , an d impr i s on edn ot exceedi n g on eyear.

15 . Offen cesagai n s t thecourts , havealways been cou s ideredas offen ces agai n s t theadm i n i s tration ofjus tice.

By thean cien t com mon law before the con ques t, to

s tr ikeor todraw as w ordi n them , wasacapital cr im e kan dthelaw s till retai n s s o m uch of thean cien t s everity,as on ly to exchan g ethelos s oflifefor thatoftheofi'en di n g limb.

If, w hi lethecourts i n Wes tm i n s ter hallare s itti n gor i f, beforeju s tices ofas s ize, or ju s tices of oyeran dterm i n er , an y on e s hall draw aw eapon upon an y judg e,thou g h he s tr iken ot ;or ifhes tr ikeaju ror oran y otherper s on , w ith or w ithoutaw eapon ;he s hall los ehi s r i g hthan d, s hall forfeitall hi s g oods an dall theprofits ofhi slan ds du ri n g hi s l ife,an ds hall s uffer perpetual im pr i s onmen t. i

i 2.Haw . 139. 140. i 1.Con g . 2. ses s .c.9. s .23.

k 3. In s .14o. 1 1. Haw.57.3. ha140.VOL. I I I .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CHAPT ER IX.

0 ! T HE D IRECT MEANS USED BY T HE LAW T O PREVENT

GFFENCBS.

I SHOULD n ow ,accordi n g tom y g en eral plan , poi n t

ou t thedifferen t s teps , pres cribedby thelaw ,forappre

hen di n g ,detai n i n g , tryi n g ,an dpu n i s hi n g offen der s .” Bu ti t w i ll beproper fir s t to con s ideras hort, thou g haveryi n teres ti n g , title of the cr im i nal law - thedirect m ean sw hich i t u s es topreven tofi

'

en ces .

T heseare, s ecu ri ty for thepeace s ecur ity for theg ood

behaviou r an dthepeacefu l , bu tactivean dau thor itativei n terpos ition ofevery citi z en , m uch m oreofevery publ ick

officer ofpeace, topreven t thecom m i s s ion ofthreaten ed,or thecom pletion ofi n choatecr im es .

1 . Secu rity for\the peace con s i s ts i n bei n g bou n d,

alon e, or w ith on eor m ore s u reties , i n an obl i gation foran as certai n eds u m , w ithacon dition s ubjoi n edthat the

VOL. I I I. 8

130 Lac-

run es on LAW.

obl i gation s hallbevoid, iftheparty s hall, du r i n g thetim el im ited, keep thepeacetowards all theciti zen s ,an dparticu larly towards him , on w hos eappl ication the s ecu rity

i s taken .

When everaper s on has ju s t cau s etofear thatan otherw i ll ki ll , or beat, or im pr is on him ,

or bu rn hi s hou s e, or

w ill procu re other s todo s uch m i s chiefto hi s pers on or

habitation ;hemay,agai n s t s uch per s on , deman ds ecu r ity

for thepeace;an devery ju s ticeofthepeace i s bou n dtog ran t i t, w hen he i s sati s fied, upon oath, that the partydeman di n g it i s ,an dhas ju s t reas on tobe, u n der s uch fearan dthat thes ecu r i ty i s n ot deman dedfrom malice, n orfor vexation . Upon man y occas ion s , aju s ticeof thepeacemay oflicially takesecu r i ty for thepeace, thou g h n oon edeman di t. Hemay takeit ofthosew ho, i n hi s presen ce, s hall makean atfray, or s hall threaten toki ll or beatan y pers on , or s hall con ten dtog ether w i th hot w ords , ors hall g oabout w ith u n u s ual w eapon s oratten dan ts , to theterrou r oftheci ti z en s .

If the party to be bou n d i s i n the pres en ce of the

ju s tice, an d w ill n ot fin ds uch s u reties as are requ ired

hemay be im m ediately com m i ttedfor hi s di s obedien ce,an du n til hefin dthem bu t ifhe i s abs en t

,hecan n ot be

com m ittedw ithou tawarran t to fin ds u reties . T hi s warran t s hou ldbeu n der s eal ,an ds hou ldm en tion on w hose

appl ication ,an dfor w hat cau s e, i t i s g ran ted. d

T heobl i gation or recog n i san cetokeep thepeacemaybeforfeitedby an yactual violen ceto the pers on ofan s

1.Haw .129. 4.El.com .249. b 1.Haw . 127.

Id.126. aId.128.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

134 c r n lu zs on LAW.

i n thei r n otoriou s cr im es , or to pu r s ue them from tow n

to town at huean dcry.” If they can n either ki ll n or

apprehen d'

them , they s hall takecareto havethem pu t i ntheex ig en t, i n order that they may ou tlaw or ban i s h themi n thefollow i n g man n er ,” 8 m.

Ifaman , w ho i s u n derarecog n i san ce‘

to keep the

peace, beat or fig ht w ith on e w hoattem pts to killan ys tran g er i t i s n otaforfei tu reofhi s recog n i san ce. ’

If,as w ehaves een upon aform er occas ion , kaper sonw ho i n terpos es to part thecombatan ts i n as udden affray,an d g ives n otice to them of hi s frien dly i n ten tion , be

as saultedby them or either ofthem ,an d, i n the s tru g g le,

s hou ldhappen to kill thi s w i ll beju s tifiablehom icide.O n theother han d, if thi s pers on beki lledby thecombata'n ts , or either ofthem , it w ill bem u rder. T opres erve

thepubl ick peace,an dto preven t m i s chief, i t i s thedu tyofevery man , i n s uch cas es

, to i'

n terpos e.1

'

When the law en joi n s adu ty, i t both protects an dau thori zes thedi s charg eof i t. M i n i s ter s ofju s tice, it

w ill beadmi ttedon all han ds ,are, w hilei n theexecu tionoftheir offices , u n der thepecu l iar protection of thelaw .

W ithou t s uch protection , thepubl ick peacean dtran qu ill ity cou ld n ot, by an y m ean s , be pres erved. Bu t thi s

pecul iar protection of the law i s n ot con fin ed pers onallyto on e, w ho i s am i n i s ter ofju s tice: i t i s ex ten dedtoallthos ew hocome i n aidofhim ,

an daffordtheiras s i s tan cefor the pres ervation of the peace. Even all thosew hoatten dfor that pu rpos eareu n der ,thesam eprotection . It

i 4.Con .An g .Norm .487. J’

1.Haw . 131.

i An te.p.85.86.1 Pos t.272.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1as Leos -u n i on LAw .

may beeither tobr i n g the party erally beforean ymag i s trate, or s pecially to br i n g hi m before the mag i strate on ly w ho g ran ts if. It may be directed to the

s heriff, con s table, or toaprivatepers on ;for thewarran tcon s titu tes him , for thi s purpos e,an au thori zedoficer.b

By the con s ti tu tion of Pen n s ylvan ia, ‘ n o warran t tosei ze pers on s s hall i s s ue w ithou t des cribi n g them asn earlyas may be, n or w ithou t probablp cau s e s upportedby oath or afli rmation . Such warran t may be g ran ted,even byan y ju s ticeof thepeace, for treas on , felon y, oran y other ofl '

en ceagai n s t thepeace.‘

When thewarran t i s receivedby thepers on to w hom

it i s directed, he i s au thor iz ed,an d, ifapubl ickoficer,obli g edtoexecute it, s o faras the j u r i sdiction of the

mag i s tratean dhim s elfex ten ds .e A s her iffmay deputeother s ;but every other pers on i s obl i g ed him s elf to

execu te it ; thou g h others may law fu llyas s i s t him . A

warran t directed toall con s tables g en erally can be”

exe

cuted hy'each on ly i n h i s ow n preci n ct : bu tawarran t

directed toaparticu lar con s tableby name, maybeexecutedby him an y w herew ithi n the ju r i sdiction of the

mag i s trate. f t

T heexecu tion ofthewarran t i s com m en cedbyan arres t ; w hich

'

i s theapprehen di n g or res train i n g of the

pers on , w hom i t m en tion s or des cr ibes . ll Bu t, bes ides

thos earres ts w hicharemadein theexecu tion ofwarran ts;therearei

others en joi n edor jus tifiedi

by thelaw .

b2.Haw .85. c li mat e: cen s u s es .

e4.Bl.Com . 288. f2.Haw . 86. s 4.Bl.Com .286.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

I

144 Ls cr u s s s on LAW.

O n thi s s ubject therei s , i n ou r law books ,an im m en s eprofu s ion ofprofes s ional lear n i n g . A s theappeal i s n owbu t littleu s ed, I decl i n ean y m i n ute i n qu i ry con cer n i n g

i t : as it i s s ti ll i n force, it w ould havebeen im proper

w holly to haveom itted it:

2. A s econ dm odeofpros ecu ti n g cr im es an doffen cesi s by i n formation . Som ei n formation s arebrou g ht partlyat thes u it ofthes tate,an dpartlyat thes u it ofaciti z enT hes eareas pecies ofqu i tam haction s ;an dw i ll becon

s ideredw hen w etreat con cern i n g civi l s u its .

I n formation s i n the nam eofthe s tateor ofthecrow nalon eareof tw o ki n ds : thos e w hich arefiledex qficiaby thepubl ick pros ecutor , an dareproperlyat the s u it of

thepubl ick an dthos ew hicharecarr iedon i n thenam e,i n deed, ofthecom m on w ealth or crow n , bu t, i n fact, atthe i n s tan ceofs om epr ivateper son or com m on i n fdrm er.T hefir s t havebeen thes ou rceofm uch thesdcon dhavebeen thes ou rceof i n tolerable vexation : both

‘

w erethe

ready tool s , by u s i n g w hich Em ps on an d Dudley, an dan arbitrary s tar chamber

,fas hion ed the proceedi n g s

ofthelaw i n toathou san d tyran n ical form s . Nei ther ,

i n deed, exten dedtocapital cr im es : but i n g en iou s tyran n ycan tortu re i n athou san ds hapes , w i thou t deprivi n g the

per s on tortu redof hi s l ife.

Res trai n ts have, i n E n g lan d, been im pos edupon the

las t s pecies bu t the first— thos eat theki n g ’ s ow n s u i t

filed by hi s attorn ey g en eral—are s till u n res trai n ed.

By thecon s titu tion ofPen n s ylvan ia, both ki n dsareeffec

h 4. Bl.Com .303. Id.307.

LECT UBEQ LAW.

then en dorsed atruebi ll,”an das s uch i s s i g n edby theforeman .

A g ran djury m u s t con s i s t ofat leas t tw elvem ember s ,becau s etw elveareacces sary—ir m u s t n ot con s is tofmore

than tw en ty threem embers , becau s etw elveares ufficien t,tofin dan i n dictmen t an dtw elvew ou ldn otbeamajori tyofag reater n umber.

At thecommon law ,ag ran dju ry can n otfin dan i n dictmen t for an y cr ime, bu t s uchas has been com m itted

w i thi n the coun ty or preci n ct, for which theyare re

tu rn ed. k

A bill can n ot be return ed true i n~

part, an dfals e i npart ; it m u s t bereturn ed atruebill” or i g n oram u s ”for thew hole. Nor can it beretur n eds pecially or corsditionally. l

M uch m i g ht besaid con cern i n g the form of in dict

men ts g en erally,an dals o con cern i n g theparticu lar formof the i n dictm en t for each particu lar s pecies of crimes

bu t thi s 1k'

i n doflearn i n g , w hich, by theby, ou g ht n eitherto beoverlooked n or di s regardedby the profes s ionallawyer , . i s fou n di n fu llan dm i n utedetail i n the n ume

rou s booksan dtreati s es of thecrim inal law . T o thes e

I beg leave to refer you. T o g o fully i n to par ticularsw ouldem ploy toog reataproportion ofmy lectures : tog o im perfectly w ouldcon vey n o i n formation that couldbedeemedreg u lar or sati sfactory.

Sufice it toobs erve,as ag en eralan dimportan t pr inciplew ith regardto i n dictmen ts , thatas toper s on s , times ,

2 .Haw . 220. Id.210.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

LECT URES ON' LAW.

of thei r children ;for by s tan di n g m ute, forfeiturean dthe corruption ofbloodarepreven ted.

T heori g m of thepez'

n efar t et dare i t i s exceedi n g lydiflicu lt to trace i t s eem s , how ever, tobe n o leg itimateofi

'

s pr i n g of thean cien t com m on law aby that law , the

s tan di n g m u team oun tedtoacon fes s ion ofthecharg e s

By the law of Scotlan d, i f the pan n el s tan ds m u te

an dw i ll n ot plead, thetrial s hall proceedas u s ual an dit i s left to him tomanag ehi s ow n defen ce, as he s hal lthi n k proper. T he s pi rit of this law is adoptedby theleg i s latu reof theUn itedStates . Ifapers on i n dicteds hall s tan d m ute; the cou rt shall proceed to hi s trial ,as if hehadpleaded n ot g u ilty, an ds hall ren der judgm en taccordi n g ly.” 4

T oan i n dictmen t, thepri s on er may g ivean an s wer,or plead, as the law term s i t, i n ag reat variety ofways .

I . Hemayadm it thefacts ,as s tatedi n thei n dictm en t,to be true;bu t, at the same time, may den y that the

facts , thu s s tatedan dadm itted,am ou n t i n law to the

cr ime charg ed i n the i n dictmen t. T hi s i s adem u rrer.

T hu s , if on e i s i n dictedfor larcen y comm ittedby s teali n gapples g row i n g on atree, hemaydem u r to thi s i n dict

men t ; i n other w ords , he mayadm i t that hetook theapples from the tree, bu t den y that the fact of taki n g

3 4.Bl.00111.323. 5 Bar .on St. 87.0 Law s U.S. 1.con . 2. ses s .c.9. s .30:

‘1 A s im ilar provis ion i s con tamedi n an act ofas su n blyofPen n as ylvan ia. 3.Law s Foup. 119. Ed.

fi

154 m ic-ru n s on saw .

trajudicial con fes s ion , says he, thou g h i tbei n court,asw herethepri s on er freely di s clos es thefact,an ddeman dstheopi n ion of the court w hether it befelon y, w i ll n ot

berecorded by the cou rt, even if, upon thefact this :di s clos ed, itappear tobefelon y ;but hew ill s till beadm itted to plead n ot g u i lty to the i n dictmen t. f T here

s eem s tobeas olidreas on for thi s dis ti n ction for thou g h

adem u rreradm its thetru th of thefactsas s tatedi n the

i n dictmen t, yet it can n ot be con s ideredas an ex pl ici t

an d s olem n con fes s ion of w hat i s more material—the

crim i nal an d felon iou s i n ten tion , w ith w hich the factsw eredon e. T hi s cr im i nalan dfelon iou s in ten tion i s tkvery poi n t or g i s t,as thelaw calls it, ofthei n dictmen tan d s houldbean s w eredex plicitlyan ddi rectly.

II. T hi san s w er may be g iven byas olem n andjudicial con fes s ion , n ot on ly of thefact.bu tof thecr ime—di n thelan g uageof thelaw ,

it may bedon eby pleadmgg u i lty.

Upon thi s s ubject ofcon fes s ion on the part of thecrim inal, threevery i n teres ti n g ques tion s ar i s e w i th te

spect tocapital crimes for of thos e on ly I n ow s peak.1. I sacon fes s ion n eces sary ? 2. Ou g ht it tobemade!3. Ou g ht it to be receivedas as uficien t fou n dationforacon viction ,an djudg men tagai n s t life?

1. I n man y cou n tries , hi s con fes s ion i s con s ideredasabs olu tely i n di s pen sableto thecon dem nation of thecri

m i nal. T heMarqu i s of Beccariacon jectures that thi srulehas been taken from them ys teriou s tribu nal ofpen iten ce, i n w hich thecon fes s ion of s i n s i san eces sary pm

f i H n ln P.C.22&

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Lees -n u s on Law ; £57

careful lydi s ti n g u i s hed, an dtheredn es s or theblackn es sofon eeraou g ht n ot to s hadeor s tai n thepurityan dthos plen dou r ofn umber.

In the times of therepubl iek, torturewas kn ow n atHome an dthi s , i t m us tbeow n ed, was too much tobekn ow n an y w here. It was con fin ed, how ever, to the:s laves . T he w hole torren t ofCicero’ s eloquen ceWmpou red i n di g nan t upon the i n famous Van es , becau se116

dti zen , w ith hi s eyes turn edtowards Ron 1e. Cede‘batu r V ir g ie in m ediaforo Mes san z civi s Roman us ,judices ; cum i n terean u llu s gem itu s , n u llavexaliaretinam i s er i , i n ter dolorem crepitum queplagarum ,audebatu r ,n is i has c, civis Roman u s s um .

’O n omen dukelib

‘

er

tati s ! 0 ju s ex im ium n os trz civitati s ! 0 lex Per s ia,leg es queSem pron i z ! O g raviter des iderata, etalian do

'

reddi taplebi Romanaetribu n iciapotes tas ! Hucctaemdem om n iarecideru n t, u t oiv

'

u'Roman u s , i n provi n do

popu l i Roman i , i n oppido feederatorum ,abco qui ben e

heio popu l i Roman i fas ces ct s ecu res haberet, deli gatu si n foro vi rg i s caderetu r ? Qu id, cum i g n es arden tn s qixelam ina:cz teriquecruciatu sadm oveban tu r i”° Non h it

hi s om n ibu s 1 s tecon ten tu s . Specter, i n qu i t, patriam i n

con s pectu leg um l ibertati s quem oriatur.” o

I n an other place, the sameex qu is i tejudg eofhumannaturean doflaw des cr ibes , i n them os t mas terly man n er,thefut i l ity of that ki n dof proof, w hicharos e from the

tortureofs laves . Qum tion es n ohi s servorum ,actormen taaccu sator m i n itat'u r ; i n qu ibu s quan quam n ihi l

pericul i s us picam u r , tam en i llatormen tag ubematdolor,‘ Id.66.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

LI CT URS B OH LAW.

may be im mediately i n dictedan ew ,by the namew hich

he has 'averred to be hi s true on e. For i n all pleas i nabatem en t i t i s ar u le, that hew how ouldtakeadvan tag eofa~m i s take, m u s t s how , at the same time, how thatm i s takemay berectified.

V. An i n dictmen t may bean s w eredbyapleai n bar .A pleai n bar does n ot directly den y thecom m i s s ion ofthecrim e charg ed;bu t it adduces an d rel ies on s ome

reas on calcu lated to s how , that the pri s on er can n ot betriedor pu n i s hedfor it, either on that or on an y other:

i n dictm en t.

A formeracqu ittal of thesamechar g ei sapleaofthi ski n d: for it i s amax im firm ly es tabli s hedby thecomm on law , that n o on ecan bebrou g ht i n dan g er often erthan on ceon accou n t of thesamecrim e.

A form er con viction of the sam e crime i s als oapleaofthi s .ki n d an ddepen ds on the sam epr in ciple.

A n attai n der ofan y capital crime i s ag ood pleai nbar ofan i n dictm en t for thesam e, or foran y other cr im e.T hereason i s , that by theattai n der thepr i s on er i s deadi n law ; hi s bloodi s corru pted an dhi s es tate i s forfeited; s o thatan attem pt toattai n t him asecon d time

w ou ldbealtog ether n u gatoryan d s uperfl uou s .

It i s natu ral an dobviou s to remark here, how the

s ever i ty“of pu n i s hmen t becom es theparen t of im pu n ityfor crim es . When on e i s pu n i s hed, or con dem n edtobe

pu n is hed, as far as he can bepu n i s hed, for on ecr ime,hemay com m i tan other , w ithou tan y fear or ri s k ofadditional pu n i s hmen t.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Li c'

rn n n s on Law .

s ion , n eg lectedbecau s e i t i s com mon , was fully i llu s tratedon an other occas ion .

I n an cien t times , avariety of m ethods , by w hich

cr imes m i g ht be tr ied, was kn ow n to thecom monc

law .

A trial m i g ht behadby ordeal ;an dthi s s pecies oftrialwas either by fireor by water . T hecors n ed. or m orsel

ofexecration , was an other ki n dof tr ial. T he trial bybattlewasathirdki n d. A fou rth ki n d s till remai n s an di s ou r boaan —thetr ial by jury. T hi s tr ial , both i n the

U n itedStates an di n thi s com m on w ealth, i s apart of

thecon s ti tu tion as w ellas of thelaw .

T hehi s toryan dtheg en eral pri n ciples ofthi s i n s titution , celebrateds o lon gan ds oju s tly, haveal ready beenexplai n ed to you at larg e. I s hal l, therefore, con fin em ys elfat presen t to s uch remarks , chiefly ofapracticalnatu re,as w i llari s efrom theu s ual cours eofproceedi n g si n tr ials for cr imes .

By the con s titu tion of Pen n s ylvan ia, pers on s accu s edof crim es s hall be triedbyan im partial ju ry of

thevici nag e or , i n legal i n terpretation , ofthecou n ty. 4By thenational con s titu tion , crimes com m itted in an ys tate s hall be triedi n that s tate:an dbyalaw of the

Un ited States , f tw elve, at leas t, of theju rors m u s t be

s um mon edfrom thevery cou n ty, i n w hich thecr imewascom m itted.

In the cou rt of ki n g’s ben ch, there i s

'

timeallow edbetween thearraig n m en tan dthetr ial, forajury to be

darts/Je n a,“

t

c r u n z s on LAW. 165

impan elledby'aw r it ofverti refacias directed to the

s her iff. Bu t ju s tices of oyer an d term i n er an dg en eralgaol del ivery, an d ju s tices of the quarter s es s ion s 8 of

thepeace, may, by abareawardan dw ithoutan y w rit

or precept, haveapan el retu rn edby that oflicer . for, m

con s equen ceofag en eral precept directedto him beforehan d, heretu rn s to thecourtapan el ofj u ror s to tryallperson s , w ho may becalled upon for their tr ialat thats es s ion . Before s uch ju s tices , it i s u s ual , for thi s reason , to try crim i nal s im mediately or s oon after theirarrai g n m en t.

Ju rors m u s t be hom i n es liber i et leg-ales , men free

an d s uper iou r to every legal exception for every legalexception i s acau seof challen g e. My LordCokei en umerates fou r s uch cau s es—propter hon ori s res pectumpropter defectum—propter del ictu m—propterafl

'

ectn m .

T he firs t cau se relates to the peerag e s olely : the

s econ d i s an ex ception agai n s tal ien s an d m i n ors : the

third i s an exception agai n s t pers on s con victedof i n

fam ou s cr imes : the fou rth i s an exception w hichar i s esfrom

’

bias or partiali ty. When thi s bias i s apparen t,the challen g e fou n ded on it i s apr i n cipal on e

, an dtakes effect im mediately : w hen the bias i s on ly probable, thechallen g e i s on ly to thefavou r an di ts val iditym u s t be decidedby triers , s electedby thecou rt for thi s

purpos e, ti ll tw oare s w or n ofthejury.

‘

T hes etwo, astheyareackn ow ledg edor fou n dtobe im partial , becom ethe trier s ofall theothers .

Bes ides thes echal len g es for ,

cau se, w hich operateasfrequen tlyas they ex i s t

, the ben i g n ityof thecommon

‘Woodl nafisfi. 1' t Com Haw . 405.

LECT URES ON LAW.

lawallow s , as wesaw before, every porhou i n dictedforacapital crime to

\

challen g e perem ptori ly, or w ithou t

cau s e, an y n umber ofjurors u n der thi rty s i x—Abe n umber of three ju ries . i I n every capital cr im e, except

treas on , thi s n umber i s , byalaw of theU n itedStates , ‘reduced to twen ty jurors . A pers on w ho challen g esmorethan the n umberallow ed, i s , by thesame law , to

betreatedas on ew ho s tan ds m u te. T hat treatm en t w ehaveal ready s een . Byalaw of Pen n s ylvan ia,as im ilardeduction i s made i n then umber ofperem ptory challen g es : but he, w ho challen g es m orethan the n umber

allow ed, s hal l s ufferas acrim inal con victed. l T here i s

ag reat differen cebetw een the tw o provi s ion s by thatof theUn itedStates , the pers on i n dicted i s treatedason e w ho m u s t be tr ied: by that of Pen n s ylvan ia, he i streatedas on e, w ho i s already con victed.

When an alien i s tried, on e halfof hi s jury s hould

beal ien s , if herequ ire i t.

On thi s s ubject of challen g es it i s proper ~toobserve,that it s eem s to have been very fam iliar i n theRomanlaw , du ri n g theex i s ten ce of the com m on w ealth. I n acrim i nal proces s , before thecou rt of the praetor , the s ecu s eran dtheaccu s edw ereeachallow edtoex ceptagai n s tfifteen ofthos eretu rn edto try thecau s e. T hi s exceptionwas den om i nated rcjectiajudicum” - i n thephras eolog yofour law , thechallen g eofthejury. When everCicero

j z m w ffla l l law s Pen n l u

m n euw Pem syh m iai s m am nar tomat ofum Un n edSeam al low s Ed.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Lacr vas s on LAW. 169

T heir oath i s—that they w ill w ellan dtr uly tryan dtrue del iveran ce make betw een the—Un ited Statesan d thepri s on erat thebar, an datm e verdict g iveac.cordi n g to their eviden ce. After theyare s w orn , the

i n dictm en t i s read, an dthei s s ue w hich they are s w ornto try i s s tatedto them an dthen thepublick pros ecu toropen s thecau s e,an darran g es , i n s uch orderas hethi n ksm os t proper , theeviden cew hich i s tobeoffered i n s up

port of thepros ecu tion .

B u t i t i s as ettled ru leat thecom mon law ,as it i sn ow receivedi n E n g lan d, that, i n atr ial for acapitalcr im e, upon theg en eral i s s ue, n o cou n s el s hall beallow edthepri s on er , u n les s s omepoi n t of law , proper to

bedebated, s hall ari se. By as tatu te, however, madei n therei g n ofW i ll iam thethi rd, an dbyan dther madei n that of Georg ethe s econ d,an exception ’

to thi s gen e

ralan ds evereru le is i n troduced, for theben efit ofthose

w hoarei n dictedor impeachedfor treas on . T hi s praeticei n En g lan di sadm ittedtobeahard on e, an dn ot to

be very con s onan t to theres t of the/human e treatmen tof pri s on er s by the E n g li s h law . I n deed the judgesthem s elves are so s en s ibleof thi s defect i n their m oder n

practice, that they g en erally allow apr i s on er cou n s elto s tan dby himat thebar , an d i n s truct him w hat question s toas k, or even toas k ques tion s for him .

T hi s practice of refu s i n g cou n s el to thosew hoarei n dictedforacapital cr im e, i s n otag reeableto thecommon law as it was form er ly received i n E n glan d. T he

an cien tM i rrour tells u s , that, i n civi l cau ses , cou n s elaren eces sary tomanag ean dtodefen dthem , by therules of

Com .349, 850.

VOL. I l l s 8

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

173 Lac-r u n g

s on LAW .

T hecon s ti tu tion of Pen n s ylvan iadeclares , that, i nall crim i nal pros ecu tion s , theaccu s edhas ar i g ht to m eetthew itn es s es faceto face. T hos ew ho

,kn ow the nature

an dthem i s chiefs ofsecretaccu sation s , ~kn ow the impor

tan ceofthi s provi s ion ,an dthes ecu rity w hich it produces .

By thecon s titution of theUn i tedStates , n o per s on

shall becdn victedof treas on , u n les s on thetes timon y oftwo w itn es ses to the sameovertact', or on con fes s ion i n

open’

court. T hes ubject ofcon fes s ion has been already

T he courts of jus tice, i n alm os t everyag e, an d i nalm os t every cou n try, havehadrecou rs etooaths , orappeals toheaven ,as them os t u n iversalan dthem os tpow erfu l mean s to en gag emen todeclarethetru th. Bythecom mon law , beforethe tes tim on y of.aw i tn es s can hereceived, he i s oblig edto s w ear , that i t s hall bethetruth,thew holetru th,an dn othi n g bu t thetruth.

T hetes timon y ofw i tn es ses i s on es pecies ofeviden ce,as w eform erly saw in thoselectures ,

“ i n w hich theg reats ubject ofeviden cewas open ed,an dbu tju s topen ed. T heg en eral pr i n ciples , upon w hich tes tim on y i s receivedan dbelieved, w erethen s tatedi n as hortan ds u m mary man .

n or , as con n ectedw ith s ome native propen s ities of thehuman m i n d. T he importan t di s ti n ction betw een the

credibi lity of w i tn es s es al l their com peten cy was explai n edat larg e, w hen I dis cou r s ed con cern i n g the

separateprovi n ces ofcou rtsan dju ries . I observed, thatevery m telli g en tperson ,w ho i s n ot i n fam ou s or i n teres ted,

G ArL 9.s .9. f Art 3. s .3.

t m u s eu m‘s ; 1' —380.

LECT URES ON LAW.

i s acom peten t Witn es s . T hecom mon law coi n cides , i nth i s poi n t, w ith the law ofAthen s : for, by that law , n o

man couldbeaw itn es s i n hi s ow n cau s e;an dhe w ho,

by hi s i ll behaviou r , hadren dered him s elfi n famou sclam —was deem edu n w orthy ofcredit. i

T heMarqu i s ofBeccariai s ofopi n ion , that theobjection agai n s t thecom peten cy ofaw itn es s s houldbecon fi

n edaltog ether to hi s i n teres t;an dthathi s i n fam y s hould

n ot exclude him . Every man of com mon s en s e, sayshe, every on e w hose ideas have s ome con n ex ion w ith

each other, an d w hos e s en sation s are con formable to

thos eofother m en , maybeaw itn es s ;bu t thecredibil ityofhis tes tim on y w i ll be i n preportion as he i s i n teres tedi n declar i n g or con ceali n g the tru th.

'

Hen ce i tappearshow irrational i t i s to exclude pers on s bran ded w i th

i n fam y ;for they ou g ht to becredited w hen they haven o i n teres t i n g ivi n g fal s etes tim on y.j

If thi s s ubject 15 1n ves ti gatedupon pr i n ciple, it w i ll,

perhaps , befou n d, that thepracticeof thelaw i s more

con g en ial to the native s en tim en ts ofou r m i n d, than arethe s pecu lation s ofthe i n g en iou s philos opher.

Bel iefi s theen dpropos edby eviden ceofevery ki n d.

Bel iefi n tes tim on y i s producedby thes uppos edveraci tyofhim w hodeliver s it. T heopi n ion of hi s veraci ty,asw esaw w hen w ecram m edthe g en eral pr i n ciples oftes ti.m on y,

k i s s haken , either w hen , i n former i n s tan ces , w ehavekn ow n him to deliver tes tim on y w hich has been

i l .Pot.An t. 117. 5 Bee.6.13.

k An te.vol.2.p. 94.95.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

LECT URES ON LAW.

ed. T hi s i s pres um ptiveeviden ce. When thes ecircums tan ces are proved, w ith w hich the fact i s n eces sar i lyatten ded, the pres um ption i s saidto beviolen t w henthosecircum s tan ces on lyareproved w ith w hich thefacti s us uallyatten ded, the pres um ption i s saidto beon lyprobable. m

Pres um ptive proof, as des cr ibed by the common

law ,coi n cides w ith that s pecies w hich

'

, i n ou r g en eralview of the s ou rces ofeviden ce, w e saw r i s i n g from

ex per ien ce. On that .occas ion ,

“ it was obs erved, thatifan object i s rem emberedto havebeen frequen tly, s ti l l

more, if it i s rem embered to havebeen con s tan tly s ues

ceededby certai n particu lar con s equen ces , thecon cep

tion of the object natu rally as s ociates to its elf the

con ception of the con sequen ces ;an d on theactualappearan ceof the object, them i n d natu rallyan ticipatestheappearan ceofthecon sequen cesals o : that iftheconsequen ces have follow ed the object con s tan tly,an dtheobs ervation s of thi s con s tan t con n ex ion havebeen s ufii

cien tly n umerou s ; theeviden ceproducedby experien ce

am ou n ts toam oral certai n ty : that, ifi thas been frequen t,bu t n oten tirely u n iform ; theeviden ceam ou n ts on ly ‘

to

probabi li ty, an d i s m ore or les s probable, as the con

n ex ion has been m oreor les s frequen t. Violen t pres u m pt ion ,as it i s termedby the law ,

or m oral cer tai n ty, asi t i s den om i natedby philos ophy ,amou n ts to fu ll proof:probabi lity , or probable pres um ption , has al so its dueWei g ht.

’ T he coi n ciden ce betw een philosophy an dlaw i s acoi n ciden ce w hich, to the frien ds of both,always g ives pleas ure.

m 3. 81.Con n .371. Ami

n t. 9.p.100

1. 378.

L! ON LAW.

tal cas es , ag reat differen ce betw een aman con victed

an don eattai n ted. T i ll judg m en t i s g iven , there i s , i n

s uch cas es , s tillapos s ibi li ty ofi n n ocen cei n thecon templation ofthelaw . r

l n E n g lan dthe con s equen ces ofattai n derareforfeitu re, es cheat, an d corru ption of blood. Con cern i n gthes e s ubjects w ehavealready treatedfu lly.

I have n ow en um eratedan ddes cribed the s everalcr im es , the s everal pu n i s hm en ts , an dthem odes ofpros ecu ti n g cri m i nal s . I n doi n g thi s , I have con formedm ys elf to the com m on law an d to the im provem en ts

madeupon i t by thecon s ti tu tion san dlaw s oftheU n i ted

States an dof Pen n s ylvan ia.r t BLCom 373.

rm;can or m n am es on LAW.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

T HE HIST ORY or PROPERT Y.

PROPERT Y is the rig ht or law ful power, w hich nperson has toathi n g . Of thi s ri g ht thereare three

difi'

etcn tdeg rees . T he low es t deg reeof thi s ri g ht i sarig ht merely topos ses s athi n g . T hen ext deg reeofthitri g ht i sari g ht topos ses san dto useathi n g . T he n ex t

an dhig hes t deg ree of thi s ri g ht i s ar i g ht to pos ses s ,

to u s e,an dtodi s poseofathi n g .

T hi s ri g ht, i n all its differen t deg rees , may beves tedi n on e, or it .may be ves ted i n m ore than on e man .

When thi s r i g ht i s ves tedi n m orethan on eman , it maybeves tedin them ei theras an umber of i n dividual s , oras abody politick.

Con cer n in g theori g i n an dtruefou n dation ofproperty,or the r i g ht of pers on s to thi n g s , man y opi n ion s;havebeen form edan den tertai n ed; W ith regardtopropertyi n lan d, Mr. Paley declares , that thereal foun dation of

ON T HE H I S T ORY OF PROPERT Y.

it i s m u n icipal law . Others con s ider propertyas anatural r i g ht ;bu tas ar i g ht, w hich may beex ten dedorm odifiedby pos itive i n s titu tion s .

5

T he g en eral property of man i n an imals , i n the s oi l,

an d i n the production s of the s oi l, i s the im mediateg ift of thebou n tifulCreator ofall. Godcreatedmani n hi s ow n imag e; i n theimag eof Godcreatedhehi mmalean d female created he them . An dGodbles s ed

them ;an dGodsaidu n tothem ,befru itfulan dm u ltiply ,

an dreplen i s h theearth, an ds ubdueit :an dhavedom in ion over thefis h of the s ea, an dover the fow l of theair , an d over every livi n g thi n g that m oveth upon the

earth.” Im m ediatelyafter thedelu g e, they eat charte’

r

of g en eral property was ren ew ed. Godbles s edNoahan dhi s s on s , an dsaidu n to them , befru itfu lan d m ulti

ply, an dreplen i s h theearth. An d the fear of youan dthedreadof you s hall be upon every beas t oftheearth,an dupon every fow l of theair,an dupon all that movethupon theearth, an d u pon all thefis hes of the s ea; i n toyou r han darethey delivered. Every m ovi n g thi n g . thatliveth s hall bem eat for you ; even as the g reen herb

haveI g iven youall thi n g s .” 4

T hei n formation w hich i s expres s ly revealedi s con g en ial to those i n feren ces , w hich may bedraw n by s ou n d

‘

an d leg itimate reas on i n g . Food, raimen t, an d s helter

are n eces sary an du s eful to u s . T hi n g s proper for ou rfood, raim en t, an d s helterare providedarou n du s . It

i s natu ral to con clude, that thos e thi n g s w ere provided

to s upply ou r wan ts an dn eces s ities . T he sametrai n ofa1. Paley. 133. 138. In s .2. L 11.El.Jur. 15.

‘Gen iz l ,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

on Tax H ISTORY or raop s n '

rr . 185

depart, to ther i g ht han d, then I w ill g o to theleft. A n d

L ot l iftedup hi s eyes , an dbeheldall theplai n oi Jordan ,that i t was w ell wateredevery w here. T hen Lot chose

h i m all theplai n of Jordan :an d they s eparated them

s elves theon efrom theother.”

11

Even afterag r icu lturebecamekn ow n an dwas practis edi n s om e im perfect deg ree, s ti ll thelan dcon ti n uedtobe thecom m on property of theas s ociation . Cecrops ,w ho em i g rated from civi l i z ed E g ypt, was thefir s t. to

teach thewan der i n g hu n ters or s hepherds ofAtticatou n ite i n vil lag es of hu sban dmen . After thei r u n ion ,

their ag ricu ltu ral labou rs '

w ere carr iedon m com m on ;

an dthe s oi l , tog ether w ith i ts im m ediate production s ,cor n , an d w i n e, an d oi l, w ere regardedas acom m onproperty.

i Ag reeably to the sam e s pir i tan dthe sam epolicy , w earetold, thatdu rm g theheroickag es ofG reece,w hen atribe sallied from i ts w oods

\

an d m ou n tai n s totakepos s es s ion ofam orefertile terr i tory, the s oldiers

fou g htan d con quered, n ot for their leader s , bu t forthem s elves—that thelan dacqu iredby thei r joi n t valou rwas their com m on r i g ht

—an dthat i t was cu ltivatedbytheu n i ted labou r an das s idu i ty ofall the m ember s of

thetr ibe.5

I n thi s s tag eof s ociety, lan d was con s ideredas theproperty of the com m u n ity , rather than of i n dividuals ;an d the i n habitan ts w ere con n ected w i th the cou n try

w hich they i n habited, on lyas m ember s ofthesam eas s ociation .

k I n thi s view ofthi n g s , thefam edes tabli s hmen t

h Gen eXi ii s 20 50- 110

1 1 . G i ll. 8.k Ida680

VOL. 1 1 1.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

on Tax u n i on s or p n or sar r . 189

an d it‘

s n ei g hbourhood, the kn ow ledge ofag r icu ltu re

was n ever en ti rely los t. A m on g the Babylon ian s , i t i stracedto them os t early per iods oftheir hi s tory. In the

fer ti le terri tories of E g ypt, wateredby the Ni le, the

s oi l was cu ltivated w ith m uchas s idu ity an d s ucces s“.t

W hen afam i n e, i n thedays ofAbram , was g r ievou s i nthe lan dofCanaan , thepatr iarch w en t dow n i n to/E g ypt

to s ojou rn there. On as im ilar occas ion , Jacobsaidtoh i s s on s , w ho, w i th u navai li n g an g u i s h, beheld thedi s

tres sed s ituation of the fam i ly—Why do ye look on e

u pon an other ? I haveheardthat therei s corn i n Eg ypt;g et yedow n thither , an dbuy .for u s from then ce, thatw emay live,an dn ot die.

From E g ypt,as w ehavealready s een, theart ofag ri

cu ltu rewas tran s plan tedi n toAtticabyCec.rops . Beforeh i s arr ival , the i n habi tan ts had rel ied on the reproduc

tion s oftheu n cu ltivateds oil for theiran n ual s ubs i s ten ce;bu t, by theexam pleof theE g yptian s , s ki lled i n ag r icu l-u~tu re, they w ere i n ducedto s ubm it to labou r ,an dcon tracthabits of u s efu l i n du s try.

W

It i s theobs ervation ofCicero, that the g reates t partof

'

thear ts an ddi s cover ies , w hichare n eces sary or orna11 Val to l ifean d s ociety, w ereder ivedfrom theA the

n ian s i n to the other parts ofG reece, an dthen i n to forei g n cou n tr ies , for the g en eraladvan tag ean drefin em en t

t O s ir i s , on eof thekin g s ofEg ypt, i s regardedas thei n ven tor

Prim u saratraman u solerti fecitOs iris . T ibu l. l. l .Eleg . 7.v. 29.

Gen .x u. 10. V Gen .x1i 1. 1,‘2. ‘Y 1.Anac.6.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ON T HE HI ST ORY PBOPLRT Y.

'Wehaveseen thatamon g thean cien t German s , thi sdeg reeofproperty wasaltog ether u n kn ow n . T heSaxon s ,w hoem i g ratedi n toE n g lan d,an dmadea.con ques t there,w ereapart ofthean cien t German nation . T hei r settle

m en t i n E n g lan d produced, w ith regard to thepres en t

s ubject,acon s iderablechan g ei n their s en timen tsan dhabits . After they s ettledi n E n g lan d, i n s teadofcon ti n u i n gtobehu n ters , theybecam ehu sban dmen . I n pu r s u i n g thi s

occupation , they ceas edto wan deran n ually from s pot to

s pot ; they becam ehabituatedan dattached toafixed' res iden ce; theyacqu i redaperman en tan dan exclu s ivedeg reeofproperty i n lan d. T hi s deg ree,am on g them ,

as amon g other nation s , proceeded from their im prove

m en t i n ag riculture.e

We have g oodreas on for bel ievm g , that, for s om e

timeafter thes ettlem en t of.theSaxon s i n E n g lan d, the

lan dedes tatesacqu i redby i n dividual s were, i n g en eral,but ofas mal l ex ten t. I n expert i n ag r icu ltu rew hen theyfirs tarr ived, their prog res s i n the separateappropriationof;lan d was , therefore, s low . T hi s s low appropriationmet, bes ides , w i th obs truction san d. i n terruption s fm mthevi g orou s oppos ition ofthe Bri ton s , w ho, for cen tu

ries , di s pu tedevery i n ch ofg roun dw i th the i n vader s oftheir cou n try. Con formably to thi s opi n ion , w e fin d

that, from thebeg i n n i n g of the Sax on g overn men t, thelan dwas divided i n to hides . A hide com prehen dedasm uchas cou ld be cu ltivatedbyas i n g le plou g h. T he

g en eral es timation of real property, by thi s s mal l an dinaccu rate m eas u re, poi n ts , w ith s uficien t clearn es '

s, to

the leadi n g circum s tan ce, w hich ori g i nally markedan dreg u latedthe g reates t n umber oflan dedes tates . f

0 Mi ller, 50. f Id.85.144. 181.

er r u t m smar or n ou n “ . m

Bu t w e haveals o g n od reas on for believi n g , that,amon g theSaxon s , thes malln es s oftheir lan dedpropertywas com pen satedby its j n depen den ce. T hey w erefree!

men ;an dthei r law . of property was , that they m ig htChallen g eapower tn dQ w hatthey pleas edw i th thei rBu t thi s deg reean dquali ty ofproperty w ill becon s ideredafterwards .

Havi n g traced property, an des pecially property i n

lan d, from its g en eral to i ts s eparatean dexclu s ive s tate,i t w ill n ow beproper to con s ider theadvan tag es , w hich

thelatter s tatepos ses ses over theformer.

T hi s s uperiori ty of s eparate over com mon property

has n ot been always adm i tted: it has n ot been alwaysadm ittedeven i n America. I n the early s ettlem en t of

this cou n try, w efin d two exper im en ts on theOperationan deffects ofacom m u n i ty ofg oods . T hei s s ueofeach,how ever, was very u n comfortable.

T hefirs t was made i n Vi rg i n ia..

Au in s truction wasg iven to thecolon i s ts , that, du r in g five years n ex tafterthei r lan di n g , they s hou ldtradejoi n tly that theproduceof thei r joi n t i n du s try s hou ldbedepos itedi n acom monmagaz i n e;an dthat, from thi s com m on magaz i n e, everyon e s hou ldbe s upplied u n der thedirection of thecou n

ci l. What w ere thecon s equen ces ? I relatethem i n’

the

w ords oftheH i s torian ofVir g i n ia“; An dn ow theEu

g li s h began tofin dthem i s takeofforbiddi n g an dpreven ti n g privateproperty ; for w hils t theyall labouredjoi n tlytog ether, an d'

werefedout ofthecomm on s tore, happy3Bac.on Gov. 121

VOL. I I I. CC

194 on 'r n r. H rs

-

roar or raor u '

rr .

was he that cou lds l ip from hi s labour , or s lubber over

hi s w ork i n an y man n er. Neither hadtheyan y con cer nabou t the i n creas e pres u m i n g , how ever the crop pros

pered, that thepubl ick s torem u s t mai n tain them . Even

them os t hon es tan d i n du s tr iou s w ou ld s carcely take s o

m uch pai n s i n aw eek,as they w ou ldhavedon efor thems elves i n aday.”h

T he s econ dexper im en t was made i n the colon y of

New Plym ou th. Du r i n g s even years , all com m ercewas carr iedon i n on ejoi n t s tock. Al l thi n g s w erecom

m on toall ;an d the n eces sar ies of l ife w ere daily di str ibu tedtoevery on efrom thepubl ic]: s tore. Bu t thes e

reg u lation s s oon fu rn i s hedabu n dan t reas on s for complai n t, an d proved m os t ferti le s ources of com m on

calam i ty. T he colon i s ts w ere s om etimes i n dan g er ofs tarvi n g ;an d s evere w hippi n g , w hich was often adm i nn i s tered to prom ote labou r, was on ly productive of

con s tan t 'an d g en eral di s con ten t. T hi s abs u rd pol icybecam e, at las t, apparen t toevery on e;an d the i n tro

duction ofexclu s iveproper ty im m ediately producedthemos t com fortablechan g e i n thecolon y, by en gag i n g theaffection s an d i n vi g orati n g the pu rs u its of its i n habi -ftan ts .‘

T her i g ht of s eparate property s eem s to befou n ded

i n the natu re of m en an d thi n g s ;an d w hen s ocieties

becom e n um erou s , the es tabli s hm en t of that r ig ht i s

hi g hly im portan t to the ex i s ten ce, to the tran qu i llityto theelegan cies , to therefin em en ts ,an dto s om eofthe

virtues ofciviliz ed life.

i Stith. 39. 1 ChaL89.90.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ON T HE LEG ISLAT IVE 1 117 803t

T o g ive toan y thi n g that pas ses i n parliam en t theforceofalaw , thecon sen toftheki n g , ofthelords ,an dof the com m on s h i sabs olutely n eces sary.

11If, then ,

thei n habitan ts of G reat Br itai n pos ses s as ufficien t res trai n t upon an y of thes e bran ches of the leg i s lature.their liberty i s s ecure, providedthey be n ot wan tin g to

them s elves . Let u s takeaview of theres trai n ts , w hichthey haveupon thehou s eof com mon s .

T hey elect the m embers of that hou s e. Mag i strates ,” says Mon tes qu ieu , j

“areproperly their s , w ho

have the n om i nation of them .” T hem ember s of the

hou s eof common s , therefore, electedby thepeople,arethemag i s trates ofthepeeple an darebou n dby thetiesof g ratitude for the hon ou r an dcon fiden ce con ferred

upon them ,to con s ult thei n teres t of their con s ti tuen ts .

T hepow er of election s has ever been regardedas a.poi n t of thelas t cou s cquen ce toal l k free g overn m w ts .

T he i n depen den t exerci s eofthat pow er i s ju s tlydeemedthes tron g es tbulwark of theBr iti s h liber ties . 1 As s uch,

h ‘oh s . 250

i T hecommon s ofEn g lan dhaveag reatan dcon s iderabler ighti n theg overn men t ;an das hare in the leg i s laturew ithout whomn olaw pas ses . 2.Ld.Ray.950.

i‘

Sp.L.b.2.c. 2.

k T heAthen ian s , ju s tly jealou s of thi s importan t privilege, pun i shed, w ith death, every s tran ger w hopres umedto i n terferei n theas semblies of thepeople.

' T he En g lm freedom w ill beatan en dvhen ever thecon rti n vades thefreeelection ofparliamen t. Rapi n .A ri g ht thataman has tog ivehi s voteat theelection ofaper

or T he BRITISH P sam s m s n 'r . £109

i t has alwavs been .an object ofg reatatten tion to the

leg i s latu re;an d’

i s ex pres s ivs ti pu latedw i th thepr i n cei n

thebi ll of r i g hts . A ll thos eareexcluded'from voti n g ,Whos epoverty i s s u ch, that they can n ot l ivei n depen den t,an dm u s t thereforebe s ubject to the u n due i n fl uen ce of

thei r s u per iou r s . Suchares uppos ed‘to have n o w i ll of

thei r ow n :an d it i s judg edim proper that they s hou ld

vote i n the represen tation of\afree s tate What can

ex h ibi t i n am ore s tr iki n g poi n t of view , thepecu l iarcare w hich has been taken , i n order to ren der thedoc

t ion of m embers of parliam en t en tirely free? It was‘deem edan i n s u lt u pon the i n depen den t com mon s ofEu

g lan d, that their u n i n fl uen ced s ufl'

rag es s hou ld beadu lteratedBy thosew ho w ere n otat l iberty to'

s peakas theythoug ht, thou g h their i n teres ts an d' i n cli nation s Werethesam e. Br i ti s h l iberty , i t was thOu g ht,

°

tou ld n Ot be

oli'

ectually s ecu red, u n les s those w ho made the law s

w ere freely, an d w ithou t i n fiuén ce'

, electedby thos e

for w hom they w eremade. Upon thi s pr i n ciple i s reams onably fou n dedthe max im i n law —that every on e, w ho.

i s capableofexerci s i n g hi s w i ll, i s party,an dpres umedto con s en t, toan act of parl iam en t.

For the samereas on thatper s on s , w ho livedepen den tu pon thew i ll of other s ,are n otadm ittedto vote i n elect i on s , thos ew hoare u n derag e, an dtherefore i n capableofjudg i n g ;thos ew hoarecon victedofperju ry or w hen :

n ation of perju ry , an dtherefore u n w orthy of judg in g ;an d thos e who obtai n their freeholds by fraudu len t convoyan ces , an d w ou ld therefore vote to s erve i n fam ou s

of law s , w hicharetobin dhi s libertyan d property, i samos ttran -i

scen dan t thin g an dofahi g h nature. 2.Ld.Ray. 953.

VOL. 1 11.

on T HE LEG I SLAT IVE au r n on r'rr

purposes ,areall likew i s eexcluded‘from theen joymen tofthi s g reatprivilege. Corruption at election s i s g uardedagai n s t by the s trictes t precau tion s , an m os t s evere

penalties . Every elector , beforehe poll s , m u s t; ifde’n an dedbyacan didateor by tw oelectors , taketheoathagai n s tbr ibery,as prescribedby 2 . Geo.2 . c. Oficers

of theexci s e, of the cu s tom s , an d of the pos t ofices ;

oficer s con cern edi n thedu ties upon leather, s oap, paper,s tripedli n en s i m ported, hackn ey coaches , cardsan ddice,are res trai n edfrom li n terfer i n g i n election s ; u n der

‘

the

penalty of on ehu n dredpou n ds , an d.of bei n g i n capableofever exerci s i n g an y oficeof tru s t u n der thek i n g .

T hu s i s ~ the freedom ofelection s s ecured,

from the

servility, theig n oran ce,an dthecorruption , of the elec

tors an dfrom the i n terpos ition cf officers depen di n gimm ediately upon thecrow n . But thi s i s n otall. Pro

vi s ion s , equally salu tary, havebeen madecon cer n i n g thequal ification s of thos ew ho s hall beelected; All imag i n .able care has been taken , that the common s of GreatBr i tai n may ben eitherawed, n orallu red, n or deceivedi n toan y n om i nation i n con s i s ten t w ith their liberties .

Ithas been adopted.“ag en eral max im , that thecrow nw i ll takeadvan tag eofeveryapportu n ity ofex ten di n gits prerogative, i n Oppos i tion to the pr ivileg es of the

people that i t i s the i n teres tofl thosew ho havepen s ion sor oflices at w ill from thecrow n

,tocon cu r i n all its m ea.

s ures ; that man ki n d i n g en eral w ill prefer their pr ivatei n teres t to the g ood of their cou n try ;an dthat, con se,quen tly, thos ew hoen joy such pen s ion s or offices are n ufit to repres en t

'afree nation , an dto have«be care of

thei r l iberties com m itted to their hands .i t: All s uch

T hereareafew exception s in thecaseofomoersat will.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

on 'r n z Lacxs ta'r tvn 'Au riuon r rr

r

ward. T he m os t u s efu l m i n i s ters to the crow n , an d.therefore the m os t likely tobeem ploy ed, es pecially i ng reat em er g en cies ,are thos ew hoarebes t belovedby thepeople;an dtthos eon lyarebelovedby .the people, w hoact s teadilyan du n iform ly i n s upport of thei r liberties .

Patriots , therefore, havefrequen tly,an des pecially u pon

im portan t occas ion s;thebes t chan ceofbei n g advan cedto offices ofprofican dpow er . A n abject com pl ian cew iththew i ll ofan imper ious pr i n ce,an daready dis pos itionto sacr ificeevery du ty to hi s pleas u re,are s om etim es

, I

con fes s , the s teps , by w hich on ly m en can ex pect to r i s e

to w ealthan dtitles . Let u s s uppos ethat, i n thi s man n er,

theyare s u cces s fu l i n attai n i n g them . I s thedes picablepri z eas ufiicien t

i

recom pen s e, for s ubm itti n g to the i n fam ou s mean s bvw hich 1t was procu red,an dfor thetorturi n g rem ors e w ith w hich thepos s es s ion of i t m u s t beaccom pali ied? W i ll itv

com pen satefor them er i tedcu rs es ofthe nation an dofpos ter ity ?

T hesem u s t bevery s tron g checks upon the con duct

ofevery man , w ho i s n ot utterly los t ta, n ll s en s eofprai sean d blam e. Few w ill ex pos e them s elves to the ju s tabhorren ce of thos eam on g w hom they ,

l ive, an dto theex cruciati n g s en sation s w hich s uchabhorren ce m u s t

produce.

But les tall thes em otives , pow erfulas theyare, s hou ldbei n s ufficien t toan imatetherepres en tatives ofthenationtoavig orou s an dupr i g ht di s chargeofthei r du ty,an dtores trai n them from y ieldi n g toan y tem ptatioxmhat w ou ldi n ci tethem tobetray their tru s t; their con s tituen ts haves till afarther s ecu rity for their l iberties i n thefrequen t

election ofparliamen ts . At theexpi ration ofevery panliamcn t, thepeoplecan makeadi s tin ction between thos e

or T 1111. BRI T JSH PARLIAMENT .

39

w hohaves ervedthem w el l;an dthos ew hohaven eg lectedor betrayed their i n teres t : they can bes tow ,

'

u nas ked,their s ufi

'

rag es upon theform er i n then ew election ;an dcan mark thelatter w ithdi s g race, byam ortify i n g refu sal.T hecon s titu tion i s thu s frequen tly ren ew ed, an ddraw nback,as i t w ere, to its fir s t pr i n ciples w hich 18 them os t

effectual m ethodofperpetuati n g the liberties ofas tate.T hepeople have n um erou s opportu n ities ofdi s playi n gtheir ju s t im portan ce,an dofexerci s i n g , i n pers on , thes enatural ri g hts . T herepresen tatives arerem i n dedw hosecreatu res they are'

;an dto w hom fthey areaccou n tablefor theu s eofthat pow er , w hich i s delegatedu n to them .

T hefir s t max im s ofju r i s pruden ceareever kept i n view-.thatall pow er i s der ived from the people—that theirhappi n es s ts theen dofg overn m en t.

Frequen t n ew parl iam en ts areapar t of the Br iti s hcon s titution : by them on ly, theki n g can kn ow the imm e

diate s en s e of the nation , Every s upply, w hich they

g ran t, i s ju s tly to becon s ideredxxas ates tim on y of the

loyaltyan daffection , w hich the nation bear to their s overei g n an dby thi s m ean s ,am u tual con fiden cei s createdbetw een theki n g an dhi s s ubjects . How pleas i n g m u s t

s uchan i n tercours eofben efits be! How m u s tafather /of

hi s people rejoice i n s uch du tifu l retu r n s for hi s pater nalcare! W i th w hatardou r m u s t hi s peopleembraceeveryOpportu n i ty of g ivi n g s uch con vm cm g proofs , that theyare n ot i n s en s ibleofhi s w i s ean di n du lg en t r u le!

Lon g parl iam en ts havealways been prejudicial to thepr i n ce, w ho s umm on ed, them , or to the people, w ho

elected them . I n that cal ledby Ki n g Charles I , i n the.year 1640, the com m on s proceededat fir s t, w i th vi g ou ran datruepatriotick s pirit, to rescuetheki n gdom from

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

on T HE LEG I sLA'

r rvn au '

r n on rrr

after h eacces s ion to the thron e, to prolon g thi s term to

that ofs even year s . Attem pts have, s i n cethat time, beenfrequen tly madeto reducethecon ti n uan ceofpar liam en t:to theform er term : an ds uchattem pts havealways beenw ell receivedby. the nation . U n doubtedly they deserve

s uch reception for lon g parl iam en ts w i ll natu rally forgetthei r depen den ce on thepeople3w hen thi s depen den ce1 s for g otten , they w i ll becom ecor rupt When ever theybecom ecorrupt, thecon s ti tu tion of‘E n g lan dw ill flose

its liberty— i t‘

w ill per i s h.”

Such i s theprovi s ion madeby the law s ofG reat Br itai n , that thecom m on s s hou ldbefaithfu lly repres en ted:

provi s ion i sals omade, thatfaithfu l repres en tatives s hou ldn ot labou r for thei r con s tituen ts i n vai n . T hecon s titu

tion i s form edi n s uchaman n er , that thehou s eof common s areableas w ellas w i ll i n g toprotectan ddefen dthel iberties i n tru s tedto their care.

T he con s titu tion ofG reat Br itai n i s that ofal im itedm onarchy ;an d‘ i n all l im itedm onarchies , the pow er ofpres ervi n g the l im itation s m u s t be placed s om ew here.

Du r i n g therei g n s ofthefirs tNorman pri n ces , thi s pow ers eem s tohaveres ided i n theclerg yan di n thebaron s by

0 Mon t. Sp.L.b. 11.c.6. Iftheleg i s lativebody w ereperpetual;or

‘

m i g ht las t for thelifeof thepr i n cew ho con ven edthem ,as formerly ;an dweres otobes upplied,by occas ionallyfilli n g thevacancies w ith n ew represen tatives ; i n thesecases , if i t w ereon cecorrupted, the

'

evil w ou ldbepas t remedy : but w hen difi'

eren tbodiess ucceedeach other , ifthepeopleseecau setodi sapproveofthepresen t, they may rectify i ts fau lts i n then ex t. A leg i s lativeas s emblyal so, w hich ’

i s s ure to be separatedagai n , w ill thin k them s elvesboun d, in i n teres tas wellas duty, tomakeon ly s uch law sasareg ood 1.Bl.Com.189.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

220 on was Ls o1srar rvs aur n on rr rfreepeople, havepreferred toaw i ll i n g obedien ce the

abject s ubm i s s ion ofs laves , haveever ex per ien ced, thatal l en deavou r s to ren der

'

them s elvesabs olu tew erebu t s oman y s teps to their ow n dow n fall.

Such i s theadm irable tem peram en t of the Bri ti s h

con s titu tion ! s uch theg loriou s fabr ick ofBr i tai n ’ s l iberty- the pr ide of her citi z en s - the en vy of her n ei g h

bou r s—plan n edby her leg is lators—erectedby her patriots- mai n tai n eden tireby n umerou s g en eration s pas t ! mayit be mai n tai n ed en tire by n umerou s g en eration s to

com e!

Can theAm er ican s , whoaredes cen dedfrom Br iti s h

an ces tors , an di n her itall their r i g hts , be blam ed—acanthey beblam edby thei r brethren i n B r i ta’ z' n — for claimi n g s ti ll to en joy thos er i g hts ? But can they en joy them ,

iftheyare bou n dby theacts ofaBr iti s h parl iam en t ?Upon w hat pr i n ciple does the Briti s h parl iam en t fou n dtheir pow er ? I s i t fou n dedon the prerogative of the

ki n g ? H i s prerogative does n ot ex ten dto make law s tobi n dan y ofhi s s ubjects . Does 1t res ide1n thehou seof

lords T hepeers areacollective;an dn otarepres en tativebody. If i t res ides an y w here, then , i t m u s t res ide

i n thehou s eofcom m on s .

Shou ldan y on eobject here, that itdoes n ot res ide i nthehou s eof com m on s on ly, becau s e that hou secan n otmake law s w ithou t thecon s en t of the ki n g an d ofthe

lords ; thean s w er i s eas y. T hou g h the con cu rren ceof

all thebran ches of the leg i s latu re i s n eces sary toeverylaw yet the samelaw s bi n ddifferen t pers on s for differen t reas on s

, an d on differen t pr i n ciples . T heki n g i s

bou n d, becaus e heas s en ted to them . T he lords are

or Tait narr rs n PARLIAMENT .

bou n d, becau s e they votedfor them . T herepres en tatives ofthe com m on s , for the same reason , bi n dthems elves , an dthos ew hom they repres en t.

0

If theAm er ican s arebou n d n ei ther by theas s en t oftheki n g ,

’

n or by thevotes of the lords , to obeyacts ofthe Briti s h parliamen t, the s ole reason w hy they arebou n dis , becau se the repres en tatives of the com m on s

ofG reat Br itai n have g iven their suffrag es i n favou r ofthos eacts . Bu taretherepres en tatives ofthecom m on sof G reat Bri tai n the represen tatives of theAm er ican s ?A rethey electedby the Amer ican s ? Arethey s uchastheAm er ican s , if they hadthepow er ofelection , w ou ldprobably elect ? Do they kn ow the i n teres t oftheAm e

r ican s ? Does thei r ow n i n teres t prom pt them to pu r s ue

the i n teres t of theAm erican s ? Ifthey do n ot pu rs ue i t,

have the Amer ican s pow er to pu n i s h them ? Can the

Am er ican s rem ove‘

u n fai thfu l m ember s at every n ew

election ? Can “ member s , w hom theAm er ican s do n otelect ; w i th w hom the Am

'er ican s are n ot con n ectedi n

i n teres t ; w hom the Amer ican s can n ot rem ove over

w hom theAm er ican s have n o i n fl uen ce—can s uch m em

ber s be s tyled, w i th an y propr iety , the mag i s trates oftheAm er ican s Havethos e, w hoarebou n dby thelaw s

ofmag i s trates n ot thei r ow n, an y secu rity for theen joy

m en t of thei r abs olu te ri g hts— thos e r i g hts , w hich

every man i s en ti tled to en joy, w hether i n s ociety or

ou t ofit ?” I s it probablethat thos er i g hts w i ll bemai n

r T hi s i sallowedeven bytheadvocates for parliamen tarypower;w hoaccoun t for its ex ten s ion over the colon ies , upon thevery

gg in cipleof their bei n g vi r tually represen ted i n thehouse.

60 mos s .

l . BLcm . 123:

3

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

224 on r m : Ladi s tar i vn Au r n oar'rrw i ll , therefore, direct to s uch meas u resas m u s t promotethelatter. Bu t i s thi s thecas ew ith res pect toAm erica?Are the leg i s lator s of G reat Britai n s ubject to thelaw sw hichare madefor the colon ies ? Is their i n teres t the

sam ew ith that of the colon ies ? If we con s ider i t i n alarg ean dcom prehen s iveview , w e s hall di s cern it tobeu n doubtedly the sam e but few w ill takethe troubletocon s ider i t i n that view ;an dofthos ew hodo, few w ill

be i n fluen cedby thecon s ideration . Man ki n dareu s uallym oreali 'cctedw i than ear thou g h i n feriou r i n teres t;than

. w i th on ethat i s s uperiou r , bu t placedat ag reater di stan ce. A s the con duct i s reg u latedby thepas s ion s , ., i t

i s n ot tobew on deredat, ifthey securetheformer, bym eas u res w hich w ill forfeit the latter: Nay , the latter w ill frequen tly beregardedi n the sameman n er as ifi t w ereprejudicial to them . It i s w ith reg ret that I produce s om e latereg u lation s of parliam en t as , proofs

'

of

w hat I haveadvan ced. Wehave ex perien ced w hataneas y matter it is foram i n i s ter , w ithan ordi nary s hareofart, topers uade theparliam en t an dthe people, thattaxes laidon thecolon ies w i ll eas ethebu rthen s of themother cou n try ; w hich, if the matter i s con s ideredi naproper l ig ht, i s ,’ i n fact, to pers uade them , that thes tream ofnational r iches w i ll be i n creas edby clos in g up

thefou n tai n , from w hich they flow .

A s

.

the Am erican s can n otavai l them s elves of thatcheck

, w hich i n teres t pu ts upon them embers of parl iam en t,an dw hich w ou ldoperatei n favou r ofthecom m on sofG reat Britai n , thou g h they pos s es s edn o pow er over

the leg i s latu re;s otheloveofreputation , w hich i sapowerfu l i n citemen tto theleg i s lators to.prom otethew elfu t ,

an dobtai n theapprobation , of thos eamon g w hom they

live,an dwhoseprai ses or oeu vres w ill teachan dad'

m

10

Or n u : BRITISH PARLIAMI‘NT .

then , may haveacon trary operation w ith regardto the

colon ies . It may becomepopu laran drepu tableat hom e‘to oppres s us . .A can didate may recom m en dhim s elf

at hi s election by recoun ti n g the man y s ucces s fu l i n

s tan ces , i n w hich hehas sacr ificedthe i n teres ts of'Am e

r i cato thos eof G reat Bri tai n . Ai

m ember ofthehou s e

of com m on s may plum ehim s elf upon hi s i n g en u ity i n

i n ven tin g s chem es to s erve the m other cou n tryat the

ex pen seof thecolon ies ;an dmay boas t of thei r im poten t resen tm en tagai n s t him on thataccou n t.

Let u s pau s ehereal ittle. - Does n either theloveof

gai n , theloveof prai s e, n or the loveofhon ou r in fl uen cet hem ember s oftheBr iti s h parl iam en t i n favou r of theA m er ican s ? O n w hat p'r i n ciples , then—oon w hat m ot ives ofaction , can w edepen d for the s ecu rity of our

l iberties , of ou r properties , ofevery thi n g dear to u s i n

l i fe, of life its elf? Shall w edepen d on their ven erationfor thedictates of natu ral ju s tice? A very l ittle s hareofex perien cei n thew orld—avery l ittledeg reeofkn ow ~

ledg ei n thehi s tory of m en , w i ll s ufficien tly con vi n ceu s ,

thataregardtoju s ticei s by n o m ean s the ru l i n g pr i n ci

ple i n human nature. Hew ou lddi s cover him s elf to he

avery s orry s tates man , w ho w ou lderect'as ys tem of

ju r i s pruden ceupon that s len der fou n dation . Hew ou ld

make,” as m y LordBacon say s , imag i nary law s ;fori mag i nary com m on w ealths ;an dhi s di s cou rs es , l ikethes tar s , w ou ldg ivel ittlel i g ht, becau s etheyares ohi g h,

” v

Bu t thi s i s n ot thew ors t that can ju s tly be saidconcern i n g thes ituation of thecolon ies , if they arebou n dby theacts of the‘

Briti s h leg i s lature. So far are thos eV 2.Ld. Bac. 537.

VOL. 1 1 1. o g

226 on T HE LEG I SLAT I VEau r n oar rrpow erfu l s pri n g s ofaction , which w ehave men tion ed,from i n teres ti n g the m ember s of that leg i s latu re i n ou r

favou r , that, as has been already observed, w ehavetheg reates t reas on todreadtheir operation agai n s t u s . Wh ilethehappy com m on s of G reat Bri tai n con g ratulatethems elves upon thel iberty w hich they en joy , an d u pon the

provi s ion s - vi n fallible, as faras they can beren dered s o

by human w i sdom—w hicharemadefor perpetuati n g i tto their lates t pos terity ; the u n happy Am erican s haveréas on to bewail thedan g erou s s ituation to w hich they

are reduced;an dto look forward, w ith di s mal apprehen s ion , to thos efu tu re s cen es of w oe, w hich, i n allprobabi li ty, w ill open u pon thei r des cen dan ts .

What has been alreadyadv'an cedw ill s uficeto s how ,

that i t i s repu g nan t to thees sen tial mat im s ofju r i spru

den ce, to theu ltimateen dofall g over n m en ts , to theg en iu s of the Br i ti s h con s titu tion , an d to the l ibertyan dhappi n es s of thecolon ies , that they shou ldbebou n dbythe leg i s lativeau thori ty of the parl iam en t ofG reatBritai n . Su chadoctr i n e i s n ot les s repu g nan t to thevoiceof her law s . I n order to evi n cethi s , I s hallappeal tos om eau thorities from thebooks of thelaw , w hich s how

ex pres s ly, or by an eces sary im plication , that thecolon ies are n ot bou n dby theacts oftheBr i ti s h parliamen tbecau s e'

they have n o s harei n theBriti s h leg i s lature.

T hefirs t cas eI s hall m en tion was adjudg ed i n , thes econ dyear of R ichardthethird. It was as olem n de

term i nation ofall '

the judg es of E n g lan d, m et i n the

exchequer chamber, to con s ider w hether thepeoplein

Irelan d w ere bou n dby an act ofparl iamen t made i nE n g lan d. T hey res olved, that they w eren ot, as tos uch thi n g s as w eiedon e i n Irelan d;but that w hat they

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ON T HE LEGI SLAT IVE AUT HOR I T Y

adjudication . T he deci s ion was n ot i n ciden tal or i n d'

s

g es ted it was n otas udden opi n ion , u n s upported by

reas on an darg um en t : 1t was an expres s an ddel iberateres olu tion of thatvery doubt, w hich theyas s embled to

res olve.

3. It i s very obs ervable, that thereas on , w hich thos ereveren d sag es of thelaw gave, w hy the people i n Ire

lan d w ere n ot bou n d by .an act of parl iam en t made i nEn g lan d, was the sam ew ith that, on w hich theAm er ican shave fou n dedtheir oppos ition to thelate s tatu tes madecon cern i n g them . T he Iri s h didn ot s en dm ember s to

parliam en t ;an d, therefore, they w ere n otbou n dby i ts

acts . From hen ce it u n den iablyappear s , thatparliamentaryau thor ity is der iveds olely from repres en tation—thatthos e, w hoare bou n dbyacts of, parliamen t, are bou n dfor thi s on ly reas on ’, becau s e theyare repres en ted i n it.

If it w ere n ot the on ly reas on , parliam en taryau thoritym i g ht s ubs i s t i n depen den t of it. Bu tas parl iam en taryau thor itv fails w herever thi s . reas on does n ot operate,parl iam en taryau thor i ty can befou n dedon n o other pr i n

ciple. T he law n ever ceas es , but w hen thereas on of itceas esal s o.

4. It des erves tobe remarked, that n o exception i s

madeofan y s tatu tes , w hich bi n dthos ew hoare n ot re.

pres en tedby the maker s of them . T heres olu tion of

thejudg es ex ten ds toevery s tatu te: they say , w ithou t

l im i tation ou r s tatu tes do n ot bi n dthem .”A n dia

deed the res olu tion oug ht to ex ten d to every s tatu te;becau s e thereas on , on w hich i t i s fou n ded, ex ten ds to

every on e. Ifapers on i s boun d on lyabecau s ehe i s re

pres en ted, i t i n u sit certai n ly follow that w herever .he i s

n ot repres en tedhelan otboun d. No s oun d:arg umen tI

OF T HE BRI T ISH PARL I AMENT .

can beoffered, w hy on e s tatute s hou ld beobl i gatory i ns u ch ci rcum s tan ces , an d n etan other. If w e can n ot bedepr ived of our property by those, w hom w e do n ot

com m i s s ion for that purpos e can w e, w i thou tan y s uch

com m i s s ion , bedepr ived, by them , of ou r lives ? Havethos eari g ht to im pri s on an dg ibbet u s , who have n otar i g ht totax u s ?

5. From thi s authority' i t follow s, that i t is by n o

m ean s aru le, that the‘author ity of parl iam en t ex ten dstoall the s ubjects of thecrow n . T hei n habi tan ts ofIrelan dw ere

'

the s ubjects of the ki n g as of hi s crow n of

E n g lan d bu t it i s ex pres s ly res olved, i n them os t s olem n

man n er , that the i n habi tan ts of Irelan daren otbou n dbythe s tatutes of En g lan d. Alleg ian ce to the ki n g an dobedien ce to the parliamen t are fou n ded on very

differen t pri n ci ples . T he former i s’

fou n dedon ~

protec~

tion : the latter , 'ou repres en tation . A n inatten tion to

this differen cehas produced, Iapprehen d, m uch u n cer

tain ty an d con fu s ion i n Ou r ideas con cern i n g the con

n ex ion , w hich ou g ht to s ubs i s t betw een Great Br itai nan dtheAm er ican colon ies .

6. T helas t obs ervation w hich I s hall make on thi s

casei s , that if the i n habitan ts of Irelan dare n ot bou n d

byacts ofparl iam en t made i n E n g lan d, afor tior i , thei n habitan ts of theAm er ican colon ies are n ot boun dbythem . T herearemarks ofthe s ubordi nation ofIrelan dto G reat Br i tai n , w hich can n ot betracedi n thecolon ies .A w r i t of errou r lies from theki n g

’s ben ch i n Irelan d

,v

to the ki n g’s ben ch, an d con s equen tly to the hou s e of

lords , i n En g lan d'

s byfwhich m ean s theformer -ki n g dom

r 256.

on was Ls cru ar rvn au'

r n on rrr

i s s ubject tothe con trol of the cou rts of ju s ticeof the

latter ki n g dom . Bu t aw rit of s trou t does n ot l ie i n

the kin g’s ben ch, n or before thehou seof lords , 1n Eu

g lan d, from thecolon ies ofAm erica. T heproceedi n g s

i n their cour ts ofju s ticecan bereview edan dcon trolled;on ly on an appeal to the ki n g i n coun cil.

T heforeg oi n g im portan t deci s ion , favou rable to the

l iberty ofall thedom i n ion s of the Briti s h crow n thatare n ot repres en ted i n theBriti sh Parliam en t, has beencorroboratedby s ubs equen tadjudication s . I s hall mention on ethat was g iven i n theki n g

’s ben ch, i n thefifth

year ofK i n g W ill iaman dQueen Mary, betw een Blan kardan dGaldy.

T heplai n tiffwas provos t mars hal ofJamaica, an dbyarticles , g ran tedadepu tation of that, ofliceto thedefeudan t, u n derayearly ren t. T hedefen dan t gavehis bedfor theperforman ceof theag reemen t;an dan action ofdebt was brou g ht upon that bad. In bar of theaction ,the defen dan t pleaded the s tatute of 5 . Ed. 6. madeagai n s t buyi n g an ds elli n g of ofices ‘that con cer n theadvm i n i s tration ofju s tice, an daverredthat thi s office con

cer n edtheadm in i s tration ofju s ticei n Jamaica,an dthat,by vi rtueof that s tatu te, both thebon dan dart icles werevoid. T othi s pleatheplai n tiffreplied, that Jamaicawasani s lan d i n habitedform erly by theSpan iards , that it '

wasCon queredby thes ubjects ofthe ki n g dom of E n g lan d,com m i s s ion edby legal an d s ufficien tau thor ity for thatpu rpos e;an d that s i n ce that con ques t its i n habitan tsWere reg u lated' an d g overn edby their ow n proper law san d s tatu tes , an d n ot byacts of par l idn en t or the s tatutes of theki n g om of E n g lan d.” T hedefen dan t, i n

I 10 B1.com . 1080 fil e 40Md.2150 salk.4110.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

232 o n T im Lacrs Lan -vr s ur n on rrr

lan d) be es pecially named. Nbr w i ll I con ceal thatthe sam e exception i s taken n oticeof,an ds eem s tobe

allow ed, by the judges i n the other cas es relati n g to

Amer ica. T oan y objection that may, hen ce, beformedagai n s t m y doctri n e, Ian s w er, i n thew ords oftheveryaccu rateM r. Ju s ticeFos ter , that g en eral rules throw nou t i n arg um en t, an dcarriedfarther than thetrue s tateof thecas ethen i n judg m en t requ ireth, have, I con fes s ,n o g reat w ei g ht w ith me.” 4

T heques tion beforethejudg es i n the cases I havereas on edfrom , was n ot how far the nam i n g ofpers on si n an act of parliam en t w ou ldaffect them ; thou g h, u n

les s nam ed, they w ouldn et bebou n dby it : theques

tion was , ww hether theleg i s lativeauthor ity ofparliam en tex ten ded over the i n habitan ts of Irelan d or Jamaicaor Virg i n ia. T o the res olu tion of the latter ques tiontheres olu tion oftheform er was by n o m ean s n eces sary,an d was , therefore, w holly im perti n en t to thepoi n t of

theadjudication .

But farther , thereason as s i g n edfor theres olu tion ofthelatter ques tion i s s olidan d con vi n ci n g : the Am eri

can colon ies are n ot bou n d by theacts of the Br iti s h

parl iam en t, becau s etheyare n ot repres en tedi n '

i t, Bu t

w hat reas on can beas s i g n ed w hy they s hou ldbebou n d

by thoseacts , i n w hich theyare s pecially named? Doesnam i n g them g ive thos e, w ho do them that hon ou r , ari g ht toru leover them ? I s thi s thes ourceofthes uprem e,

e T hi s exception does n ot seem tobe takeai n tbecase q '

2d. Richard111. which was thefoun dation ofall the s ubsequen t

4 Fas t. 313.

or Tan BRI T ISH PARLIAMENT . 233‘

theabs olute, the i rres i s tible, the u n con trolledau thor i ty of parl iamen t ? T hes e pos ition s are too abs urdto bealleg ed;an dathou san d judicial determ i nation si n their favou r w ou ldn ever i n duce on eman of s en s eto

s ubs cribehi sas s en t to them .

T heobl i gatory forceoftheBr iti sh s tatu tes upon the

colon ies , w hen nam edi n them , m u s t beaccou n tedfor ,by theadvocates of that pow er , upon s om e other pri n .

ciple. I n m y LordCoke’ s Reports , i t i s said, “ thatalbeit Irelan dbeadi s ti n ct dom i n ion , yet, the ti tle

thereof bei n g by con ques t, the same, by judg m en t oflaw , may be, by expres s w ords , bou n dby the parliam en ts of E n g lan d.

”I n thi s i n s tan ce, the obl i gatory

au thor ity of the parliam en t i s plai n ly referredtoatitleby con ques t, as its foun dation an d or i g i nal. In the

i n s tan ces relati n g to thecolon ies , thi s au thor ity s eem s

eWhereadeci s ion i s man ifes tlyabs urdan du n ju s t, s uchasenten cei s n ot law . 1. Bl Corn .70.

T helegality of the opi n ion that the people i n Irelan dwere

bou n d by the s tatutes ofEn g lan d, w hen particu larly namedbyseem s alberwards to havebeen doubtedofby LordCoke

him self, i n an other placeofhi s w orks . After havi n g men tion ed

theresolution i n theexchequer chamber i n thetimeof Richardthethi rd,an d havi n g taken n otice that ques tion i s madeofit i n some

ofthebooks ,an dparticularly i n Calvi n ’ s case, hesays , that theques tion con cern i n g

-thebi n di n g forceofE n g l i sh s tatutes over Ire.lan dis n ow by com mon exper ien cean dopi n ion w ithoutan y scruple

of parli en t madei n En g lan d, s i n ce theact oftheloth H. 7. (hemakes n oexception s ) do n ot bin dthem i n

Irelan d;butallacts made in En g lan dbefore10.H. 7. by thesaid0“madei n Irelan dAn . 7.c.22,dobin dthem i n Irelan d.” 12.Rep. 111.

VOL. I I I

« 234 on 'r n n Ls cxs car rvn AUT HORI T Y

“

to be referred to the same s ource: foran y on e, w ho

com pares w hat i s saidofIrelan d,an dother con queredcou n tr ies , i n Calvi n ’ s cas e, w ith w hat i s saidofAm erica,i n theadjudication s con cern i n g it, w ill fin d that the

judg es , i n determ i n i n g the latter, have g rou n dedthei rOpi n ion s on the res olu tion s g iven i n theform er.

f It i s

foreig n to m y pu rpos eto i n qu ire i n tdthereas onablen es soffou n di n g theau thority of theBri ti s h parl iam en t overIrelan d, upon thetitleof con ques t, thou g h I bel ieve i t

w ou ldbe s om ew hat diflicu lt to deduce it sati s factor ily i nthi s

'

man n er. It w i ll be s u llicien t for m e to s how, that

it i s u n reas onable, an d i n ju r iou s to the colon ies , to

ex ten dthat title to them . How came the colon i s ts to

beacon quered people? By w hom was the,

con ques t

over them obtai n ed? By thehou s eofcom m on s ? By thecon s tituen ts ofthat hou se? Ifthe ideaofcon ques t m us t

be taken i n to con s ideration w hen w e exam i n e i n to thetitleby w hich Amer icai s held, that idea, s

?faras i t

f It i s plai n that Blacks ton eu n der s toodtheopin ion ofthejudges- that thecolon ies areboun dby acts of theBriti s h parliamen t, ifnamed i n them—tobe foun dedon thepri n cipleof con ques t. It:

w ill n otbeimproper to i n sert hi s commen tary upon the res olutim

respecti n g Amer ica. Bes ides theseadjacen t i s lan ds , (Jersey, Ste.)our moredi stan t plan tation s in Americaan dels ewhereareals o, ins omerespects , s ubjeCttotheEn g li s h law s . Plan tation s , or colon iesi n di s tan t coun tries ,areeither s uch w herethelan dsareclaimedi n x

ri g ht ofoccupan cy on ly, by fin di n g them desartan dun cu ltivated,an d peoplin g them from the mother coun try ; or w here, w hen

already cultivated, they havebeen either gain edby con ques t, orw dedtou s by treaties . Ou r Amer ican plan tation s arepr in cipallyofthis latter sort;bei n g obtai n edi n thelas tcen tu ry, either.by r is k,qfcon gmcs t,an ddr ivin g out thenatives (With w hat natural jus tice.I shall n otatpresen t i n quire) or by treaties .” 1. Bl.Com .106. 107.

LordChiefJu s ticeHolt, i n acaseabovecited, calls V irg i n in ' l‘

con queredcou n try. Salk.666.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ON T HE LEGI SLAT IVE AUT HORI T Y

arefew ; Iam s u rethey are con tem ptible, an ddeservetohavevery} littleregardpaidto them bu t

’

for the sakeofthos eofthes econ dclas s , w homay bem oren u m erou s ,an dw hos elaudablepri n ciples aton efor their m i s takes , Is hall takes omepai n s toobviatetheobjection ,an dto s howthataden ial of the leg i s lativeau thori ty of theBr iti s hparl iam en t over Amer ica‘i s by n o m ean s i n con s i s ten tw ith that con n ex ion , w hich ou g ht to s ubs i s t betw een the

m other ,cou n tryan dher colon ies ,an dw hich, at thefirs tsettlem en t ofthosecolon ies , i t was i n ten dedto mai n tai nbetw een them : bu t that, on thecon trary, that con n ex ionw ou ld be en ti rely des troyed by the ex ten s ion of t he

pow er ofparl iam en t over theAmer ican plan tati on s .

Let u s exam i n ew hat i s m ean tbyadepen den ceon G reatB ritai n : for it i s always of im portan ceclearly to defin etheterm s that w eu s e. B lacks ton e, w ho, s peaki n g ofthecolon ies , tells u s , that “

theyare n o part of them othercou n try, bu t di s ti n ct (thoii gb.depen den t) dom i n ion s ,

”t

ex plai n s depen den ce i n thi s man n er. Depen den ce i s

very l ittleel s e, bu tan obli gat ion to con form to thew i ll

or law ofthat s u per iou r pers on or s tpte, upon w hich the

i n fer iou r depen ds . T heori g i nalan dtrueg rou n dofthi ss uperiority , i n thecas e of Irelan d, is w hat w eu s uallycall , thou g h s om ew hat im properly, the r i g ht of con

ques t ;ar i g htallow edby thelaw ofnation s , ifn otbythat of, nature;but w hich, i n reas on an dcivi lpol icy,can mean n othi n g m ore, than that, i n order topu tan en dto hos ti lities , acom pact i s either expres s ly or taci tlymadebetween thecon queroran dthecon quered, that ifthey w i llackn ow ledg e thevictér for '

their mas ter, hew ill treat them for the futureas s ubjects , an d n otasen emies .” 1“

ON T HE LBGCBLAT IVB AUT HORI T Y

order to s ettle;i n Amer ica;n or by their s overei g n s , w hogavethem com m i s s ion s for that purpos e. Suchan obl igation has n ocorres pon den t ri g ht : for the

‘

com mon s of

G reat Britai n have n odom i n ion over thei r s ignal s an dfellow s ubjects

'

ln Am er ica: they can con fer n o r i g h t

totheir delegates tobi n dthoseequalsan dfellow s ubject:by law s .

T herei s an other, an dam uch m orereas onablem eani n g , w hich may he i n ten dedby the depen den ceof the

colon ies on G reat Britai n . T hephras emay beused to

den ote the obedien cean d loyalty, w hich thecolon i s ts

ow eto theki n g s ofG reat Br itai n . If i t s houldbea].leg ed,

'

that thi s can n ot bethem ean i n g oftheexpres s ion ,

becau sei t i s appliedto theki n gdom ,an d n ot to thekin g ,

I g ivethe‘

sam ean s w er that m yLordBacon gavetothos ew ho said thatalleg ian cerelatedto theki n gdoman d n ot

to the ki n g becau s e i n the s tatu tes thereare thes e

w ords bor n w i thi n thealleg ian ce of E n g lan d”—an dagai n born w ithou t the alleg ian ce of E n g lan d.”T herei s n o tropeof s peech m orefam iliar ,” says he,than to u s etheplace ofaddition for thepers on . So

we say com m on ly, the l i n eof York, or the l i n eofLancas ter, for thel i n es of thedukeof York, or thedukeofLan cas ter. So we say thepos ses s ion s of $0t or

Warw ick, i n ten di n g the pos s es s ion s of the dukes of

Som er set, or earls ofWarw ick. An d i n thevery sameman n er, the s tatute s peaks , alleg ian ce of E n g lan d, foral leg ian ceof theki n g of E n g lan d.” i

Depen den ce on the m other cou n try s eems to havebeen u n ders toodi n thi s sen se, both by thefirs t platen

i s m nae i s s . 193. 0aseofthepm fiof8rofl l u l.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

24-2 or: r u n LEGI SLAT IVE s u r n oarrr ‘

hearr ivesat thos eyears , heow es obedien ce, n ot on ly forthe protection w hich he n ow en joys , butals o for that “

t

'

w hich, from hi s birth, hehas en joyed an dto w hich hi s

ten der ag e has hi therto preven ted him from maki n g as u i tableretu rn . Alleg ian cen ow becom esadu ty fou n dedupon pr i n ciples of g ratitude, as w ellas on pri n ciples of

i n teres t : itbecom esadebt, w hich n othi n g bu t theloyaltyofaw holel ifew ill di s char g e. 0 A s n either cl imate, n ors oil , n or tim een titleaper s on totheben efits ofas ubject;s oan alteration of cl imate, of s oil, or of time can n otreleas ehim from the du ties ofon e. An E n g l i s hman ,w ho rem oves to forei g n cou n tr ies , how ever di s tan t fromE n g lan d, ow es the sam e 'alleg ian ce to hi s ki n g there

w hich heow ed him at hom e;an d w i ll ow e it tw en ty

years hen ceas m uchas heow es it n ow .Wherever hei s, he

i s s till l iableto thepu n i s hm en tan n ex edby law tocr imes

agai n s t hi s alleg ian ce;an ds till en titledto themdvan tag esprom i s edby law to thedu ties ofi t : i t i s n ot can celled;an dit i s n otforfei ted. Hen ceall children bor n i n an ypart ofthe w orld, ifthey be of E n g li s h paren ts conti n n i n g at that timeas l ieg es ubjects to theki n g , an dhavi n g don e n oact to forfeit the~ben efit oftheiralleg ian ce, are ips ofacto natu raliz ed an d if they havei s s ue, an d their des cen dan ts i n termarryam on g thems elves , s uchdes cen dan ts are natu ral izedtoall g en eration s .

” P

0 T hekhrg i s protector ofall his mbjects : in virtuoof his hig htrus t, hei s m oreparticularly to takecareof those w hoare n ot

ableto take careof them selves , con sequen tly of i n fan ts , w ho, byreas on oftheir n onag e,areu n der i n capacities from hen cenaturalalleg ian cear i ses ,as adebt ofg ratitude, w hich can n ever becancelled, thoug h the s ubjeci ow i n g it g oes out of the ki n gdom , or

s wears alleg ian cetoan other pri n ce. 2.P.Wm s .123. 124.

r L IA Bac. 192.Caseofthepos tnati ofScotlaad.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

OH'

T HE LEGI SLAT IV E AUT HORI T Y

ki n g i s i n tru s ted thedirection an dmanag em en t of the

g reat machi n e of g over n m en t. He therefore i s fi ttes t

to adju s t the differen t w heels , an d to reg u late thei r

m otion s i n s uch aman n er as to cooperate i n the sameg en eral des i g n s . He makes war : he con cludes peace:he form s al lian ces : hereg u lates dom es tick tradeby hi sprerogative,an d.directs forei g n com m erceby hi s treatiesw ith thos e nation s

, w ith w hom i t i s carr ied on . He

nam es the officer s of g over n m en t ; s o that hecan checkevery jarr i n g m ovem en t i n theadm i n i s tration . Hehasan egative on the differen t leg i s latu res throu g hou t hi s

dom i n ion s , s o that he can preven t an y repu g nan cy i n .

their differen t law s .

T hecon n ex ion an d harm on y between G reat Br itai nan d‘

u s, w hich it i s her i n teres tan dou rs m u tually to eu l

tivate, an don w hich her pros per ity , as w ellas ou rs , s o

mater ially depen ds , w ill bebetter pres ervedby theOperation ofthe legal prerogatives of thecrow n

, than by the

exertion ofan u n l im itedau thor ity by parl iam en t.After con s ideri n g , w ithall theatten tion ofw hich lam capable,

theforeg oi n g opl n ion thatall thedifl '

eren t members of theBr iti sh

empirearedi s ti n ct s tates , i n depen den t ofeach other , butcon n ectedtogether u n der the same s overei g n i n r i g ht ofthe sam ecrow n —Idi scover on ly on eobjection that can beofferedagai n s t it. But thi s

objection w il l, by man y, be deemedafatal on e. How ,it w ill

beurged, can thetradeoftheBr iti s h em pirebecarriedon , w ithouts omepow er, ex ten di n g over the w hole, toreg ulateit i T he leg is .lativeauthor i tyofeach part,accordi n g toyou r doctri n e, i s con fin edw ithi n the local bou n ds ofthat part how , then , can soman y i n terfer in g in teres tsan dclaim s ,as m us t n eces sar i ly meetan d con ten d:in thecommerceofthew hole, bedecidedan dadju s ted?”

Perm it me toan s w er these ques tion s by propos in g s omeothersi n my turn . How has thetradeofEurope—how has the tradeof

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

SPEECH

IN CONVENT ION,

WHENCE , Sir, proceeds all the i n vidiou s an d illg rou n dedclamou ragai n s tthecolon i s ts ofAmer ica? Whyarethey s ti g mati zed, i n Br itai n ,as l icen tiou san du n g overnable?Why i s their virtuou s oppos i tion totheillegalattem pts Of their g over n ou rs repres en tedu n der thefals es tcolou rs , an d placed i n the m os t u n g raciou s poi n t ofview ? T hi s Oppos ition , w hen ex hibitedi n i ts truel i g ht,an dw hen view ed, w ith u n jau n dicedeyes , fromapropers ituation , an dataproper di s tan ce, s tan ds con fes s edthelovely offs pr i n g of freedom . It breathes the s pir it of

i ts paren t. Of thi s ethereal s pir it, the w hole con duct,

an d particu larly the latecon duct, of thecolon i s ts hass how n them em i n en tly pos s es s ed. It has an imatedan d.reg ulatedevery part of their proteedin g s . It has beenrecog n isedto be g en u in e, byall those s ymptom s an dVOL. I I I. I: k

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

s u s cn bs m vs n s n 111“rue

haveothers n ot to kn ow—thatall thi s was ren dered impos s ible by those very pers on s , w ho n ow , or w hos e

m i n ion s n ow , u rg ethi s objection agai n s t u s Do n ot they

kn ow —w ould they have other s n ot to kn ow—that thedifferen tas sembl ies , w ho cou ldbedi s s olvedby the g o

vern ours , w ere, i n con sequen ceofm i n i s terial man dates ,di s s olvedby them , w hen ever theyattem ptedtotu rn theiratten tion to theg reates t objects , w hich, as g uardian s ofthe liberty of their con s tituen ts , couldbepres en ted to

thei r view ? T hearch en em y ofthehuman racetorm en tsthem on ly for thos eaction s , to w hich hehas tem pted, butto w hich hehas '

n ot n eces sar i ly obli g ed them . T hose

m en refin eeven upon i n fernal malice: theyaccu s e, theytbr aten u s (s uperlative im puden cel) for taki n g those

very s teps , w hich w e w erelaidu n der thedi sag reeablen eces s ity of takin g by them s elves , or by thos e i n w hose

hatefu l s ervice’they areen l i s ted. But let them kn ow ,

that ou r coun s els , our deliberation s , our resolu tion s , ifn otau thori zedby theform s , becau s ethat was ren dered impos s ibleby our en em ies , aren evertheles s authori z edbythat w hich w ei g hs m uch m orei n thes caleofreas on —bythes piri t ofour con s titution s . Was thecon ven tion ofthebaron sat Ru n n i n g Meade, w herethetyran n yofJohnwas checked,an dmag nachartawas s i g n ed,au thor izedbytheform s of thecon s titu tion ? Was thecon ven tion parl iamen t, that recalledCharles the s econ d,an d res tored

them onarchy,au thor i zedby theform s of the con s titu

tion ? Was the con ven tion of lordsan dcomm on s , thatplacedKi n g W i ll iam on the thron e, an d s ecu red the

m onarchyan dl iberty likew i s e,apthor izedby theform s

of the con s titu tion ? I can n ot con ceal m y em otion s ofpleas ure, w hen I obs erve, that theobjection s ofouradver saries can n otbeu rg edagai n s t u s ,.but 1n com m on w iththose ven erableas s emblies , w hose proceedi n g s form ed

s uchanacces s ion toBritish libertyan dBriti s h ren ow n .

258 s r z n cn n n rvzan n n or ue

'

can n otbesafem uch lon g er. Butan other object deman dsouratten tion .

Webehold— s ir , w ith thedeepes tan g u i sh w ebehold- that ou r oppos i tion has n ot been as efl‘

ectual as it hasbeen con s titu tional. T hehearts ofou r oppres s ors haven ot relen ted: our com plai n ts have n ot been heard: ou rg rievan ces have n ot been redres sed: ou r f

r i g ht! ares ti ll i n vaded:an dhave w e n ocau s etodread, that the

i n vas ion s of them w i ll been forcedi n aman n er,agai n s twhichall reas on an darg u men t, an dall oppos ition d '

every peacefu l ki n d, w ill be vai n ? Ou r oppos ition hashitherto i n creas ed w ith our oppres s ion : s hall it, i n th em os t

'des perate ofall con ti n g en cies , obs erve thesam epr0portion ?

Let / u s pau s e, air, before w eg ivean an s w er to~ th i s

ques tion : thefateofu s ; thefateofm i llion s n owalive;thefateofm i ll ion s yet u n born depen ds upon thean s wer .Let i t bethe res ult ofcalm n es s an dofi n trepidity let

itbedictatedby thepri n ciples ofloyalty, an dthepri n ci ,ples ofl iberty. Let it be s uch, as n ever , i n the wor s t

even ts , to g iveu s reason to reproach ours elves , or other sreas on to reproach’ u s for havi n g don etoo much ortool ime.

Perhaps the follow i n g res olution may be foun d n ot

altog ether u n befitti n g ou r presen t s ituation . W i th theg reates t deferen ceI s ubm it ittothemature'

con s iderationofthi sas sembly.

T hattheact oftheBri ti s h parliamen tforalteri n g thecharteran dcon s trtu tm n of thecolon y ofMas sachu s etts

Bay, an dthos e for theimpartialadm i n i s tration ofju s

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

com m it or n ew s n v’

s r‘

iu s .

ietheacommon t s tan dn rd, by wbieh theexces s es ofpre

rogativeas wellas theexces s es ofl ibertyaretobereg ulatedan dreformed.(”thi s g reat compactbetween theki n gan dhi s people,

on ees sen tialarticleto-beperformedon h is part i s —that, '

‘

i n those cases w here provi s ion i s expres s ly madean dl im itation s s et by thelatvs , hi s g overn men t s hall beconductedaccordi n g to those provi s ion s , fin d res trai nedaccordi n g tothoselim itation s—that, i n thosecases , w i thi n“aren ot expres s ly providedfor by thelen s , it s hall : be

con ductedby the bes t ru les ofdi s cretion ,ag reeably to’theg en eral spirit of~ thet lam ,an d s ubs ervien tly totheir

u ltimateen d-i-é-thei n teres tan dhappi n es s of hi s s ubjects—that, i n n o

'

case, it '

s hn ll becon ductedcon trary to theex pres s , or to

' the im pliedpr i n ciples ofthecon s ti tution .

T heseg en eral mam m s , w hich w emay ju s tly con s ideras fu n damen tal s ofou r govern m en t, w i ll, byaplai n an dobvious appl ication ofthem to theparts -

oftheres olution

remai n i n g tobeproved, demon s tratethem tobes trictlyag reeableto thelaw s an dcon s titu tion .

Wecan beat i n o los s i n res olvin g , that‘the’ki n g can n ot,by hi s prerogative,alter the charter or con s ti tu tion oftheM ayofM-fl s sachu s s etts Bay. Upon w hat pr i n ciplecou lds uchan exertion ofprerogativebejus tified? 'Ou theacts ofparliamen t ? T heyarealready provedtobevoid. On

the di s cretionary porter w hich the ki n g has ofacti n gw heretlielaw s

'ares ilen t ? T hat pow er m u s tbesaheervien t to the i n teres tan dhappi n es s of thos e, con cern i n gw hom it operates . But I g o farther. In s teadofbei n gs upported by law , or the pri n ciples of prerogative,s uchan alteration i s totallyan dabs olutely repu g nan tto

arm s n u rvn s n m washath. It i s con trary toexprm s

,laws T hecharteran d

con s titu tion wes peak ofarecon firmedby theon ly leg i slativepow '

er capableofcon firm in g them han d n o.other

pow er, bu t that w hich can ratify, can des troy. If it i s

con trary toexpres s law , thecon s equen ce. i s n eces sary,that it i s con trary to thepri n ciples of prcnogative for;

prerogative can operateafl t hen the law -i s s i len t.

t

I n n o V iew dcan thi s alteration ‘bejus tified, or s om ch,

as eg cu s ed, It.can n ot ¢be ju s tifiedor enam el by -Jhe,

acts ofparliamen t becau setheau thor ity -of.parlias n en t,does n ot ex ten dto it :r it can n ot bejus tifiedor excusedhyj heoperation of.prerogative;becaus ethiefi s n on e6thecas es , in w hich prerogativecan operate i t cas i n osbe

'

ju s tifiedor excu sedby theleg i s iativeau thority of thecolon y becau se thatau thori ty n ever has .been ,an d, .I

pres ume, n ever w ill beg iven foran y s uch pu rpose.

If I have proceeded hitherto,as Iam pers uaded Ihave, upon safe .

an d s u re, g rou n d, I ran , w ith g reatcon fiden ce, advan ceas tep fan thcr ,an d, say, that allattem pts toalter thecharter or.con s titution '

ofthatcolon y,u n les s by theau thority of its ow n leg i s latu re, 'areviolation s of its r i g hts , an di llegal.

If thos eattempts are illegal, m u s t n otall force, employedto carry them i n to execu tion , beforceemployed

agai n s t law ,an dw ithoutau thority ? T hecon clu s ion i s

u navoidable.

Have n ot Briti s h s ubjects , then , ar i g ht to res i s t

s uch force—forceacti n g w ithoutau thori ty- w forceem

ployed con trary to law—force em ployed to des troy

the very ex i s ten ce of law an d of liberty ? T hey

have, s ir, an d thi s r i g ht i s s ecured to them both by

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

.o

CPI-I O? DELIVZI l l! n : m '

havean opportun ity ofaccom pli s hi n g it. Bu t, s i r , thi s

di s g u i se w i ll n ot im pose upon us . Wew ill look to

thi n g s as wellas to names an d, by doin g s o, w es hallbe fu lly sati sfied, that al l thos e objection s res t upon

moreverbal sophi s try, an d have n ot even the remotes t

allian cew ith thepri n ciples of reas on or of law .

In the firs t place, then , I say , that theperson s w hoalleg e, that thos e, employed toalter the charter an dcon s titu tion ofMas sachn s setts Bay,act by virtue ofacom m i s s ion from hi s majes ty for uths s purpos e, s peakim properly, an dcon trary to thetr uth ofthe'case. I say,theyact by virtueof n o s uch comm i s s ion : I say , h i simpos s ible they can act by virtueof s uchacomm i s s ion .What i s calledacom m is s ion either ;con tai n s particulardirection s for thepurpos e

'men tion cd;or it con tai n s n os uch particu lar direction s . I n n either cm

'

can those,

w hoact for that purpos e,actby virtueofacomm i s s ion sIn on ecas e, w hat i s calledacomm is s ion i s void; it hasn o legal ex i s ten ce; it can commu n icaten oauthority. Intheother cas e, it extends n ot tothepurposemen tion ed.T helatter poi n t i s tooplai n to he i n s i s tedou - l prove

the former.

Idrex potes t,”says thelaw , quoddejure

T heki n g’s pow er i s apoweraccordi n g to law . Hi s com

m ds , iftheauthority ofLordChiefJu s ticefin edmaybedepen dedupon ,areu n der thedirectivepow er of thelaw ;an d con s equen tly i n val id, if u n law fu l. Com m i s

° 9.Rep. 123.

d 1.Hale. Videm this headaBac. 149. 9. Purl.E u la, 170, 179, 180.Ven u es , 169.3. Ina?37, 238, 240.

cofiVEN’PION or ram s n van u 961

s ion s , says ‘i n y Lord arelegal ;an darelikethek i n g

’s Writs ;an dn on eare law ful, but s uchasareallow ed

by the common flaw , or warran tedby s om eact ofpa.Ham en t.

L et u s exam i n ean y com m i s s ion expres s ly directin gthos e to w hom it i s g iven , to u sem ilitary forcefor carryi n g i n toex ecu tion thealteration s propos edtohemadei nthecharteran dcon s ti tu tion ofMas sachu s s etts Bay , hytheforeg oi n g max im san dau thor ities an dw hat w ehavesaidcon cern i n g i t ,

w i llappear obvibu san dcon clu s ive. It i s

n et warran tedbyan yact ofparliamen t ;becau seyas hasbeen men tion ed on thi s , an d has been provedon other

occas ion s ,an y s uchact i s void. It 18 n ot warran ted,an d‘I bel ieve it w i ll n etbepreten dedthat i t i s warran ted, byQhecom mon = law .

‘

It i s n ot warran tedby theroyal pterotive;

‘

becau s e,as hasal readybeen fully s how n,it i s dia

m etr ically oppos i teto thepr i n ciplesan d~theen ds ofpreto

gative. Upon w hat fou n dation , then , can it lean an dbe'

eupported?'Upon n on e. Likean en chan ted'cas tle, it

may ,terr ify thos e, w hoseeyes areaffectedby themag ic]:‘i n fiu en ceofthe sorcerers , des poti s m an ds lavery . buts o

M on ,as thecharm i s di s s olved,an dtheg en u in eraysatl ibertyan dofthecon s titution dart i n upon u s , theform i

'

fl fi lc'appearan ce van i s hes , an d-w edi scover s that it ~wasthebas eles s fabric]: ofavi s ion , that n ever hadan yareal"ex i s ten ce.

I havedw elt thelon g er upon thi s part oftheobjection sfin g erlegai n s tas by ou radversaries .becau sethiapart i sdeafen ed-ation ofm l ll thew here. -Wehaven ew removed

ti t;1midn heyfl m s t'fill =o£cours e. or ifaehc' forceracti n flg

0 3. 165.

VOL. I I I. M m

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

SPEECH IN CoNVENT lON,

ON 26th NOVEMBER,

T HE s ys tem propos ed, by thelatecon ven tion , for theg overn men t oftheUn i tedStates , is n ow beforeyou . Of

that con ven tion I hadthehon ou r tobeam ember. As I

am theon lv m ember of that body w ho havethe hon ou rto bealsoam ember of thi s , it may beexpectedthat Is hou ldpreparetheway for thedeliberation s ofthi sas s embly, by u n foldi n g thedifficu lties w hich thelatecon ven tionw ereobl i g edtoen cou n ter , by poi n ti n g ou t theen dwhich

they propos edtoaccompl i s h ;an dby traci n g the g en eralpri n ciples w hich they haveadopted for theaccom pli s hm en t ofthat en d.

T oformag oods ys tem ofg overn m en tforas i n g lecityor s tate, how ever l im itedas toterr itory, or i n con s iderableas to n umber s , has been thou g ht/to requ irethes tron g es t

efi'

orts ofhuman g en iu s . W ith w hatcon sciou s difiiden ce,VOL. 1 11. N

tu

SPEECH DELIVERED IN T HE

then , m u s t them ember s ofthecon ven tion have revolved

i n thei r m i n ds theim m en s eu n dertaki n g w hich was beforethem .aT heir view s cou ldn ot becon fin edtoas mall oras i n g lecom m u n ity, bu t w ereexpan dedtoag reat n umberofs tates ; s everal ofw hich con tai n an ex ten t ofterr itory,an dres ou rces of popu lation , equal to thos e of s ome of

them os t res pectableki n gdom s on the other s ideof the

Atlan tick. Nor w ereeven thes etheon ly. objects tobecom prehen ded w i thi n their del iberation s . Num erou s

s tates yet u n form ed, m yr iads ofthehuman race, w how illi n habit reg ion s hitherto u n cu ltivated, w eretobeaffectedby the res u lt of their proceedi n g s . It was ‘

n eces sary,therefore, to form their calcu lation s on as calecom m ens u ratetoalarg eportion Ofthe g lobe.

For m y ow n part, I havebeen often los t i n as ton i s hm en tat thevas tn es s ofthepros pect beforeu s . T oopen

the navi gation ofas i n g le r iver was lately thou g ht, i n

E u rope, an en terpr i s eadequateto im per ial g lory . Bu t

cou ldthecom m ercial s cen es oftheScheldt becom paredw ith thos e that, u n derag ood, g overn men t, w i ll beexhibi tedon theHuds on , theDelaware, thePotow mack,an dthen um erou s other r iver s , thatwateran darei n ten dedtoen rich thedom i n ion s OftheUn itedStates ?

T hedifficu lty ofthebu s i n es s was equal to its mag n itude. N0 s mall s hareofw i sdom an daddres s i s requ i s iteto combi n ean drecon ci le thejarr i n g i n teres ts , that prevail, or s eem to prevai l, i n as i n g le com m un ity. T he

U n itedStates con tai n already thirteen g over n m en ts m u

tual ly i n depen den t. T hos e gover n m en ts pres en t to the

Atlan tic]: i n fron t offifteen hu n dred m iles i n ex ten t.

T heir s oil, their climates , their production s , their dimen

s ion s , their n umbers aredifferen t. In man y i n s tam es a

ll

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

SPE'iECH DELI VERED IN T HE

con s tituen ts tobehi g h s pirited;bu t I kn ew themal so topos ses s s ou n d s en s e : I .kn ew that, i n theeven t, theyw ou ldbebes t pleasedw i th that s ys tem of g overn men t,

w hich w ou ldbes t prom ote their freedoman dhappi n es s .I haveoften revolvedthi s

‘

s ubject i n m y m i n d. I haves upposedon eof m y con s tituen ts toas k me, w hy I gaves uch avote on aparticu lar ques tion ? I havealwaysihou g ht i t w ou ldbeasati s factoryan s w er to say—Jean i n e

I judg ed, upon thebes t con s ideration I cou ld g ive, thats uchavotewas r i g ht. I have thou g ht that i t w ou ldbebu tavery poor com plimen t to m y con s tituen ts to say,that, i n m y Opi n ion , s uch 'avote w ou ldhavebeen proper,bu t that I s uppos edacon trary on ew ou ldbemoreag reeableto thos ew ho s en t m eto thecon ven tion . I cou ldn ot,

even i n idea, ex pos em ys elf to s ucharetortas , u pon thelas tan s w er, m i g ht havebeen ju s tly madeto me. Pray,s ir, w hat reas on s have you for s uppos i n g thatar ig htvotew ou lddi s pleaseyour con s ti tuen ts ? I s th i s theproperretu rn for the hig h con fiden cethey haveplacedi n you ?If they have g iven cau sefor s uchas u rm i s e, i t was bychoos i n g arepres en tative, w ho cou lden tertai n s uchanOpi n ion ofthem . I was u n der n oapprehen s ion , that theg oodpeople of thi s s tatew ou ldbeholdw ith di s pleas urethe brig htn es s of therays ofdelegatedpower, w hen i t’

on ly provedthe s uper ieur s plen dou r of thelum i nary, ofw hich thos e rays w ereon ly thereflection .

A very im portan t dificu ltyaros efrom com par i n g theex ten t of the cou n try tobe g over n ed, w ith the ki n dof

g over n m en t w hich it w ouldbe proper to es tabli s h i n it.It has been an opi n ion , cou n tenan cedby hi ghauthor ity,that thenatu ral property of s mall s tates i s , to he s e

vern edasarepublick ; ofm iddl i n g on es , tobes ubject toam onarch ;an doflarg eempi res , tobes wayedbyades

I

CONVENT ION or PENNSYLVANIA. 277

potick pr i n ce;an dthat thecon s equen cei s , that, i n orderto pres ervethepri n ciples ofthees tabl i s hedg overn m en t,the s tatem u s tbe s u pportedi n theex ten t it hasacqu ired;an dthat the s pir it ofthe s tatew i llalter i n proportion asi t ex ten ds or con tracts its l im its .”a T hi s opi n ion s eem s

to be s upported, rather than con tradicted, by thehi s toryoftheg overn men ts i n theoldw orld. Herethen thediffi

cultyappeared i n fu ll view . O n on ehan d, theUn ited

States con tam an 1m m en s eex ten t of terr itory, an d, acecordi n g totheforeg oi n g opi n ion ,adeepotick g overn m en ti s bes tadaptedto that ex ten t. On theother han d, it wasw ell kn ow n , that, how ever the citi zen s of theUn ited

States m i g ht, w ith pleas u re, s ubm it to theleg itimaterecs trai n ts ofarepublican con s titution , they w ou ldreject,w ith i n di g nation , thefetter s ofdes poti s m . What thenwas tobedon e? T he ideaofacon federaterepubliek preden tedi ts elf. T hi s ki n dofcon s titu tion has been thou g httohave all the i n ternaladvan tag es ofarepublican , tog ether w ith the external forceofam onarchicalr g overnm en t.

”b Its des cr iption i s , acon ven tion , by w hich

s everal s tates ag reetobecomemembers ofalarg er on e,w hich they i n ten dtoes tabli s h. It i saki n dofas s emblag eofs ocieties , that con s ti tu tean ew on e, capableofi n creas ei n g by mean s of fartheras s ociation .

”T heexpan di n g

qual ity of s uchag overn men t i s pecu liarly fittedfor theU n itedStates , theg reates t partofw hos eterr itory i s yetu n cu ltivated.

I

But w hi le thi s form ofg overn men t enabledu s to s u r

m ou n t thediflicu lty las t men tion ed, i t con ductedu s to

an other , ofw hich Iam n ow to take n otice. It left u s

aMon t.Sp.L.b. s .e.20. b Id.b.9.c.1. 1.Paley, 199- 202.0 Mon t.8p.L.b.9.c.l .

8 78 ar i s en n s m veas n -

m 'r n s

alm os t w i thou t preceden t or g u ide;an dcon sequen tly,

w ithou t theben efit of that i n s truction , w hich, i n man ycas es , may bederivedfrom the con s ti tu tion , an d hi story , an dex per ien ceofother nation s . Severalas s ociation s havefrequen tly been calledby the nameof can foderate s tates , w hich have n ot, i n propriety oflan g uag e,des erved i t. T he Sw its can ton s are con n ected on ly

byall ian ces . T heUn itedNetherlan ds are i n deedanas s emblag eofs ocieties ;bu t thi s as s emblag econ s ti tu tesn o n ew on e; an d, therefore, it does n ot corres pon d

w i th the fu ll defin ition of acon federate republiek.

T he German ic]: body i s com posed of s uch di s propor

tion edan d di s cordan t mater ial s , an dits s tructure i s s o

i n tr icatean dcom plex , that littleu s eful ‘

kn ow ledg e canbedraw n -from it. A n cien t hi s tory di s clos es ,an dbarelydi s clos es to our view , s ome con federate republ icks

the Achzan leag ue, the Lycian con federacy, an d the

Am phyction ick cou n ci l. Bu t the facts recorded con

cern i n g thei r con s ti tu tion s are s o few an d g en eral , an dtheir hi s tor ies are s o u n markedan ddefective, that n o

sati s factory i n formation can be collected from them

con cern i n g man y particu lar , circum s tan ces , from anaccurate di s cern men t an d com paris on of w hich alon e,leg itimatean d practical i n feren ces can be made fromon e con s titu tion toan other. Bes ides , the s ituation an ddimen s ion s ofthos e

,con federacies , audthe s tateof s oci

ety, man n ers ,an d’

habits i n them , w eres odifferen t from

thos e of the Un ited States , that the m os t correct

des cription s cou ld have s uppliedbutavery s mall fu n dofappl icable remark. T hu s , i n form i n g thi s s ys tem ,

w ew ere deprived ofman yadvan tag es , w hich the hi s s

tory an d experien ceofother ag esan dother cou n trieswould, i n ether cas es , haveaffordedus .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

SPEECH DELIVERED IN T H!

an cien t, who u n doubtedly hads tudiedthecon s titu tion s

ofall the s tates an d ki n gdom s kn ow n beforean d i n histi th e, an d w ho certai n ly was qual ified, i n an an comm on deg ree, for u n der s tan di n g thefull forcean doperation ofeach ofthem , con s iders , after all hehadkn ow nan dread,am ixedg over n m en t, com pos ed of thethree

s im pleform s ,as athi n g rather to hew i s hedthan expect

ed:an dhethin ks , that if s uchag overn m en t cou ldevenbei n s tituted, i ts du ration cou ldn 0t belon g . O n eth i n g

i s very certai n , that the doctri n eof represen tation i ng overn m en t was altog ether u n kn ow n to thean cien ts .Now thekn ow ledg ean dpractice of thi s doctri n e i s , i n

my opi n ion , es sen tial to every s ys tem , that can pos ses sthe qual ities offreedom , w i sdom ,

an den erg y.

It i s w orthy ofremark,an dtheremark may , perhaps ,exci te s om e s u rpri s e, that repres en tation of the people

i s - n ot, even at thi s day , thes olepr i n cipleofan y g overnm en t i n Eu rope. G reat Britai n boas ts

,an d s he may

w ell boas t, of the im provemen t s he has made i n politicks , by theadm i s s ion of represen tation for the

im provemen t i s im portan tas faras it g oes ;bu t itbyn o mean s g oes far en ou g h. I s theex ecu tivepow er of

G reat Br itai n fou n ded on repres en tation ? T hi s i s n ot

preten ded. Before the revolution , man y of theki n g s

claimed to rei g n by divi n er i g ht, an dother s by hereditary ri g ht ;an deven at therevolu tion , n othi n g farther

effectedorattem pted, than therecog n i tion ofcertai nparts ofan or i g i nal Con tract, ‘l s uppos edat s om e rem oteperiodto have been made betw een the ki n g an d the

people. A con tract seem s to ex clude,rather than to

i mply, delegatedpow er. T hejudg es of G reat Br itain

1.Bl.Com .233.

CONVENT JON‘ or PENNSYLVAN IA. 28 1

areappoi n tedby the crow n . T he judicial au thor ity,therefore, does n ot depen d upon repres en tation , eveni n i ts m os t rem otedeg ree. Does repres en tation

,

prevaili n theleg i s lativedepartm en t oftheBr i ti s h g over n m en t?Even here it does n ot predom i nate; thou g h i t mays erveas acheck. T he k g i s latu le con s i s ts of three

bran ches , the kin g , the lords , an d the com m on s . Of

thes e, on ly the latter are s uppos edby thecon s ti tu tion

to repres en t theau thor ity of the people. T hi s s hort

analys i s clearly s how s , to w hat anarrow cor n er of the

B ri ti s h con s titu tion the pr i n ciple of repres en tation i s

con fin ed. I bel ieve i t does n ot ex ten dfarther , ifs ofar,i n an y other g overn m ent i n Eu rope. For theAm ericanStates w ere res erved the g lory an d the happi n es s of

diffu s i n g thi s‘

vital pr i n ciple throu g hall the con s tituen t

parts of g over n m en t. Repres en tation i s the chai n of

com m u n ication betw een thepeople, an dthos e to w hom

they by e com m itted the ex erci s e of the pow ers of

g overn m en t. T hi s chai n may con s i s t of on e or m ore

l i n ks ;bu t i n all cas es i t s hou ldbes ufficien tly s tron g an ddi s cern ible.

T obeleft w ithou t g u ideor preceden t was n ot the

on ly difficu lty; i n w hich the con ven tion w ere i n volved,by propos i n g to thei r con s tituen ts aplan ofacon federaterepubliek. T hey fou n dthem selves embarras s ed w i th

an other of pecu liar del icacy an d im por tan ce I m eanthat ofdraw i n g aproper ' l i n ebetw een the national g o.veram en tan dtheg over n m en ts of the s everal s tates . It

was eas y todis coverapreper an d sati s factory pr i n cipleon thes ubject. Whatever object of g overn m en t i s confin ed i n i ts .operation an deffects w ithi n thebou n ds ofaparticular s tate, s houldbe con s ideredas belon g i n g to

theg ovemmen tofthat s tate; w hatever objectofg overn .voL. I I I . 0 o

282 s r z s cn n em vz n n n n !'r n z

m en tex ten ds i n i ts operation or effects beyon dthebou n dsofaparticu lar s tate, s hou ldbecon s ideredas belon g in gto the g overn m en t of the Un i ted States . But thou g h

thi s pr i n ciple be s ou n dan d sati s factory, its applicationto particu lar cas es w ou ld beaccom pan ied w ith m uch

diflicu lty becau s e, ’ i n its appl ication , room m u s t beallow edfor g reat di s cretionary lati tudeof con s tru ction ofthepri n ciple. I n order to les s en or rem ove the dimcu ltyar i s i n g from di s cretionary con s tr uction on thi s s ub

jcet, an en um eration of particu lar i n s tan ces , i n w hich

theapplication of thepri n cipleou g ht to takeplace, hasbeen attem ptedw i th m uch i n du s tryan dcare. It i s on ly

i n mathematical s cien ce, that al i n e can be des cr ibedw ith mathematical preci s ion . Bu t I flatter m y s elf that,u pon the s tr ictes t i n ves ti gation , theen um eration w i ll be

fou n dtobe safean du n ex ceptionable an daccu ratetoo,i n as g reatadeg reeas accu racy can be ex pected i n as ubject of thi s natu re. Particu lar s u n der thi s headw ill

bem ore properly explai n ed, w hen w e des cen d to the

m i n u teview of the en um eration w hich i s made i n thepropos edcon s ti tu tion .

Afterall , it w ill ben eces sary , that, on as ubject s o

peculiarly del icateas thi s , m uch pruden ce, m uch can dou r,m uch m oderation , an dm uch l iberal ity s hou ldbe ezer

ci s edan ddi s played, both by thefederal g overn m en tan dby the g overn m en ts of the s everal s tates . It i s to be

hoped, that thos evirtues i n g overn men t w ill beexerci sedan ddi s played, w hen w econ s ider, that thepow er s ofthefederal g overn m en tan dthos eof the s tate g over n m en tsare draw n from s ou rces equally pu re. Ifa‘difl ’

eren ce

can be di s coveredbetw een them ,i t i s in favour of the

federal g overn m en t ;becau s ethat g overn m en t i s fou n dedoh arepres en tation of the w hole u n ion ; w hereas the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

of ou r w ork, man y of the m embers expres s ed their

as ton i s hm en tat the s ucces s w ith w hich it 'term i nated.

Havi n g en umerateds omeofthediflicu lties w hich the

con ven tion w ereobl i g edto en cou n ter i n the cou rs e of

their proceedi n g s , I s hall n ex t poi n t ou t theen dw hich

they propos edtoaccom pl i s h. Ou r wan ts , ou r talen ts ,ouraffection s , ou r pas s ion s ,all tell u s that w e w eremadeforas tateof s ociety. Butas tate of s ociety cou ldn ot

bes upportedlon g or happi ly w i thou t s om ecivi l res trai n t.It i s true that, i n as tateof natu re, an y on e i n dividualmayact u n con trolledby others ;bu t it i s equally true,that, i n s uchas tate, every other i n di vidual mayact u ncon trolledby him . Am ids t thi s u n iver sal i n depen den ce,thedi s s en s ion s an dan imos ities betw een i n terfer i n g m en t:ber s ofthes ociety w ou ldben umerou san du n g over nable.T hecon s equen ce w ou ldbe, that each m ember , i n s uch

anatu ral s tate, w ou lden joy les s liberty ,an ds uffer m ore

i n terruption , than hew ou ldi n areg u lateds ociety. Hen ce

theu n iver sal i n troductibn of g overn m en ts of s om eki n d

or other i n to the s ocial s tate. T hel iberty ofevery m emher i s i n creas ed by thi s i n troduction for each gai n sm ore by the l im i tation of the freedom of every other

m ember, than he los es by the l im i tation of hi s ow n .

’

T he res u lt i s , that civi l‘ g overn m en t i s n eces sary to

the perfection an d happi n es s of man . I n form i n g

thi s g over n men t, an d carryi n g i t i n to execution , i t i s

es s en tial that the i n teres tan dau thor i ty of the w hole

com m u n ity s hou ldbebi n di n g on every part of it.

T heforeg oi n g pri n ciplesan dcon clu s ion sareg en erallyadm ittedto beju s tan d s ou n d w ith regardto thenaturean d formation of s i n g le g overn men ts , an d the duty of

s ubm i s s ion to them . In s om e cas es they w ill apply,w ith m uch propr ietyan dforce, to s tatesalready formed.

con vs n '

rm u‘or tran s :SI LVeANIA . 285

T headvan tagesan dn eces s itybfcivil g overn men tamon gi n dividual s i n societyare n ot g materfiz ‘

or s tron g er than ,

'

i n s ome s ituation san d'circu m s tan ces ,arethesadvan tag esan dn eces s ity ofafederal g over n men t saron g states . An atu ral an dat very importan t Ques tion n ow pres en ts it.'s elf. I s thecircum s tan cesofltheU n ited States ? ‘A. proper .an s wer to this ques.

t ion w ill u n folds ome:very i n teres tin g‘

tru ths .

T heU n i tedStates mayTadOptan y on eoffou r di fferen ts ys tem s. T hey maybecomecon s ol idatedi n toon eg over nm en t, i n w hich the s eparate'ex i s ten ce of the states s hallbeen ti relyabsorbed. T hey may rejectan y plan ‘

ofu n ion

oras s ociation ,an d’actas separatean du n con n ecteds tates .T hey may form twoor ’

mon econ federacies . T hey mayu n ite i n

,on efederal republ iclt. Which ofthes e s ys tem s

ou g ht to have been proposedby the con ven t ion i— T d

s upport wi th vi g ou r,as i n g leg overn m en t over thew hole

eitten t of theUn i ted States , w ou lddeman das ys tem of

them os t u n qualifiedan dthemos t u n rem itteddespoti s m .

Sucha' n umber ofs eparates tates , con ti g uou s i n s ituation ,u n con n ectedan d di ’s u n itede i n tg ovem men t, w ou ldbe,aton etim e, theprey offorei g n forcepforei g n i n fl uen ce,an dforei g n in tr i g ue atan other, thevictim of m u tual rag e,ran cou r ,an dreven g e. Neither of thes e s ys tem s fou n d

advocates i n thelatecon ven tion : I pres u me they w i ll n ot

fin dadvocates i n thi s . .Wou ldi tbeproper todividethe

Un itedStates i n to tw o or m ore con federacies'

? It w i ll

n ot be u nadvi sableto takeam orem i n u te s u rvey ofthi s

s ubject. Som eas pects , u n der w hich it may be view ed,arefar from bei n g ,atfirs t s i g ht, u n i n viti n g . T w oor m ore

con federacies w ou ldbefeach m ore compactan d more

manag eable, than as in g le-on eex ten di n g over the sameterr itory. ‘

By dividin g“

theUn ited States i n to two or

286 s u zcn n s m vn n x n at r u nmoreoon federacies , the g reat coll 'u ion ofi n teres ts ,apparen tly or really difl '

er s n tan dcon trary, i n thewholeexten toftheirdom i n ion , wouldbebroken ,an din ag reatmeas u redi sappear i n the several parts . But theseadvan tag es ,w hicharedi scoveredfrom certai n poi n ts ofview , areg reatly overbalan cedby i n con ven ien ces that w illappearon am oreaccu rateexam i nation . An imos i ties ,an dperhaps war s , w ou ldar i s e from 'as s i g n i n g the exten t, the

l im i ts ,an dtherig hts ofthedifferen t con federacies . T heex pen s es of g overn i n g w ouldbem ultipl iedby then u m

ber offederal g overn men ts . T hedan g er res u lti n g fromforei g n i n fl uen cean dm u tual di s s en s ion s wou ldn ot, per

haps ,beles s g reatan dalarm i n g i n thei n s tan ceofdifferen tcon federacies , than i n the i n s tan ceofdifl '

eren t thou g h

moren um erou s u nas s ociateds tates . T hes eobs ervation s ,an dman y others that m i g ht bemadeon the s ubject, w i llbes uficien t toevi n ce, thatadivi s ion ofutheUn itedStatesi n toan umber of s eparatecon federacies w ouldprobablybean u n sati sfactoryan dan u n s ucces s ful experimen t. T heremai n i n g s ys tem w hich theAmer ican States mayadopti s ,au n ion ofthem u n der on econ federaterepubl iclt. I t

w ill n otben eces sary toem ploy m uch timeor man yarg umen ts to s how , that thi s i s themos telig ible s ys tem thatcan be proposed. Byadopti n '

g thi s s ys tem , thévi gou ran ddeci s ion ofaw ides preadin g monarchy maybejoi n edto thefreedoman dben eficen ceofacon tractedrepubl iek.

T heexten t ofterritory , thedivers ity ofcl imatean dsoi l ,then umber, an dg reatn es s , an dcon n ex ion of lakes an dr ivers , w i th w hich theUn itedStatesare i n ter s ectedan dalmos t s urroun ded, all i n dicatean en larg edg overn m en ttobefitan dadvan tageou s for them . T hepri n ciples an ddi s pos ition s oftheir citiz en s i n dicate, that i n thi s g overn .men t liberty s hall reig n tr iumphan t. Such i n deedhavebeen the g en eral opi n ion s an dw i s hes en tertain eds in ce

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

‘

I PEFJCH E ELI‘

V I QED fl IN T HE

l iberty, w hile i t res i g n s apait of natu ral l iberty, retai n sthefreean dg en erou s exerci s eofall thehuman flacdties ,s o faras it i s compatiblew i th thepubl ick w elfare.

I n con s ider in g an ddevelopi n g thenatu rean den dofthe s ys tem beforeu s , it i s n eces sary to m en tion an otherki n dofliberty, Which has n ot yet, as faras I kn ow ,

re

ceivedaname. I s hall di s ti n g u i s h - it by theappellationoffederal l iberty. When as i n g le g ovem mén t ' i s i n s ti

tuted, the i n dividuals ofw hich i t is com pos eds urren der

to itapart ofthei r natu ral i n depen den ce, w hich theybcforeen joyedas m en . When acon federaterepublic]: .i s

i n s titu ted, thecom m u n ities ofw hich i t i s com pos eds u r.

ren der to itapart oftheir pol i tical i n depen den ce, w hich

they before en joyedas s tates . T he pr i n ciples w hich

di rected, i n the form er cas e, w hat part of the natu rall iberty of theman ou g ht tobe g iven u p, an d w hat partou g ht to be retai n ed, w ill g ive s im i lar direction s i n thelatter cas e. T he s tates s hou ld. res i g n to the nationalg overn men t that part,an dthatparton ly, oftheir pol iticall iberty, w hich, placed i n that g overn m en t, w i ll producem ore g ood to thew hole, than if it hadremai n edi n the

s everal s tates . Whi lethey res i g n thi s part ofthei r pol i.sticn i liberty, they retai n thefreean dg en erou s ex erci s eofal l their other facu lties as s tates , s o far as it i s com pat ible w i th thew elfareofthe g en eralan ds uperi n ten di n gcon federacy.

S i n ce s tates as w ellas ci ti z en s arerepres en tedi n the«con s titu tion beforeu s ,an dform theobjects on w hich thatcon s ti tu tion i s propos edto Operate, it was n eces sary ton oticean ddefin efederalas w ellas civil liberty.

T hes egen eral reflection s ban ebeen madei n order toi n troduce, w i th m oreproprietyan dadvan tag e,apractical

CONVENT ION or PENNSYLVANIA. 289

i llu s tration Oftheen dpropos edtobeaccompli s hedby thelatecon ven tion .

It has been too w ell kn ow n — i t has been too s everely

felt—that thepres en t con federation i s i nadequateto theg overn m en tan dto theex i g en cies OftheUn i tedStates .T he g reat s tru g g lefor liberty i n thi s cou n try, s hou ldi t

be u n s ucces s fu l, w i ll probably be thelas t on ew hich s he

w i ll havefor her.ex i s ten cean dpros peri ty, i n an y part ofthe g lobe. A n d i t m u s t becon fes s ed, that thi s s tru g g le.

has , i n s om eofthe s tag es Of i ts prog res s , been atten dedw i th s ym ptom s thatforebodedn o fortu natei s s ue. T O the

i ron han doftyran n y, w hich was liftedu pagai n s ther , s heman ifes ted, i n deed,an i n trepid s uperior i ty. Shebroke

i n pieces thefetters w hich w ereforg edfor her ,an ds how edthat s hewas u nas sai lableby force. Bu t s hewas en vi ron edby dan g ers ofan other ki n d, an ds pr i n g i n g from averydifferen t sou rce. While shekept her eye s teadily fixedon the efforts ofOppres s ion , l icen tiou s n es s was s ecretlyu n derm i n i n g therock on w hich s hes tood.

Need I call to you r rem embran ce the con tras teds cen es , Of

-

w hich wehavebeen w i tn es s es ? or}theg lor iou scon clu s ion ofou r,

con fl ict w ith Br i tai n , w hat hi g h ex pec.tati 'on s w ereformedcon cern i n g u s by other s ! What hi g hexpectation s did weform con cern i n g ou r s elves ! Havethos e expectation s been real i z ed? No. What has beenthecau s e? Didour ci tiz en s los etheir perseveran cean dmag nan im i ty NO. Didtheybecom ei n s en s ibleOfres en t.

m en tan d i n di g nation atan y hi g h han dedattem pt, thatm i g ht havebeen madeto i n jureor en s lavethem ? No.What then has been thecau se T hetru th i s , w edreadeddan g er on ly on on es ide: thi s w eman fu lly repelled. Bu ton an other s ide, dan g er , n ot les s form idable, bu t m ore

VOL. 1 1 1. r p

an n ex DELI V ERED IN r m:

i n s idiou s , s tolei n upon u s an dou r u n s u s picion s tempersw eren ot s ufficien tlyatten tive, ei ther to itsapproach or toi ts operation s . T hos e, w hom

‘forei g n s tren g th cou ldn ot

overpow er , havew ell n i g hbecom ethevictim s Ofi n ternalanarchy.

Ifw ebecomealittlem oreparticu lar, w es hall fin dthattheforeg oi n g repres en tation i s by n omean s exag g erated.When wehad.ballledal thevacan cies of forei g n pow er,w e n eg lectedtoes tabli s ham on g ours elvesag overn men t,that w ou lden s u redom es tick vi gou ran ds tabil i ty. WhatWas thecon s equen ce? T hecomm en cem en t Ofpeacewasthecom m en cemen t ofevery di s g racean ddi s tres s , thatcou ldhefs lapeople i n apeacefu l s tate. Devoidofna.tional pow er , w ecou ld n ot prohibit theex travagan ceofou r im portation s , n or cou ld w e der iveareven ue fromtheir ex ces s . Devoidof national im portan ce, w ecould

n ot procu re for ou r ex ports atolerable saleat foreig nmarkets . ‘

DevoidOfnational credit, Wesaw ou r publ ick

s ecu r i ties m elt i n thehan ds oftheholders , l ike s n ow be.forethe s u n . Devoidofnation al di g n i ty, w ecou ldn ot,

i n somei n s tan ces , perform ou r treaties on ou r parts ;an d,i n other i n stan ces , w e cou ld n either‘Obtai n n or com pel.

theperforman ce Ofthem on thepart OfOther s . Devoid

of national en erg y , w ecou ldn ot carry i n to,execu tion our

ow n res olu tion s , deci s ion s , or law s .

Shall I become m ore particu lar s ti ll ? T he tedious

detai l w ould di s g u s t m e n or i s it n n ow n eces sary.T heyears Oflan g uorarepas t. Wehavefelt thedi sbon our , w i th w hich w ehavebeen covered w ehave seenthe des truction w ith w hich w e havebeen ~threaten ed.We have pen etrated to the cau s es ofboth,an d w hen

wehaveOn cedis coveredthem, wehavebeg un to s earch

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CONVENT ION OF PENNSYLV ANIA. 293

T hecon s equen ce i s , that thepeoplemay chan g ethecon s titu tion s , w hen everan dhow ever they pleas e. T his

i s ar i g ht, of w hich n o pos itive i n s ti tu tion can ever

depr ivethem .

T hes eim portan t tru ths , s ir ,arefar from bei n g m erelys pecu lative: w e, at thi s m om en t, s peakan ddeliberateu n der their im m ediatean dben i g n i n fl uen ce. 'T O the

Operation of thes e truths , w eat toas cr ibe'

the s cen e,

hitherto u n parallelled, w hich Am er ican ow ex hibi ts to

the w orld—ag en tle, apeacefu l , avolu n tary, an dadel iberatetran s ition from on econ s titu tion ofg overn men t

toan other , I n other parts of the w orld, the ideaofrevolu tion s i n g overn men t i s , byam ou r n fu lan di n di s s olubleas s ociation , con n ectedw ith the ideaof.wars , an dall thecalam i ties atten dan t on war s . But happy ex per ien ce teaches u s to view s uch revolu tion s i n averydifferen t li g ht—to con s ider them on ly as prog res s ives teps i n i m provi n g the kn ow ledg

e Of g overn m en t, an di n creas i n g thehappi n es s Of s ocietyan d man ki n d.

I

Oft haveI view edwith s ilen t pleas u rean dadm irationtheforcean dprevalen ce, throu g h theUn itedStates

,Of

thi s pr i n ciple—that the s uprem e pow er res ides In the

people an dthat they n ever part w ith it. It may becal ledthepanaceai n politicks . T herecan be n odi s orderi n thecom m u n ity bu t may here receive‘

9 radical cu re.Iftheerrou r be i n theleg i s latu re, i t may be correctedby the con s titu tion ; if i n the con s titution , i t may becorrectedby thepeople. T here i sarem edy, therefore,for every di s tem per i n g overn m en t, if the peoplearen ot wan ti n g to them s elves . For apeople wan ti n g to

them selves , there i s n o remedy : from their power , asw ehaves een , thereIs n oappeal : to their errour, theres n o s uperiour pri n cipleofcorrection .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ORAT ION

n n u vn n n n ON T HE FOUR T H or JULY 1788,

A T T HE

PROCESSION FORMED AT PHILADELPHIA

'ro CELE BRAT E T IIE

ADOPT ION OF T HE CONST IT UT ION

VOL. 1 11.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Paocn s s xow '

III PHILADELPII IA.

Hadthepeoplean opportu n ity ofexpres s i n g their sen ti.m en ts con cern i n g them Werethey to s tan dor fall bythepeople

’s approvi n g or rejecti n g vote T oal l thes e

q ues tion s , atten tivean d im partial hi s tory obl i g es u s toan s w er i n the n egative. T hepeoplew ereeither u n fit to

betru s ted, or their law g ivers w eretooambi tion s totru s tthem .

T hefar-fam edes tabli s hmen t ofLycu rg u s was i n tro.ducedby deception an dfraud. Un der thes peciou s pre

ten ceof con s u lti n g the oracle con cern i n g hi s law s , heprevailedon '

theSpartan s to makeatemporary experim en t of them duri n g hi sabsen ce,an dto s wear that theyw ou lds uffer n oalteration ofthem ti ll hi s return . Taki n gadi s i n g en uou sadvan tageof their s crupu lou s regardfortheir oaths , heo

preven tedhi s retu rn byavolu n tarydeath,an d, i n thi s man n er , ‘

en deavoured to s ecu reaproud.im m ortality tohi s s ys tem .

Even Solon —the m i ldan d m oderati n g Solem n -farfrom con s iderin g him s elfas employedon ly topropose

s uch reg u lation s as he s hou ld thi n k bes t calcu lated forprom oti n g the happi n es s of the com mon w ealth

, madean dprom u lgatedhi s law w ithall '

the' hau g htyair s ofabs olu tepow er. On more occas ion s than on e, w efin dh im boas ti n g , w ith m uch selfcom placen cy, ofhi s ex tremeforbearan cean dcon descen s ion , becau sehedidn otes tabl i shades poti s m i n hi s ow n favou r , an dbecausehedidn ot reducehi s equals to thehum i l iati n g con dition ofhi ss laves .

D idNumas ubm it hi s i n s ti tution s to thegoods en sean dfree in ves tigation of Rome? T hey werereceivedi npreciou s com m u n ication s from the g oddes s Eger ia, w ithw hos epres en cean dregardhewas s upremely favou red;

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ORAT I ON DEL I VERED A T T HE

upon thes tateofag ricu lture. I nag overn m en t, w hose

max im s are those ofoppres s ion , property i s i n s ecure.

It I s g iven , i t i s taken away, by capr ice. Wheretherei s n o secu r i ty for property, therei s n oen cou rag em en tfori n du s try. W ithou t i n du s try, the r icher the s oi l

, the

m ore itaboun ds w ith w eeds . T he eviden ce of hi s torywarran ts thetru th of thes eg en eral remarks . Atten dto

G reece;an dcom pare her ag r iculture i n an cien t.an di nm odern tim es . T hen , s m ili n g harves ts bore’ tes tim on yto thebou n tifu l boon s of l iberty. Now , thevery earthlan g u i s hes u n der oppres s ion . V iew theCam pan iaofRom e

‘

. How m elan choly thepros pect ! Whichever wayyou tu rn you raffl ictedeyes , s cen es ofdes olation crowdbeforethem . Was tean dbarren n es s appeararou n dyoui n all their hideou s form s . What i s thereas on ? W ithdoubletyran n y the lan d i s curs ed. Open the clas s ickpag e you trace, i n chas te des crIption , the beautifulrevers eofevery thi n g you have seen . When ceproceedsthedifferen ce? When that des cr iption was made, the

forceof liberty pervadedthes oil.

Bu t i s ag r icultu retheon lyart, w hich feels the i n fluen ceofg over n men t ? Over man ufactu res an dcom m erceits pow er i s equally prevalen t. T here the sam e cau s esoperate—an dtlg rethey producethesam eeffects . T he

i n du s tr iou s vi llag e, thebu s y city, thecrow dedport—allthes earetheg ifts ofl iberty an dw ithoutag oodg overnm en t, l iberty can n ot ex i s t.

T hes eareadvan tag es , but thesearen otall theadvantag es , that res ult from as ys tem ofg ood g overn m en t.

Ag r icu ltu re, man ufactures ,an dcom mercew ill en s u retou s plen ty, con ven ien ce,an delegan ce. But i s there n ot

s omethin g s till wan ti n g tofin i s h theman ? Arei n ternal

P n ocn s s ION IN”

PHILADELPHIA. 363

vi rtuesan daccompli s hmen ts les s es timable, or les sattracti n g than ex ter nalartsan dornam en ts I s theoperation ofg overn m en t les s pow erfu l u pon theform er than upon the

latter ! By n o mean s . Upon thi s as u pon aprecedi n gtopiclt, reason an dhi s tory w i ll con cu r i n their i n formationan dadvice. I n as eren em in d, the s cien cesan dthevi rm es lovetodm ll. But can them i n dofaman beseren e,When theproperty, l iberty, s ubs i s ten ceofhims elf,an dofthosefor whom he feel s morethan hefeel s for him self,depen d on atyran t’ s n od. If the(“Spiriteds ubject ofoppres s ion can , w ith difficu lty, exert hi s en feeblcdfaculties , so far as to provide, on the i n ces san t deman ds ofnatu re, foodju s t en ou g h to len g then ou t hi s w retched

ex i s ten ce, can it beexpectedthat, I n s uchas tate, hew illex per ien cethos efin ean dvi g orou s m ovem en ts ofthes ou l,w i thout the fu llan dfree exerci seofw hich, scidcean dvirtuew i ll n ever flou ri s h ? LOoltarou n dyou tothenation sthat n ow ex i s t. View ,

i n hi s torick retros pect, thenation sthat have heretoforeex i s ted. T hecollectedres ult w ill

be,an en ti recon viction of thes eall- i n teres ti n g truths - u

w heretyran n y rei g n s , there i s theCou n try of i g n oran cean dviceu w hereg ood got/ornaten t prevai ls , therei s thecou n try of s cien cean dvirtue. Un derag oodg overnmen t, therefore, w em u s t look for theaccompli s hedman .

But s hall w econ fin eour view s even here? Whilewe

w i sh tobeaccompli s hedm en an dci tizen s , s hall w ew i s hto ben othi n g m ore

? WhileWe perform our duty ,an dpromoteour happi n es s i n thi s world, s hall w ebes tow n o

regards upon the n ext ? Does n o con n ex ion s ubs i s t be

tw een the two? From thi s con n ex ion lion ' s themos t

i m portan t ofall thebles s i n g s of g oodg overn m en t. Bu t

here let us pause-au unas s i s ted reas on can g u ideus n o

farther— shedirects u s to that heaven -descen ded s cIo

V OL. I I I . ar

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ORAT ION DELIVERED AT T HE

ex hibition s have been the favou r iteam u s em en ts of

s om e of the w i ses t an d m os t accom pl i s hed nation s .G reece, i n her m os t s hi n i n g era, con s ideredher gam esas far from bei n g the leas t res pectableam on g her publickes tabl i s hm en ts . T he s how s of thecircu s evi n ce that

,

on thi s s ubject, the s en tim en ts of G reecew ere fortifiedby thos eof Rom e.

P ubl ic]: proces s ion s may beso plan n edan dexecu tedas to joi n both theproperties of nature’ s ru le. T hey

may i n s truct an d im prove, w hile'

they en tertai n an dpleas e. T hey may poi n t ou t the elegan ceor u s eful n es sof the s cien ces an d thearts . T hey may pres erve the

mem ory, an d en g ravethe im portan ce of g reat politicaleven ts . T hey may repres en t, w ith pecu l iar fel ici tyan dforce

,theoperation an deffects of g reat political tru ths .

T he pictures quean d s plen did decoration s arou n dm e

furn i s h them os tbeau tifu lan dm os t br ill ian t proofs , thatthes eremarks arefar from bei n g imag i nary.

T he com men cem en t of our g overn m en t has beenem i n en tly g loriou s let ou r prog res s i n every ex cellen ce

beproportionably g reat. It w i ll—i t m u s t be s o. Whatan en raptu r i n g pros pect open s on the Un i ted States !Placidhu sban dry walks i n fron t,atten dedby theven erableplou g h. Low i n g herds adorn ‘

our vall ies : bleati n gflocks s preadover ou r hills verdan tm eadow s , enam elledpas tures , yellow harves ts , ben di n g orchards , ri s ei n rapids ucces s ion from eas t to w es t. Plen ty, w ith her c0piou s

hor n , s its eas y s m il i n g , arid, i n con s ciou s com placen cy,en joys an dpres ides over the s cen es . Com m erce n ex tadvan ces i n all her s plen didan dembell is hedform s . T her ivers , an d lakes , an d‘

s eas ,arecrowded w ith s hips .

T heir‘

s hores are coveredw ith cities . T heci tiesare

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

SPEECH

on 0110081 146 T HE MEMBE R S OF T HE s ENA'

rl

BY ELECT ORS

DELIVERED , on Sl s t n s cn m s E n , 1789,Q

IN T HE CONVENT ION.

OF PENNSYLVANIA,

ASSEMBLED FOR T HE PUR POSE OF REVI EWING , ALT ER ING , AND

AMENDING T HE CONST I T UT ION OF T HE ST AT E .

VOL.I II.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

SPEECH DELI VERED IN T HE

Whom I havem u ch regard, u n deran as pect very differen tfrom that, i n w hich it makes i tsapproaches to m e. I n

deedi t has n otalways appeared tom ys elf i n preci s ely

the sam e li g ht, i n w hich‘

1 n ow view i t. O n e reas onmay be, that I have n ot form erly been accu s tom edtocon tem plate i t from thepoi n t ofs i g ht, at wh ich I n ow

s tan d, an d from w hich i t i s m y du ty, en joi n edby the

s tron g es t ties , to makethem os tatten tivean daccu rateobs ervation s . I havecon s idereditas as ubject of s peenlative di s cu s s ion . I have taken ofi t s uchas l i g htan dg en eral s u rvey , as on e pers on w ou ld takeof thees tateofan other , w ithou tan y expectation that i t, or on es im ilar to i t, w ou ldever becom ehi s ow n . O n s uchavag uean ds uperficial exam i nation , I have n ot s tudiedor i n vesti gatedits i n con ven ien ces or defects .

T hevery res pectable s enateofMarylan d, chos en byelector s , fu rn i s hes w ith letters ofrecom m en dation everyi n s titu tion , tow hich i tbears even adi s tan t res emblan ce.T he m oderation , the firm n es s

,the w i sdom , an d the

con s i s ten cy , w hich have”

character i z edtheproceedi n g s ofthat body , havebeen of s i g nal ben efit to the s tate, ofw hos e g over n m en t i t form s apart ;an dhave been the

themeofju s tapplau s e i n her s i s ter s tates . It i s by n o

m ean s s u rpri s i n g , that afavou rable opi n ion has beenen tertai n edcon cern i n g thepr i n ciples an dman n er of i tscon s titu tion .

Nopers on s hallbecbm en an elector , w ho shall n ot haveres idedi n thedi s tr ict threeyear s n ex t before hi s election . An dn o

pers on shall'be ohmen an elector, whoi s am ember oftheleg i s latu re, or whoholds an yoficei n theapp i n tmen t of theexecn fivcdepart-m en .

”Ed.

couvrmr ron or r z x n s r tvu i u . S1 7K

Bu t n ow that the ques tion relative to thos e poi n ts

com es beforeu s,i n thedi s charge ofour hig h tru s t, w e

m u s t deves t ou rs elves of every prepos ses s ion , w hich

w e may have h itherto i n dulg ed;an d m u s t s cru ti n ize

thes ubject closely, s trictly, deeply ,an dm i n utely. It isi n cumben t upon u s tow eig h wel l, 1. Whether thequalit ies , that s odes ervedlyappreciate the senateofMarylan d, may

.

n ot be secu red toasenate, form edan dor gan i zedu pon very differen tan dm ore el i g iblepri n ciples . 2 . Whether the pr i n ciples , upon w hich that

.s enate has been formedan dorgan i zed, areapplicableto the plan laidbeforethecon ven tion .

It i s adm itted, on on e s ide, that theelector s s hou ld

bechos en by thesam eper son s , by w hom i t i s con ten ded,

on theother s ide, that the s enator s s hou ld be chos en .

T he on ly ques tion , then , i s , w hether an i n term ediateg rade of per s on s , calledelectors , s hou ldbe i n troduced

betw een the s enator san dthepeople.

I beg leaveto s tateto thehou s etheli g ht, i n w hieh thi s

s ubject has appearedto me, on an exam i nation w hich I

may ven tu retos tyleatten t ive;an dtomakes om eremarks ,natu rally res u lti n g , i n m y Opi n ion , from theview s I havetaken of i t on differen t s ides .

When I am calledupon toappoi n t other pers on s to

make law s for m e, I do it becau s es uchan appoi n tm en ti s ofabs olute n eces s i ty ;for theciti zen s ofPen n s ylvan iacan n eitheras s emblen or del iberatetog ether i n on eplace.When I reflect

,that thelaw s w hicharetobemademay

affect m y ow n l ife, my ow n liberty, m y ow n property,

an dthel ives , l iberties , properties ,an dpros pects ofotherslikew is e,w hoaredeares ttome,I con s ider thetru s t,w hich

SPEECH DELIVERED IN T HE

I place i n thos efor w hom I vetetobeleg i s lators , as theg reates t that on eman can , i n thecou r s eof thebu s i n es sof l ife

,repos e i n an other. I kn ow n on e, i n deed, that

can be g reater, ex cept that, w ith w hich them ember s of

thi s con ven tion are n ow hon ou red;an dw hich happen sn otbu t on ce,an doften n ot on ce, i n the s ucces s iverevo

lu tion s of n umerou s cen turies . Bu t I con s ole m yself,that the sametru s t, w hich i s comm ittedby m e, i sal s ocom m ittedby other s , w hoareas deeply i n teres tedi n i tsexerci seas Iam . I con s olem ys elffurther, that thos e,tow hom thi s tru s t i s com m itted,aretheimmediatechoi ceof m ys elf, an dof thos e other. equally i n teres tedw i th

m ys elf.

Bu t, by the, plan beforeyou , Iam n ow calledu pon to

delegatethi s tru s t i n aman n er , an dto tran s fer it to adi s tan ce, w hich I have n ever ex per ien cedbefore—Iamcalledupon , n ot.toappoi n t leg i s lators ofm y ow n choice,but to im pow er others toappoi n t w hom soever they s hanthi n k proper , to be leg i s lator s over m e, an dover thos en eares t to m e i n the differen t relation s of l ife—Iamcalledupon todo thi s , n ot on ly for m ys elf, bu t for thou

san ds of m y con s tituen ts , w ho havecon fidedtom ethei ri n teres tsan dr i g hts i n thi s con ven tion . —Iam calledupontodo thi s for m y con s tituen ts , an d for m ys elf, for theavow ed pu rposeof i n troduci n gachoi ce, differen tfromthat w hich they or I w ou ldmake. I say dfi rm tfbe

cau s e, if thepeoplean d the electors w ou ldchoos ethe

sam e s enators , therecan n ot beeven as hadow ofpreten ce

foracti n g by the n u gatory i n terven tion ofelectors . I

called upon todo thi s , n ot on ly for thepu rpos ed

i n troduci n gachoiceofs enators difl’

eren t from that w hichthepeoplew ou ldmake;bu t for theadditional purposeofi n troduci n gan ew s tateofthi n g san drelation s hitherto

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

SPEECH DELIVERED IN T HE

altog ether to thedi s sati s faction ofa.di s tr ict, for w hich hei s appoi n ted: s uppose the peopleunan im ou s ly i n cl i n edto rem ovehim at the n ex t election . Can they do i t i

‘

No. Supposethem tog ivethem os t u n equ ivocal i n s tr u ction s to theelectors for thi s purpos e: the electors maychoos ehim , the i n s truction s n otw iths tan di n g : an d the

s enator maybravetheman dtell them thatbew i ll leg is latefor them , an dmakethem 'feelall theeffects ofhi s leg i slativepow er, i n s piteof their u navaili n g efl’orts to the

con trary.

S ir , I w ill con s ider w ell—I w illpon der lon g -before

I con s en t that leg i s lator s be i n troduced i n as hape s o

very ques tionable. Iam placedi n an ew s ituation . Per.m it m etoview itagai n . Iam called upon to tran s ferar i g ht_ - ther i g ht of im mediaterepresen tation i n the le

g i s lature—ar i g ht w hich I have hi therto retai n ed n u

al ienated—ari g htw hichhas n ever, heretofore, been tran s .ferred by thecitizen s of Pen n s ylvan ia. Certai n ly, air ,thi s n ew s i tuation requ i res that I s hou ld makeas olem n

pau s e—lookarou n dme,an dreflect w hat m y con s ti tuen tsan dI havebeen , an dw hat w earelikely tobe.

Man y hon ourablemembers ofthi s con ven tion are, Ipres ume, i n the samepredicamen t w ith m ys elf;bothasi t res pects their con s tituen ts , an das it res pects them

s elves . On every accou n t, it i s proper to w ei g h thi s

ubject w ell.

T hos e w hoadvocate the plan of elector s m u s t do

s o, either to avoid i n con ven ien ces w hich can n ot beavoided, or to obtai n advan tag es which can n otbeobtai ned, i n an election by tbepeoplethen selves . Weare,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

con vn n 'rm u or n u n s n vs n u . 329

What i s ther i g ht of s uffrag e, w hich w en ow di splay,to beview ed,adm ired,an den joyedby ou r con s tituen ts lI s i t to g o toan obs cu retavern i n an obs cu recorn er '

ofanobs cu redi s tr ict,an dtovote,am ids t thefum es dfs pi ri tou sl iquors , foraju s ticeofthepeace T here, i n deed, 130 138!s on w ou ldprobably belearn ed, bu t that oflow vice; n o

exam ple w ou ld probably be s how n ,bu t that of i lliberalcu n n i n g . I s it even to choos ethemembers ofon epartofaleg i s latu re, thepatriotick cou n s els an defforts ofw hichpartarel iable, at every m omen t, to becon trolledan dfru s tratedby the n egatives ofother pow ers , i n depen den tof theauthor ity, an di n differen t, perhaps u n fr ien dly, tothe i n teres ts ofthepeople?

'Here, i n deed, there m i g ht

beroom forles s on s offri g idcaution ,an dtim idpruden ce.I t m i g ht n otbethou g htadvi sabletoelectarepres en tativeofbold, u n di s s embled,an di n flex iblevirtue: hem i g htbeobn ox iou s tohi s

‘

s uper iou rs i n theother l i n e;an d, i n s teadofavertin g , m i g htprovoketheexerci s eoftheir overru li n gpower.

Of m uch hi g her import- of m uch m ore im provi n g

eflicacy, i s that r i g ht, w hich i s n ow theobject ofou r contem plation . It i sari g ht tochoose, i n larg ean dres pect.

ableas s emblies ,all theleg i s lative,an dman y ofthe execativeoficers oftheg overn men t ; i t i s ari g htto choosethos e, w ho s hall be in ves tedw i th theauthor ityan dw iththe

‘

con fiden ceof thepeople, an dw ho; may em ploy thatau thorityan dthat con fiden cefor then obles t i n teres ts ofthecom m on w ealth, w ithou t theapprehen s ion ofdi sappoi n tmen t or con trol.

T hi s , s urely, m us t haveapow erful ten den cy toopen ,toen l i g hten , toen larg e,an dtoexalt them i n d. I can n ots ufficien tly expres s my ow n ideas ofthedig n ityan dvalue

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

S‘

P EECH DELIVERED IN T HE

thi s man n er, the warm an d gen erou s emotion g low s

an d i s reflectedfrom breas t tobreas t.

In ves ti gation s of thi s nature w ou ldbe u s efu l an dim provi n g n ot to their author s on ly : they w ou ldbe s o

'

to thei r objects l ikew i s e. T helove of hon es tan dw ell

ear n edfam e i s deeply rooted i n hon es tan d s u s ceptible

m i n ds: Can therebeas tron g er i n cen tiveto theen er g yofthi s pas s ion , than the‘

hopeofbecom i n g theobject of

w ellfou n dedan d di s ti n g u i s hi n g applau se7“Can therebe

am orecom plete g ratification of thi s pas s ion , than the

sati s faction of kn ow i n g that this applau se i s g iven —thati t i s

‘

g iven upon the m os t hon ourable pr i n ciples , an dacqu iredby the m os t hon ou rable purs u its ? T o s ou ls

tru ly i n g en uou s , i n di s cr im i nateprai se, m i s placedprai s e,flatter i n g prai s e, i n teres ted prai se have, n o bew i tchi n gcharm s . Bu t w hen publ ick approbation i s theres ult of

publick di s cern men t, i t m u s tbehi g hly pleas i n g to thos ew ho g ive, an dto thos ew ho receiveit.

Let u s n ow review al ittle the s teps w e have trodlet .hs recon s ider the g rou n d w e have pas s ed over,

an dtheobservation s w ehavemade. HaveI pai n tedther i g hts of election i n colour s too flatteri n g i—Have I

placedtheir im portan ce i n al i g ht .too s tron g—Have. I

des cribedthei r i n fl uen ce i n lan g uag e, or i n s en timen ts ,

that have been exag g erated? I pres ume that I haven ot.

If, then , the remarks Iwhich I have made,an d the

deduction s w hich I havedraw n , w ill bear—an d I tru s tthey w i ll bear—the tes t of s trictan d s ober s cru ti n y ;

w hat i s the res ult n eces sari ly flow i n g from thew hole?

It i s u n den iably thi s -A hat therig hts ofs uffrag e, properly

UPLECH DELIVERED ‘

IN 133!

Wi ll i n con ven ien ces res pecti n g the objects of choiceatten delection s by thepeale, an d beavoided i n elec

tion s by electors Whatarethos e i n con ven ien ces

Will thechoiceof thepeoplebe les s val id than the

choiceof electors ? T hat w i ll n ot be preten ded, s i n ce

theelectors them selves w i ll deriveall their 'au thorityfrom thepeople.

Wi ll the choice of the people be les s hon ou rablethan thechoiceofelector s ? I n republ ican g overn men ts ,the. peopleare the foun tai n of hon ouras w ellas of

power.

W ill thechoice of thepeoplebe les s di s i n teres tedthan the choiceofelectors ? I n teres t w i ll probably be

con s u lted i n both choices 2 bu t, i n thefirs t, the i n teres ts

of the i n dividual s , added tog ether , w i ll form preci s ely

theag g regate i n teres t of the w hole; whereas , i n the

las t, the i n teres ts of the'

electors ,’added tog ether , w i ll

form bu t'as mall part of the i n teres ts of the w hole;

an d that s mall part may bealtog ether u nattached, day ,i t may bealtog ether repu g nan t, to '

theremai n der.W ill thechoiceofthepeoplebeles s impartial

i

than thechoiceofelectors ? T hean s w er to thi s ques tion i s determ inedby thean s w er to the las t. An impartial choice,in the case before u s , i s achoice that embraces the

i n teres ts of the w hole;apartial choice i s that w hichembraces the i n teres ts . on ly ofapart. A choicebythe people i s mos t l ikely to s u i t thefirs t des cr iption

achoiceby electors i s mos t l ikely to s u ibthelas t.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

doon vn n r ron or r s n n s r i vs u u . 333

I believe, that, by s uchatran s fer , i n s tead ofavoidi n gi n con ven ien ces an dobtai n m g advan tag es , w e s hall sacrificeadvan tag es for theacqu i s ition of i n con ven ien ces .

T hepofitical con n ex ion between thepeoplean dthos ew hom they di s ti n g u i s h by elective offices , an d ,

thereci

procal s en sation s an ’

d en gag emen ts res u lti n g fiom thatcon n ex ion , I con s ideras m os t i n teres ti n g i n their natu re,an dmost m om en tou s i n thei r con s equen ces. T hi s con

n ex ion'

s hou ldbeas i n timateas pos s ible ifpos s ible, it

s hou ldbei n dis soi uble. Con fiden ce-a- m u tualan den deari n g con fiden ce—betw een thos e

‘

w ho i m part pow er an dthoseto w hom pow er i s im parted, i s

'

thebr i g htes t g em

i n the diadem 'ofarepubl iek. Let u s s edu lou s lyavoidevery dan ger of i ts bei n g brbken or los t.

W ill therebathesameg en erou s emotion s ofcon fiden cei n thebody ofcitiz en s towards thes enator s i—W ill therebetheSam ewarm effu s ion s of g ratitude i n the senatorstowards thebody of the citi zen s , if the cold breathof elector s i s s ufl

‘

ered. to blow betw een them ? Can thes enator say to thepeople—youarem y con s tituen ts ;for

you chos em e? Can thepeople say to thes e

nator—you

areou r tru s tee, for you aretheobject ofou r Choice?”Will n ot thes erelation s , equally delightfu lan dattractiveon both “s ides , be g reatly w eaken ed—w ill n ot their i n

fl uen ce be g reatly dim i n i s hed, by the i n terpos ition of

electors

But let u s con tem platethi s s ubject i n as till m ores erieu s

‘an dimpor tan t poi n t ofView .

“

T heg reat des idera-stum . i n politicks i s , to formag overn men t, that w ill, atthesametim e, deserve the s eem i n g ly oppos iteepithets

—eficien tan dfree. Iam san g u i n een ou g h tothi n k that

334 s pas can s mvsas n '

tu T HE

thi s can bedon e. But, I thi n k, it can hedon eon ly byform i n g apopu lar g overn m en t. T o ren der g overn m en t

eficicn t, pow ers m u s t be g iven l iberally to ren der it,freeas w ellas eficien t, thesepow ers m u s tbedraw n fromthepeople,as directly an d'as immediatelyat pos s ible.

Everydeg reeof rem oval i satten dedw i thacorres pon d,

i n g deg reeofdan g er . I kn ow that removals , orat leas ton eremoval, i s , i n man y i n s tan ces , n eces sary i n theex .

ecu tivean djudicial departm en ts . Bu t i s this areasonfor m ultiplyi n g or len g then i n g them w i thou t n eces s ity ?

I s itareas on for i n troduci n g them i n to the leg i s lativedepartm en t, the m os t pow erful,an d, if i ll con s ti tu ted,them os t dan g erou s , ofall ? No. But it i s as tron g rea~s on for excludi n g them w herever they can be excluded;an dfor s horten i n g them as m uchas pos s iblew herever

they n eces sarily take place. Corruption an d pu tr idityarem oretobedreadedfrom the len g th, than from the

s tren g th, ofthe s tream s ofauthor ity.

O n thi s g reat s ubject, I offer m y s en timen ts , as i t i sm y du ty to do, w ithout res erve. I thi n k—thatall theofficers i n theleg i s lativedepartmen t s hou ldbethefilm s

diatechoiceofthe.people—that on ly on erem oval s houldtake place i n the officers of the execu tivean djudicialdepartmen ts—4 n d that, i n x thi s las t departmen t, averyim portan t s hareof ihebu s i n es s s hou ld'

betran sactedbythepebplethem s elves .

T hes eare, i n afew w ords , the g reatou tli n es of thegovern m en t, w hich I w ouldchoos e. I fon dly flatter m ys elfthatall theparts ofit m i g htbesafely, com pactly , _

an d.'

firm ly kn it tog ether ;an dthat thequalities ofg oodn es s ,w i sdom ,an den erg y m i g htan imate, s us tai n ,an dpervadethe

'

w hole.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

SPEECH

DELIVERED, ON 19th JANUARY, 1790,

IN T HE CONVENT ION OF PENNSYLVANIA,

ASSEMBLE D FOR T HE PUR POSE.

OF R E VIEW ING , ALT ER ING , AND

AMENDING T HE CONST I T U T ION OF T HE ST AT E ;

ON A HOT ION T HAT

No MEMBER OF CONG R E SS FROM T H I S ST AT E , NOR ANY

PER SON HOLD ING OR EXERCISING ANY OFFICE OF T R UST

OR PROFI T UNDER T HE UNIT ED ST AT E S, SHALL, AT T HE

SAME T IME , HOLD AND DE ERCISE ANY oer-Ten w fiAT E VER

IN T H I S ST AT E .

”

VOL. I I I .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

s tan ce DELi vERED rN T m:

acr ime,an dto haveacceptedof thehi g h hon our i s , i nher eye, becom eacau s eof forfeitu re.

Well, then , may I say , that Iam n ow topleadm y ow n

cau s e. All theci ti zen i s rou sedw i thi n m e an dI di ss emble n either m y feel i n g s n or m y i n teres t : for both m yi n teres tan d m y feel i n g s as acitizen of Pen n s ylvan iaas s u rem e, i n aman n er w hich I can n ot m i s take, bu tw hich, at the sam e time, I can n ot expres s , that thi s

cau s e i s pers onally m y ow n . A s s uch, therefore, I s hallopen lyan ddirectly con s ideran dplead i t. Iam afraid

,

how ever, that I s hallacqu it m ys elfbu taw kwardly : thetas k i s n ew an du n fam i liar : thepath beforem eIhaven ot hitherto trod. Bu taray of con s olation darts uponm e. T hou g h thecau s e i s per s onally, i t i s n etexclu s ively m y ow n . I plead the cau s elikew i s eof s om eof the

m os t di s tin g u i s hed ci ti z en s of Pen n s ylvan ia:\I pleadw hat w i ll s oon be the cau seofother s of her ci ti zen sequally di s ti n g u i s hedi I plead w hat w i ll con ti n ue

, i n

fu tu reag es , to hethecau s eOf her bes t, an d thos ew ho

ou g ht to be her m os t favou reds on s : I plead, s ir, the

cau s eOf Pen n s ylvan iahers elf: for Pen n s ylvan iahers elfw ill certai n ly s uffer, if s he s hall bedepr ivedof the s er

vices of s uch ofher ci ti z en s , as Shal l be bes t qualifiedfor s ervi n g her. T O depr iveher ofthe s ervices ofs uch

citi z en s i s theeviden t ten den cy, theeviden t Object, an dthe eviden t pri n ciple Of the pres en t motion : for s uch

w ill bethecitizen s selectedfor theOffices of theUn ited

States .

Bu t here, s ir , I m u s t beg n ot tobem i s u n ders tood.

When I s peak ofthepri n ciplean dObjectan dten den cy ofthem otion , I m ean n ot toapply thos eex pres s ion s to thepr i n ciples , the view s

, or the w i s hes of its hon ou rable

CONVENT ION or rENNSn VANrA. 341

m over. Betw een thefirs tan dthelas t theremaybe,an d,I thi n k, thereprobably i s ,avery con s iderabledifferen ce.I n s u g g es ti n g thi s , I pay n ot, to hi s pri n ciples , acompl im en tat theexpen s eof hi s u n ders tan di n g ; for to the

m os t en li g hten edm in dit i s n odi s parag em en t to s uppose,that, at firs t s i g ht, i t does n ot perceiveall the di s tan tbeari n g s an drelation san ddepen den cies , w hicham otion ,es pecially on es oex ten s iveas thi s , may, on i n ves ti gation ,hefou n dto have.

T hemotion i s i n thesewords N0 m ember ofcon

g res s from thi s s tate, n oran y pers on holdi n g or exerci s i n gan y office of tru s t or profit un der the Un ited States

,

s h at 1the sam e tim e, holdan d exerci sean y office

w hatever i n thi s s tate.” It embraces all thi s broadan dcom prehen s ivepos ition

—every pers on , w ho i s em ployed,

or tru s tedby theU n itedStates , ou g ht, for that reas on ,.tobe 1n capaci tated from

“bei n g em ployedor tru s tedbythecom m on w eal th Of Pen n s ylvan ia, on eof thos e s tatesw ho com pos ethe u n ion . T hi s pos ition , you radoptionofthem otion w i ll es tabli s h i n its fulles t forcean dex ten t.It w i ll becomeapart;n ot merely of thelaw , bu t ofthe

con s titution of the lan d;an d w i ll beabi n di n g an dperpetual ru le for thefu ture con duct of thi s com mon

w ealth. T hi s , s ir, an d n othi n g s hort '

Of thi s , i s the

truean d n eces sary import Of theques tion before you .

It i s n ot, that ,s omeofiices u n der theUn itedStates

may, i n poi n t of propriety, or i n poi n t ofpol icy, i n the

natu reof their exerci se, or i n theplace w herethey areexerci s ed, be i n con s i s ten t w ith some omoos u n der

Pen n s ylvan ia. T hi s , I w i ll readilyadm it, may be the

cas e u n der thos e differen t g overn men ts . It has been

CH ECK DELI VER!” (N T HE

adm ittedto bethecas e i n an i n s tan cealreadyag reedtow i thou toppos i tion

—I m ean that ofthe g overn ou r. T hi smay often bethecas ew i th regardtodifi'

cren toi ices even

u n der the sameg overn m en t. Of thi s thereare man yen thal pies in the s y s tem beforeyou . T hey haveen cou ntcs odn odi sapprobation from me oran yp ther m ember.

Agai n : thepos ition , in themotion beforeyou , i s n ot,

that i t w ouldbe i n con s i s ten t or im proper for the s ome

pers on to hold, i n an y cas e, m oreOffices than on e. NO ,

s ir thi s motion may beadopted,an dyeton eperson mayhave twen ty.difi

'

eren t ofices accumulatedupon h im u n

der thi s very con s ti tu tion . For thepos ition i s n ot; thatn o pers on , holdi n g an y on e office, s hall , at thefl n e

time, holdan y other ofiice, u n der this s tate bu t the

pos ition is , that every pers on , holdi n g an ofiioe u n dertheU n itedStates , s hou ldbeexcludedfrom every ofiee

w hatsoever 111 this s tate.” For thi s reas on , s i r , all the;n um erou s obs ervatiOn s , w hich we heard on Saturday,from thehon ou rablem over , con cern i n g theprofu s ean dim providen t donation s of ofiiees , w hich thepeople, i n ai t of fon dn es s , m i g ht heap on the head ofapopu larfavour ite, how ever they m i g ht s u it other pu rpos es , wereeviden tly bes idethepu rposeofthem otion . T hem otion ,thoug hadopted, w i ll n ot preven t, n or i s it calcu latedtopreven t, s uch thouy n les san di n judiciou saccum u lation s .

I havealways flattered mys elf, that thecon s ti tu tionof theUn itedStates wou ldbeabon dof u n ion ,an dn otapri n ci pleof i n veterateal ienag e, far les s of hos ti lity ,

between thes everal s tates certai n lyan dm oreparticularly, between each of theman d theU n ited

‘

States . A

more perfect u n ion” i s declared tobeon een d of that

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

344 s r z zcn n s u vs nan n : ran

thi s com m i tteew i ll hear ,an dwei g h, an dcon s ider , beforethey decide.

Bel ieveme, s i r , thepr i n ciple, morethan an y fores eencon sequen ce, ofdi s fran chi s em en t w ou n dsan dalarm s m e.

Weare toldi n hi s tory, thatapers on , Whose i n cli nationhadn ever ledhim beyon dthe gates ofRom e, s icken ed

an ddied, w hen Au g u s tu s , i n awan ton trick ofhis abaolutepow er , con fin edhim w ithi n thos every lim its , beyon d

w hich hehadn ever previou s ly w is hed to g o.’T i s on e

thi n g , s ir , to be w i thou tan ofiicc’ti s avery differen t

thi n g to bedi s qual ified from holdi n g an omoe, an d: to

wan derabou t l ikeapers on attai n tedan dcu t offfrom the

com m u n ity. T hefirs t i s often theeffect ofchoice? the

las t n ever _ i s i t i s the res u lt ofdire n eces s ity. T he

ideaofdi s qualification i s am os t mortifyi n g idea, w henappl iedby on eto him self: i t is amos t i n s u lti n g idea,w hen appl iedtohim byother s . An dcan you thi n k, s ir ,that I w ou ld w i s h to becom eor con ti n ue the con s tan tmark ofmortification or i n s u lt ? No, s i r ; I can ,at leas t,com fort m ys elf, that I w i ll n otbereducedtothi s s i tuation .T hem otion ofthehon ou rableg en tleman i s n otarmedfortu nately itcan n otbearmed—w ith thes tin g oftheedict

of Au g u s tu s : it may prom pt me to g o;bu t i t can n otcom pel m e to s tay. I can cros s theDelaware. ~ I n New

Jer s ey , I s hall bereceivedas acitizen—afull ci tiz enofthe s tate an d,at the sam etim e, may holdadi g n ifiedan d im portan t oficeu n der theUn ited States . What Isay con cern i n g New Jer s ey, I may say con cern i n g NewHam ps hi re, Mas sachu s setts , Con n ecticu t, New York

,

Delaware, Marylan d, North Carol i na, Sou th Caroli na,an dGeorg ia. For n on eofthos e s tates , s ofaras I kn owor have been i n formed, view hon ourable employm en t:u n der thenational g overn men t throug h thei n verteds pe

con vn N'r ron or PENNSYLVANIA. 345

culum of the m otion , w hich pres en ts them as cau s es ofdi s qual ification an ddi s fran chi s em en t. Nay, s ir , I bel ieveI can g o to RhodeI s lan d,an dbereceivedthereas m orethan ahalfcitiz en , ifI choos e it; for I haven ot heard,that that s tate, an tifederalas i t i s , has pas s edan act ofi n capaci tyagai n s t theoflicers oftheUn i tedStates .

Bu t w earetold, that thes com m on w ealth ofVi rg i n iahas obs ervedadifferen t con duct ;an dhas ex hibi tedanexam ple, w hich w eare n ow sol icitedto im itate. I w i s h,air, to kn ow ifthi s favouri teexampleform sapart of“thecon s titu tion ofVi rg i n ia. Ifit does n ot—an dI pres umei tdoes n ot—I w i s h to s eethelaw that has producedi tI w i s h t o

‘

exam in ethat law I w i s h to kn ow thereas onofthat law : I w i s h tokn ow thetim e when ,an dthe

‘

occas ion

'

on w hich, that law was made I w i s h to kn ow - the

tem per an d the national pr i n ciples of the leg i s lature,w hich madethat law . I havebeen i n formed, how cor

rectly I w i ll n ot u n dertake to vouch, thatan an tifederal '

leader i n Virg i n ia, foiledby thecon ven tion ofthat comm on w ealth i n hi s oppos i tion to the national g overn m en t,i n troduced i n to theleg i s latu re, an d s ucceeded i n fix i n gs ome s ti g ma,as "

faras that leg i s latu recou ldfixas ti g ma,u pon the federal characters of that s tate. Perhaps , s ir,m y i n formation i s correct ;an dthi s law may betheverythi n g . Perhaps , s i r, i t may havebeen theproduction ofthecon vuls ivethroes ofan an tifederal fit. Ifao—an dIthi n k the con jectu reaprobableon e -ao s oon as thefit

s hall beover—an d, I bpps , it w i ll beover s oon , ifit i s

n ot overalready- “ Virg in iaw i ll rem ovei ts effects by con .s iderately repeali n g the law , w hich it hadprecipitatelyoccas ion ed.

V 01 I I I .

IPBBCII DELI VERED IN T HE

But s hall we, 's ir, s ufl'

er ou rselves to becom e i n fected

w ith the tran s ien t, thou g h violen t di s order ofan ei g hhoari n g s tate3Shall w edom ore, s ir i—s hall w ei n oculatethi s di s order tobecom eaperpetualan di n cu rablepoi s oni n thevery Vitals of ou r con s titu tion ? I con fes s I did

n otexpect to s eethes ym ptom s ofthi s di s tem per reappears o s oon i n Pen n s ylvan ia, afterall the s ucces s fu l effor ts

that havebeen madetoexpel them from her borders .

It s eem s that I ou g ht tobei n capacitatedfromen joyi n g the con fiden ce of thi s s tate, w hi le I holdan oficeu n der theUn itedStates . An dyet I may holdon eoficei n thi s s tate,an dn otbei n capacitatedfrom holdin g tw en tyor thirty m ore. An dyet I may holdan ofiiceu n der NewJersey,an dn otbein capacitated. I mayholdan ofliceun deran y other ,an deven u n der every other s tatei n theU n ion ,

an d n ot be i n capacitated. I may holdan oficeu n derFran ce, u n deran y other s tatei n Eu rope, u n deran yothers tatei n thew orld,an dn ot bei n capacitated. I may haveheldan officeu n der G reat.

Br itai n ,an d, u n der that ofice,may haveactedagai n s t theUn i tedStatesan dagai n s tth i ss tate, du ri n g all thelatewar ; I may s ti ll holdthat veryofice,an dn otbei n capacitated. But—thepos ition occu rsagai n—ifI holdan oficeu n der theU n itedStates , I m u s tbei n capacitatedfroman y tru s t w ider Pen n s ylvan ia.When ce, s ir i - iathenam eof w on der—when cethis

pri n cipleofhos ti lity—thi s pr i n cipleofhos til ity , operati n g

s olely an d pecu l iarly—betw een thi s comm on w ealthan dtheUn itedStates ? Let it beexplai n ed: let u s kn ow

'

its

ori g i n let u s kn ow i ts nature let us kn ow its.

extehtlet u s kn ow its efl

‘

ects .

If thi s“pri n ciple ex i s ts , an d ou g ht to be providedagain s t; it i s s urpri s i n g that n o s uch provi s ion was made'

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

s r s s cn n s trvan z n I n rattru s t or em ploym en t. O n w hat fou n dation can s uchadeclaration res t ? It can have n o reas onablefou n dation ,u n les s thei n teres ts an dview s oftheUn itedStatesare, i ntheir naturean d ten den cy, hos ti le. to the i n teres ts an dview s ofthi s

.

com mon w eal th. Let it bes how n w herei n

thi s hos ti li ty ofview s an d i n teres ts con s is ts .

I havealreadyadm itted, that thereareman y i n s tan ces ,i n w hich offices u n der differen t g overn men ts arei n compatible i n poi n t ofpropr iety, or i n poi n t of pol icy , i n thenatu re of their exerci s e, or i n theplacew here theyareexerci s ed. I haveadm ittedal s o, thatan accum u lation ofofices may bevery im proper u n der thesam eg over n m en t.Bu t it has appeared, that thepri n ciple, theten den cy ,an dtheobject ofthi s m otion are n ot to preven tan y i n com patibil ities or improprieties ofthes eki n ds .

O n theother han d, thereareman y i n s tan ces , i n w hich

difi‘

eren toliices , n ot on ly u n der thesam eg overn m en t, bu teven u n der differen t g overn m en ts , may beheld, n ot on lyw ith g reat propr iety, bu t even w ith g reatadvan tag eto thepubl ick, by the sam eper s on s . Agai n s t theen joym en t ofthi s publ ickadvan tag e, them otion beforeyou i s levelledan ddirected.

A n dyet, s ir, ou r ow n exper ien cehasattes tedits happyedects . Duri n g the late war , w ereapeds olidben efitsfrom theexertion san dtalen ts ofoficers —iaon ei n s tan ce,ofavery di s ti n g u i s hedoflicer— in thes erviceofFran ce.Wou ldw ehavereapedthos eben efits ,hadFran ceadopted,agai n s t theUn i ted.States , theu n fr ien dly pr i n ciple, w hichi s n ow recom men dedtoas tate

, hithertoon eofthem os tfederal an don e of the m os taffectionatei n theU n ion 2Supposethesoverei g n of thos ecficers tohavedeclared

couvs x '

rtos or rm sYLvs x rs . 349

tp them i n the s pir it ofthi s motion—f"themomen t you

acceptan y officeu n der theUn itedStates , you s hall bedi s qualified, by thatacceptan ce, from holdi n gan y officei n my s er vice,

” —w hat ‘w ou ld have been the con s e

quen ce? T heUn itedStates w ou ldhavebeen depr ivedoftheir military s killan das s i s tan ce. But, happi ly for u s ,theki n g ofFran cewas n otactuatedby thes piri t ofthi sm otion s hall I ri s k the expres s ion ,

‘

that he was m orefederal

O n how man y s udden an du n fores een emerg en cies maythe s ervices ofas tatedofficer oftheUn itedStates beu s efu l , perhaps , i n theopi n ion ofthepublick, n eces saryfor thi s comm on wealth ! O n how man y s udden an du n

fores een emer g en cies may thes ervices ofas tatedofficerof thi s com mon w ealthbeu s efu l, perhaps , i n theop1n 1onof thepublick, n eces sary for theUn i tedStates ? Why,i n both cas es , s hou ld thedoor ofm u tual, u sefu l, n eces

sary, an d patriotick exertion be con s titu tionally s hu t ?

For‘

thi s m otion w ill operateboth ways . If the officers

of theU n i tedStates aretobe‘con s ideredasal ien s w ithregardto thei r capaci ty ofholdi n g ofices u n der thi s comm on w ealth : theofficers of thi s comm on w ealth m u s t be

con s ideredas al ien s w ith regardto their capacity ofholdi n g ofiices

‘

u n der theUn itedStates .

When I say, s ir , that, i n both i n s tan ces , they m u s t

be con s ideredas alien s ; I u s ean expres s ion m uch toos oft: for u n der both con s ti tution s -4h“ of the Un ited

S tates an dthat w hich w e propose—al ien s may beem

ployedin man y offices . T hi s m otion , ifadopted, w i ll,therefore, i n troduce, betw een the Un ited States , an dthi s s tate,as tooflices , ’

morethan as tateofal ienag e. Iwas ju s tified i n sayin g , that thi s m otion con tai n eda

arm s w r i s t s Jan u spri n ciplean ddeclaration ofpoli tical -hos tility,as toofices ,between thi s comm on wealthan dtheUn itedState. Be

forethes en ten ceofdi sfran chi s emen tfiomofii’cei n Pen ns ylvan iabe pas s ed, by theadoption of thi s m otion ,

agai n s t theoflicers of theUn itedStates Iagai n demandthat itbeclearly show n w herei n thepri n cipleofpoliticalhos tilitybetween thetwog overn men ts con s i s ts .

I thi n k ithas been s u g g es ted, that u n les s thepr i n cipleof thi s motion be i n troduced i n to the con s ti tution , the

g overn men t of theUn i tedStates mayacqu ire, i n Pen ns ylvan ia,an i n fluen cedan g erou s toher cou n s els , dan g erou s toher i n teres ts ,an ddan g erou s even toher ex i s ten ce.T hat g overn men t, i t was s upposed, m ig ht, byappoi n ti n gto its ofiices theofficers of thi s s tate,attach them _to the

meas ures , thei n teres ts , an dthecou n s el s of.theUn ited

States , i n oppos ition to themeas ures , the i n teres ts ,an dthe cou n s els of Pen n s ylvan ia. Like the motion , thi sreas on i n g i n s upport of i t i s fou n ded on an im pl ied

pri n ciple of hos ti lity between the tw o g overn m en ts .

Beforethe com m ittee s ubs cr ibe to the reas on i n g , theyw i ll requ i rethat thepri n cipleofhos ti lity be show n .

Bu t let u s , for amomen t, s uppos e it to ex i s t : let

u s s uppos ethat themeas u res ,an di n teres ts ,an dcou n s elsofthe Un itedStatesare i n diam etrical an d i n veterateOppos ition to those of Pen n s ylvan ia: let u s s uppos e,

that, i n order to promote thos eadverse i n teres ts , _to

es tabli s h thoseadvers ecoun sels ,an dtocarry i n toefl '

ect

thos eadvemem cas u res , thepres iden tan dsenateoftheU n i tedStates s hould-call to theiraid,an das sociate i l lthei r fles ig n s ,

’

thealli ters ofPen n sylvan ia; w ould it bepolitic]: or . w i se i n Pen n s ylaran iato cooperate, i n thes ootactual .man n er, w ith thepres iden ts

an dsenatefor

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

SPEECH DELIVERED IN T HE

pos s ible, thou g h,again , I w i ll n otallow it tobeprobable,that Pen n s ylvan iamay becom eas i n fam ou s for her an tifederal, as s he has hitherto been ren ow n ed for her

federal pri n ciples . ’ T i s pos s ible, thou g h, s ti ll , I w i ll

n otallow it tobeprobable, that s hemay hereafter beasm uchdi s hon ou redby theli ttlen es s ,as s hehas heretoforebeen adm ired for the liberal i ty, ofher pol i ticks . Her

cou n s els may takean i n vertedan d dim i n i s hin g tur n .

T hose, s ir , w hocan n ot s hi n e i n as paciou s s phere, w i ll

w i s h todraw s om e n otice i n acon tracted on e. T hose,

w ho can n ot be di s ti n g u i s hedby acti n g apart i n anen larg ed s ys tem , w ill en deavour to di s tin g u i s h them

s elves byacti n g as the l ittlebut pr i n cipal puppets i n anarrow an d s eparateds cen e. I n to s uch han ds , s i r , it i s

pos s ible—thou g h I on ce m oreen ter m y protes tagai n s ttheprobabil ity oftheeven t, —that Pen n s ylvan ia, for hers i n s , may fall.

If this very im probable, but very pos s ible even t

s hould take place; then , i n deed, the cruel addi tion,

w hich I havealready men tion ed, m u s t be made. Yet

even then , thi s cruel circum s tan ce w ou ld carry w ith it,

i n s om edeg ree, its ow n alleviation . I n s uchaci rcums tan ce, thepan g s ‘

ofs eparation from Pen n s ylvan iaw ou ldbecome les s s evere. Even i n s uch aci rcum s tan ce, Ih0peon econ s olation m i g ht be con s ti tutionally allow edm e. O n m y way to the g overn m en t of the Un i ted

States , I m i g ht tu rn an dlook back from the oppos ite

s horeoftheDelaware;an dthou g h Pen n s ylvan ias hou ldreject m y faithfu l s ervices , s hem ig ht perm it m e, w ith

afl utteri n g heartan d fau lter i n g ton g ue, to w i s h her

w ell.

Bu t, s i r, I w i ll n ot purs ue the con s ideration ofaneven t s o irrecon cilable w ith thepresen t g en ius an d

CONV ENT ION or PENNSYLVANI A 353

pr i n ciples ofPen n s ylvan ia. I s s hejealou s , b’

ecg u s eher

s on s are received i n to thearm s of theU n ited States ?No, s 1r. Was she to open her l ips upon thi s occas ion ,w e

’

s hou ldhear thefollow'

mg , or s om e s uchas thefol

low i n g , accen ts T hou g h I cheerfu lly res i g n you to

the s erviceof the Un ion , i n w hich m y ow n s ervicei s , to man y im portan t purpos es , i n cluded; yet Iren ou n ce n ot you r affection s ; n or do I abdicate m y

w ell fou n ded claim toyou r du ty. You may s till be

ofu seto m e;an d I retai n m y r i g ht to the exertion s

ofyour u s efu ln es s , w hen ever I s hall call upon you onaproper occas ion . I n the m ean time, em ploy your

u tm os t efi'

orts for the i n teres t ofthe Un ited Statesby doi n g thts , you w i ll es s en tially prom otem i n e an dyou w ill be l i kew i sebetter prepared, an dbetter di sposed for s ervi n g m e, w hen ever I s hall particularlyrequ i reyou r s ervice.” Such w ou ldbethelan g uag e,

s uch w ou ldbethe s en timen ts , ofou r ven erablepoliticalparen t. Such, s i r , w ithout pers on ification ,an dw ithoutanalleg ory , Ibelievetobel iterallyan ds tr ictly thelan g uag ean ds en timen ts ofag reat majority of thepeopleof thi scom m on w ealth. T hi s lan g uag ean dthes es en tim en tsarei n direct con tradiction to the lan g uag ean dpr i n ciples ofthem otion before you . T ow hich w ill thi s comm ittee

pay theg reates t regard?

VOL. I" .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A CHARGE

T O T HE GRAND JURY

IN T HE

CIRCUIT COURT FOR T HE DIST RICT OFVIRGINIAA

en NT LEu EN or T HE G RAND JURY,

T O preven t cr imes i s the n obles t en dan daim ofcri

m i nal ju ri s pruden ce. T o pu n i s h them“

i s on e of the

mean s n eces sary for theaccom pl i s hmen t of thi s n oble

ebdan daim .

“

T he i m pu n ity ofan offen der en cou rag esh im to repeat hi s offen s es . T he w i tn es s es ofhi s im po

n ityare tem pted to become hi s di s ciples i n hi s g u i lt,T hes e con s ideration s form the s tron g es t—s om e

‘

view

them as the s olearg umen t for the i n fl iction of pu n i s h

m en ts by human law s .

T hereare, i n!

pu n i s hmen ts , three qual ities , whichren der them the fit preven tives ofcr imes . T hefir s t

i s their m oderation . T he s econ d i s their s peedi n es s .

T hethird is their certai n ty.

Weare toldby s ome writers , that the n umber of

crim es i s u n ques tionably di m i n i s hed by the severi ty of

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

s'

cu s s es T o T n z can !) JURY

len g th, u n der thes peciou sappearan ceof n eces sary ju stice,as ys tem ofcruelty i s es tabli s hedby law .

S uch/as ys tem i s calcu latedtoeradicateall theman lys en timen ts of the s oul, an dto s ubs titu te, i n their place,dis pos ition s of them os tdepravedan ddeg radi n g ki n d.

It i s the paren t ofpu s i llam '

m i ty. A nation broke to

cruel pun i s hmen ts becomes das tardlyan dcon tem ptible.For , in nation s , as w ellas i n dividuals , cruelty i s alwaysatten dedby cowardi ce. It 18 theparen t of s lavery. [in

every g over n men t, w e fin d the g en iu s offreedomdepres s ed i n proportion to the san g u i nary s pir it. of

'

the

law s . It i s hos ti letothepros per ity (if nation s , as w ell

as to thedig n ityan dvirtueof men . T he law s , w hich

Draco_

fram ed for Athen s , are said em phaticallytohavebeen w r itten i n blood. Whatdidthey produce.

7

'

An ag g ravation of those very , calam i ties , w hich they

w ere in ten ded to remove. A s cen eof the g reates tan dm os t com plicateddi s tres s was accordi n g ly exhibitedbythe m i serable Athen ian s , till they foun d relief i n the

w i sdoman dmoderation ofSolon . It i s as tan di n g ohs ervation i n Chi na—an dChi nahas en joyedavery 190gexperien ce—that i n proportion as the pu n i s hmen ts of

cr im i nals are i n creased, theem pireapproaches toan ewrevolution . T hePorcian law provided, that n o citi zen

of Rome s hou ldbe expos ed to.asen ten ce ofdeath

U n der the Potpian law , thecom mon w ealth g rew an dflou r i s hed. Severepu n i s hmen ts w erees tabl i s hedby theem perours . U n der theem perours , Romedecli n edand

T hepri n ciples both of u ti lityan dar'

jus ticerequi re,that the comm i s s ion ,

of ( crime,s houldbeM by e

A cuan ca7 0 T HE G RAND wari san ex trem eon on ehan das wellas on theother;an dtheex trem es on each han ds hou ldbe’avoidedw ith equal care.I n s om ecas es , at s om etim es ,an du n der s om ecircum

s tan ces , adelay of the trial an dof the pu n i s hm en t,

i n s tead of bei n g hu rtfu l or pern iciou s , may, ‘ i n the

hi g hes t deg reeh be salu tary an dben eficial, both to the

publick, an dto him w ho i saccu s edor con victed.

Prejudices may naturallyar i s e, or may beartfu llyfom en ted, agai n s t thecr im e, or agai n s t theman w ho i s

charg edw ith havi n g com m ittedi t. A delay s hou ldbe

allow ed, that thos e prejudices may s ubs ide, an d thatn either ju rors n or judg es may , 'at thetrial,act u n der thefas ci nati n g i m pres s ion of s en tim en ts con ceivedbefore.

theeviden ce i s heard, i n s tead'

of thecalm i n fl uen ce of

thosew hich s hou ldbe on ly its im partial‘an ddeliberate

res u lt. A. s ufficien t tim e s hou ldbeg iven to preparethepros ecu tion on thepart ofthe s tate, an dthedefen ce of

it on thepart of the pr i s on er. T hi s tim e m u s t varyaccordi n g todifferen t person s , difi

'

eren t crim es ,an ddifferen t s ituation s .

After con viction ;thepu n i s hmen tas s ig n edtoan i n kt iou r offen ce s hou ldbe i n fl icted w i th m uch ex pedition .

T hi s w i ll s tren g then theu s efu las s ociation betw een them ;

on eappeari n gas thei m mediatean du navoidablecou s equen ce (ifthe other. When as en ten ceofdeath i s pron ou n ced, s uch an in terval shou ldbepermittedto elaps ebefore its execution as w i ll ren der the lan g uag eofpolitical 'ex pedien cy con sonan t to thelan g uag e of rel i g ion .

Un der thes equal ification s , the s peedy pu n i s hmen t of

cr im es s hou ld form apart i n every s ys tem ofcrim inalJur i s pruden ce.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A cu s s es T O T HE GRAND JURY

certai n . In thean nal s of“

thew orld, there i s n ot fou n d

an other i n s titu tion s o w ell adapted.for .avoidi n g all thei n con ven ien ces van dabu s es , w hich w i mldotherw i searisefrom mal ice, from r i g ou r , from n eg l i g en ce, or from

x

partiality i n thepros ecu tion ofcrim es ;

Am on g theRoman s , an y on eoftheciti zen s ;as w ellas theper s on m ore i m m ediately i n ju red, m i g ht pros ecu teapubl ick offen ce. T h i s practiceproducedm i s chiefsvery g reat, an d of very oppos i te ki n ds . Pros ecu tion s

Were con ducted, on s om e occas ion s , from m otives of

ran eon r an d reven g e. O n other occas ion s , they w ere

u n dertaken byafrien d, perhaps acon federate of the

crim inal, w ithaview toen s urehis impu n ity.

5 In s everal of thefeudal nation ‘s , theJudg e him self

was orig inal y the prosecu tor. T heg ros s im p mpr iety

of s uchafig ulation appears at the firs t view . T he

pros ecutor i s aparty : can the same pers on be bothapartyan dajudg e? T o rem ovetheg rievan ces , to w hich

thi s reg ulation gave birth, apublick pros ecu tor waappoin tedto manag ethejudicial bu s i n es s of

“

thecro’

wn ,or ofthe com m u n i ty, beforetheproper tribu nals .But that crimes may bepros ecuteddu lyan dreg u larly,

it i s n eces sary that. im partialan dauthen tick i n formationoftheir exi sten ce s hou ldbeobtai n ed. T ofurn i s h s uch

i n formation i s the g reat object ofthei n s ti tu tion ofg ran djur ies .

Sometimes theg ran dju ry br i n g forwardaccu sation sof their ow n proper motion : s ometimes they proceed

upon particu lar charg Es formally laidbeforethem by thepublick pros ecutor. T hesetwomodesaredi s ti n g ui shed

1.1N T m : CIRCUI T COURT . 365

by thew ell kn ow n appellation s ofpres en tmen tan di n dictmen t. In both

,it i s the r i g ht, an d i t i s theduty ofa

g ran dju ry, to i n qu i redil i g en tly, an dto pres en t tru ly.

It i s you r im mediate bus i n es s , g en tlem en , to makei n qu ir ies an d g iveofficial i n formation con cern i n g s uch

cr im es an doffen ces as may havebeen com m i ttedagai n s tthecon s t1tu t1on an d.law s of the U n i tedS tates , an darecog n i zable by thi s circu it cou rt heldfor thedi s tr ict of

V i r g i n iai n them iddlecircu it. T oas s i s tyou i n thos e i nqu iries , [s halldes cr ibeto you theju r i sdiction , w hich, i ncr im i nalmatters , i s ves ted i n the circu i t cou rts ;an dI

s hah g iveyouavery plai n an dcon ci s eaccou n t ofthecrimes an d ofl '

en’

ces kn ow n to the con s titu tion an d law softheUn itedStates ,an dofthepu n i s hm en ts den oun cedagain s t thos ecrimesan doffen ces .

T heci rcu it courts have ex clu s iveju risdiction ofallcr im es an d offen ces , w hich

[are cog n izable u n der the

au thority of the U n ited States , except w here 1t i s or

s hall be provided otherw i se by law . T hey havealsocon curren t j uri sdiction w i th thedi s tr ict courts , of the

cr imes an d offen ces , w hich are cog n i zable i n thos e

courts3 T hecrimes an doffen ces , ofw hich thedi s tr ict

courts haveju ri s diction , an d ofl w hich, con s equen tly,

thecircu it cou rts have con cu r ren t jur i sdiction , arealls uchasarecog n i zableu n der theau thor ity oftheUn i ted

S tates , providedthey ,becom m ittedw i thi n the res pec

tivedi s tr icts , or on the hi g h s eas ;an d providedthey

be thos eon w hich n o other pu n i s hmen t than ali n e n otex ceedi n g on ehu n dreddollars , im pr i s on m en t n ot exceed

Law s U.S.Con g . I. ses s . l . s . 11.

A CHARG E T o r u n GRAND JU!Y

i n g s i x mon ths , or w hippi n g n otexceedi n g thi rty s tri pes

i s tobei n dicted.5

T reas on g en erally occupies the firs t placei n thelon g

catalog ueofcr imes , On thi s s s ubject, so i n teres ti n g to

thepubl ickan dtothec1t1z en s ,avery im portan t im provem en t has been i n g raftedby thecon s ti tu tion oftheUn ited

States .

If thedes cr iption of treas on be vag uean d i n determ i nate.u n deran y g overn m en t; thi s alon e.w ill beas utiicien t cau s ew hy that g overn men t s houlddeg en erate idtotyran n y.“ Iftheden om i nation an dthepenal ties oftreasonbecomm u n icatedto offen ces ofadifferen tan d i n fer iourki n d; the horrou r, w hich .w ou ld otherw i s eatten dthi scom plicated cr ime, i s w eaken edby theas s ociation w i th

thi n g s , to w hich, i n tru th, it has n either relation n or

res emblan ce.

I n therei g n ofHen ry theei g hth,alaw was madei n Eug lan dby w hichan y on e, w ho predictedthedeath oftheki n g , was declaredg u ilty oftreason . Arbitrarypow er, ons om eoccas ion s , recoil s upon thos ew ho exert it. When

thi s capriciou s an d tyran n ical pr i n ce lay on hi s deathbed, hi s phys ician;w ou ldn ot i n form him ofhi s dan g er,becau s e they w ou ld n ot i n cur thepenalties of hi s law .

Wearetoldby the E n g l i s h parl iam en t itself, that,at .

an other per iod, so man y pai n s oftreas on w ereordai n edby s tatute, that n o man kn ew how tobehavehim s elf, to

do, s peak, or say, for doubt ofs uch pai n s .”

b Law s U.S.Con .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A CHARG E T o r u n G RAND JURY

len than ds ,byas eaman , upon hi s com man der, i n order tohi n der hi s fig hti n g in defen ceofhis s hip or g oods comm ittedto hi s tru s t. k '

8. T hemaki n g of"arevolt i n as hipbyan y s eatnan .

l9 . P i racy or robbery (as s pecifiedi n

thelaw ) oran yact ofhos tilityagai n s t theU n i tedStatesoraci tizen ’

thefireof, committedbyan y citiz en upon theh i g h s eas , on pretenceofau thor ity from an y per s on , oru n der colou r ofacom m i s s ion from aforei g n pr i n ceors tate.m 10.

"Con federacy w ith pirates . 1 1 . T hefals emaki n g ,alteri n g , forg i n g , or cou n terfei tin g ofan y certifica‘te, i n den t, or other publ ick secu r ity of-theU n ited

States . ’ 12 . T heen n ew g or procuri n g ofan y certificate,i n den t,aother public]: s ecu r ity '

oftheU n i tedStates tobefal s ely '

made,altered, forg ed, or cou n terfei ted. it i s .Acti n g oras s i s ti n g w ill i n g ly

'

i n thefal s emaki n g ,al teri n g ,forg i n g , or cou n terfeiti n g ofan y s uch certrficate, i n den t,or other publ ick s ecu r ity .

1 14 . T heu tteri n g , p utti n g

‘

off, or offeri n g , i n paym en t or for‘sale, ofan y s uch fal se,for g ed,

’altered, dr cou n terfeitedcertificate, in den t, orother publ ick s ecu r i ty , w i th

'

i‘

n ten tion todefraudan yper.'s on , an dwith kn ow ledg e thatdiesam e i s fal s e,altered.for g ed, or cou n terfei ted. 15. T hecaus i n g ’

ofan y s uchfal s e, forg ed,altered, or cou n terfeitedcertificate, i n den t,or other publick s ecur i ty tobeu ttered, pu toff, or ofl

'

ered,

i n'

paymeii toeor sale, w ith thekn dw led

'

g ean d i n ten tionalready m en tion ed.‘ 16. T hesetti n g at liberty by force,an d the res cu i n g ofan y per s on , con victedofacapitalcrim e, or , before con viction , com m itted for acapi talcr ime, or com m ittedfor or con victedofan y other offen ce.

l Id. ibid. m 14.3. 3.

P ld ibid. ‘ Id ibid.

i n r u n cu tcn rr cover . 369

17. M i s pri s ion offelon y, w hich con s i s ts i n kn ow i n g the

com m i s s ion of w ilful m u rder or other felon y upon the

h i g h s eas , or w ithi n an y fort,ar s enal, dock yard, magaz i n e, or other placeor di s trict ofcou n try u n der the s ole

an dexclu s iveju ri sdiction of theUn itedStates ,an dn ot

dis clos i n g i tas s oon as maybeto s om eon eofthejudg esor other per son i n civi l or m i l itaryau thori ty u n der the

U n itedStates . 18. T hecutti n g offoftheear, thecu tti n g out or di sabl i n g oftheton g ue, theputti n g out ofaneye, thes l itti n g ofthe n ose, thecu tti n g offofthen oseor

al ip, thecu tti n g off or disabli n g ofan y l imbor memberofan y per s on , u n law fu lly, on purpos ean dofmal iceaforethou g ht,an dw ith i n ten tion , i n s odoi n g , tomaim or di sfig u re s uch pers on : providedthes ecrimes becomm ittedi nan yplaceu n der theexclu s iveju r i sdiction oftheUn itedStates , or upon thehi g h s eas , i n an y ves sel belon g i n g totheUn itedStates or toan y citi zen oftheUn itedStates .’19. Perju ry comm ittedmvi lfu llyan dcorruptly on oath oraffirmation i n an y s u it or matter beforean y court, or i nan y depos ition taken purs uan t toalaw , of theUn itedStates . 20. T heprocuri n g ofan y pers on to com m it

corruptan dw ilfu l perjury i n an y of thecases ju s t mention ed. 2 1. T heg ivi n g , directly or i n directly, ofan ys um ofm on ey, oran y other bribe, pres en t, or reward, oran y promi s e, con tract, obl igation , or s ecurity for thepaymen t or delivery ofan y m on ey , pres en t, or reward, oran y other thi n g , to procu rethe opi n ion , judg m en t, ~ or

decreeofan y judg eof theUn i tedStates i n an y s u it or

matter depen di n g before him . 22 . T heaccepti n g byan y judg e ofan y s uch s um of m on ey, bribe, pres en t,

v Id.s . 13. W Id s . 18.

7 Id.

VOL. 1 11.

A cuan cz T o r u n (111aJURY

reward, prom i s e, con tract, obl i gation , or secu r ity.‘ 23.

Oppres s ion or extortion byan y s upervi s or or ofiicer of

i n s pection , i n theexecu tion ofhi s office. 24. T helan di n g , i n an y placew ithi n thel im its of theU n ited States ,of g oods en tered for exportation , w i th aview todrawback theduties .b 25. T heres i s ti n g -or im pedi n g ofan yofficer ofthecu s tom s , oran y per s on as s i s ti n g him , i n the

execu tion of hi s du ty. 26. T heres i s ti n g or oppos i n g ,

kn ow i n g lyan dw ilfu lly, ofan yofficer oftheUn itedStatesi n s ervi n g orattem pti n g to s erveproces s ofan y cou rt oftheUn itedStates an dtheas saulti n g , beati n g , or w ou n di n g ofan y officer, or other pers on du lyau thoriz ed, i ns ervi n g orattem pti n g to s erve s uch proces s .

(1 27. T he

felon iou s s teal i n g , taki n g away,alteri n g , fal s ify i n g , orotherw i seavoidl n g ofan y record, w rit, proces s , or otherproceedi n g i n an y cou rt of theUn ited States , by mean sw hereofan y judg m en t s hall n ot takeeffect, or s hall berever s ed or madevoid. 28 T heackn ow ledg i n g or

procu ri n g tobeackn ow ledg ed, i n an y courtoftheUn ited

S tates , ofan y recog n i zan ce, bai l, or judg m en t, i n the

nameofan y pers on n ot privy or con s en ti n g to i t. T here

i s an exception w i th regardtoattor n ies dulyadm itted:f29. Taki n g an dcarryi n g away, w ithan i n ten t to s teal orpu rloi n thepers onal g oods ofan other, upon thehi g h s eas ,or i n an y placew ithi n theexclu s ivejuri sdiction of the

Un ited States .3 30. T he embez z l i n g , pu rloi n i n g , or

con veyi n g away ofan y victual s providedforan y s oldiers ,g u n n er s , mari n es , or pion eer s , or ofan yarm s , ordnan ce,3 Law s U. 8.con . 1. sea. 2.

.c. 9. s . 21. a

5 Id ses s z c.35J .59.

c ld. ses s . Id ibid.

r Id.ses s .2.c.9. s . i t .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

372 A cu s s en T O T HE 0 11 11 1111 10 117

i n thelaw s of theUn itedStates , havebeen nam ed, buhave n ot been des cribedor defin ed. You w i ll , i n thi s

man n er , g en tlem en , be fu rn i s hedw ithalegal s tan dard,by thejudiciou s application ofw hich you mayas certai n ,w ith preci s ion , thetruenatu rean dqualities ofs uch factsan dtran saction sas s hall becom etheobjects ofyou r con s ideration an dresearch.

I n ou r law books , m u rder i s thu s des cribed i t i s w hen

apers on , ofs ou n dm emoryan dof theag eofdis cretion ,u n law fu lly ki llethan y reas onable creature w ith maliceaforethou g ht, expres s or im plied. Man s lau g hter i s des cribedas -theu n law fu l kill i n g ofan other , w ithou t mal ice, either ex presdor im plied. T hedi s tin ction s tron g ly

markedbetw een m u rderan d man s lau g hter i s , that theformer i s com m ittedw ith, thelatter, w ithou tmal iceaforethou g ht. It i s es s en tial , therefore, to kn ow clearlyan daccu rately thetruean dlegal im portofthis character is tickdi s ti n ction .

T here i s avery con s iderabledifferen cebetw een thats en se, w hich i s con veyedby the expres s ion , mal ice, i ncomm on lan g uag e,an dthat, to.Which the term i s 1111epr iatedby , the law . I n com m on lan g uag e, i t i s m os t

frequen tly u sedtoden dreas en tim en tor pas s ion ofs tron gmalevolen cetoaparticu lar per son oras ettledan geran ddes ireofreven g ei n on epers on agai n s tan other. In law ,

i t m ean s thedictate ofaw ickedan dmali g nan t heart ;ofadepraved, perver s e, an d i n corr i g ibledi s pos i tion .

Ag reeably to thi s las tmean i n g , man yofthecas es , w hicharearran g edun der theheadof im pl iedmalice, w ill befou n d to tu rn upon thi s s i n g lepoi n t , that the fact hasbeen atten dedw ith s uch cim um s tan ces—pu ticrflarly thecircum s tan ces ofdeliberation an dcruelty con curri n g—u

n : was cm cu r r cou n 'r . 373

betray theplai n i n dication san d‘

g en u i n es ym ptom s ofam i n d g r ievou s ly depraved, an dacti n g from m otives

h i g hly cr im i nal ; ofaheart regardles s of s ocial duty ,an dfatally ben t upon m i s chief. T hi s i s thetrue n otion

ofmalicei n thelegal sen s eoftheword. T hem i s chievou san dvin dictives pi r it den oted"

by it m u s talways be collectedan di n ferredfrom thecircum s tan ces bf

’

thetran saction . O n the circum s tan ces of the tran saction , the

clos es tatten tion s hou ld, for thi s reas on , he bes tow ed.Every circum s tan ce may w ei g h s omethi n g i n the s caleofju s tice.

Robbery i s afelon iou s an d violen t taki n g , from the

pers on ofan other, ofm on ey or g oods toan y value, putt i n g him

x i n fear. From thi s defin ition itappears , thatto con s titutearobbery, thethreefollow i n g i n g redien tsarei n di s pen sable. 1. A felon iou s i n ten tion , oran imusfitran dz

'

. 2. Som e deg ree of violen cean d putti n g i n

fear. 3. A taki n g from theper s on ofan other. Upon

each of thes e three poi n ts there i s m uch learn ed di squ i s ition i n thebooks of thelaw .

Piracy i s robberyan ddepredation upon thehi g h seas .T hew ordpi flatc, say s m y LordCoke, l i n Lati n pi rate,i s derivedfrom the G reek w ordcu gm , w hich i sagai nfetched from wage: atran s m n do mar i , or rovi n g upon

thesea;an d, therefore, i n E n g l i s h, apirate i s calledaracer or robber upon the s ea.

P iracy is acr imeagai n s t theu n iversal law ofs ocietyapiratei s Item '

s bum i g m eri s , an en em y ofthew holehuman race. By declar i n g waragai n s tall man kin d, he

‘s lu l u .

A cn s n oz T o r u n on s u n warhas laidall man ki n d u n der the n eces s ity ofdeclar i n gwar agai n s t him . He has ren ou n ced theben efits an dprotection ofg overn m en tan ds ociety hehas aban don edhim s elftoai savag e s tateof natu re. T hecon sequen ce

i s , that, by the law s of s elfdefen ce, every com m u n ity

has ari g ht to i n fl ict upon Hi m that pu n i s hm en t, w hich ,

i n as tateofriatu re, every i n dividual w ouldbeen titledtoi n fl ictforan y i n vas ion ofhi s per s on or personal property.

Ifan y per son , .says alaw of the Un itedStates

,

s hall com m it, upon the hi g h s eas , or i n an y r iver ,

haven , bas i n , or bay , ou t of the ju ri sdiction ofan yparticu lar _

s tate, mu rder , or robbery , oran y other offen ce,w hich, ifcom m ittedw ithi n thebody ofacou n ty , wou ld,by the law s of the Un itedStates , be pu n i s hable w ith

death every s uch ofl'

euder s hall bedeemed, taken ,an dadjudg ed to beapi ratean dfelon ,an dbei n g thereof

con victed, shall s ufl'er death.”

Placedi n the hi g h an dres pon s ibleoflice ofajudg eof theUn ited

'

States , I feel m ys elfu n deran oficial obl igation to s tate s om e doubts , w hichar i s e i n m y m i n d

upon thi s part of thelaw . Im pres s ed,as I ou g ht tobe,bothas acitiz en an dajudg e, w i th the s tron g es t regardfor theleg i s lativeau thority of theUn itedStates , I propos ethosedoubts mos t res pectfu lly,an dw ith theg reates tdeg reeofdifiden ce.

Piracy,as w ehaveseen , i s acr imeagai n s t theu n iversal law of s ociety. By that law , it may be pu n i s hedbyevery comm u n ity. Bu t the des cription of piracy, s ecordi n g to that law , i s arobberyan ddeprcdation on the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

$ 76 acan n on T o r u n Gas n n JURYrecog n izedi n that cou n try, from w hich w ederive the

boas tedi n her itan ce of thecom mon law . Accordi n g to

theclear opi n ion declaredby the g reat LordChan cellorTalbot, thelaw of nation s i s , i n i ts fu ll ex ten t,apart ofthelaw of E n g lan d. ’

T rue it i s , that, 'ao far as the law of nation s i s voluntary or pos i tive, i t may bealteredby them u n icipal leg i slatureofan y s tate, i n cas esaffecti n g on ly its ow n ci ti zen s .

T rueit i s als o, that, byatreaty, thevolun tary or pos itive law ofnation s may bealteredsofaras theal terations hallaffecton ly thecon tracti n g parties . Bu t equally truei t i s , that n o s tateor s tates can , by treaties or m u n icipallaw s , alter or abrogatethe law of nation s an y farther.T hi s they can n o m ore do, than acitizen can , by hi ss i n g ledeterm i nation , or tw o ci ti z en s can , byaprivatecon tract betw een them , alter orabrogatethelaw s ofthe

com m u n ity, i n w hich they res ide.

Now the doubts , to w hich I havealluded, appeardirectly before u s . I s aper s on , n otaci ti zen of the

U n ited States , w ho s hall com m i tam urder upon the

hig h s eas , liable, u n der thi s law , to bedeem ed, takenan dadjudg edtobeapi ratean d felon , an d, as s uch

, to

s ufl'

er death ? T hi s ques tion may bedivided i n to tw o

s ubordi nateon es . 1 . Was i t the i n ten tion of the leg i slatu re, that thi s law s houldex ten d, i n i ts operation , toperson s n ot citizen s of theU n itedStates ? I n theveryn ex t s ection , thephras ei saltered,an din s teadofsayi n g ,ifan y per s on s hall com m it, i t i s said, ifan y ci ti zen

s hall com m itan y piracy, &c. Shall thecon s truction be,that the leg i s lature m ean the game thi n g , w hen they

tabla-d i l l.

m T HE CIRCU I T cou rt .

u seexpres s ion s s overy differen t ? 2. On thes uppos i tion ,that thelaw was des ig n edto ex ten d, i n its operation , topers on s n ot ci ti z en s oftheUn i tedStates can thi s des i g nbecarr iedi n to effect, con s i s ten tly w i th thepredom i nan tau thor ity ofthelaw ofnation s , an doftheu n iversal lawofs ociety ?

T hecas emay very probably happen ,an dcom ebeforeag ran dju ry for thei r official i n ves ti gation . It was proper to s u g g es t m y doubts con cern i n g i t. I hope I haves u g g es ted them i n the man n er w hich I propos ed to

m ys elf.

I retu r n to thedefin ition san ddes cr iption s g iven , bythecom m on law , of thecr im es an doffen ces m en tion ed,bu t n ot des cribed or defin ed, i n the law s of theUn ited

S tates .

T o forg e, says m y LordCoke, i s metaphoricallytaken from the s m ith, w hobeateth upon hi s an vi l , an dforg eth w hat fas hion or s hape be w ill. T heoffen cei s

called cr imen fals i ; the.

cr im e.of fal sehood;an d the

offen der, fal sar i u s , afals ifier. An d thi s i s properly

taken w hen theact is don ei n thenameofan other person .!

W ith °

regard, how ever , to thi s las t'

part of thedes cr iption of forg ery, it has been s i n ceadjudg edrepeatedlyan dvery s olem n ly to/betoonarrow . Itex pres s es , i n deed,them os t obviou s m ean i n g ofthew ord,an dcom prehen dsthat s pecies of forg ery w hich i s m os t com mon ly practi -ns ed;but thereare other s pecies , w hich w ill n ot come

w ithi n the letter of that des cr iption . An alteration i nthe nameor quan ti ty oflan dcon veyed, or i n thes um of

VOL. I I I .

378 A can n on T O T HE G RAND Ju n r

m'on ey s ecu red, i s of thi s ki n d, an dcom es w ithi n the

‘

legal n otion offorg ery.

W ilfu l an d corru pt perju ry i s acr im e com m ittedr

w hen alaw fu l oath i s adm i n i s tered, i n s ome judicialproceedi n g , by on e w ho hasau thor ity, toapers on w ho

s w earsabs olu telyan dfal sely, in amatter material to thei s s ue or cau s ei n ques tion .

An oath,” says m y LordCoke, i s s o sacred,an ds o

deeply con cern s the con s cien ces ofm en , that it can n otbeadm i n i s teredtoan y on e, u n les s it beallow edby thecom m on law , or byact ofpar liam en t n or by an y on e,w hohas n otauthority by com m on law , or byact ofparl iamen t : n ei ther can an y oath, al low edby the com m on

law , or byactofparl iamen t, bealtered, u n les s byact ofparl iamen t.” For thes ereas on s , it i s m uch tobedoubted

w hether an y mag i s trate i s ju s tifiable i n adm i n i s ter i n gvol u n taryaffidavits u n s upportedby theau thority oflaw .

It i s m ore than pos s ible, that, by s uch idle oaths , aman may frequen tly i n cu r the g u i lt, thou g h he evadethetemporal penalties ofperju ry.

It i s apart of the foreg oi n g defin i tion ofperju ry,that it m u s t be w hen theper s on s w ear s abs olu tely. I n

addition to thi s , i t has been said, that the oath m u s t

bedi rect,an dn ot,as thedepon en t thi n ks , or rem embers ,or believes .

‘T hi s doctr i n ehas , how ever , been lately

ques tion ed, an d, it s eem s , on s ol idpr i n ciples . When aman s w ear s , that hebelieves what, i n tru th, hedoes n otbel ieve, he pron ou n ces afals ehoodas m uch as ‘

w hen

hes wearsabs olutely, thatathi n g i s true, w hich hekn owsr s . In s . 165. “to.mo. 1.Hu t. 175.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

380 Aan cz T O T HE GRAND JURY

s ome cr imes m ore ki n ds of pu n i s hm en t than on eareas s i g n ed. T o res i s tan ce ofthe officer s of the cu s tom s

i s an n exedafin e. ' T o the lan di n g of g oods en tered

for exportation im pr i s on m en t i s thepu n i s hm en tallotted.'

T obr ibery"an dex tortion y thepu n i s hm en ts ofdi s qual i

fication , fin e,an dim pr i s on m en tareas s i g n ed. T o m i s

pri s ion oftreas on , ’ man s lau g hter , m i s pri s ion offelon y,lb

atrociou s maim i n g , acon federacy w ith’

pirates , d res i s t

an ceagai n s t proces s , ares cueofpers on s n ot con victedofan y capital cr im e, ‘ s ervi n g proces s for arres ti n g apubl ick m i n i s ter, ‘ theviolation ofasafecon duct, an dviolen ceto thepers on ofapubl ick m i n i s ter , hareas s ig nedthepu n i s hmen ts offin ean dim priSon m p n t. Steali n gor fals ifyi n g records , an d fraudu len tly ackn ow ledg i n gbail, are pu n i s hed w ith fi n e

,im pr i s on m en t, an dw hip

pi n g . Fi n ean dw hippi n garethepu n i s hm en ts an n exedto larcen y. j T o perju ryan ds ubornation ofperju ryareal lottedthe

, pu n i s hmen ts offin e, i m pri s on m en t, thepi l

lory, an di n capaci ty to g ivetes tim on y.

It des erves to be remarked, that, i n every i n s tan ceof pu n i s hm en t by fin e, im pri s on men t, or w hippi n g ,li m its are fixedon the s ide of sever i ty ; n on e

, on the

s ide of m ercy.

V Law s U.S.con . 1. ses s .2. c.35.

3 Id.

' Idm za9.a2. b ld s fi.

f ld. s .23.

Y

Id s .22.

i Id. s . 15.

A cau s e s o was caAan JURYN0 pers on s hall beprosecutedfor an y capital crime,

w ilful m urder or forg ery excepted, u n les s thei n dictmen t

for i t s hall befou n dw i thi n threeyears after i ts com m i ss ion : n or s hall an y pers on bepros ecutedforan offen ce

n ot capital, or foracr imeor forfeitureu n derapenal law ,u n les s thei n dictm en t or i n formation for i t s hall befoun dor in s titutedw ithi n twoyearsafter thecom m is s ion oftheofl

'

en ce, orafter thefin eor forfeiturehas i n cu rred. But

thes eprovi s ion s s hall n ot operatei n favour ofs uchas fleefrom ju s tice.

On e, w ho i s i n dicted of treas on , s hall have, at leas tthreedays beforehi s trial,acopy ofthei n dictmen t,an dali s t, con tai n i n g thenam es an d places ofabode, ofthejurors an dof thew itn es s es to beproducedon thetrial.A pers on i n dictedforan y other capital cr im es hall have,at leas t tw oen tiredays beforehi s trial, s uchali s tofthej ury,an dacopy -ofthei n dictmen t.

T hetr ial ofall crimes s hall bebyj ury a

Every on e i n dicteds hall beallow edto makehi s fil l]defen ceby cou n s el learn edi n thelaw . T hecou rt, oraj udg eofthecou rt, beforew hom he i s tobetr ied, s hall.on hi s reques t,as s i g n him cou n s el, s uchas hes hall des i re,fhut n ot exceedi n g tw o;an dhi s coun s el s hall have! freeacces s to him atall s eas onablehou rs . He s hallals obeadm i tted tomake, i n hi s defen ce, an y proof, w hich he

produceby w i tn es s es tocompel theatten dan ceofh i s w itn es s es at his trial hes hall havelegal proces s , s im i

“ n ai l .

W ILS ON- S u fi.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A CHARGE T O T HE GRAND JURY

readi lyag ree, says aw r i ter ofanation lon g ther ival ofEn g lan d; but that i t has few erabu s es than the s ys tem

ofan y other civi lized cou n try, i s w hat I am able to

prove.”8

It 18 theopi n ion ofs omew r iters , hig hly res pectedfor

their g oods en s e,as Wellas for their hu man i ty , that capital pu n i s hmen ts are, i n n ocas e, n eces sary. It i s an opi

n ion , w hich Iam certai n ly w ell warran tedi n offer i n g

that n othi n g but them os tabs olu ten eces s ity can au thori zethem . A n other opi n ion Iam equally warran tedi n offer i n g .

—that they s hou ldn ot beag g ravatedbyan y s ufferi n g s ,

except thos e w hichare i n s eparablyattachedtoaviolen tdeath.11 It was w orthy on ly ofatyran t i -an dofa‘

tyran ti t was truly character i s tick—to g ives tan di n g i n s truction stohi s execu tion er s , that they s hou ldprotract theexpi ri n gm omen ts of the tortu redcr im i nal an ds hou ldmanag ethebu tcheri n g bu s i n es s w ith s uch s tudiedan ds low barbar ity,as that hi s powers ofpai n fu l s en sation s houldcon

ti n ueto thevery las t—u t mar i s es en tiat.

Hear from the m ou th ofacelebratedlaw yer—celebrated, how ever , for hi s learn i n g , m orethan for hi s hu

man ity- A be s en ten cepron ou n cedagai n s t treas on by the

law of En g lan d: hear thi s s en ten ce, fu ll of horrou rs ,repres en tedas flow i n g from adm irable clemen cy an dm oderation .

3War.T he.L.Crim . 18.

h —Seethey s n ficr death,

1 01113801!

A can n on T O T HE G RAND JURY

vrew an ddetes tatton of m en , an dtobecom eaprey forthe fow l s of theair. A n dthi s i s arewarddueto traitors .

”j

I rel ieveyou r feel i n g s byacu s tom w h ich was obs ervedam on g theJew s . T hey gavew i n em i n g ledw ith m yrrh

toacr im i nal at thetime of hi s execu tion , i n order to

produceas tupor, an d deaden the s en s ibi lity of the

pai n .

By thecon s ti tu tion oftheUn itedStates , n oattai n deroftreas on s hall w ork corruption ofblood, or

- forfei tu re,

except du r i n g thelifeof the pers on attai n ted. By the

law of theUn itedStates , as it n ow s tan ds , n ojudg m en tfor an y offen ce s hall w ork corruption of blood or for

feitu re ofan y es tate.

In E n g lan d, the forfei tu reofacrim inal’ s pers onales tateaccrues im m ediately upon hi s con viction oftreas onor felon y. O n hi s attai n der for treas on , he forfeits totheki n g all hi s lan ds of i n her i tan ce, an dall hi s r i g htsofen try to lan ds an d ten em en ts . O n hi s attai n der forfilon y, he forfei ts hi s lan ds i n fees im ple to thecrow n

forayearan daday ;an dthe ki n g may, w i thi n thattime, com m it w hat was tehepleas es , by cutti n g timber ,by plou g hi n g meadow s , by ex tirpati n g garden s , an dbypu ll i n g dow n hou s es .

T hi s u n civi liz edreg u lation , hos ti le to the g en iu s of

publ ick pros per ityan d im provemen t, i s n ot, how ever ,

atten ded'

w ithan yadditional m i s fortun e to the children

ofthepri s on er. T heir ru i n i s already com pletedby thei LSt. T ri m

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A cnan oz '

ro '

r n z GRAND war

the lan g uag e, or s uch i s the effect of the law ; w ith

w hat s en tim en ts m u s t i t natu rally i n s pi re thos e, w ho

aredoom edtobecom e i ts u n fortu nate, thou g h u n offen d

i n g objects ? W'

i th s en tim en ts ofadeadly feudagai n s tthe s tate, w hich has adopted, an d w hich en forces i t.

T oalaw of thi s ki n d w emay, w i th pecu liar propr iety,apply the

'

max im—on eloi ri g oreu s eprodu itdes cr im es .

I n theUn ited States , aper iod i s as s i g n ed, beyon dw hich cr imes an d offen ces . tw o ex cepted, can n ot bepros ecu ted. T hi s reg u lation i s w ell calcu lated toes tabli s h an d to pres erve the s ecu r i ty of i n dividual s , an dthetran qu ill ity of the s tate. Si pos t i n tervallum acen sate(accu sator) vel it,” say s Braeton , n on cr it de

ju reaudien du s , n i s i docerepoter i t s e fu i s s e ju s ti s tat ion ibu s im peditum .

” k

T headvan tag es ofacopy ofthe i n dictmen t, ofcou ns el at the tr ial , an d of proces s to com pel theappearan ceofthepr i son er ’ s w itn es

s es areen joyed, i n E n g lan d:on ly i n pros ecu tion s for treas on , 'bu t n ot i n pros ecu tion s

for other cr im es .

T he g reatn es s of thos eadvan tag es may be eas i lyes timatedby con tem plati n g thehelples s , theforlorn an dthean x iou s s ituation ofapers on , w ho i s depr ivedof

them i n atr ial for hi s l ife.

When the bill for reg u lati n g trials i n cas es of hi g htreas on was , i n the rei g n ofW i lliam thethird, brou g ht

i n to parliam en t ; that’ part of it, w hichal low s coun s el

to thepr i s on er, was view ed, by thefrien ds offreedom ,

k Brae. 118b.

IN T HE CIRCUI T COURT . 389

as amatter of the las t importan ce. T he Lord A s hley,

afterwards earl of Shaftesbu ryan dau thor of thecelebratedCharacter i s ticks , was then am em ber ofthehou s eofcom m on s . Actuatedby that z eal for the pr i n ciples ofl iberty,whichaccom pan iedhim throu g h l ife,becom pos ed,

as hewas w ell '

qual ified to com pose,an ex cellen t s peechi n s upport of that im portan t provi s ion . When heros e

todeliver i t, the g reatan d res pectableaudien ce, beforew hich heappeared, i n tim idated h im to s uchadeg ree,that'

helos t hi s pow er s ofrecollection ,an dwas i n capableof pron ou n ci n g w hat hehadpreviou s ly prepared. T he

hou s e, eag er to hear h im , waited w ith s ol ici tude till

he s hou ld recover from hi s embarras s m en t, an d, afters om etim e, calledloudly u pon him toproceed. Heproceeded i n thi s man n er If I

,s i r ,

”-addres s i n g him

s elf to thes peaker If I , s i r , w ho r i s e on ly to g ive

m y Opi n ion on thebi ll n ow depen di n g ,am s ocon fou n ded,

that Iam u nabletoex pres s theleas t of w hat I propos edto say ; w hat m u s t the con di tion

/

of that man be, w ho,

w ithou tan yas s i s tan ce, i s pleadi n g for hi s l ife Whatn i u s t hi s con dition be! Unacquai n ted w ith the natu rean d w i th the form s of the w hole proceedi n g s agai n s thim , u nas s i s tedby cou n s el , bai tedby crpw n law yer s ,”di s tractedby u n certai n tyan ds u s pen s e, he fin ds adesperatebu tan el i g iblerefu g ei n theaw fu l verdict ofcon o.

viction , w hich determ i n es hi s fate.

Let u s tu rn our eyes toam orepleas i n g pros pect. Howfew are the cr im es—how few are the capital crim es ,kn ow n tothe law s of theUn itedStates , comparedWi ththos ekn ow n to the law s of E n g lan d! Allowan ce, w eow n , s hou ldbemadefor thedifl'

eren cebetw een thena

A CHARGE T O T HE GRAND JURY

tu reof the tw o g overn m en ts ; theobjects of on ebei n gg en eral thos e of the other , en umerated. Bu t aftereveryallowan cei s madefor thi s con s ideration , s ti ll w e

may ju s tly say—how few are the cr im es—how few arethe capital crimes , kn ow n to the law s of the U n ited

S tates , com pared w i th thos e kn ow n to the law s of Eu

g lan d! When Si r W ill iam Blacks ton ew rote, n o few er

than on ehu n dredan d s ix tyaction s , w hich m en aredailyl iable to com m i t, crow ded the di s mal l i s t of felon iesw ithou tben efit of clerg Y; i n other w ords , felon ies de

clared tobe worthy of im m ediate death. Action s,al

m os t i n um erable,are doom ed, by the sam e s ys tem , to

sbvere, thou g h i n fer iou r penalties .

T he co-acervation of san g u i nary law s i s apoliticaldi s tem per of them os t i n veteratean dthem os t dan g erou ski n d. By s uch law s thepeoplearecorrupted an dw hencorru ption ar i s es from law s the evil may w ell be pro

n ou n cedtobei n cu rable;for it proceeds from the very

s ou rce, from w hich therem edv s houldflow .

T hi s com pari s on betw een the crim i nal law s of E n g

lan dan dthos eoftheUn itedStates m i g ht becarriedm uch

farther. T hecon tras t w ou ldbecom es ti ll m orean dm ores tr iki n g an d, of cou rs e, theres u l t w ouldbecom e s till

m orean dm ore sati s factory.How happy w ou ldman ki n dbe, says theeloquen t

an d ben evolen t Beccar ia, m “ if law s w ere n ow to be

firs t formed!” T he Un ited States en joy thi s s i n g u larhappin es s . T heir law s are n ow firs t form ed. T heyareformedby theleg itimaterepres en tatives offreeciti z en s

Chap.28.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

A CHARGE T o T HE GRAND JURr

certai n , aremean s calcu latedfor preven ti n g them . But

thes earen ot theon ly m ean s . Cr im es may bepreven tedby the g en iu s as w ellas bytheexecu tion ofthecr i m i nallaw s . Let them befew : let them beclear let them be

bes im ple let them becon ci s e let them becon s u m matelyaccu rate. Let thepu n i s hm en t.beproportion ed—let it

beanalog ou s—to the cr im e. Let the reformation asw ellas the, pu n i s hm en t of offen ders be kept con s tan tlyan ds teadily i n view an d, w hile thedi g n i ty ofthe nation i s vi n dicated, let reparation be madeto thos e, Who‘

have received i n ju ry. Aboveall, let thew i sdom ,the

pu r ity, an d the ben i g n i ty of the civi l code s uper s ede,

for they are w ell calcu lated to s uper s ede, the s ever ity

of cr im i nal leg i s lation . Let the law diffu s epeacean dhappi n es s

’

an d i n n ocen cew ill walk i n thei r trai n .

I offer n oapolog y, g en tlem en , for the natu reor thelen g th of thi s addres s .‘ A s en s eofdu ty has draw n it

from m e. Every m ember of s ociety s hou ldhave it i nhi s pow er to kn ow w hen he i s crim ipalan dw hen he 18

i n n ocen t. H i s crim i nal ityan dhi s i n n ocen ce s hou ldbe

des i g natedby the law s . T he code of cr im i nal law s ,therefore, s hou ld,as faras pos s ible, be i n the han ds ofevervciti zen . I n the s ituation , i n w hich I have the

hon ou r tobeplaced, I deem i t m y du ty toembraceeveryproper opportu n ity

”

ofdi s s em i nati n g the kn ow ledg e of

them faran ds peedily . Can thi s bedon ew i th morepro

priety than i n an addres s toag ran dju ry—toag ran djury s u m m on edan d retu r n ed for thebody ofan ex tens ive di s tr ict—adi s tr ict s oex ten s ive

‘an d im portan t esthat ofV irg i n ia? T hes econ s ideration s i n ducedm e to

lay before you an en um eration of the crim es an dthepu n i s hmen ts k

n ow n to ou r con s titu tion an dlaw s . T hi s

I haveen deavouredtodo w ith theutmos t con ci s en es s .

or T HE CIRCUI T COUR T . 393

But, ifthelaw s des erve i t, they s hou ldbetheobjects

ofafection as w ell as of kn ow ledg e. T hi n ki n g ,as Ithi n k, con cer n i n g the hi g h deg reeof regard, to w hich

thecr im i nal codeoftheUn itedStates hasan u n doubted

claim ,Iam oblig ed to ex pres s thepr i n ciples , on w hich

I con ceivethat claim to befou n ded. T hi s I havel ikew i s een deavou redtodo w ith theu tm os t con ci s en es s .

I m ean n ot, how ever , to recom m en dto youan implicitan dan u n di s ti n g u i s hi n g approbation of the law sof you r cou n try. Adm ire;bu tadm ire w i th reas on on

you r s ide.

If, for i n s tan ce, you thi n k, that thelaw s res pecti n gthepubl ick s ecurjties arem ore s everethan i s abs olu telyn eces sary for s upporti n g their valuean dtheir credi t i t

w i ll be n o cr im eto ex pres s you r thou g hts decen tlyan dproperly to you r repres en tatives i n con g res s .

Perm it m eto s u g g es tan other m ethod, by w hich ou r

valuable codeof cr im i nal law s may be s till i n creas edi ni ts value. I n form an d practically con vi n ce every on e

w ithi n you r res pectives pheres‘

ofaction an di n tercou rs e,that, as excellen t law s

[

im provethevirtueoftheciti zen s ,s o the virtueof theciti z en s has areciprocalan dben i g nen erg y i n heig hten i n g theex cellen ce

.

of thelaw .

How happy are thepeople, by w hom thelaw s arekn ow n an drationally beloved! T he rational loveof' thelaw s g en erates theen li g hten edloveofou r coun try. T heen l i g hten edloveof ou r cou n try i s propitiou s to everyvi rtue, w hich can adorn an d exalt the citi zen an d the

man .

7 01 . I I I .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CONSIDERAT IONS.Es’c.

ANattack i s madeon thecredi tan di n s titu tion oftheBan kofNorth Am er ica. Whether thi sattack i s ju s tifiedby thepr i n ciples oflaw an ds ou n dpolicy, i sanatu ral s ub.jectofi n qu i ry. T hei n qu iry i s as n eces saryan di n teres ti n g , as i t i s natu ral : for, thou g h s om e peoplerepres en t

theban kas i n ju r iou san ddm g erou s , w hileothers con s ideri tas salutaryan dben eficial tothecom m u n ity,all view i tas an object ofhi g h im portan ce;des ervi n gan ddeman di n g thepublickatten tion .

I n the i n ves tigation ofthi s s ubject, it w i ll berequ i s iteto di s cu s s s om e g reatan dleadi n g ques tion s con cern i n gthe con s ti tution of the Un i tedStates ,an dtherelationw hich s ubs i s ts between them .an deach particular s tatei n

aT hepublication ofthesecon s ideration s was occas ion edbyabill, in troducedi n totheleg i s latureofPen n sylvan ia, torepealan actofas semblypas sedi n theyear 1782,by w hichacharter ofi n corpo.ration hadbeen g ran tedtotheBan kofNorthAmerica.T hebill waspas sedi n toalaw , i n September 1785. Ed.

CONSIDERAT IONS ON T HE

Un ion . Perhaps it i s tohew i s hedthat thi s di s cu s s ionn otbeen ren deredn eces sary an dthat thos eques tion sres ted s om e

i

tim elon g eram on g thearcanaimper i ie n ow pres en tedto thepubl ick an dthepubview them w i th firm n es s , w ith im partial ity,the s olicitudebefitti n g s uch am om en tou s

A g en tleman , b w ho hadthebes t opportu n ities ofobs ervi n g , an dw hopos s es s es thebes t talen ts for judg i n gon the s ubject, In form s hi s fellow citi zen s officially, that“ i t may be n ot on lyas s erted, bu t dem on s trated, that,w ithou t thees tabl i s hm en tofthenational ban k, thebu s in es s of thedepartm en t offinan cecouldn ot havebeenperform ed

” in thelatewar .

T hem i llen n ium i s n ot yet com e. War , w i thall thehorrou rs an dm i s er ies i n hi s trai n , may revi s i t u s . T he

fi nan ces mayagai n be deran g ed: publ ick credit may,agai n , beatan en d: n om ean s maybeaffordedadequate

“ to thepublick ex pen s es .” Is it w i s eor pol itick tode

prive ou r cou n try , i n s uch as ituation , ofares ou rce,w hich happy ex perien cehas s how n tobeofs uch es s en tiali m portan ce? W i ll theciti zen s of theUn i tedStates been courag edtoembark thei r fortu n es on as im i lar bottomi n afu tu rewar , by s eei n g theves s el, w hich carr iedu s s os ucces s fu lly throu g h thelas t, throw n as ide, likeau s eles shu lk, u pon theretu rn ofpeace

It w ill n otbeim proper to recal to ou r rem embran cetheori g i n , theestabli s hm en t,an dtheproceedi n g s oftheBan k ofNorth America.

b Videthepreheetothes tatemen t offl n sm n fl oftheUn ited

States .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

400 cot s m san 'r xon s on ran

0

n otes , or to pas s s uch n otes , kn ow i n g’

them to becou n

terfeit ;al s o maki n g it felon y w ithou t ben efit of clerg y,foran y pres iden t, i n s pector, director , officer, or s ervan tof theban k, to con vertan y of theproperty , m on ey, orcredit of the saidban k to hi s ow n u s e, or i n an y otherway to be g u ilty of fraudor embez z lemen t, as oflicersor s ervan ts of theban k.”

U n der theseres olu tion s as ubs cr iption was open edforthenational ban k thi s s ubs cription was n ot con fin edto

.Pen n ys lvan ia: theci ti zen s of other States tru s tedtheirproperty to thepublick faith;an dbefore theen dofDecember, 1781 , the s ubs cr iption was filled, from anexpectation ofacharter ofi n corporation from con g res s .

”

Application was made tocon g res s by the pres iden t an ddirectors , then chos en , for an act of i n corporation .

T heex i g en cies of theU n itedS tatcs ren deredi t i n di spen sably n eces sary that s uchan act s houldbeim mediately Con g res s ,”the sametimethat theypas s edtheact of i n corporation , recom men déd'

totheleg i s latu reofeach s tate, to pas s s uch law sas they m i g ht judg en e

ces sary fer g ivi n g i ts ordi naticei ts ful l operation ,ag reeably to thetrue i n ten tan dmean i n g thereof, an daccordi n g to therecommen dation s con tai n ed i n theres olu tion

of the26th day ofMay precedi n g .

T heban k im mediately com men cedi ts operation s . Itss eeds were s mall , bu t ’

they were vi g orou s . T he s um s

paid i n by i n dividuals upon their s ubscr iption s did n ot

am ou n t i n thew hole‘

, to s even ty thousan ddollar s . T he

s um i n ves tedby theUn i tedStates , i n ban k s tock,am ou n tedto s omethi n g m orethan tw o hu n dredan dfifty thou

‘Seetheact in theappen dix.

BANK or n oafr n AMERICA.

san ddollars : bu t thi s s um'

may he saidto havebeenpaid i n w ith on e han dan dborrow edwith the other ;

an dbefore the en d of the firs t three m on ths , farthers um s wereadvan ced to the U n ited States , an dan advan cewas madeto thi s s tate. d Bes ides , n umerou s accom modation s w ereaffordedto i n dividual s . Li ttle wasi t

'

then imag i n edthat theban k w ou ldeverberepres en ted

as u n fr ien dly to ci rcu lation . It was view edas the

s ourcean das the s upport of credit, both privatean dpubl ick as s uch, i t was hatedan ddreadedby theen e

m ies of theUn ited States as s uch, i t was lovedan dfos teredby their fr ien ds .

Pen n s ylvan ia, di s ti n g u i s hed on n um erou s occas ion sby her faithfu l an daffectionateattachmen t to federalpr i n ciples , embraced, i n thefir s t s es s ion of her leg i s latureafter thees tabli s hm en t of theban k, theopportu n ityof tes tifyi n g herapprobation ofan act, w h ich hadbeenfou n dtobei n di s pen sably n eces sary . Harm on i z i n g w iththes en timen tsan drecom m en dation s oftheUn i tedStates

,

theas s embly pas s edan for preven ti n g an d pun i s hi n g thecou n terfeiti n g ofthecom m on s eal , ban kbi ll s ,an dban k n otes , ofthepres iden t, directors ,an dcom pan yoftheBan k ofNorth America.” I n thepreambleto thi sact, w hich, accordi n g to the con s titu tion of thi s s tate,expres s es thereas on san dm otives for pas s i n g i t, the n e

ces s ity”of taki n g effectual m eas u res for preven ti n g

an dpu n i s hi n g frauds an dcheats w hich may bept i pon

the pres iden t, di rector s , an d com pan y of theBan k of

North Am érica,” i s ex plicitly declaredby the leg i s lature.

4 Seei n theappen dix thedi fferen t s um sadvan cedto thi s s tate.18th ofMarch, 1782.

VOL. 1 1 1. 3I

402 cos s m zaA '

r xon s on r u n

T hes en timen ts an dcon duct of other s tates , res pect

i n g thees tabli shmen t ofthe national ban k by con g res s ,

w eres im i lar to thos eof Pen n s ylvan ia. T he g en eralass embly of Rhode I s lan dan d Providen ce P lan tation s ‘made it felon y, w i thou t ben efit of clerg y , to cou n ter

feitan y n ote or n otes i s s ued, or tobe i s s ued, from the

Ban k of North Am er ica, as approvedan d es tabli s hedby theUn itedStates i n Con g res sas s em bled.

” T he s tateofCon n ecticu tenacted, thatatax s hou ldbelaid, payablei n m on ey, or n otes i s s uedby thedirectors of the national ban k, es tabli s hed byan ordi nan ce of the Un ited

States i n con g res s as s embled.” Byalaw ofMas sachu ss etts , the s ubs cribers to thenational ban k,approvedofbytheUn itedStates , w ere“ i n corporated, on thebehalfofthat com m on w ealth, by the nam e of thepres iden t, di

rectors an d com pan y of the Ban k ofNorth America,accordi n g to theterm s of the ordi nan ce to i n corporatethe said s ubs cr iber s , pas s ed by the Un ited States i n

con g res s as sembledon thethirty firs t day ofDecem ber,1781 T he same law further enacts , thatall n otesor bills , w hich havebeen or s hall be i s s uedby, for , ori n thenam e of the saidpres iden t, directors , an dcompan y, an d payable on deman d, s hall be receivable i nthepaymen t ofall taxes , debts an dduties , dueor thatmay becomedue, or payable to, or foraccou n t of, the

saidUn i tedStates .” I n the preambleof thi s law , the

leg i s laturedeclares that anational ban k i s ofg reat s ervicq as well to thepublickas to i n dividuals .”

T hepres iden tan ddirectors of theban k hadadelicatean dadifficu lt part toact. O n on ehan d, thevw ere

obl i g edto g uardagai n s t themal icean dexertion s ofthei rl Jan uary, 1782.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

404 cos s rn naA '

r ron s on T HE

by thenamean d ‘

s tyle of thepres iden t, directors , an dcom pan y of theBan k of North Am er ica.

T hefirs t clau s eof the law enacts , that thos ew ho

are, an dthose w ho s hall becom e s ubs criber s to the saidban k, be, an d forever hereafter s hall be, acorporationan dbody politick, toall i n ten ts an d pu rpos es .”

It i s further enacted, that the saidcorporation be,an d s hall beforever hereafter , ablean d capable i n lawtodoan dexecu teallan d s i n g ular matter s an d thi n g s ,

that to them s hall or mayappertai n todo.”

T o s how , i n the m os t s tr iki n g l i g ht, theki n ds en ti

men ts of theleg is latu retowards the i n s titu tion , i t i s further enacted, that thi s act s hall bec‘on s truedan dtakenm os t favou rably “an dben eficially for the saidcorpora

‘

tion .”

O n thes e facts an d proceedi n g s , tw o ques tion s of

m uch national im portan ce pres en t‘

them s elves to ou r

view an dexam i nation .

I. I s theBan k bf North Am ericalegallyan dcon s titu tionally i n s ti tu tedan dor gan i z ed, by thecharter of i ncorporation g ran ted-by the Un i tedStates i n con g res s

as s embled

II. Wou ldit bew i s eor politick'

1n the leg i s latureofPen n s ylvan ia, to revokethecharter w hich 1t has g ran tedto the i n s titu tion ?

T hedi s cu s s ion of thes e tw o ques tion s w i ll natu rallyleadu s to theproper con clu s ion s con cer n i n g thevalidityan dtheu ti lity of theban k.

BANKmr n oa'raAu xarcA. 405

I. HadtheUn ited States i n con g res s as sembledalegalan dcon s titutional pow er to i n s titu tean dorgan izetheBan k ofNorth Am er ica, byacharter ofi n corporation ?

T heobjection , u n der thi s head, w i ll be—that thearticles of con federation expres s all thepow ers ofcon ;g res s , that i n thosearticles '

n o pow er i s delegatedto thatbody to g ran t charters of i n corporation , an dthat, therefore, con g res s pos ses s n o s uch pow er.

It i s true, that, by the s econ darticleof thecon federation , each s tateretai n s i ts s overei g n ty, freedom an di n depen den ce, an devery pow er , jur i sdiction ,an d r i g ht,

w hich i s n ot, by thecon federation , expres s ly delegatedto theUn i tedStates i n con g res sas s embled.”

If, then , an y or each ofthe s tates pos ses sed, previou sto thecon federation , apow er , ju ri sdiction , or r i g ht, to

i n s titu tean dorgan ize, by acharter of i n corporation , aban k for North Am erica; i n other w ords - com men s u‘

rateto theUn itedStates s uch pow er, jur i sdiction ,an dr i g ht,

‘

u n les s expres s ly delegatedto con g res s , can n ot belegally: or con s titutionally exercis edby that body.

Bu t, w epres um e, i t w i ll n ot becon ten ded, thatan yor each of the s tates cou ldexerci s ean y pow er oract ofs overei g n ty ex ten di n g overall theother s tates , oran y ofthem or, i n other w ords , i n corporateaban k, commeas u rate to theUn itedStates .

T hecon s equen cei s , that thi s i s n otan act of sove

rei g n ty, orapow er , juri sdiction , or r i g ht, w hich, by thes econ darticle of the con federation , m us tbeexpres s ly

CONS IDERAT IONS 0! T HE

delegatedtocon g res s , i n order to bepos ses s edby thatbody.

If,how ever,an y per s on s hall con ten dthatan y or each

of the s tates can exerci s e s uchan ex ten s ivepow er oractofs overei g n tyas thatabovem en tion ed to s uch pers on

w e g ivethi s an s w er—T he s tate ofMas sachus s etts hasexerci s ed s uch pow er an dact : i t has i n corporated the

Ban k ofNorth Amer ica. But topur s uem yarg um en t.

T hou g h the Un ited States i n con g res s as s embledderivefrom thepar ticu lar s tates n o pow er , juri sdiction ,or ri g ht, w hich i s n ot expres s ly delegatedby thecan foderation , it does n ot then ce folltiw , that. the Un ited

States i n con g res s have n o other pow ers , juri sdiction ,or r i g hts , than thos e delegatedby theparticu lar s tates .

T heUn itedStates haveg en eral r i g hts , g en eral powers , an dg en eral obl i gation s , n ot derivedfrom an y par.ticu lar s tates , n or from all the particu lar s tates , takens eparately ;bu t res u lti n g from theu n ion of thew hole

an d, therefore, i t i s provided, i n the fiftharticleofthecon federation , that for them ore con ven ien t manag e.x m en t ofthe g en eral i n teres ts of the Un ited States ,

delegates s h ll bean n uallyappoi n ted to meet i n con

g ras s .”

T o man y pu rpos es , theUn itedStates aretobe con

s ideredas on e u n divided, i n depen den t nation ;an daspos s es

s edofall the r i g hts , an dpow ers ,an dproperties ,by thelaw ofnation s i n ciden t to s uch.

When ever'an object occur s , tothedirection ofw hich

n opart'

mular s tate i s competen t, the manag emen t of it

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CONS IDERAT IONS ON T HE

sam eas i n that of s everal voices collected tog ether,

w hich, by their u n ion , produceaharmon y, that wasn ot tobefou n ds eparately i n each.”

A n umber of u n con n ectedi n habitan ts are s ettledon

each s ide'

ofanavi gable r iver ; i t belon g s to n on e of

them ; itbelon g s n ot to them all, for they have n othi n g

i n com m on : let them u n ite; ther iver i s theproperty of

theu n itedbody.

T hearg u men ts draw n from the pol iticalas s ociation sof i n dividual s i n toas tatew illapply, w ith equal force

(1 propr iety, toan umber *ofs tates u n itedbyacon fe,deracy.

New s tates m u s t be formed"an d es tabli s hed: thei rex ten tan dbou n dar ies m u s tbereg u latedan das certai n ed.How can thi s be don e, u n les s

‘

by theUn itedStates i ncon g res s as sembled?

States arecorporation s or bodies pol itick ofthemos tim portan tan ddi g n ifiedki n d.

Let u s n ow con cen tretheforeg oi n g obs ervation s ,an dapply them to the i n corporation of theBan k of North

Am er icaby con g res s .

By the civi l law , corporation s s eem to have beencreated by themerean d volu n taryas s ociation of theirm embers , provideds uch con ven tion was n ot con trary tolaw .

1:

BANK or NOR T H AMER ICA. 409

By thecom m on law , s om ethi n g m orei s n eces saryAll the m ethods w hereby corporation s ex i s tare, for them os t .part, reducible to that oftheki n g ’ s l etters paten t)or charter ofi n cofporation .

l

fl

From thi s it w illappear that thecreation ofacorporation i s , by thecom m on law ,

con s ideredas '

theact oftheexecu tiverather than of the

,leg i s lative pow er s of

g overn m en t.

Beforetherevolution , charter s ofi n corporation w ere

g ran ted by the proprietaries of Pen n s ylvan ia, u n derader ivativeau thori ty from thecrow n , an d thosecharter shavebeen recog n i s edby thecon s titution an dlaw s ofthe

comm on w ealth s i n cetherevolu tion .

From analog y, therefore, w emay ju s tly i n fer , thattheUn itedStates i n con g res s as sem bled, pos s es s i n g theexecu tive powers ofthe u n ion

,may, i n virtue of s uch

pow ers , g ran tcharter s ofi n corporation foraccompl i s hi n gObjects that com prehen d‘the g en eral i n teres ts of the

Un itedStates .

Bu t theUn itedStates i n con g res s as s embledpos s es s ,i n man y i n s tan ces , an dto man y pu rpos es , theleg i s lativeas w ellas theexecu tivepow ers oftheu n ion ;an dtherefore, w hether w econ s ider the i n corporation Oftheban kas alaw , or as acharter , i t w i ll be equally w ithi n the

pow ers Of con g res s : for the Object of thi s i n s titution

couldn otbereachedw ithout theexertion ofthecombi n eds overei g n ty of theu n ion .

1 1.Bl.Com .472.473.

”VOL. 1 1 1. 3G

CONS IDERAT IONS ON T HE

I haveas ked—how can n ew s tates , w hicharebodiespol i tick, beformed, u n les s by theUn itedStates i n con »g res s as s embled? Fact, as w ellas arg u m en t, ju s tifiesm y s en tim en ts on thi s s ubject. T he con duct of con .

g res s has been s im i lar on s im i lar occas ion s . T he

same pr i n ciples havedirected the exerci s eof the sam epow er s .

I n themon th ofApr i l, 1784, con g res s res olved, thatpart of thew es ter n territory s hou ld bedividedi n to

di s ti n ct s tates .”

T hey fu rther res olved, thatthes ettlers s hou ld, ei ther

on their ow n petition , or on theorder ofcon g es s , receive

au thor ity from them to m eet tog ether, for thepu rpose

ofes tabl i s hi n gatem porary g overn men t, toadopt thecons ti tu tion an dlaw s ofan yon eoftheori g i nal s tates .”

When oan y s uch s tate s hall haveacqu i red tw en ty

thou san dfree i n habitan ts , on g ivi n g dueproof thereof

to con g res s , they s hall receive from than au thor ity tocall acon ven tion of repres en tatives , to es tabli s haperman en t con s titu tion an dg overn men t for them s elves .

T heprecedi n g ,articles , amon g others , s hall beformedi n toacharter ofcom pact; s hall be duly oxeentedby the pres iden t of the Un i ted States i n con g res s

as s embled, u n der hi s han dan dthe s eal of the Un ited

States ; s hall beprom u lgated an ds hal l s tan das fu n da.m en tal con s titu tion s betw een thethirteen or i g i nal s tates ,an d each of the s everal s tates n ow n ew ly des cribed,

u nalterable from an dafter the saleofan y part of theterritory of s uch s tate, bu tby thejoi n t con s en t of theU n itedStates i n con g res sas sembled,an dof theparti

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

s mu t or n os 'r n AM I R ICA. 443

When theforeg oi n g facts an darg um en ts are con s idered, com pared, an d w ei g hed, they w ill, i t i s hoped,

evi n cean des tabl i s h, sati sfactor i ly toall,an dcon clu s ivelyon the leg i s latu reofPen n s ylvan ia, thetru th ofthi s pos ition - T hat the Ban k ofNorth Americawas legal lyan dcon s ti tu tionally i n s titutedan dorgan ized, hy thecharter ofi n corporation g ran tedby theUn itedStates i n cong res sas sembled.

II. Wou ld i t, then , bew i s eor pol i tick i n the leg i s latu reof Pen n s ylvan ia, to revokethecharter w hich it hasg ran tedto thi s i n s titu tion ? It w ou ldn ot bew i seor po

l i tick’

l s t. Becau s etheproceedi n g w ou ldben u gatory. T herecal of the charter of Pen n s ylvan iaw ou ld n ot repealthat of theUn itedStates , by w hich w ehay s provedtheban k to be legally an d con s titu tionally i n s titutedan dorgan i zed.

2d. Becau s e, thou g h theleg i s latu remay des troy theleg i s lativeoperation , yet it can n ot u n dotheleg i s lativecckn ow ledg men t ofi ts ow n act. T hou g has tatuteberepeal.ed, yet it s how s the s en sean dOpi n ion ofthe leg i s latu recon cer n i n g the s ubject of it, i n the sam e man n eras ifitcon ti n ued i n force. T he leg i s latu re declared, i n the

law , that i t was properan dreas onableto g ran t thereques tof thepres iden tan ddirector s oftheban k, foran act ofi n corporation s im i lar to theordi nan ceofcon g reti s : n o

repeal ofthelaw can w eaken theforceofthatdeclaration .

3d. Becau s e s uchaproceedi n g w ou ld w ou n d thatcon fiden ce i n theen gag emen ts of g overn men t, w hich it

n Fos ter,394.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CONI IDBRAT IONCON T HE

Iftheact for i n corporati n g the s ubs cr ibers to the Ban kof North Am ericas hall he repealedi n thi s man n er,apreceden t w i ll bees tabl i shed for repeali n g , i n the sameman n er , every other leg i s lative charter i n Pen n s ylvan ia.A preten ce, as s peciou s as an y that can bealleg edonthi s occas ion , w i ll n ever bewan tin g on an y fu tu re occas ion . T hoseacts of the s tate, w hich havehithertobeencon s ideredas the s u rean chors of privi leg ean dof property, w i ll becom e the s port ofevery varyi n g g u s t ofpol iticks , an d w i ll float w ildly backwards an dforwardson theirreg ularan dim petuou s tides ofpartyan dfaction .

4th. It w ou ld n ot bew i s e or politick to repeal thecharter g ran tedby thi s s tatetotheBan k ofNorth Amer ica, becau s e s ucham eas u rew ou ldOperate, as faras itw ouldhavean y operation ,agai n s t thecreditoftheUn ited

States , on w hich the i n teres t of thi s com m on w ealthan dher ci ti z en s s oes sen tially depen ds . T hi s i n s titu tion orig i u s ted u n der theau s pices of the Un ited States : the

s ubs cription to the national ban k was open edu n der the

recom m en dation s an d the en gag em en ts of con g res s

citi z en s ofthi s s tate,an doftheother s tates ,an dforei g ner s havebecom e s tockholders , on thepubl ick faith : the

Un itedStates havepledg edthem selves toprom otean ds upport the i n s titu tion by s uch ways an dm ean s , fromtim eto tim e, as mayappear n eces sary for i t‘,an dcons i s ten t w ith the publick T hey haverecom

m en ded to the leg i s latu reofeach s tate, “ to pas s s uch

“ law s as they m i g htjudg e n eces sary for g ivi n g theordinan cei n corporati n g theban k its ful l Operation .” Pen n

s ylvan iahas en teredfu lly i n to theview s , therecom mendation s ,an dthemeas u res ofcon g res s res pecti n g theban k.

m m y, 1781.

s u n : or n on r n ams n rcs . 41?

She has declared i n thes tron g es t man n er her s en seof

their propriety, their reas onablen es s ,an dtheir n eces s itys hehas pas s edlaw s for g ivi n g them their fu ll Operation .W ill it redou n dto thecreditoftheUn i tedStates toadoptan d'

purs ueacon trary s ys tem ofcon duct ? T heacts an drecom men dation s ofcon g res s s ubs i s t s ti ll i n all their orig i nal force: w ill it n ot haveaten den cy to s hake.ll confiden ce i n the cou n cils an d proceedi n g s of theUn ited

States , if thos eacts an drecom m en dation s are n ow di s

regarded, w ithou tan y reas on s how n for di s regardi n gthem ? What i n fl uen cew i ll s uchaproceedi n g haveupontheOpi n ion san ds en tim en ts ofthecitizen s oftheU n ited

Statesan dofforei g n er s . I n on eyear they s eem eas u resres pecti n g an Object of con fes sed publ ick im portan ceadoptedan drecom m en dedw i thardou r by con g res s an dtheview s an dw i s hes of that body z ealou s ly pu rs uedbyPen n s ylvan ia: i n an other year they s eethos every m eas u res , w ithou tan yapparen t reas on for thechan g e, warm lyreprobatedby that s tate they m us t con cludeon eoftw o

thi n g s- that con g res s adoptedan drecom m en dedthos e

m eas ures has tilyan dw i thou tcon s ideration or thatPen ns ylvan iahas reprobatedthem u n du tifu llyan ddi s res pectfully. T heform er con clu s ion w ill g iver i s etovery u n falvou rablereflection s con cern i n g thedi scer n m en t both of

thes tatean doftheUn itedStates : thelatter w i ll s u g g es tvery i nau s piciou s s en tim en ts con cern i n g thefederal di spos ition an dcharacter ofthi s com m on w ealth. T heres u ltOfthecon clu s 1on w i ll be—that theUn itedStates do n ot

deserve, or that they w i ll n ot receive, s upport i n their

s ys tem offinan ce.—T hes ededu ction san di n feren ces w illhaveparticu lar w ei g ht,as they w i ll be g rou n dedon the

con duct ofPen n s ylvan ia, hithertoon eofthem os tfederal ,'active,an daffectionates tates i n theU n ion .

VOL. I“.

CONS IDERAT I ONS ON T HE

3th. I t w ou ldn otbew i seor pol itick i n theleg i s latu reto repeal their charter to theban k ;becau s ethe ten den cyof s uchas tep w ouldbe to depr ive thi s s tatean d the

Un i tedStates ofal l theadvan tag es ‘publ ickan dpr ivate,w hich w ou ld flow from the i n s titu tion , i n tim es of war,an di n times of peace.

0

Let u s turn ou ratten tion to s ome of them os t materialadvan tag es res u lti n g from aban k.

l s t. It i n creas es circu lation ,an di n vi g orates i n du s try.It i s n Ot,

”say s Dr. Sm i th, i n hi s T reati se on the

Wealth ofNation s , P byaug m en ti n g thecapi tal ofthecou n try, bu t by ren deri n g ag reater part ofthat capitalactivean dproductive than w ou ld otherw i s ebe s o, thatthe m os t judiciou s operation s ofban ki n g can i n creas ethe i n du s try of the cou n try. T he part of hi s capitalw hichadealer i s obli g edto keep by him u n em ployed,

an di n ready m on ey, foran s w eri n g occas ional deman ds ,i s s o m uch deads tock, w hich, s o lon g as i t remai n s i nthis s ituation , produces n othi n g either to him or to hi s

cou n try. T he judiciou s operation s of ban ki n g enablehim tocon vert thi s deads tock i n toactivean dproductives tock i n to mater ials to w ork upon , i n to tool s to .

w ork

w ith, an d i n to provi s ion san d s ubs i s ten ce to w ork for ;

i n to s tock w hich produces s om ethi n g both tohim s elfan dto hi s coun try. T he g oldan ds i lver m on ey w hich ciren

lates i n an y cou n try, an dby mean s of w hich the pro

duceof i ts lan dan d labou r i s an n ually circulatedan d.di s tr ibu ted to the proper con s umers , i s , i n the sameman n eras theready m on ey ofthedealer,all dead s tock

It i savery valuablepart of the capital of the cou n try,s vol l . 484.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

420 cos s r'

n xaa'rton s on '

rn s

T ohaveafree, eas y,an dequablei n s trumen t of circu lation i s of m uch im portan cei nall cou n tr ies i t i s Of

pecu l iar im portan ce i n you n g an dflou r i s hi n g cou n tr ies ,i n w hich thedeman ds for credit, and therewards of i ndu s try, are g reater than i n an y other . When w eview

theex ten tan ds ituation offtheUn itedStates , w es hall besati s fied that their i n habitan ts may, for alon g time to

com e, em ploy profitably, i n the im provem en t of their

lan ds , ag reater s tock than they w i ll beableeas i ly to

procure. In s uchas ituation , i t w i llalwa) s beof g reats erviceto them to saveas m uchas pos s ibletheex pen s eofs o cos tlyan i n s trum en t of com merceas g oldan ds ilver,to s ubs titu te i n

-

i ts placeon echeaper ,an d, for man y pu r.pos es , n ot les s con ven ien t an d to con vert thevalueofthe g oldan d s ilver i n to the labou r an d the materialsn eces sary for im provi n g an dex ten di n g their settlemen ts

an dplan tation s .

T otheban ks ofScotlan d, says Sir Jam es Stewart, ’theim provem en t ofthat cou n try i s en tirely ow i n g an d

u n til theyare g en erally es tabl i s hed i n other cou n tr ies ofE u rope, w here tradean d i n du s tryarel ittle kn ow n

, i t

w i ll bevery difficu lt to s et thos e g reaten g i n es to w ork.”

2d. T he i n fl uen ceofaban k on credit i s n o les s salutary than its i n fl uehceon ci rcu lati on . T hi s pos i tion i s ,

i n deed, l i ttle m ore than acorollary from theform er.Credit i s con fiden ce;an d, before w e can place con fi.den ce i n apaym en t, w e m u s t be con vi n ced that hew ho i s to makei t w i ll bebothablean dw i ll i n g todo s o

at the time s tipu lated. How ever u n exceptionable hi scharacteran dfortu n emay be, thi s con viction can n ever

2.P01.EC.356.

max or s om e sas h es . 421

takeplace, u n les s i n acou n try wheresol idproperty canbe,atan y tim e, turn edi n toa

'

circulati n g medium .

3d. T rade,as wellas circu lation an dcredit, derivesg reat s upportan das s i s tan ce fromaban k. Creditan dcircu lation produce pu n ctual ity ;an d pu n ctual ity i s thes ou l of com merce. Let u s appeal toex per ien ceas w ell

as reas on .

Dr. Sm i th says , he has heard itas serted, that thetrade of the city of G las g ow doubled i n abou t fifteenyears after thefirs t erection oftheban ks there an dthatthe tradeof Scotlan d has m orethan quadrupleds i n ce

thefir s terection of thetw opubl ickban ks at Edi n bu rg h,of w hich on ewas es tabl i s hedi n 1695 , an dthe other i n

1 727. ~Whether the i n crease has been i n s o g reat aproportion , theau thor preten ds n ot to kn ow . But thatthe trade of Scotlan dhas i n creas ed very con s iderablydu ri n g thi s period,an dthat theban ks havecon tribu tedag ooddeal to thi s i n creas e, can n ot, hesays , bedoubted.

T heseObs ervation s ,an dObservation s s im ilar tothese,have i n duced Sir Jam es Stewart to con clude, - thatBan ki n g , n , i n theag ew el ive, i s thatbran ch ofcredi t

w hich bes t des erves theatten tion ofas tates man . Upon

ther i g ht es tabl i s hm en t ofban ks depen ds the pros per ityof trade,an dtheequablecou r s eofcircu lation . By thems ol idproperty may bem elteddow n . By the mean s ofban ks , m on ey may becon s tan tly keptatadueproportion toal ienation . Ifal ienation i n creases , m ore property may ‘be m elted dow n .

”

If i t dim i n i s hes , the

quan tity ofmon ey s tag natin g w i ll beabs orbedby theVol. 1. 2. POL.EO.360.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CONSIDERAT IONS ON T HE

Soon after thepeace was con cluded, its operation s w ere

res trai n edan dembarras s edbyan attempt to es tabli s han ew ban k. A year hadn ot elaps edafter thi s , w hen the

m eas u re, w hich has occas ion edthesecon s ideration s , wasi n troducedi n totheleg i s latu re,an dcau s ed,for s om etime,atotal s tag nation i n thebu s i n es s ofthe i n s titu tion . When

all thes ecircum s tan ces arerecollectedan datten dedto,it w ill bematter of s u rpri s e that theban k has don e s o

m uch,an d n or that it has don e n o more. Let it be

deem ed,as it ou g ht to he, theobject ofpubl ick con fi

den ce,an dn otofpublickjealous y : let it been courag ed,i n s teadof bei n g oppos ed, by thecou n s el s an dproceedi n g s of the s tate: then w i ll the g en u i n e efl

'

ects of the“

i n s titution appear ; then w ill they s pread their au spiciou s i n fl uen ceoverag ricu lture, man ufactu res ,an dcommerce.

4th. An other advan tag e to be expectedfrom the

Ban k ofNorthAm er icai s , thees tabli s hmen t ofan u n depreciati n g paper cu rren cy throu g h the Un ited States .T hi s i s an object ofg reat con sequen ce, w hether i t be

con s idered in apol itical , or i n acom mercial view . It

w ill be fou n d to haveahappy el ect on the collection

\the di s tribu tion , an d the manag em en t of the publick

reven ue it w ill removethe i n con ven ien ces an dfl uctuaetion atten di n g exchan g ean d rem ittan ces betw een the

difl'

en en t s tates . It i s the i n teres t of every tradi n gs tatetohaveas uficien t quan ti ty ofpaper, w ell s ecu red

,

to circu latethrou g h i t, soas tofaci litatepaym en ts everyw here, an d to cut 03i n lan d exchan ges , w hich areag reat clog upon trade,an dareatten dedw ith the r i s k

of receivi n g the paper of people, w hos ecredit i s but

doubtful.”

3.POLEc.415.

BANK or NORT H AMERICA. 425

Suchare theadvan tag es w hich may be expectedto

flow from anational ban k,i n tim es ‘

ofpeace. I n tim es

ofwar , the i n s titu tion may be con s ideredas es s en tial.W ehaves een that, w ithou t i t, thebu s i n es s ofthedepartm en t offinan ce cou ld n ot have been carr iedon i n the

latewar. It w i ll beof u s eto recollect the s ituation oftheUn itedStates w ith regardto thi s s ubject. T hetw o

or threefir s t years of thewar w eres ufficien t to con vi n ce

the Br iti s h g overn m en t, an d the Br iti s h arm '

ies, that

they cou ld n ot s ubdue the U n i ted States by m i l itaryforce. T heir hopes of s ucces s res tedon thefailure of

ou r finan ces . T hi s was the s ou rceofou r fear s ,as w ellasof the hopes of ou r en em ies . By thi s threadou r fatewas s u s pen ded. Wewatched i t w ithan x iety w esaw i ts tretchedan dw eaken edevery hou r : thedeathfu l i n s trum en t was ready to fall upon ou r heads : on ou r headsi t m u s t havefallen , hadn ot publ ick credi t, i n them om en tw hen i t was abou t to breakas u n der , been en tw i n edan ds upportedby thecredit oftheban k. Con g res s , to s peakw ithou t m etaphors , hadn ot m on ey or credit to hi reanex pres s , or pu rchas eacord ofw ood. Gen eral Was hi n g ton , on on eoccas ion , an d probably m ore than on e,

sawhi s arm y l iterally u nable to march. Our di s tres s

was s uch, that i t w ou ld have been des truction to havedivu lg ed i t : bu t i t ou g ht to

'

be kn ow n n ow ;an d w hen

kn ow n, ou g hbto haveits proper i n fl uen ceon thepubl ick

m i n dan dthepublick con duct.

T heexpen s es ofawar m u s t bedefrayed, eitherl s t, by treas u res prevm u s ly accum u lated, or 2dly,

by s uppl ies leviedan dcollectedw ithi n theyear, as .they

arecalledfor— or 3dly, by thean ticipation ofthepub

VOL. I I I.

426 CONS IDERAT IONS on T HE

l ick reven ues . No on e w ill ven tu re to refer u s to the

firs t m ode. T o the s econ dthe U n ited States , as w ell

as every s tate i n E u rope, are ren dered i n com peten t bythem odern s ys tem of war , w hich, i n them il i tary operation s of on e year, con cen tres the reven ue of man y.While ou r en em ies adhere to thi s s y s tem , w e m u s t

adopt it. T hean ticipation ofreven ue, then , i s theon lym ode, by w hich the ex pen s es ofafu tu re war can bedefrayed. How thereven ues of theUn itedStates canbean ticipatedw i thou t theoperation s ofanational ban k,I leave to thos e w hoattack the Ban k ofNorth Am er icato s how . T hey ou g ht tobe w ell prepared to s how it ;

for they m u s t kn ow , that tobe i n capableofs u pporti n g awar i s bu tas i n g le s tep from bei n g i n volved i n on e.

T heres u lt of thew hole, u n der thi s head, i s ,—thati n tim es of peace, the national ban k w i ll be hi g hly

advan tag eou s ; that i n tim es ofwar , i t w i ll bees s en tiallyn eces sary, to theU n itedStates .

I flatter m ys elf, that I haveevi n cedtheval idityan dtheu tility ofthe i n s titu tion .

It has been s u rm i s ed, that thedes i g n of the leg i s la.tu re i s n ot to des troy , but to m odify , the charter of

the ban k ;an d that if the director s w ou ldas s en t toreas onableam en dm en ts , the charter , m odified, m i g htcon ti n ue i n force. Ifthi s i s the cas e, s u rely to repealthe law i n corporati n g theban k i s n ot the proper m ode.

ofdoin g the bu s i n es s . T heban k was es tabli s hedan dorgan iz edu n der theauthor ityan dau s pices ofcon g res s .T hedirectors haveatru s tan ddu ty to di s char g e to the

Un ited States , an d toall the particu lar s tates , each of

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDIX

T O T HE

PRECEDING CONSIDERAT IONS.

AN ORDINANCE , T O INCORPORAT E T HE SUBSCR I BER S T O T HE

BANK OF NORT H AMER ICA.

WHEREAS con g res s , on thetwen ty s ix thday ofMay las t,did, fromacon viction ofthes upport w hich thefinan ces oftheUn itedStates w ou ldreceivefrom thees tabli s hmen t ofanational ban k,approveaplan for s uchan i n s titution , s ubm ittedto thei r con s ideration by RobertMorri s , E s q.an dn ow lodg edam on g thearchives of con g res s ,an ddiden gag eto promotethesam eby them os t effectual m ean s :an dw hereas the s ub

s cr iption thereto i s n ow filled, froman expectation ofacharterofi n corporation ‘

from con g res s , thedi rector san dpres iden tarechos en ,an dappl ication hath been made to con g res s , by the

saidpres iden tan ddi rectors , foran act ofi n corporation an dw hereas theex i g en cies oftheUn itedStates ren der it i n di s pen .

sably n eces sary that s uchan act beimmediately pas sed

Be it thereforeordai n ed,an di t i s hereby ordai n edby theUn itedStates i n con g res sas sembled, T hat thosew hoare,an dthosew ho s hall become s ubscribers to the saidban k, be,an d

APPEND IX T O T HE

for everafter s hall be,acorporation an dbody politick, toalli n ten ts an dpurposes , ‘

by thenam ean ds tyleofT hePres iden t,

Directorsan dCom pan y oftheBan kofNorth Am erica.

An dbe it fu rther ordai n ed, T hat the saidcorporation arehereby declaredan dmadeable,an dcapable i n law to have:pu rchase, receive, pos s es s , en joyan dretai n lan ds , ren ts , ten e'

m en ts , hereditamen ts , g oods , chattel s , an d effects , of w hatki n d, natu reor quality s oever , to theamou n t of ten m i llion sofSpan i s h s i lver m i lleddollars ,an d n om ore,an dals oto sell,g ran t, dem i se,alien or di s poseofthe sam e lan ds , ren ts , ten e.m en ts , hereditamen ts , g oods , chattel s an defl'ects .

An dbe it fu rther ordai n ed, T hat the saidcorporation be,an ds hall befor ever hereafter,ablean dcapable i n law tos uean dbes ued, pleadan dbe im pleaded,an s w eran dbean s w eredu n to, defen dan dbedefen ded, i n courts ofrecord, oran y otherplacew hatsoever,an dtodoan dexecuteallan ds i n g u lar othermatters an dthi n g s , that tothem s hall or mayappertai n todo.

An dbe it further ordai n ed, T hat for thew ell g overn i n g ofthe said

i

corporation , an dthe orderi n g of thei r affai rs , theys hall have s uch oflicers as they s hall hereafter di rect orappoi n t : provided n evertheles s , that twelve di rectors , on eof

w hom s hal l be the pres iden t ofthecorporation , be of the

n umber oftheir ofiicers .

An dbeit further ordai n ed, T hat T homas “fill i n g be thepres en t pres iden t;an d that the said T homas “f

i lli n g an dT homas Fi tz s im on s , John Max well Nesbitt, James W’

il son ,

Hen ry H i ll, Sam uel Os g ood, Cadwalader Morri s , An drewCaldwell, Sam uel l n g les , Sam uel Meredi th, “'

i lliam B in g .

ham , T imothy Matlack, bethepresen t directors ofthe saidcorporation ,an ds hall s o con ti n ueu n tilan other pres iden tan dother directors s hall -be chos en , accordi n g to the law s an dreg ulation s ofthesaidcorporation .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

APPENDIX T O T HE

OfficeofFi nan ce, Jan uary 8, 1782.

I HAVE thehon ou r to tran s m it herew ithan ordi nan ce,pas sedby the Un itedStates i n con g res s as sem bledthe S latday ofDecember, 178 1, i n corporati n g the s ubs criber s to the

Ban k of North Am erica, tog ether w ith s un dry res olution s,

recom men di n g to the several s tates to pas s s uch law s as theymay judg e n eces sary for g ivi n g the saidordi nan ce its fu lloperation . T he resolution s ofthe26th ofMay las t s peak s o

clearly tothepoi n ts n eces sary tobees tabli s hedby thoselaw s ,that I n eedn ot en larg eon them . Shou ldan y thi n g m orebefou n dn eces sary upon experien ce, thepres iden tan ddirectorsw i ll n odoubt makes u itableapplication s tocon g res s , or to thes tates res pectively,as the casemay requ ire. It s h

'

ordam eg reat sati s faction to i n form your excellen cy, that thi s ban kcom men cedits operation s yes terday ;an dIam con fiden t, thatw ith proper manag emen t i t w ill an s wer them os t san g u i n eex pectation s of those w ho befrien d the i n s ti tution . It w ill

faci litatethemanag em en tofthefinan ces oftheU n itedStates :the s everal s tates may, w hen thei r res pective n eces s ities re

qu ire.an dtheabilities of the ban k w i ll perm it, deriveocca:‘

s ional advan tag e.an daccom modation s from it : it w i llaffordto the i n dividual s ofall the s tates ,amedium for thei r i n ter

cou r sew ith each other,an dfor the paymen t of taxes , m orecon ven ien t than thepreciou s m etal s ,an dequally safe it w i ll

haveaten den cy to i n creaseboth thei n ternalan d ex ternalcom merce ofNorth America, an d u n doubtedly w i ll be i n fi.

n itely u seful toall the traders ofevery s tate i n the Un ion

provided,as I havealready said, it i s con ductedon thepri n

ciples ofequ ity, ju s tice, pruden cean decon om y. T hepresen tdirector s bear characters that can n otfai l to i n s pirecon fiden cean das thecorporation i s am enable to the law s , power cann either san ctifyan y im proper con duct, n or protect theg u i lty.U n derafu ll con viction of thesethi n g s , I flatter m ys elf thatI s hall s tan dexcused for recommen di n g , i n the s tron g es t

r n n cs n m o CONS IDERAT ION . 433

man n er, thi s well mean t plan , toall theen courag emen tan dprotection w hich you r s tatecan g ive, con s i s ten tly w ith w i sdoman dju s tice. I havethehon ou r tobe, w ith g reat res pect,

You r Excellen cy’ s m os t obedien t,an dmos t humbles ervan t,

ROBERT MORRIS.

Circu larT o theGover n ou rs ofeach s tate.

A n act for preven ti n g an dpu n i s hi n g thecou n terfeiti n g ofthecom m on s eal , ban k bi lls an dban k n otes of the pres iden t,

di rectorsan dcom pan y ofthe Ban k ofNorth America,an dfor other pu rposes therei n men tion ed.

Sect. I. WHEREAS it i s n eces sary, « to take effectualm eas u res for preven ti n g an d pu n i s hi n g frauds an d cheats ,w hich may beput upon thepres iden t, di rectorsan dcom pan yoftheBan k ofNorth Am er ica, byalteri n g , forg i n g or cou n .

terfeitm g thecommon seal,an dtheban k bi llsan dban k n otesofthe saidpres iden t, directors an dcom pan y

Sect. Be it thereforeenacted,an dit i s hereby enactedby the represen tatives of thefreem en ofthecom m on w ealthofPen n s ylvan ia, i n g en eralas s emblym et,an dby theauthori tyofthe sam e, T hat ifan y pers on or pers on s s hall forg e, coun .

terfei t oralter thecom m on s eal of the saidpres iden t, dirce.torsan dcom pan y, oran yban k bi ll or ban k n ote, madeor g ivenout, or tobemadeor g iven out, for thepaymen t ofan y s um

ofm on ey by or for thesaidpres iden t, directorsan dcom pan y,or s hall ten der i n paym en t, u tter , ven d, exchan g eor barteran y s uch forg ed, cou n terfeit or altered bill or n ote, or s halldeman dto havethesameexchan g edfor ready m on ey by the:VOL. I I I . 3K

APPEND IX T O T HE

saidpres iden t,directorsan dcom pan y, oran y other person orpers on s (kn ow i n g s uchbi ll or n oteso ten deredfu ttered, ven d

cd, ex chan g edor bartered, ordeman dedtobe s o exchan ged,tobeforg ed, cou n terfeitoraltered) w ith i n ten t todefraudthesaidpres iden t, directors ,an dcom pan y, or an y other personor pers on s .bodies pol itick or corporate, then every s uch pers on or pers on s sboffen di n g ,an dbei n g ’ thereof con victed i ndueform oflaw , s hall bedeem ed g u i lty offelon y,an d s hal ls ufi

'

er deathas afelon , w ithout ben efit ofclerg y.

Sect. III. An dbeit further enactedby theau thorityaforesaid, T hat ifan y pres iden t, director , oran y ofl icer or s er

van t of the said pres iden t, directors , an d com pan y, bei n gi n tru s ted w ith an y s uch bi ll or n ote, or an y bon d, deed,m on ey or other effects , belon g i n g to the said pres iden t , directors ,an dcom pan y, or havi n g an y s uch bi ll or n ote, oran yben d, deed, m on ey, or other efi

'

ects , lodg edor depos itedw i th

thesaidpres iden t, directors ,an dcom pan y,or w ith s uch ofliceror s ervan t,as an officer or servan tofthesaidpres iden t, directors an dcom pan y, s hall secrete, embez z le, or ru n away w ith

an y s uchbi ll, n ote, bon d, deed, m on ey or othereffects , oran ypart of them , every pres iden t, di rector, oficer or s ervan t, so

ofl'

en di n g , an d bei n g thereofcon victed, i n dueform oflaw ,

s hall bedeem edg u i lty of felon y, an ds hall s ufferdeathasafelon , w ithout ben efit ofclerg y

Si g n ed, by order oftheHou se,FREDERICK A.MUHLENBERG , Speaker.

E nactedi n toaLaw ,at Philadelphia, on Mon day,theei g hteen th day ofMarch, i n theyear ofou r Lordon ethou san dseven hu n dredeig htyan dtw o.

PET ER Z.LLOYD,

Clerk oftheGen eral As s embly.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

PRECED ING CONS IDERAT I ONS.

T hat twelvedirectors , on eofw hom s hall bethepres iden t ofthecorporation , beofthe n umber oftheir officers .

Sect. VI. An dbeit further enactedby theau thorityaforesaid, T hat T homas W i lli n g bethepres en t pres iden t,an dthatthesaidT homas W illi n g ,an dT homas Fitz s im on s , John Max.w ell Nesbitt, Jam es W i l son , Hen ry H ill, Sam uel Os g ood:

Cadwallader Morri s , Sam uel En g les , Sam uel Meredith, W i l

l iam Bi n g ham , T imothyMatlackan dAn drew Caldwell,bethep res en t directors ofthesaidcorporation ,an ds hall s ocon ti n ueu n ti l an other pres iden tan dother di rectors s hall bechos en ,accordi n g to thelaw san dreg ulation s ofthe saidcorporation .

Sect.VII. An dbei t further enactedby theauthori tyaforesaid, T hat thepres iden tan ddirector s ofthe saidcorporations hallbecapableofexerci s i n g s uch pow ers , for thew ell g overn .

i n g an dorderi n g oftheaffairs ofthe saidcorporation ,an dofholdi n g s uch occas ional m eeti n g s for that pu rpose,as s hall bedes cribed, fixedan ddeterm i n edby the law s , reg u lation san dordi nan ces Ofthesaidcorporation .

Sect. V III . An dbe it fu rther enactedby theauthorityaforesaid, T hat the saidcorporation may make, ordai n , es tabl i s han dput i n execu tion s uch law s , ordi nan ces an dreg u la.tion s ,as s hall seem n eces saryan dcon ven ien t for theg overnm en tofthe saidcorporation .

Sect. IX. Providedalways , T hat n othi n g'

herei n before

con tai n eds hall becon s truedtoauthorizethesaidcorporationtoexerci s ean y powers i n thi s s tate, repug nan t to thelaw s orcon s titution thereof.

Sect.X. An dbeitfurther enactedby theauthorityaforesard, T hat the said corporation s hall havefu ll power an dauthority to make, havean d u seacom mon seal, w ith s uch

devicesan di n s criptionas they s hall thi n k proper,an dthesamefrobreak,alteran dren ew ,at their pleas ure.

438 arrs xm x 1 0 r s s

Sect.XI. An dbeitfu rther enactedby theauthorityaforesaid, T hat thi sact s hall becon s truedan dtaken m os t favourablyan dben eficial ly for thesaidcorporation .

Si g n ed,byorder oftheHou se,

FREDERICK A. MUHLENBERG , Speaker

l nactedi n to'aLaw ,at Phi ladelphia,on Mon day,thefirs t day ofApri l, i n theyear ofou r -Lord

on ethou san dseven hun dredei g htyan dtwo.PET ER Z. LLOYD,

ClerkoftheGen eral As sembly.

ONthe16thdayofFebruary, 1782,advan cedtotheUn itedStates , on behalfofPen n s ylvan ia, dollars .

Atdifferen t times i n 1782,advan cedto thecom m i s s ion ersfor defen ceoftheriveran dbay ofDelaware, thes um ofabout

dollars .

On the17th dayofSeptember, 1782,advan cedtothes tatetreas urer, fordefen ceofthewes tern fron tiers , upon applicationofthehou seofas sembly, 1-3dollars , i n partofalarg ers um ag reed to be len t,as the n eces i ty of the s tate m i g htrequ ire; but upon advice from theBriti s h com man der i nchief, that the In dian s werecalledoffou r fron tiers , thi s re

qu i s ition s topped,and n o further s um was taken out.of theban k.

On the18th day of Apri l, 1784, paidthe s peaker’ s drafton thetreas urer,acceptedby him , i n favour ofJames Mease,IO’OOOdolls“.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join