\TTTTTTLTY A RADOIIIR B AT
NEVW-HAMPSHIRE GAZETTE
S REMNERAL ADYERTISER
[Fol. KXV ]
~For THE NEW - HAMPSHIRE
' GAZET-IE.
M fizurs PRINTERS,
WS nf ¥AD the Mnnitc;‘r considered,
By o mel kg ‘a2l 3 wriier who appears 10
@s{f’“&ag a tiltitious charater, can be
#al Yo entiiled to no other respect
@ et @ than what his preduétion {dc;;
: serves 3 though he himfe
: MK {hould be of 1&%(: most illuitri=
ous charalter and shining virtues, or candi
date for the most exalted flation in the go
vernment ; would his delicate teelings have
been so wounded, hisrefentment {o inflamed,
or his reafun fe blinded by prejudice, as to
render him incapable of difiinguithing a lit
tle afpecity from feurrility, an honest indig
nation from i/l nature, or a laudable zeal for
truth and the best interest of the pesple; from
- 2 want of decency ? Surely he must be highly
incensed 7ndeed,to have forgotten his favorite
objeltion to rotationin thecon/titusion, while he
loaded me with a RoTAaTION of hard words
throughout his gentee/ performance !
If warmih of temper be evidemce of a wri
ter’s having secret wiews, er oblique designs
unknown to the public,what wouid one think
of the Monitor's ? According to his catholic
rile of judging, a person would be led to fuf
ipeét the Monitor Aimfelf must havefome deep
_ designs to prevent the people from adopting 2
free corfiitution } If winching is a fuether
evidence ofdhis, how will he e-xculfiaté himfelf 2
Though no adept in law;or the history of ju
risprudence, I will venture to assert, that ge
nerally by the rules of common law, every of
fence committed upon land,within the king
dom of England, must be tried within the
couniy wherein the fame was committed.
This continued the invariable rule of the
common law, ’till the 23 H. 8. when that
imperious prince, with his venal, pliable
parliament aitered it, in cases of treason,
misprision of treason, and murder. But
afterwards a parliament, more regardful of
the rights of the subject, repealed the detes
table 2&t of Harry the Bth, so far as it ref
peéted treasons within the realm,and thereby
restored the common law touching the trial
of such treasons. No such offences in Eng
land,can at this time be tried out of the coun
ty in which they may be perpetrated : nor
were the judges there,not even excepting those
of the fiar chamber, ever invefied with a
power ex officio to remove the trial of criminal
causes from one county to another, for any
reason whatever. He must be also mifia
ken, when he asserts, ¢ that it has been the
invariable praétice in this country, for judges
to remove the trial of causes from a county
“where the fa&t was committed, to some
other,” &c. If the Monitor means criminal
causes, which he undoubtedly must, by his
shode of diction. *¢ Where the a& was com -
witted” (and which he declares to be his
mieaning in his queries) I must beg leave to
233{11011 this assertion, *till vouched by some
igher zuthority. So far were the J[‘u_dgcs
from conceiving themselves cloathed with
such a power, that in a late case, where an
inhabitant of Grafton imprisoned in the
- eounty of Rockingn.., and charged with
high treason again{l this State, solicited them
to try him in any county ; their.anfwer 10
his. solicitation was, (as ] underflood) they
- had no quthority to try him out of the county
SATURUDAY, January 26, 1782,
of Grafion, (though that county then denied
the juriidiétion of this Sate;) Upon which
he pefitiunt:d the Gener;‘!l GC!?*ita grant him
a trizl in Rockingham3 4771 < #ained an aét
tor that purpote. T"'iuu;w’afl{ l's‘iejz‘sdgar
and legislature in this case, if it has not the
force of precedent, yot {peaks a language essen
tially different from the defirine advanced by
the Munitor. But perhaps he will revelt at
the very idea of his judgment being set in
competition with theirs ! 1i not; I would ask
the Monitor,why the Legislature of this State,
lately pafled an aét to zpprehend offenders,
who should escape from the county where
they had commitied a crime, to some other ;
and to bring them back for trial to the coun
ty where they had cffended @ Thetitle of the
act idelf will furnith bim with-an an{wer to
my queflion.~=¢ An a&t for preventing cii
minal cffenders from aveiding justice.” If the
judges were impowered to order the trial of
such cffenders in the county wherethey might
be apprehended 5 for what purpose was the
act made ? In such ease they could not efude
a trial by their escape, or aveid juffice. 1
think ’tis impoflible to account for the
existence of this law, upon any other ra
tional principle than this, that the Legisla
ture conceived crimes so be local, and by the
laws of the State,muft be tried in the connty in
which they were or miight be committed.
Is it not fliange, passing /irange ! that an in
variable rule of law, b:come notorlous by
practice, “which, no law)zer wiil deny,” and
if {o notorious, must be known not only to
the /awyer, but the peasant, fhouid not have
been noeticed by the colleéted wisdom of ihe
State ! but wice verja, that the Legislature
thould have most erroncously (if the Monitor
be right) recognized the invariable rule: of
law to be direétly opposite to what he affirins !
I am apt to believe, an Hale, an Holt, a Tal
bot,were and are of opinion with theLcgifla
ture upon this point ; & that the judges have
no right to alter the VENUE in criminal cases,
any more than in real aétions. 1f this be the
case, what becomes of the prejudice of the
judges againfi the prisoner; or of the Moni
tor’s argument founded vpon the proverd, of
two evils chufe the least 7 Surely both muoft
fall to the ground. Equally futile most bs
the plea of necessity for such a 2 power in a
State (for which there are notz few other
advocates on both sides the atlantic) while
experience shews that England in her better
days never exerled it, and while such a power
has been always viewed by the Whigs there,as
dangerous to the rights of the pecple, and the
exercise of it, feund incompatible with their
Jafety. . : s
. The Monitor complains,that his proposed
_amendment was compared to an aét of the
Britith parliament, for transporting persons
to Great- Britain for trial ; and then adds,that
he is convinced, notwithstanding all my a4f
furance and ill-nature, 1 thould biufb if he was
to point out the ditference in the two cases.
I did blush, but it was only for the Minizor?!
Throughout bis anfwer,l am represented to be
very ignorant, 'tis not to be presumed theres
~fore, that I thould know the difference, before
“he pointed it out, Had he succeeded in his
attempt to do it; why should I'blufh ? Bue
what is this mighty diffcrence ¥ Why, in the
firft place, we are told thi-tyis less than three
thousand. Such a grand difoovery is enough
to excite a blufb inreality ! He labouts to shew
the cases aré dissimilar in other refi
which prove, that, no fimiie runs an /. A
and that there may be different degices i o
prefion! Does be think the 2& of parliament,
ordering the Soos to be tried Ly ajary of
Middleiex, for treason laid 1o be commiited
in Scotland, no oppression ? because the place to
which they were dragged or the height to.
which they were afierwards raijed, was thort
of three thousand miles! or becaute they had a
voice in the eleffion of {ome of the Briiith
commoners ¥ Does not hic dofirine coun
tenance such a procedure ? If such are his
liberal notions of the transcendent power of go
vernment, it might be prudent to conceal
them at present. _
The Monitor appears both by his queries
and notable answer, not to comprehend the
extensiveness of the term LAw ; which in its
most comprehensive sense, involves in it all
the obligaiions 2 human being is under to his
Creator, the focicty to which he particu=
larly belongs,and the world of mankind in ge=
neral, Haiad the Monitor considered Jaw in
thisexten{ive sense, 2and not confined his idez
of it, to the local,pefitive law of the State ;
it would have saved him fiom beirng plunged
into such 2 labyrinih of absurdities and cone
tradictions. To exticate himfelf trom which,
he seems almost tempied to deny the dorine
of Bt.Paul | Butto prevent any furprize that
such denial might create, it thould be re
membered,that he had befere intimated he
theuld pur/ue Solomon’s direéiion for oNCE [
If itheMonitor had adverted to his own words
“‘there was ne law,”& to the extensive mean
ing of it in my answer to his queries,cculd be
have rationally concluded, my aniwer there=
so, must have been in the affirmative ; or
infered it, from the complexion of my obe
fervations ? When the conduét of the abfen~
tees is compared with my definition of law,
does it not appear highly culpzble ? If fo,then
whatalone can denominateii /uchmuft be the
repugnancy of such a conduét'to some or ald
the cbligations aforementioned ; or in other
words, it must be a tranigreflion of femelaw. If
therefore a law thould be made declaring such
condudt a violation of some prior and highes
law, and the forfeiture juitly incurred there=
by such a law, could never be a law creat
ing both the cffence and punithment at the
fame time. Hence it manifeftly appears,
the Monitor’s chjeéion to the Bill of Rights
is groundless. And consequently the23d article
was not calculated to prevent theLegiflature
from confifcating the estates of the absentees,
‘But I am mere amazed, to hear the Mogni
tor roundly affirm,that if my do&rine be just,
the absentees have a right to come back, and
enjoy their property without a possibility of
being calied to account for such condué&,
This is 2 conclusion without premises. For
if it should be granted him,that the absentees
‘have offended 2gainft no law,human, moral
or divine (which I conceive is far from being
their case ) yet it would by na metfié%'l-
Tow, that they could return and esjoy the
eflates they once were capable of bolding kere,
The idea of the absentees being yet fubjeéte
of this, or any other of the United States, is
doubly absurd, as it implies, that a 2 fub
je€t can neither change his allegiance, nor
continue it! The ablentees being therefore
as truly fubjeéis of the Britith crown, as the
inhabitants of London ; nationally consider
ed, the ome must be as much our SRSIY) AF
(Ve I%+
e