delivered the opinion of the court.
It wаs now insisted that the circuit court of Warren county, had no jurisdiction to try and determine this cause, for that the act of assembly of 1817, ch. 30, authorizing a change of_ venue in criminаl causes, is unconstitutional.' To support this position, the counsel for the defendаnt rely upon the 9th section of the declaration of rights. It is in. these words: “That in all criminal рrosecutions, the accused hath a right, to be heard by himself and his coun
The rights, which in this section are secured to the accused in criminal prosecutions, cannot be taken away from them by any act of the legislature. It does not follow, however, tha( because the legislature cannot abridge those rights; it cannot еnlarge, and add to them. The ascused hath a right í¿to a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury.” If such a trial by such a jury, can be had in the county where the crime was committed, thе right to be tried there, is a very important one to him. But if the prejudices of a county be excited against a party, so that he dare not ask a speedy trial, and so that he cannot hope for an impartial jury, it would be a great misfortune, if no other cоunty could acquire jurisdiction of the cause. The greater and more important rights, “a speedy trial by an impartial jury, would be sácrificied for the sake of the one least important, and which was secured only, that the others might be the more certainly enjoyed. This must have been foreseen by the framers of the constitution, and we are not to suppose that they intended' to fix the jurisdiction of a cause unalterably to the сounty where the of-fence was committed, and thereby, in some cases, defeat thе principal object in the introduction of this provision, unless it be manifest, from the language used, that such were their intention. Dоes the language under consideration, limit the jurisdiction of an offence' to the county where it was committed? It says, the accused hath a right to be tried there. But does thе existence of this right, prevent him from choosing another county, upon the court оf which, the legislature may have conferred
In addition to this view of the subject, it-maybe added, that this section of the bill of rights has never heretofore been thought, to prevent the passage of laws providing for1 the change of venue in criminal cases. Such laws have existed ever since the year 1808, and many cases have occurred where the venue has been changed several times-In the cases of Burnett vs the State, and Bridges vs. the State, in 1819, the convictions took place after several changes of venue; and each of the culprits were executed under the sentence of this court. We think, therefore, that the circuit court for the county of Warren, had jurist-diction of the cause, and that there is no error in the judgment.
■ This being the only question in the cause' worthy of consideration, the judgment will be-affirmed.
Judgment affirmed-