Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1805-01-26
ordered 70 attend the eouit for the COM

mOnwealtns
A question arises. In what capacity
did the judges Of the court # appeals acts
Did they aa in their appellate capacisys
and give decision not re-examinabie in
any court: Or did th.v act as commiss
sioncrs appointed by the legislature, 10 adj
wise The register what grants to issaei
+ say they did not ael il. their Judicial,
and appellate character. They might
have objected to the constitutionality OF
such reference 10 them, as The federal
Judges did to the law of congress refer.
ring to ,hsm to say what pensions should
be granted. They cannot be considered
as court deciding in the last resort: For
before them there was no cause, actions
or suit, brought there by appeal, writ of
error, supersedeas, or otherwise. There
we've no parties. They acled in an extra
official. extra-judicial capacity, as ecm-
missioners appointed by the legislature
to compare plats and certificates Of sur
vey with orders Of council, and certify TO
the register that they correspondent.
/ II appears by the act itself, that the de-
termination to be had was one which only
Affected the company and the commons
wealth. The attorney general was to at
tend for the commonwealth. Can any :
man say that where q settler claimed
400 acres by settlement made in l7s5,
and deputy surveyor claimed the same
land by survey made for himself 10 l775,
that this certificate the court OF appeals
decided the matter between them, and
that III the last resorl ! Shall the settler
who made farm in 1865, paid taxes for
it in l777, had it adjudged to him in
1850 by the western commissioners, and
had grant in 1882, shall he in i783 be
erfered by an extra-oficial act of the court
of appeals, whereof he had no notice,
where he was not party. and his name
pei ha2s never heardl No just and dis
Interested man viii asser, this. No Judge
coAid assert this; unless by suffering him
self 10 Judge his own cause, he had placed
himself in a situation where on acccun, of
his interest he was no longer capable to
discern the mos, obvious principles Of nus.
sice.
Yet strange TO tell The court of an,
peals in 1871; present three Judges:
one OF whom was member aud hresidenf
offhe Loyal COMPANY one other of whom
was cyenf for nsen,ber effhe Loyal Comta-
ny and both OF them were adp,i,islraioys
10 a nIcn,6er ffhe Grctn6rier Comtanv in
deciding case where the right Of Maze.
settler, claiming 900 acres OF land as
se,,knsentright, ard 1000 acres as pre-
enp'ion right,wa opposed 10 right by
survey for Hamilton under the Green
brier Company, assented TO this PROPOSE
tion," that The company's RICH, by survey
stands established by the decision of the
Z" court of appeals in May, 1908, ubaltcra-
"bly By any tribunal so that Maze claim
Sing by right Of Settlement, cannot call
Gin question the validity of The survey s.
right Of the Company, or Ct the defend
ant, Hamilton, who in that instance re-
presented the company, before any
"courts" state this on the authority of
Judge Wythe's reports, (pa. S9,) an au.
thority too respectable to be called in
question.
But is .his decision OF the court of an.
peais authority! Can the decision of a
judge, establishing principles wherein ne
IS interested, be regarded as authority
No, II cannot. Future courts would de-
clare the decision was not law. And sh al
i be regarded as authority by the legis-
ls'ure hope our laws are not to be fix-
ed irrevocabIy BY the opinions Of men, de-
cding as Judges, where they would have
been iDadmissible as jurors and from
whom an unbiased opinion could not he
expected.
S. The time already occupied in this
discussion induces me To hasten TO the
consideration Of the last point fhe course
which onght noTs 10 De ltursued By The legis-
hfure.
1t seems to me quite clear, that if the
legislature have al any time, aided and
patronized a set OF cIaims, fmpolitic, ur-
just, unequal and oppressive, they ought
TO withdraw, and have a right 10 with
draw that aid and patronage. The petit
TONERS request that the Loyal Company.
the creature of Royal power, may have,
no assistance from the acls OF O govcrn-
ment founded in justice and equality.
Let the Loyal Company depend upon the
" obligation OF CONTRACTS, !" for which their
learned council IS an advocate.
Relative TO the werof,be legislature.
presume there is no doubt. The only
question that can be made respects the
justice and expediency Of the neasuye.
Il. =. L.. d.