The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-01-23


JUDGES o! the Supreme Cour. OF appeals and genera
court, Jres in Chaneery, Judges Of Admiralty, &C.
was at frit inclined to think that the inferton
the word 7siy-t between the Cer.yaI Court and
Cbanesy, evinced intention that the Judges of the
general court and thoe in chancery mould be diGina
perions bur perhaps it would be uaiuR6ible to ref
iuch an opinion on 20 critical contribution.
However this opinion is Imported by the FIFTEENTH
and feveutecnth feStions.
BIZ the Fifteenth the governor and others offending
againff the e -, by m;l-aIninifration, corruption
sc ar imlracl,able before the general court. And
81 the ieven,eenth the Judges of the general cour,
are to be 'mpeachcd before the eaurt of appeals.-
This might prove then that Judge of the general
court could not according to the Contribution be a
Judge OF the fupreme court Of appeals becaufe all Off
GERS Except the Judges os the general tourt are to
be tried before the general but judges of the
neral court to be tried before the of ap-
P-als--iad the Contribution intended to prevent a
being tried in that court of which he is i menu
her; becaue in caufes which mig ht give rife to an
imp-achm"nt the Judges Of court might act jointly,
and the influence of Partially esra d4 Corp. was
&c bs guarded againlt
However to decide whether Judge of the gene
raj Court could be Judge of the court of appeals,
would be exsrajudieial thar quenion is not before
the court but this reearch enables to decide the
queon rhat is before the court-that whether the
fame perfon under the Contribution be Judge in
ehanccry. and judge of the general court 81
think that he cannot for thaf. reafons-
Judge i'll chancery is to be tried before the gene
raj court.-A judge of the general court cannot be
Judge in chancery, becauGe Judge in chancery nuf
b. tr:ci before The general court but if Judge of
the general court be judge in chancery. then he "a
judge of the general cour) will be tried in the ge-
neral court which is agan(t the feventeenth article,
which declares that Judge Of the general court nall
be in,peached before the court of appeals.
My inference is that judge in chancery * uige
of the general court intended under the conffi-
tuition to be dRua individuals
If the reafoning of thofe Judges has not had
the fame effect on the minds of the members
of this committee, that it has had on mine,
will! proceed till farther on this point.
1t will prefnme be readily admitted. that
whenever the legislature undertake or are driven
to the necefity of expounding either the fu-
pre'ne law, or an ordinary ad of the legila-
ture, that the fame rules of contribution fllould
govern them, as govern the Judges when they
are engaged in expounding the law and ALTO,
that whenever it can be fhewn to the legilla-
ture, that the fupreme court Of appeals have
formed and delivered an opinion as to the con-
ftruction of the contribution on any particular
point, or an ae of the ordinary Legislature,
that very great Difference and refpe9 fhould
he lid to that opinion, ihould the legif-
lnure give different contribution unlefs it
could he clearly ihown that the opinion was
incorrect. For never fhall contend that the
legislature are bound as inferior courts are, by
the opinions of the court of Appeals. IF then,
Cir, can thew, that the court of Appeals
formed of the NOT enlightened men that ever
adorned any country, have decided that the
duties of the judges of the general court and
conrt of chancery cannot conititutionally be
blended, 1 ihall throwit on my opponents, to
prove clearly and satisfactorily, that the opini.
OIL was and is incorrect, or this committee will
decide the a,eftion with me and confequenty
hrke out 70 much OF the bill as goes to blend
t',eie du,ieS- To thew that the court of Ap-
pea's have thus decided, mutt, after mention.
ing the names of thefe luxurious patriots and
fateEnen, who then formed the court of Ap.
peaLs, read ffveral paii'grs from the report in
thc cafe of Hamper and Hawkins. In the year
1888 "hca the opinion was given on which !
rely, the court of Appeals was competed OF
the following iuigcs,-the honourable Edmund
FenJ!eton, George Wythe. &c.
(Here Mr.. S. read IN The printed REPORT, pagt
SIS from tAe evord5 "n the .year," So. TO tt.
ecord &c paO.gs," Anfp. 50 and 60 from " 6
That" TO "berjon5."J
Having now, think, induced the committee
TO doubt at irat whether thefe duties can b;
blended confitutiona!ly, even if have no.
ft;sfrd them, that they cannot be blended
fhaIl conclude after noticing one or two re-
marks that have been made by thofe who i'd
vocate the hill! under confederation.
1t has been Ind that the happy effects How
in. from the union Of thofe duties in the fetie
ri cirlui. court, fhoud induce the committee
TO adopt the bill. five cannot contribution
ally unite them, there is an end of the queftion
but il we may, then I conceive that neither
the expedition with which the federal cour
acci.Ies caufrs, nor the fdtisfatlion given b,
tfoft deci!ions are Of force in proving the ex
potency nf uniting thefe duties. Let it b,
remembered, Cir, that the delay in our county
courts arifes in great meafure from the diff
Guilty Of executing procefs: whereas in the fede
RAJ court, the MARTIAL reiides near the clerk
onice his deputies are diltributed through
thr fate; he forwards the procefs by an eafy
flfe, and certain conveyance his dcputie
With greet punGtuaity execute the procefs anC
rcturn them to the MARTIAL, and no fiiitor il
ever heard TO complain tina; procefs has no.
been executed and returned. in the fiat,
courts, futor, to- be fuie of having his pro
cefs executed, mutt carry them himfef or fenC
afpecia mcfleneer Whole expenfes he pavs.--
Tire trouble and expenfe is too great for him
aud his canfe remains for years as when thu
hill vas frt filed. Again in the federal courts
when an inue is made mp on the hill, aufwe
&c. the csufe is fet down for bearing aud tn
f,,rties have the right of calling and examuin,