Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-04-07

In ana Tor he dis ri"l OF p nSylvaula.
FRIDAY, MARCH "a, 1909.
In the mater or Cd Oh Olmstead and
others,
The su vivi' 6 Execur;ce # David Ritz
tenhouse, esq1irc, deceased
After e an ing the 'mo'ion rDade by he
llbellan''s counsel for process of arrest a.
,, sainst III respondents, his honor Judge
Peters made the following observati-
0ns---
Having performed my bounden dur By
obeying the inluDcliops Of the sup eme
court of the u. s., in directing tie pro.
ess required in this cause. Iha,e done
18th the case, thus far. lido not mr an
to eoter into any controversies on this very
unpleasant subjeet, relative to this court.
)r myself, either with the Cove rnmept of
the sac, or any Of my fellow citizens.
This would be going out OF my pubic duN
y, and violating my private inclinayions.
Having with integri y of inteD il n, and ac-
cordng 10 the best of my iudgn cnt
through the course of til Sc proceedings,
discharged official duues net Of my seek
ing, but unavoidaby thrown upon me !;
am perfectly indifferent about what is
said as to myself personJly, by unintorm-
ed or preJOdiced men either IN or out of
the legisla ure. But there is an unfoun
ded charge made against the candid dis.
position and conduct as well as the i'm
Partially and p udent discretion incum.
bent on this court which, though not
strictly within my judicial obIiga ions to
notice, il would be affe6ts,ion in me 10 say
do not observe with sincere regret. In
a report OF a committee Of the i,~noursb,e
house OF representatives of This corDmon.
wealth, in Olnstead's case, there are
these wo DIS" Wnen it IS said ,ha, m.
state OF Pennsylvania f9l DO e 10 asser, j..
TILE while the suit was pending, lie, i, be
forever RENE mbrred iha the state Of
Pennsylvania hsd poice."
The state of Pennsylvan is a eompre-
hensive &c m, embracing much. But the
governor. on every OCCASION, and The a.
orney general, ofen, as I vas cons anily
led o believe had repea ed notice dung
ependency OF the sui no. only through
the real parry Respondent, but on one
occasion lard one is sufficient to repel
this charge If there were no others. The
attorney general came into curt, accom-.
panied by the counsel for he respo, -nts.
and IT was desired by the latter 10 his pre-.
ssnce, that no p oceedugs should be had.
dnul the meeting of the Legislature and
this r. quest was granted. The reason as.
signed Tor this request sas, ,hat The deay
would enable the governo-, TO whom in.
ielIgence was then agreed to BE- given, 10
lay the matter before the legislature II
ne thought proper 50 10 do. Several
months passed away theresfter, and tie
court had no Information of any en- b.
ing tax n, by or on behalf of the state -
IL is well known TO those who Dra6 sc
here, that cases depending for months il
his court (where most Of the very ru.
merous causes are dispatched in half
month, and often in much lie. time AR.
te"--and are roarked with uncommon cir
cumstances and indugenc:s. Acon,ider-
able part OF the succeeding session oil as.
sembly was permitted 10 elapse and ,he
court was uniformed of, nor did it there
appear, tina; any communication was made
10 the legislature though such connnu.
n'caIIon' are generally made at The open
ing OF The legislative sessions.
However mistaken may be deemed 10
nave been, had The impression that moth
ing was at that time, intended 10 be done.
6g or on behalf of the state in this court
and /, appears By all subst quent occur,en
cess that this opinion was corre0. Moi.
ces were repeatedly given of DAYS and
times appointed for hearing, or other
steps necessary IN the case. The counsel
Tor the respondents always paid r,speel
to them by personal attendance but can
d'dly aVowed their intention 20 lie bv. s,
take no active measures, farther than
they had DONE by fling The answers, and
other papers which appear in the procee.
diogs. This court never considered The
state as a party ; add this opinion is now
conhTm d by tina: Of the superior tr,bu-
nal, whose judg mot alone it is bound 10
respect Under this view Of the case snv
direct notice from the court, or By is mr..
d =, would have been highly im9roper.
The respondents IN The SUIT who looked
the state for indemnify, were the onlv
proper persons from whom Information 10 !
ne sac could pass A., a d every lawyr,
Knows. That 1t was legally, as we'll as pru.
ientialIy' Incu Dbent on them to give sucn |