The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-10-09

We". " rae purchase monsy, prior To the
receipt OF notice of the fraud, and yet judg
ment is given IN favor OF the said plea. upon
a Demurrer Having had occasion to
touch this subject of the necessity of aver
ring and proving the actual h7yment of the
purchase money, in. my first number, sh all
only now add, that am at loss to recon
Gle the decision Of the supreme court, on
this point, with the established doctrines of
the English Courts and of the Supreme
Court OF the state of Virginia, as laid down
in the cases then cited.
In delivering the opinion of the court up
on the Demurrer to this plea, the Chief Jus
tice seems to doubt, how far a court could,
IN any case, take notice of the particular
motives or inducements" operating on
the members of the SUPREME SOVEREIGN
"hozuer ofa stare" in the formation OF
contract. Softly, if you please, Mr. Chief
Justice :: the Georgia legislature of 1895,
was not the Supreme Sovereign power of
the state" nor did it only act under the
Slight . motives and Inducements" which
the court, (chming in with the defendant
plaintiff in this cause,) are pleased to as
cribe to 1t. 1t was only an ordinary and
ltn1tied Legislature. acting under the intlu
ence OF the grossest bribery and corruttion |.
and even admitting that. on these pleadings,
the court could not iudicially know of the
corruption have detailed, in any stronger
/ light than the parties have been pleased to
state. 1t. how came the court TO forget that
this was merely an ordinary legislature p
This term Legislature" which is found e..
very where in the 7i.eadings themselves,
&c VI fernint means a limited & deputed
authority. and must be taken totally to ex
Guide the idea, Tin the A Terican govern
ments at least, of the "suttren,e aouereivn
foguer" of the state.
! In the decision in question, the act OF 9Th
January 1895, is every where considered as
a confracE, and not as an ordinary and re j.
Ipeaiable statute. II is also decided i'm the
same case. that being a contract. it is not
irepeaiable by succeeding Legislature If
10 TINS we add, (wIh the Supreme court)
that no fraud or corruption attending this
contract" in it's origin or consumm alton
Jean let IN court Of justice, To declare it
VOID, what is 1t but to say, that n fraudulent lie
legislative contract defies all remedy whatso
lever, and that as the hands of both the liz
ZACHARY and legislature are tied up from in.
cry, ring In ne case, party who Can sue
iced IN corruptit:g legislature, IL free to
run away WIKI the plunder ?! have al
ready said, in the first number and that
from hgh authority, that fraud or GOWN
within Judgment of law, vacate every kind
OF CONTRACT In order to sustain the opini
S' ". ~ A'uRlSuC COhTt On tnlS point. we
must either say, contrary to what thew
themselves have decided that the ac, Of
january 1875 is no contract, or that leris-
iatlVe contract stands, in this country, on
higher ground, on account of the omnIpo-
tence OF the legislature, than IN England
whicn IS contrary to the fact: but even i'm Eng
land where the omnipotence OF Parliament
is the admitted doctrine, if the parliament
sometimes makes Contracts and If fraud
or GOWN vacates eUery KIND Of contracts" it
follows that Legislative contracts. in that
country, (as contend they do in this. } must
submit to this just test of all contracts.
L he supreme Court then proceeds to Esay
That tie solemn question OF the corruption
} of the Georgia legislature, cannot be brought
{" Incidentally" before the Court. in i con
troversy between two individuals, respecting
part OF the land sold by il and that a. il
We I'D be indecent in the extreme, upon a
private contract between two individuals,
+" TO enter into an enquiry into the corruption
OF the sovereign tozver ofthe 8tate.'' The
hrst answer Will give TO this position. is.
by repeating that this is not the act of a
T" sovereign" but of subordinate power ;
and that as the question of corruption, goes
10 the bottom OF the act, under which the
parties profess to claim in this instance, it is
: question presented dlreciiy & unayoidab.y
and not " Incidentally for the decision OF
} the Court: AS to the point of {" indecency. -
1T requires rather more consideration. -
In the case of DaCosta y Jones m it was
held, that although voluntary qvagers which
lead to indecent evidence, or disclosures
contra 6oncS nrorcS, shall no: be sustained
IN Court of justice, yet that the indecencu
OF evidence is no objection, where it becomes
necessary for the decision of a civil or Grim
NAL right and thar wherever a question
arises upon real matter of right. although
the interest OF third ferson8. not parties
thereto, may be affected. it shall neverthe
less be tried, Applying this principle to the
case If a limited and corrupted Legislature
IN Government founded upon virtue, and
where the people have superior right TO
know OF even the perfdy and baseness Of their
agents, 1t will Certainly loose none If it's
force: In that case the right of the individ
uai which gives rise to the Introduction OF
such evidence, and that of the community
at large, are the same--But if. in the
case put by the Supreme Court. it be inde
ceH1 In the extreme, to enter into the enquiry
stated how came the court not only TO en-.
cure but actually to decjde, that "the
IL lands grained by the Act of 7 Jan. 1895,
vested absolutely in James Cum and O
theirs" a,question how necessary to be
decided, on the ground of defence set up in
the case before US, which is that of being an
innocent purchaser OF the land, without 40 /.
Vice
Again it is said by the Supreme Court,
that . If the title be plainly deduced from a
| legislative act, which the legislature might