The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-04-03

lie sentiments
If the majority of the legislature be cor.
rupted, it may we'll be doubted whether i,
be within the province of the judiciary tc
control their conduct and, il less than 2
majority act from impure motives, the prin-
ciple by which judicial interference would
De regulated, is not clearly discerned.
Whatever difficulties this subject might
present, when viewed under aspects Of which
It may be susceptible, this court can per-
ceive none in the particular pleading now
under consideration.
This is not bill brought by the state of
Georgia TO annul the contract, nor does it ap J..
pear TO the court, by this count. that the state
OF Georgia is dissatisfied with the sale that
has been made. The case, as made out in the
pleadngsi s simply this-One individual who
holds lands in the state of Georgia, under a
deed covenanting that the title Of Georgia
was in the grantor, brings an action of CO.
vsnant upon this deed, and assigns, as a
| breach, that some Of the members of the le-
sislatIre were induced to vote in favor Of the
law, which constituted the contract, by be-
| ing promised an interest in it, and that there
fore the act is a mere nudity.
| lhis solemn question cannot be brought
thus collateraiiy and incidentally before
the court. 1t would be indecent, in the ex-
treme, upon private contract between two
!
ing the corruption OF the sovereign power
OF state. If the title be plainly deduced
from legislative act which the legislature
might constitutonally pass, If the act be
Clothed with all the requisite forms of
| law, court sitting as court of law can
not sustain a suit brought by one individual
against another founded on the allegation
that the act is a nallity, in consequence of
the impure motives which infiuenced GER
M, NlNat.0 <C
Sed the law.
The circuit court, therefore, did right in
everything this demurrer.
The 18th covenant in the deed is, that the
title TO the premises has been, in no way,
constitutonally or legally impaired by vir-
tue OF any subsequent act of any subsequent
legislature of the state of Georgia.
The third count recites the undue means
practised on certain members of the Iegis-
lature. as stated in the second count, and
then alleges that, in consequence of these
practices, and OF other Causes, a subsequent
legislature passed an act annu!ing and res
ending the law under which the conveyance
10 the original grantees was made, dsclar-
ing that conveyance void, and asserting the
title OF the state to the lands il con; timed
ne count proceeds to recite, at large, this
resembling act, and concludes with averrine
that, by reason of this act, the title of the
said Peck in the premises was constitutions
any and legally Impaired and rendered null
and void.
After protesting, as before, that no such
promises were made as stated in this count,
the defendant again pleads that himself and
the hrst purchaser under the original gran
tees and all intermediate holders of the pro-
perry were purchasers without notice.
10 this plea there is a demurrer and Join
der
The Importance and the difficulty of the
questions, presented by these pleadings, are
deeply felt by the court.
The lands in controversy vested absolutely
IN James Gunn, and others. the original
grantees, by the conveyance of the Cover
nor, made in pursuance of an act of Assem-.
bly, to which the legislature was fully COM
petent Being thus in full possession of the
legal estate, they for valuable Considera-
ton, conveyed portions Of the land to those
who were willing to purchase. Ii the orr
ginai transaction was infected with fraud,
| these purchasers did not participate in if.
and had no notice of it. They were limo
cent. Vet the legislature of Georgia has
| involved them in the fate of the first parties
to the transaction, and. if the act be valid,
has annihilated their rights also.
| The legislature of Georgia was a party to
this transaction; and for a party to pronounce
its own deed invalid, whatever cause may
be assigned for its invalidity, must be con-
sidered as mere act of power which must
| ind Its vindication in a train of reasoning not
often heard in courts of Justice.
But the real party, it is said, are the peo-
| pie, and when their agents are unfaithful,
the acts OF those agents cease 20 be obliga..
| tory.
1t is, however, to be recslectad that the
people can act only by these agents, and
that while within the powers conferred ON
them, their acts must be considered as the
acts OF the people, If the agents be corrupt.
others may be chosen, and, if their Contracts
be cXaminabe, the common sentiment. as
we'll as common usage of mankind. points
out mode by which this examination NAV
De made, and their validity determined.
If the legislature of Georgia was not
bound to submit its pretensions to those tri
bunals which are established for the security
of property, and to decide on human rights
1t it might claim to itself the po@er of iudg.
ing in its own case, yet there are certain
great principles of justice, whose authority
IS universally acknowledged, that ought not
to be entirely disregarded.
Ntha Legislature be its own Judge in its
own case, it would seem equitable that ITS
decision should be regulated by those rules
which would have regulated the decision Of
a Judicial tribunal. The question was. in
its nature, question of title, and the tribu
nal which decided it was either acting in
the character of court of Justice. and per
forming duty usually assigned to a court,
| or IT was eXerting a mere act of mower