Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-02-14
RICHMOND, FEBRUARY ~.
froR THE ENQUIRER

TfOk III T. ENQpihER.
4 .feU remarks on the Report II tie Ctm-
D.ittee IF tie Senate, on tie s':tject Of the
REVISED BILLS.
The committee have recommended that
the further consideration of the revised
bills, should be postponed till the next
session of the General Assembly. As
reasons for this posiponement, they al
ledge not only that there is want of time
10 finish the work, but that there are GER
tain defects in the report of the revsOrs,
which will forbid the Legislature from Civ
ing the compilation to the public, as con-
tainlngt|,e code OF our laws. Let us ex-
anime mese defects as pointed out BY the
committee, and see whether their impor-
tance is not somewhat magnitied, and
whether the existence of those defects be
d sufficient reason for postponing the
work. The first order of defects pointed
out, IS the want of arrangement aud The
first specification of this charge is, in
putting into one act what belongs TO ano-
Their" and the second, Z" in no, putting
together IN their proper order, the differ
ent provisions i'm the same act, which are
connected with each other" There are
no examples given Of these defects, and
the public is therefore lefi 10 conjecture
In what instances these defects do exist
From their being enumerated as defects,
ii is TO be supposed that there is "A multi
tude of instances in which they exist !;
surely then IL would have been better to
Eave pointed out SEINE of them. Now ii
is very possible that in a work consisting
of 423 folio pages, some such errors NAV
have crept in, but am very much deceiv-
ed, if there are more than dozen instan-
ces in which these errors exist, and am
Snclined to think that there is not half
that number i'll which the latter class of
specified defects can be found. Ii fire.
quently happens that clause Of law
may with perfect propriety be placed un-
der two, three, or four different heads,
and there may be as many different OPT
MONS as there are mou, under which head
II is most proper 10 place il. Thus, in an
instance afterwards, put by the commit
tee themselves, the mode of recovering
small debts by a warrant, before single
justice of the peace, the whole law on
the subject may properly he placed in a
bill, the title whereof shall be 90 bill for
the recovery of small debts" or in a bill
concerning the jurisdiction Of Justices
of the peace" and it is certainly matter
of no kind of Importance, under which
head you place the law or which title YOU
give it. Two carping critics, however,
may differ in opinion on the subject, and
may waste half day in discussing how it
ought 10 be " arranged" and after they
shall have wasted their ingenuity on the
subject, the cast of die would be as
wise mode of deciding the point, as ia
king vote after hearing their labored ar
9uments. The revisors, it seems, placed
this subject where il was placed in the
former code, namely. under the county
court law, where any tyrO might easily
find if. If the title of that bill was not
sufficiently broad, what was easier than
10 amend the title of the bill, by adding
The words, and concerning the iurisdic-
ton OF justices of the peace" or if YOU
please these words, " and concerning the
recovery of small debts" With this slight
amendment, | defy any man to prove
that the arrangement on this subject made
by the revisors, is not as good as any 9th
er which can be made.
The third specification under the first
charge is, that new bills ought to have
been compiled, formed of The provisions
on the same subjects, TO he found i'm va
rious acts. 1t is believed that this com
plant is not without much foundation
Generally speaking, the provisions on The
same subject are placed in the same bill
perhaps il might have been improper Ito
take tie examples quoted by the commit
iee,) to place the regulation of proceed
Iiigs IN civil actions al common law" un-
der single bill. The courts Of common
law are the county and corporation courts.
The superior courts of law, and the court
of appeals. The methods of proceeding
In these courts very often differ from each
other, and il was therefore thought best
presume, that the methods Of proceed
ing IN each court, Should be placed under
the heads of the respective courts. There
were many cases, however, in which they
agree With each other, aud in bringing
those proceedings into one bill, the revi-
sors placed them under an act, with which
the lawyers of Virginia are very familiar
and which has sometimes been called
tile ReSidaGry Act," aud is the 10Th clap.
Ter of the old code. The proceedings in
the.courts Of cbancery onglit not perhaps
10 be placed under Que act, there being Z
considerable difference between those
proceedings III the superior and inferior
courts, and therefore to person who
WISHES TO know what those proceeding:
are, II is best TO refer him to the chapter.
on The subject of the respective courts
The law respecting the limitation Of acti
oDs is all to be found in one bill it i,
true, 10 that bill is annexed various othe
subjects, (see the aforesaid 10th chapter;
but II the Senate deemed 1t very inpor
tani to separate that part OF the law from
The other subjects, il would have beer
easy 10 do so. The Is first sections o
tle Dill reported by the reyisOrs, contain
the Whole law OH the subject; and the'
might readily have been struck off from
The rest Of the bill. (See D. 100 TO 1903 O
The revised blIs)
The fourth specification is, thatthe bin
ought Ia have been claseed or oIaced e.,