Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-02-19

which u.hto,berwise perhaps perish q nn poverty
false shame. II not 20 be donbied that " The chdfe
received these hos pitfalls had been LEFT the
Of er parents taking the chance OF ait the dill
ncuItiss IN which they might be Involved. a much
greater proportion Of thes would reached the age
Of manhood aud have become useful members OF the
stale
When we look ltie deeper into this subject /, will
appear that these Institutions IOt only fail IN the
diats object oni ~ encouraging, IN the most Hsiked
aud thus weaken the main spring Of reputation"
luGffhus, fiot. 1, pages Sol 36S.
e" Considering the extraordinary mortality ~LI,h
occurs III these insttu,ionS, asd the habits Of cetous
which they have eyisent tendency create, il
may be said perhaps WIN Truth, that pen SON w'shed
10 check popuaiion. aud not soiicoHs aboHt tbs
means. he could not propose more cnectual
than the establishments OF sufficient number of fOlnd
ling hospitals. nniin'ted IN their reception ci rhdien
Aud with regard To the III feelings OF nation, II is
difficult TO conceive that they mHs mol be very
sbiy impaired by encouraging oibers to desert tei1
offspring and endeavorIg reach them that their love
for their new born infants is prejudice which II
their interest Ia occasional child murder
false shame 10 saved very high price ii IL
only be done by The sacrifice oil best aud
most useful FEELINGS vi the human heart a great
part OF tie hation" libid, pages $780, 9of.
Attorney General VS.. 4 BroadtiuS and wife.
During the course of the last wear, we pnb-
lished the opinion OF the Judge OF the Chance
~ court of this district in the celebrated case
OF Andrew Broaddus. MIR. b. is well known
as a Minister of the Baptist Church distin-
guisbed for his eloquence The case was de-
Attorney General brought II up TO the Court
of Appeals. The case has been lately argued
before that tribnnal-MeSsrs p. n. Nicholas
attorney General, aud Peyton Randolph, for
the commonwealth, and MIR. Watkins Leigh
for the other side. On Tuesday, Judge Roane
delivered the opinion of the Court, which we
have obtained permission To lay before the
public. From The decision OF the court OF APP
peals, dismls sing tie appeal for want of iuris.
dction, IT being criminal prosecution, and
in effect affirming Chancellor Tayior's decree.
it results that there is no adequate proceed
ing at present existing, 10 punish those who
contract incestnous narrages-the following
decision is therefore also submitted TO the Lee
gislatnre.-ltis tor their wisdom 10 provide AN
adequate remedy.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an information filed by tue at
torney general, on behalf of the COM
monwedilh, against Andrew Broaddus
and Jane e.. his wife, in the court ofclan-
cery, for The district Of Richmond. 1t is
founded upon The written information OF
Thomas Price, jr. aud John NJ. Shepard,
Herewith exhibited.-The Information
charges that the defendants intergIarrieti
together, on The Doth December 1915,
the female defendant being the sister of a
second wife OF the ether defendant, then
lately deceased, and the widow of one of
his neplews, aud that these facts were
we'll known to the parties, at the time of
their interniarrlase. Ii prays that Tie
said defendants mag answer the alegaiI-
ons thereof, That the court would decree
the nulity Of the said marriage, and make
such further decree III the premises, as
the act OH which 1t is founded GAY re-
qures, as may be adapted 10 the nature
OF tue case, and as IA regard for the laws
and public morals may demand.
u. a a. Il l..
the said information--in which, not adj
hitting the truth of any of the facts stat
ed therein, they say, that by the tharticle
of the bill Of rights If is declared, :" that
in all capital or criminal prosecutions, "A
man hath right 10 demand the cause and
nature of his accusation, TO be confronted
with the accusers and witnesses, TO call
for evidence in his favour, and 10 spec
dy trial by an impartial jury OF his Wei
mage, without whose unanimous consent
he cannot lac found guilty, nor can he he
compeilcdtog give evidence againsthlmself:
thai no man BE deprived oi his Sherry ,eX-
cept by ghe law ef the land ,ortIie Judgment
ofhis peers"--that by an act passed on
9th Dec. 85 ~ the legislature expressed
Its meaning OF this article OF the bill Of
rights by enacting 9 that no freeman
shall be taken or imprisoned, or be dis
seized of his freehold, or liberties, or free
customs, OF be outlawed. OF exiled, or "a
ny otherwise destroyed, nor shall the
commonwealth pass upon him, nor con
denim him, but by the lawful judgment
of his peers, or by the laws otfhe land :"
that they are advised that an act which
is contrary TO, or Inconsistent with the
said bill of rights, or any part of it, is
Unconstitutional, void, and Ofnone effect !;
that the said information is 10 all in
cnts and purposes crlminalprOsecutlon
founded upon the act referred TO therein !;
and that The said act, so far as itprovides
that any persons who shall contract mar
rlase contrary thereto, shall be separated
by the dctimtiye sentence of the court of
chamcery, and that the attorney general
shall exhibit bill against them, which
they shall be compelled 10 answer upon
oath, and upon such bill, answer, and
the DISPOSITIONS of witnesses, the said court
may proceed 10 give Judgment, and de-
clare the nullity of the marriage, and,
moreover, may punish the parties by five,
and if IT sees cause, may compel them
10 give bond with sufficient security, that
they will not cohabit thereafter, provid-
ed that the said fine shall be assessed by
jury-ls penal statute, authorisiug a
criminal prosecution, III the mode there
in prescribed, is inconsistent With the
said article of the bill of rights, and is
therefore unconstitutional, void, and of
none effect, and, therefore, does not vest
the said court of chamcery with any law
full jurisdiction 10 hear and determine
the matters in the said information con-
tanned, and, therefore, they demand
Judgment whether they ought 10 give any
further or other answer to the same
The cause coming on TO he heard in
the said court, upon the said plea, which
II was agreed might be considered as