Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1820-03-18

.ei will have time to prepare. rev cases
viii be finally decided in the district COURT
1elay. the chance of reversal and the IN
-rease of fees 10 The attorneys by removal
will be sufficient motives for removing all
most every case.
That part Of the bill which extends juris-
diction of single magistrate to the sum OF
so dollars-witb the right to either party to
appeal to the district court, from the judg-
ment of the magistrate in all cases where
the sum exclusive Of costs exceeds ten dol
lars. is liable to a very serious constitutional
objection. The 9Th article of the amend
rnenis TO the constitution declares, that IN
suits at common law where the value IN con-
troversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the
right of trial by jury shall be preserved, Z
The authorising The trial by jury in case case A.
party shall appeal, cannot in judgg;t cam,
away the constitutional objection lie.
then congress may under SIM s au :.
ton give a single magptraa sp,,,s Is Of The
cases where the mater u'spu'e - =. ~.
value Of thousands q collars. or lne als'rle'
court upon Inv Sdgments in a summary way
thor,sea 10 glssssrving TO the party right to
10 all 49, e1e circuit court, where he may
apPea, a trial of his case by jury.
ue ne constitution intended TO con6ne the
| ,Fer of trial in common law cases withou.
4 jury to those only where the value in con-
troversy does not exceed twenty dollars.
By the provision of this bill in cases
where the sum is above twenty dollars-the
party who wishes his case tried by a jury
claim his constitutional right, with.
out mourning in the first instance the ex-
pence of trial before magistrate.
The bill of rights of Virginia declares,
:" that in controversies respecting property,
and in suits between man and man, the an
cient trial by jury is preferable to any other
and ought to be held sacred"
Altho' these words of the bill OF rights OF
the state of Virginia are not as positive and
as those used in the 9th amend.
rnent of the constitution Of the u. States 4;
yet the legislature OF that state have never
deprived citizen Of right of trial By jury
in the first instance in any case where the
sum exceeds twenty dollars. But il there
was no constitutional objection to the propo-
sed extension of the jur sdictson of the ma.
gistrates-would il be expedient.
1t would not expedite the recovery of
debts where the sum amounts to or is un-
der SO dollars, and more than 10 dollars. -
1t would delay the recovery because the
unsuccessful party might, and no doubt IN
many instances would appeal to the
District court, which meets but twice a
year.
1t would increase the expense Of both
parties; by adding TO il the costs Of an at
torney's fee, and the clerks and marsbal's
fees in the District court, and attendance OF
witnesses, No person would be benefited
by this arrangement but the attornies clerks
and marshal
| can see no good which is to grow out o
this new system. but much evil. The heavy
expense to the county--the increase of ex-
pense to Suitol9-the delay Of obtaining f.
nal judgment in the last resort, the incopye
niencs TO the greater part of the mhabi-
tants OF the District, especially to those OF
Alexandria-the Inconvenience to'the judg.
es-the thousand sources Of litigation which
will arise out of the questions of iursdic-
ton and practice. which it will probably
take many years 70 settle, aid the complex
ity OF the system, are strong reasons against
adopting system which does not clearly
promise great good and decided advantages
Ito which may be added, that the plan
proposed does not adopt uniform mode
OF practice and system of laws for the whole
District, which ought to be the case, so as to
make them more like United people.
The node !. practice and the laws of The
two sides OF the river; are as different as the
laws and practice Of the states from which
the two counties have been taken under a
former law of congress the judges and the
attorney OF the district have been engaged
in preparing an uniform systen Of laws and
rules OF practice in the court for the whole
district. Would it not be better for con-
gress to abstain from passing any law OF a
general nature concerning the district, or