The Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1822-1822, 1822-04-16

"' ~ rrorl FFTTlf tlauss
- Iti Me pfnlinls -shls primary
h,ecilun % "a tpusE, tao isT AZ The fe'
nnginF, from his position, was able 70
tear,1 that q was unconstitutional, on the
around that i took away The right OF trial
~ Jury,
Mr Conlict moved that the committee
Use and report progress; which was re-
fused
Mr.. Neale, replied. to the observation,
af the gentleman from South Carolina,
fNr Alitchell) and he con,ended that the
light Of trial by Jury, was not, OF course,
imperative. Il was not recognized IN the
revenue. Of attachment laws, IN arbl-
,ra:ion, or forthcoming laws. He also
contended, that, to all substantial purpo-
noses. the right of trial by jury was not
',nly preserved, but was extended by this
Till beyond that limit, which had been
Generally admitted as q safe and fair rule
ii construction of constitutional law IN the
several states. MIR. n. presented state
ment of the enorn,ity OF costs which &C
crued in this district, 10 a case OF ludg-
niE,; %, confession upon a ueot oil DSl,
and which amounted TO DxO m the aggre.
gate. and the same case, II contested
would amount, he said. TO no less sum
than D49 so. The bill before the House
was framed upon the principles OF the law
OF Maryland, and he entered into detail
ed consideration ofthe subject, to shew the
oppression under which he believed the
people OF this district at present labored.
Dir. Woodcock thought thai, bv refer
ence TO the TIN section OF the bill, II would
be seen that the right of trial by jury was
entirely taken away, and ha contended
that the right of appeal, for which 1t pro-
vided, was not constitutional substitute,
nor desirable privilege. His objection
10 the bill was founded rather on principle
than expectancy.
Mr.. Kent said. IN legislating for the dis
trict, he would always be Influenced by
the same motives and feeling that would
govern him were he member Ut the Lee
aisiature of Maryland. He would there
support measure, IL it could be consist
entity done, that was called for by large
majority ofth people. The bill before
the committee, from the memorials pre-
serted. was asked for by a large portion
OF the people of this district; and although
il was a DISTINGUISHED territory, and could
only gratuitously have its wishes known
on this floor, he, for one, would support
them. when entrusted to him, even in that
manner. All Dir. K. asked of gentlemen
was 10 extend TO this district the advanta-
ges of such laws as were enjoyed by their
constituents in their several states, 10 out
OF Ga of which had, by their laws extend
ed the jurisdiction of magistrates from 81
20 D. loo; and be presumed what was con-
ytitutional in the different states was equal
Nv so in this district. In Maryland, where
BIr. X. iesIded, this system had been in
successful operation for several years, very
bene6ciaIly, be believed. and entirely TO
the satisfaction of the people---there had
not been u.urmur against it, that he had
heard, and he was willing to test he same
system here, in order to avoid the expense,
DELAY, and loss of time, which was expe-
rlenced under the existing one. Mr..
had ne constitutional scrupIes about the
bill, inasmuch as the trial by jury was Sc.
Sured, il wished for by the parties.
Mr. Mercer observed that when he as
sented TO a report of this bill by the Com
mittee on the District of Columbia, OF
which be was member, he expressed his
intention toreserve to himself the right OF
presentiog his views on the subject, with
out being at all compromised by it, He
said that that part OF the District which was
Seded by Virginia, was not, he believed in
favor of the bill. Ii such extortion as the
gentleman from Maryland, (Mr' Neale)
had described, in reality existed, he thought
il was confined to that parl of the District
which was north of the Potomac. The
portion which was taken from Virginia
were DESTROYS to retain their ancient right
and privileges. If an evil existed, it was
to be corrected only where it was to be
found, aud the remedy was, not by alter
ing the nature ofihe jurisdiction, but by III
hitting those fees by law, which might be
deemed oppressive and unjust.
The subject was further discussed by
Messrs, Woodcock, Nelson OF Va. Mitch
ell of S. G.. Mercer, Moore of Va. in favor
of the motion to strike out; and by Messrs.
Kent, Mallary. Neale, Campbell, T. Bate.
man against it.
The question being taken on the motion
to strike out, it was decided in the mega
tive-only about 25 rising for It.
After some further remarks on The sub
icct, in which Messrs. Williamson. Neale,
and Nelson Of Va. took part, the commit
tee OF the whole, on motion of Mr.. Tomlin-
son. rose and reported progress.
Mr.. Baldwin gave notice that be should,