The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1825-01-18
S3G 002 81
3,042 46
Deduct EXPENSE,
Nett Revenue, s55'0GO 4
CoNTEMPTs or COURT.
gs3,0gO Al

Nett Revenue, ss3,0G0 Al
CONTEMPTs OF COURT.
Thursday, January 6.--On motion of
Mr.. Morris of q. the resolution OF the {.
for T.. of Justice, declaring it ipexpsdient
| to drfne by law. wha, is IA contempt of
court, and how it shall be punished, was
taken up
! Mr.. Morris moved 10 amend the resou
! ton so rs 10 declare IL exprdl"nt 10 defnr
how contempt of court Should be punish
ed The other branch III the resolution hr
was willing To abandon. He did not think,
| he lid, when he moved IL make the subject
on, of enquiry before committee, that
| single member Of the House would be
verse to lreisating ON subject SO obvious
! " involving The liberty of the citizen.-
Mr. NJ here read extracts from The opinions
of judge White and Dadr, IN a late cnse
before the General Court, With the view Of
showing that the rourt maintained the doc
trine, that the Judges had power to punish,
as contempt Of court, words spoken either
in court, or by thu fire side, rejecting in
any manner, on the judicial conduct of II
Judge The decisions of that court had
been recognised by the House. Their dc
cision in the case referred 10 was NOW the
law ofthe land. 1t was founded ON the
common law of England, az recognised in
this state. BY that law ard by th' decision
of the court, the property of the citizen
| might be taken ava, from him by the
mandate of single indi, idnai who ~ both
| Judge aud accuser. Was this, he asked,
| right ? Was it consistent with the princi
| pirs Of liberty held 80 dear IN THIS rountry
Were NOT Judges, like other men, liable to
| . b,. ,,T human nature lie There n I
danger, therefore, that in Furnishing an in
suit offered 10 themselves, they may, IN
some cases, act partially, and impose tx
ccssive damage He refcrredt to the many
persons IN the state who eSercisrd judicial
functions, and asked if il Was not possible
that among them there wrre some Of ,lo
lent and levengrfn feelings If so, what
would be the situation of an innocent man,
exposed TO such powers, guided by such
feelings? MIR. NJ said, if the case of indi
Nidual oppression under the powers 10
which he referred were IL increase Ia any
considerable extent, the people ould rise
in the majesty of their strength, aud put
down the judiciary altogether. Such a re-
suit he drprr, at.d. The Legislature, he
said sat nearly ore third Of the year, and
almost every other subject had claimed u
share of thcir attention, hut The hberiy The
cit,zen. Was it, he asked, come TO thi,
that there was "a prit ileged order among us
II the powers of the indgcs were truly de
fnrd by the General Court, what differ
cnce, he asked, was there between the STU
alton ot u cilizrn here. and a subject of his
imperial maj rsiy, the Emperor Of Russia
I, was in vain to say that the judges Were
honorable men. Ii he was a slave, subject
To the arbitrary will aud power of II master
what difference did it make whether hi,
master VAS an honorable man or not =
The chains Of slavery would he equal,
Calling and the liability Ia oppression tia
same. Mr.. NJ. read. by way of argument
4 the bill which he had offered in committee
: and " hich he proposed should be passed b,
; the House.
Mr.. Wallace opposed the motion. II,
said he Was opposed Ia tyranny IN thcor!
land IN practice: but he saw no danger II
the liberty Of the people from the d, eisior
of the General Court. Ages had contirmeC
nv their aCquiescrnce the lsdum and ne
ccssity of that doctrine He said he could
see no discrepancy between the principle,
OF orr government, and the power of !
court 10 punish an offender Of lis dignity
Courts reflect the mairsty Of tie laws anc
when they are nsultcd, they should have
the power 10 innlct punishment upon tht
offender.
MrW. observed that the gentleman from
Glnucester had said that the court is hntl
Ae""n,r nud i'"ir', uu', - rnro Hlr. w
the commonwealth, an MI htr prosecutions
, arrajgns, tries and ~, Gates for violations o
her peud code. III the ease of contrmpts
the mode only of the trial is changed and
III considering the question, we must 10
, nnitr the mon aud the court, for, it IS not
, the power of the individual, Che mere or
gan of the law,) which you are about Il
.i,apa,r, ii Is the pa.csr 81 The laW 10 Proteo
itseij
Mir. w. also said that II contcmpts were
; referred to iuries for puni-hmrnt, that
iralousies and collisions VIII arise be
tween the two tribunals, which must ore
rate ufavorahly 10 tue administration oI
justice.
alr. Morris said, that in such case, no
thing could be- easier than for "A judge IL
change the rerte, and in tina, way get nd
of all local prciutilces or feelings.
Mr.. Gordon SAID thai the member from
Gloucester had Abandoned the most mr.
pur,ant branch uf his 1nuposition, that OF
dtfning what a contempt Was, ADD hdhcr
I'd To the either branch, that of prescribing
the mode of Furnishing contenpts.
NHwiilIStand,ug there might he differ
ence Of opinion in relation To the details of
this subject, he could not believe that there
was any difference MS to the exercise Of
Tyranny. or Of powers incompatible with