Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-08-30
RIcEMoMD, AUGUST 30.
TO THE EpIroRs OF THE ENaurRrR,

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ENQUIRER.
Gentlemen will by your permission resume
the remarks addressed to Or. ed Taylor, Esqr. in
former number of your paper, in addition to such
further matter as has been suggested by the Chan
ceilors otcn defence. Veritas / hope will NOT
look ON this emphatic of the word matter as a
vain assumption, stronger sympstom Of that
disease which has Ja6led both his siiH as a phy-
| stct0n and mas eioquence as a Rheforician. I'm
fortunately for the Chancellor his deeper penet,a-
uoh mas discovered matter in my last publication
| wbere 'eritas nothing but the mpoteucy of
disease And while acknowledge my obligations
10 the Judge for redeeming it from the contempt TO
which Its supposed scedkncss had consigned it, |
most truly condole with him in having to contend
| win strength which even the cogency of his rea-
soning could not subdue. But to proceed-Judge
| iayior's defence contains nothing more than what
he urged IN his letter to the Governor which was
submitted to the Legislature; cannot therefore re-
ply 10 the greater part of it more forciby than by
FURNISHING the report and resolution the Senate in
eoruary 1913 On the 7th of january in that
year: " The Speaker also laid before the House an
other letter from the Governor, communicating
ietlef from creed Taylor, Esq Judge of the Superb
or Courts OF Chancery held at Richmond and Lynch
burg, expressing his opinion in relation 10 the
supposed obligation imposed upon him by law 10
| reside at the City OF Richmond; but agreeing TO
ABIDE By the decision of the General Court if the
| Legislature would authorize that Court to decide
upon the question which letters being read, on
| MOTION, were referred TO Messrs. A. H. Powell,
L. Z. Hoomes, Robertson Cabell and Preston. -
AND on the 9th OF February following Mr.
Robertson, from the Committee TO whom was refer
red the letter OF Chancellor Creed TAYLOR made the
following report
The Committee to whom was referred letter
| rom the Honorable Creed Taylor, Chanc ellor for
the Richmond District, TO the General Assembly,
report
|
| That the Hon. Creed Taylor, as stated in his
| letter was appointed Chancellor for the Richmond
| District, In the year 1906. 1t appears to YOUR
Committee, that at The time ofhs appointment and
acceptance, the following legal vison existed in
relation to the residence of the Chancellors of y
glnia " Each Judge shall reside at the place where
the Court OF the District for which he may be elect
Ell, shall be holden" Judge Payor was elected FOR
the Richmond District as the district then stood and
the court tor that District holden in the CITY of
richmond at the time of Judge rs appointment
LIE conclusion appears necessarily to follow that
the Judge was bound 10 reside in the CITY of Rich
mond. Judge Taylor ii is presumed, accepted the
! appointment with a full knowledge Of this legal
| conuition annexed Your Committee cannot there
iore admit that the condition In its application TO
Judge Taylor, was unjust or unreasonable Your
committee are at a loss TO conceive by what pro-
cess OF reasoning, the Hon. Judge has arrived at
me conclusion, that by subsequent division of the
richmond District and the creation of an addition
al Court, he absolved from his obligation to re-
side IN Richmond. The law provides, that the
Judge shall reside at the place where the Court shall
De holden tor the District for which he NAV be elect
ed, and not at place where Court may be holden
Tor District subsequently created and for which he
was not elected. BY the act of 1918, dividing the
Richmond District into four Chancery Districts il
Is expressly provided, that the Chancellor for the
hrst and second district should reside in the CITY of
richmond The Hon. Judge contends in his leiter
IL ,Ii.,,t
him is unconstitutional, because it superad,Is a
new condition TO his Commission of Judge" Your
COMMITTEE consider II unnecessary TO examine the
constitutional power of the General Assembly 10
superadd new conditions 10 Judicial Offices Be-
cause ifthe law of 1913 be unconstitutional. i, lief,
The provision OF the law of 1901 unrepeaed in full
iorce and it the construction given to that law by
the Committee be correct, the conclusion is the
same, that Judge Taylor is bound 70 reside in Rich
mond-' Moreover It does not appear 10 your Com
mittee, that any new condition was superadded by
the law OF 1873 The provision OF that law in rea-
uon 10 the residence OF the Chancellor being moth
ing more than areeration of the same provision in
the law OF 1901. Your Committee cannot perceive
Inc propr'ey or nece sy of referring the construc-
ton or unconstitutionaty of the laws before men
/ toned, to the General Court That Court must
decide these questions they should ever be brought
Judlcialy before them; but the Legislature in max
ing laws, must judge for themselves, of their own
The Senate, the adoption of the following resoIu-
! ton /:
| " ReSoired, That no further proceeding upon
the subject OF Chancellor Tayors letter. is neces-
sary, than such the Legislature may think pro-
per to adopt, either to change to enforce their law
:" The said report, being delivered in, was read
and the resolution being twice read, was, OH the
question put thereupon, agreed 10 by the House."
| From this report and resolution il appears that
my view OF the Chancelors conduct is sanctioned
by the highest and most enlightened body of our state
whom 1t may be presumed, understood the intention
| oil the law which they had assisted in enactine as
WELL II not better than individual members Of the
lower house, who probably, were opposed 10 il and
whose opinions OF course would not be unbiased.
Admitting that their opinions were impartial, they
are entitled % no weight in the present Dues
ton than the opinions Of so many honorable Gentle
men upon any given subject.
/ The Chancellor says, " but as the court of the
district for which was elected was then holden
there Il. e. at Rchmond) it followed that so long
as IT continued there it was the place where was
to reside but no longer" Now, | will ask the
Chancellor for what district was he elected? I'm
| questionable for the district Of Richmond. Where
is the court for the district of Richmond holden :
Certainly, il still continues TO be holden at Rich
mond, hence it undoubtedly follows from his own
admission, that being elected for the district OF
| Richmond, and Richmond being still the Pr ACE
where that Court is holden, is his duty now as it
was at the time Of his acceptance of his Office in
| 1906, to reside there
He admits, that he was required By the law of
/ 1901 to live in Richmond, and says, that he COM
| piled with its acquisitions until 1913: the Judge, I
think is mistaken in this latter asserton for il will
be recolected by many, and particularly by the
| Bar, that for nearly two years previous to that
ltime, he was living at Needham in the county of
4 a. - IL