Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-08-30

If they should have applications to make 10 him in
ms Official capacity and would send them to him.
he would give them the earliest attention: and that
during vacation he would visit the city frequently:
he will recoilect that he failed to comply with his
promises. and did return until the law required
him TO hold his court.
The Chancellor further observes, that the chan
Gerry district being divided, and Court held both
at Richmond and Lynchburg, he could not reside
al the pace where the court of the district for
which he was elected was holden. Does the sub
sequent addition Of new district render void his
ooligaion 10 resden the district for which he was
elected! he cannot possibly contend, that he was
efeefea ior the Lynchburg district, consequently he
Is not Obliged 10 reside there He cannot possibly
contend that he was not elected for the Richmond
district therefore being elected and his court
being held there It must be his place Of residence.
M. Taylor not only Lkens his Office to free
"ofd Out says In TERMS that it as freehold, and
quo'es various authorities TO support him in his po-
sIon' as lar as there is analogy between free
no'o estd,e ana an office, they may possibly bear
him Out, but no farther; for let me ask him whether
he would pretend to vote upon hi. 6eeboIi ofEce
without owning foot of land? No: Whys Be-
cause the Legislature have declared in express
terms what constitutes freehold, and il is the first
''ine tna' am informed that they have any where
SAID that ,he office Of Chancellor for the Richmond
and Lynchburg districts shall constitute one The
"onoi"oie Judge alter stating that he is vested
win Freehold estate in his Office "a new kind
Oh tenure IN this country contends that it was not
competent, &c " TO superadd another condition, -
&C because, says lie, - the act er post facto
orc. Admitting, for moment that another condi-
uon tods superadded by the law of 1913 I shall
answer that part OF his defence by referring him 10
decision OF the Supreme Court of the u. States
reported IN ) VOL Dallas--the case of Calder VS..
Dull whefe ne viii find expressly laid down, that
Ahe prohloilion In the constitution, against pass
Ing er post .facto laws. applies exclusively 10
0fMH'0t rpendl Cases, and not 10 Grill cases:''
and again, T" although an act of the Legislature.
contrary to the great first principles of the social
compact is not rghtful; as for instance TO make n
man Judge in his own Cause Sc. las Chancellor
Taylor has made himselO 'syet, il seems. fbe lo,y
cannot De declared roid By a Court of Justice.
merely because IL violates these general princples
IL nor prohibitedby tue constitution of the state in
IT'S passed, or Of the United States.n If.
upon the soundest principles, high preroyative
Is dehed 10 the highest tribunals of state is /, not
strong evidence OF arrogant assumption in AN inai
Viuuai 10 oppose his own opinion to the solemn de-
cisions oil his country, and TO declare self-cons,-
'uied Judge In his own case, law of the land 10 be
unconstitutional?
bit shall now close these remarks to the Chan
ceiior which would never have been elected. bu;
from conviction that in calling him to an accoun,
ior what deemed and still deem mafeasaDces in
ounce, was rendering benefit TO the communitv
uiadiy would have resigned the task to able,
hands than my own, but no one came fnrward
Tor that purpose, / was assured, that pIain ar
unvarnI-hed exposition of facts, would supply the
defect OF more logical arguments.
JUNIUS.