The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1825-11-17

yreme court, YOU must deal unfairly, Coz
YOU will not increase their compensation,
though you increase their labor. But should
YOU propose TO do so will you take itfrom
the Treasury? No. howeyerlow the conpen-
sai;on may be, the eternal cry with us is,
there arc enough that viii take il for that
VIII YOU then take it from the pockets Of
the petitioners; from poverty itself, assured
lynot. Your course then il 10 select as few
men as possible to compose this court of
commissioners, that there may be greater
inducements held out TO render them fitted
TO the performance oftheir duties, and that
the compensation to be received by few,
which becomes nothing if divided among
many, may enable you to command the best
talents.
i have merely thrown out these remarks
Dir. speaker without much reference to the
point Of order, but did consider the re-
marks of,be gentleman from Westerly as
squirting towarithe defect Of that system
the existence Of which We have 10 deplore.
Mr.. Bicknell, of harrington, hoped the
bill would not be lost in the multiplicity Of
projects. lie was not tenacious Of having
three Courts, and for his own part should
rather prefer a Court consisting Of three
members, but as to transferring the matter
to the Supreme Court it was out Of the
question.
Mr.. A. Robbins said the gentleman from
Westerly (Mr. Dixson,) had not attended
to the question before the House, with his
usual correctness: if he had he must have
perceived that his remarks were out Of or
der. The question is on an amendment pro-
posed to the I'd section, preparatory to the
adoption of that section. No proposition
had been made relating to the supreme
court; all we have to do is to consider wheth-
or the I'd article under consideration shall
be adopted with or without the amendment.
But if the objections Of the gentleman
from Westerly were examined, it would be
evident that the evil which had led to the
introduction of this bill would not be reme-
died by referring the subject to the supreme
court. The delay in disposing Of petitions,
and the expence attending them, would be
ia great before the court as Il now is. The
delay which now takes place in that
court is great grievance, and If you add
to the business you add to the grievance.
hs to the suggestion that the members Of
the supreme court are or ought to be the
most competent TO perform this duty, where
is The difficulty, if this bc the fact, in ap-
pointing members of that court members of
the court of Commissioners. We arc not
procluded from selecting from the best tai
nnts Of the State, Bat where is the bus-
ness of 10 much difficulty that is to come
before these Courts? Most of the questions
that will arise there are merely questions
Of fact, and for the determination of these
nothing more can be required than fair
mind,and atoleroblo knowledge ofaccounts.
Questions may sometimes arise upon the
construction ofthe statutes under which
they act, but they must be rare and will be
soon settled. From these ard other con-
alterations, Mr.. r. although he admitted
that tho amendment was goodin theory,)
was in favour Of the sectien as it stood.
Mr.. Bridgham observed that he had at.
tended to the arguments on both sides, and
1t appeared to him that it would be better
on the whole to pass the second section as
il stands. The decided sense ofthe House
was that transfer of the insolvent juIisdic-
lion should be made, and the only doubt
seemed to be as to whom il should be trans
tcrrcd. The arguments against transfer
to the supreme court, were conclusive, and
to avoid any objections to the bill, as to ia