The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1826-02-27
vIaGIcG1A LElsls1A4 JaS.

Fridag. Ftb. l7.-~Communleaiioo from
the SITUATE. The Senate tHsist IA their
amendment To the BIN concerning Con-
lemprs Of Conris--to which the House Of
DeIte It's had disagreed.
Nc. Sherrdrd moved the indefinite post
ponpment of the bll concerning CoufrmPts
If Court and the Sspate's amendment,
y hich he afterwards withdrew.
Mr.. Cfunp, of Pc" halan, renewed the
motion for indefinite postpUnement.-
negaiised, II To 50.
The House then rereded from their dlsa
gfeemcut-syes liz, noes 81.
Mr. Briggs offered an amendment to the
Seuaie'5 amendment, giving To Judges
respectively IN Uaca.ton the power of ssu-
ing wits of error. The Amendment was
adopted.
The House then agreed to the Senate's
amendment.
Mr.. Saunders, OF New Keet. called w
the bin concerning the Board of Public
Works. Thu House refused to take 1t zap.
% motion Of Mr.. Wilson, the House
proceeded IN consider the bin concerning
=" Circuit Courts" add the bill was ordered
to be eugros5ed.
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS.
Mr. Winston renewed the motion to
take up the bill, concerning the Board OF
Public Works.
Mr.. Miller, of Botetourt, opposed the mo
ton, which, however prevailed. This
bill dissolses the Board Of Public Works,
and makes the Governor, Treasurer, and
Ist Auditor, Board for similar purposes.
IF NJ FL
the co apensatiUn OF tnr new Board at
$1,000, 10 be equally divided among them
This being rejected, Mr. Winston moved
S9OO-Alr. Powell s6oO-Mr. Wilson
$500 900 aud 800 we1e successlyrly re-
lrctrd, and the compensation fixed at
$500, or goo to eacn Member OF the
Board.
The question recurring on the passage
ofthr BIN, it was supported by Mr.. sam
ders If New Kent, Mr.. Dromgoolc, Mr
Winston, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Pattespn Of NJ,
Mr.. Watkins of F. +. and Mr.. Garland and
opposed by Mr. fiarsie of Richmond, Mr.
Mr.. Miller of BotrtoUrt, M.
Rl,es, aud Mr.. White. The bill passed.
ayes liz, noes rs.
PARDONING POWER.
Saturday. FEB. l8.-The Report of the
Select Committee on the disputed power
Of pardooing by the Executive or Legsla-
ture IN Penlenllary cases, being called up,
and the I'd Resolution, IN the following
words, beng under consideration, viz. Re
solUed, That Rachael Rarsenc be pardnned
IT IN her Confinement IN the Pemtcntary--
mis- Resolution produced a long discus
sion il being supported by Messrs. jack
son, Wood. Gordon, Upshur, Estll and
George, and opposed by Mrssrs. Drom
gpo". Crump of POwhatan, aud May
The question Involved was produced by
the act of 1884, taking from the EHecu
tive the power Of pardon, in PeuitenlIary
cases, unless for Cases affecting the propri
ETY. of conviction. The supporters Of the
Resolution commended, that the power OF
pardon existed someH here--that the 9Th
article OF the Constitution provided that II
should be exercised by the Executive IN al
cases, except in prosecutions conducted
by order of the House of Delegates, or III
cases particularly provided for by Law
when it should be exercised by Resolution
of the Iiouss of Delegates-an that TIN
act of 1924 by diyesting the Executive
of the power of pardonmg Penhentiary Of
tenders, for cases not affecting the proprle-
ty of the conviction, had deVolYed upon
the House of Delegates the power of par
dOnlng IN this case, or that It existed no
where. Those opposing the Resolution
ofthe Committee commended that the peti-
ton in this case, placed the application in
fact, upon cases affecting the proprcty of
4 t,. a., 4
fore, within the operation OF the act OF
1854 that the Constitution vested the
Executive with the power of pardon IN all
cases, except convictions in consequence
Of prosecutions ordered by the House Of
Delegates, Or cases particularly provided
for by law-and that as this case Mas net
thcr the one or the other excepted by the
Constitution, it belonged to the Executive
to grant pardon, as IN other cases not CX-
cepted By the Constitution Or by law.
The Resolution OF the Committee was
approved by the House, by ayes and noes
ayes l35, noes Island the House Of
Delegates thus decided. that they had the
Constitutional right of pardonlng Peniteo-
tiary offenders by Resolution, in cases,
where the propIicty of the conviction of
the offender, WAS uot the basis OF the APP
plicatun for pardon-in other words for
reform, &c.
Mr.. May then moved an additional Re
solution To the Resolution just adopted,
with a view TO make it appear, that Ra-
chacl Rarsenick had been pardoned by the
House, on grounds uneonnrcted with the
propricty of her conviction in other
words to bring thr decision within the ope-
ration Of the law Of l823 1, diyestng the
Executive Of the power Of pardon for eau
SEES not affecting the proprrty Of con'ic-
ton by the jury. This amendment pro-
dnced long debate, in which Messrs.
Dromgoole, Cook, Donthat, Blackburn,
Patteson of B. Mason of S. Carter of Pr.