Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-02-07


moved to I'LL the blank with mon,rs.-.Nr. Saunders
New Kent with monhs.Jur Morris of CLIQUE, ser viii
one month.
Mr.. Saunders withdrew his proposition in the fovomr
the las, motion aud Mr. Garland renewed 1.-THE House
refused to h the blank with either months NJ, greed
10 NIL II with month.
The blanks being thus filed the question ,ecu,rcJ nm the
| passage OF the bill,
Mr. Bouiin opposed,tlc ,,assage of The ,vorId
not give his Judge should impr;son onv
exccpr he absolutely essary under the law and the
constitution aud upon his il not
occur to gentlemen that there Law auorising
exercise OF such power except Incidentally and under the
Immediate pressure Of ncccSsty when Judge the
iad the hand OF power individual he did il at own
responsbilityBy this bill, were authors Judges To
nprison citizens for mouth fine them so DAYS
MY. b.arsusd to prove the oppression which might
sue from the operation of this BILL various wavs-Ie
"eed mat the power of Furnishing conempts
abused: he coacndcd that had grown ON, of the fart
statute had recognized the right Judges punish
LOT oohtempS, and that Ivy thus recognizing right
were inducing Courts Frequently TO exert the power
ar. 'hason of Southampton explained the motives which
had governed his nrncr intended votrIJe r,ne, Ia
the argument of Mr.. Boudi Whilst he admitted tina,
lie power had been greatly abused he could not com
p'ehehu INC idea that because the with unlimited
powers had not abused the power, with limited powers
mey would abuse them II was absurdy his mind
his was the of .Nr Bouidn-IIc could not con-
ceive that statute defining the powers courts in punish
ing conempts could possibly operate induce those courts
10 punish moro frequently than they to.--IIe denied
mat the powers of the by the bill and
us 'a was necessary TO protec, the liberty and pro-
perty of citizens.
Mr. May admitted that the powers Of fine and mprisou
nent were sufficient TO protect the dignity nf coursbut
NC ,"o"gh Notwithstanding that the bill ted to
P""oce !oep INJURY He imagined the of witness,
wh" unwilling to give evidence, might choose to commit
contempt and incur the punishnen escape giving his
testimony.
Mr.. .Nason conleuicd that tho ,,bo,o .,.o ,, =,
MI May was 'nsapp!iet!. lie would ne bill civ
ing l" conumacou persons the Of defeating public
the case was fully provided for in the bill it,
self. The argument of Mr. May wrnt To invaiaie the
princpic q" purgation but the law present recognizes
h"t right and any individual swearing that he no
contempt, could mol he punished for "A contempt,
1F Gordon opposed the bill. he had ever voted in
favor OF power against human rights. would desire to re
"dc' IT, lie rXar':aed The power of comtemp aud allie
Gcd that 1t other every department, of the Go
Vefnment' Executive Legislative aud judicial possessed
and must possess for self preservation. He ssmated it
TO the natural right of ciidefcnce in individuals If tie
deliberations oi THIS House nf the Executive were dis
urbed, the offence would be punished even with dc tb
lie took The view of that had bee seu,ed
ny ME- bouldn asserting tina, it judges the arbitrary
power To fine and hnprison. lie that great and
rch Offenders would the lumishrnt proviIed and
that the bill by limiting punishment. would lead TO con-
r"pt Inc fear OF the powers Of courts phantom
oi gentemen's own imagining Even in England under
the Jercs and the Sc.oggs the power been attended
with no abuse Mr. depicted in lively colours the bad
consequences thai might result f,ou the of the hin
Nh Morris of Gloucester replied to the onponents of tho
bill they had deprecated the passage of the BILL as en-
powering courts to fine aud imprisonment rejecting that
they possessed the power by the ccmr,op Ia 10 IN an ,,i,
ed extent.
Nj BacS1rrn in opposition to the BILL We adj
veried to the history of this bill present Sos
SION. lie admitted that each attempt ha in his
opinion improved the bill. BY this bill, the Judges were
allowed TO Judge what contempt was. Though better
man previous bills he deemed the bill unnecessary He
thought with others that judges license to punish
con'e'pts tie enqnircd of lawyers, il they had ever
knowna contempt punished by fine of $500 and one
ronth fnPrscnn"nt! The was, the influence of
public opinion, aud the purity the bench Was $500
sufficient compensation for crime? According To This bill
there was no graduation in crime aud punishment A
common insult might be punished with SJ00-tlIe deepest
aitron could he punished with more As 20 the e,nr
dies Of The Wit of Errors, aud the Hntras Coruus the
first was secured to by imn,euoria gr le other BIZ
The federai Constitution H bill in this resnec
unnecessary Mr.. d. proceeded considerable ,noth ,o
argue against the bill considering dangerous
and indelicate.
Ur. GhOlson replied the opponents fthe bin alleds.
ing the Inconsistency of their Arguments with themselves
and with each other aud supporting measure iuon .he
grounds of the necessity Of defining unlimited POW en- and
protecting individual liberty aud property
Mr.. Uiis0n said that of the debate nd hem
vote. The object arbitrary powcr Did
any man doubt that the laws stood it was CONNIE
tent to Judge TO fine the whole eff an indviI
ais estate and 10 mprSon or Lille? Was there necessity
for such power: Mr. w proceeded reply particularly
tn Messrs May. Gordon and Blackburn I'VE
our limits necessarily conhue mere outline Of this
interesting debate)
The question put aud ca ricd in the affirmative
ayes ! 6, 60.
Engrossed bills Authorizing Samuel Panniel 10 bud
courts of certain counties provide mode Of oeniuo
and repa roads and building bridges within the same:
j. Limiting lines nf bringing actions against persons aciin
in hdudieary character read Il third time and
pa sse'I.
.ur .hcCoy made Intellectual attempt to change the
hour If meeting to half past 10 o'clock.
LATEST FROM COLOMBIA