Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-02-07
VIRGINIA. LEGISLATURES,
HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
FR1DAY, FEBRUARY 3.

FRIpAY, FEBRUARY 3.
Debate on the BIZ for the appointment Of dIo-
Their Chancellor.
Mr.. IYooduiilc called up the engrossed bill for
tie amendment Of an additional Chancellor He
advocated its passage, as affecting the interest of
one fourth of the population of the state. II the
hill did not pass the people could not be relieved
in any other way, because he thought that, under
the Constitution, the Legislature had no power TO
,erislate Judge out OF Office. There was nothing
IN that instrument, that authorised the Legislature
"a declare Judges Office vacant, when he became
.fc,, and unable 10 discharge his duty. In the only
cas,, in which removal could take place, the con-
eli, ,tion had been explicit TO the mode OF pro-
x.eeding The judges had been frequently sick
heretofore, and it never thought OF until this
session, that they could be removed tor IT. lie
was satisfied if the House knew the SITUATION ana
\ merits OF Chancellor Brown, they would not ony
be not disposed to remove him, but would not wish
IN gee him resign. He knew the peculiar solicit
.ie which that gentleman felt Tor the condition OF
no hisne.s in his courts. He had visited his courts
since his affiicon, and disposed OF all the busI-
mess on which he could act He was now % years
OF age and had been afflicted with paralysis, and
the condition OF the people as bad as though
thew had no chancellor. At the time OF Chancellor
BIS appoinlrnent he was required to hold but one
court: he had since been required 10 hold additional
courts; and il was the labor Of attending 10 these
duties that had broken down his constitution. MIR.
w had seen a letter from him since the resolutions
were offered proposing TO ie7islate HIM out OF
Office, in which he uttered no complaint; butmere-
w desired that the term of holding his courts might
be so changed as to give him time to perform the
duties more leisurely. Mr.. w. commented on the
treat merits and virtues Of this Officer OF the eX
IRENE distress which ne experienced from being
compelled to retain his Office support in his
old age He had held the Office 20 years, and there
was no hope of his resigning. His friends would
not consent to 1t. Even the district would prefer
going without chancellor, TO see HIM resign ana
live on the charity of his friends.
Mr. Smith, Of Greenbrier, also supported the
BILL He thought there was no constitutional OBJ
lection TO il. The proposition was merely TO create
new Chancery district, and the question was,
was il expedient under all the existing circum-
stances to do this? The division of the original
district WIS made without the consent Of the chan
cellor At that time there an understanding
between him and the public, that ne should hold
but one court. But, for the greater convenience
of the people, the district divided, and the
chancellor had willingly undertaken the additional
duties. But his bodily ability would not now per-
nit him longer TO discharge them. But he defended
the bill on higher ground than personal considera-
tons towards the chancellor; it was due TO the
people of the new districts that their rights should
lie attended to. How long would the House per-
init them to remain without the benefits of
Chancery Court? MIR. s. concuUed in the repre-
sentaiion Of Mr.. Woodvie, that the chancelier's
inability was the result Of his ndefaligable
tfons in the service Of the public. He contended
that there was squirting at sinecure in the bill
IL would only bring back Chancellor Brown to the
situation he occupied at the time of his appoint
ment
Mr.. Dromgoolc, felt as sensible any one for
the situation Of Chancellor Brown and the people
OF his district, But, there was in his mind strong
objection TO the bill. Chancellor Brown now
presented as an object OF charity. He had under
stood that he had used bis Office for the purpose OF
providing for his bousehold-that he had appointed
his son 10 one, and his son-in-law to another,
clerkship; and he called on gentlemen to correct
theinfornation he had received, If IT be erroneous.
Mr. Pdtteson, Of A. rose and explained; that
tlre son-in-law Of Chancellor Brown was not ap-
pointed clerk by him; but that he bad appointed as
clerk TO one Of the districts, his son who was
young lawyer Of merit
Mr.. DrOmgoole, said, il would appear then, that
he had given 10 his son lucrative Office. But he
contended that the bill was unconstitutional
When the office Of Chancellor was conferred on
che incumbent, il was with The understanding that
he should perform the duty, and receive the salary
attached TO it, This was the condition upon which
/. was held lie had another objection, which was,
perhaps still stronger. The bill provided that the
additional chancellor should be the successor OF
Chancellor Brown. Was not this an appointment
q. judge by law. when ne constitution required