Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-02-11

tina, some relief was required. But he did not see
the Practicabilit' Of doing what proposed; noe
Vas he prepared to say that there no cons,itu-
tonal difficulty Three OF the Judges had said in
the case OF Kemper and Hawkins, that common
law Judges could be commissioned as judges ia
chancery. But their consent was necessary; and
would II not be equally necessary that the consent
OF the chancellors should be obtained before they
could be made judges OF law? The bill proposed
repeal oil the laws organizing the courts beth OF
law and chancery, and what would be the conti-
ton OF the Commonw ealth if the Judges should re-
fuse to consent TO the proposed arrangement?
Mr.. .Ioy thought that the great features of the
proposed plan could be well understood and decided
at present. He therefore opposed the motion To
lay on the table as an unnecessary consumption OF
time.
.nr. Craig remarked that the consumption of
'ime ough, to be no consideration compared with
the difficulty OF understanding such proposition
at once. He did not understand its details or i,s
operation, and on that ground hoped it would be
laid the table
After few remarks from .ur. " iusfos in on
position TO laying the table, the question was
taken and the House refused To lay the bill Sc on
the table.
Mr.. May then rose and opposed the adoption
OF the substitute. He considered II Objectionable ON
constitutional ground, and on grounds of policy.
The proposition as 10 do what the House had al
ready decidedin The OF Chancellor Brown that
they could not do. Ii proposed to appoin, 6y Iatr
fifteen chanceors and four Judges OF common law
The decision In the of kemper and Hay, kins
went to the point that such appointments could
not be made by statute. What, he asked had the
existing chancellors TO do with the general cour.
at present! Was il not as competent to The House
to appoint any other citizens 10 the bench of tha,
court! lie would not detain the House by going
into detail of his objections 10 having more than
100 chancery courts scattered over the state. As
TO expense, he would remark that that of the pro-
posed plan would be the same as the present sys
TEN, except, perhaps, that the Attorneys fee
would be less. But in other respects il would bs
much greater The business would bc so much
iessened In these courts that it would be almost i'm
possible 10 get competent commissioners REPORTS
would have to be recommitted frequently; and in
other respects the delays and expenses would be
increased.
! Mr. Gordon gave history of the case of KEN
per and Hawkins, and said that if the PROF ose,f
plan was adopted, the neighbors and friends Of the
! parties would settle the accounts in many instan
ces and save the fees of commissioners entirely
1hT. OPshM remarked that the great difficulty
was as to the constitutional question The chan,
celors were, under the constitution 10 be tried ON
! impeachment, before the general court, and the
judges of the general court before the court of an
peas. Now, under the substitute if Judge in his
character as judge in equity, be guilty of miscon-
duct, he would be triabe in the court of which in
another character, he was member. This wos
not in accordance with the constitution.
Nh Vilson remarked that all these constit,.
tional scruples had been presented to his mind.
when he h'st turned it TO the subject. But he had
examined them deliberately; he had look ed carelp,
! iy into the case OF Kemper and Hawkins, and was
satisfied that there objection on this oronna
In the adjudication referred 10, the very difficulty
as TO the trial OF the judges had been enouired into
and the court saw nothing in it, and so declared in
their opinions. On the policy of the measure he
thought there could be no doubt. The old district
court system had been found oppressive 10 the
people; 1t compelled them TO leave their homes IN
travel a distance and to attend to their business
! among strangers, and to incur great expenses. TO
AVOID these objections was the inducement to the
present circuit court system. The consideration
that a mans business was always better done
when he had 1t in his power 10 attend to il per-
sonally, had not been without its influence II was
proper, he said, 10 remark, that in his own sec
ton of country the people felt no grievance from
want OF the administration of Justice
Mr Crmnp, of Powhatan, expressed his en-
oarrassment at being called on 10 vote suddenly on
so important question. The constitutional ones
tion involved great diversity of opinion among the
members of that House. And If there was anv
doubt on the subject, he thought it best TO out a
veto on il.
Mr.. Gordon here produced the report of the
case in Kemper and Hawkins, ard read sundrv az
tracts from the opinions of the Judges, in suppor,
| OF the views he had taken.
| mr.. Taylor had hoped that an opportunity
would have been given for time TO amend the sub
stiute, so to obviate the constitutional obiec-
tons that were entertained. But as il was the
pleasure oil the House 10 refuse to lay the bill OH
the table, he did not see how the difficulty wOs
| TO be gotten over. Considering the substitute
unconstitutional, he could not vote for it.
1t proposed to give new Jurisdiction to the
Judges, by fdc; and insisted that the decision in
| the case OF Kemper and Hawkins went on the
ground that the judges had been given cbancery
jurisdiction by law, without their being appointed
and commissioned as provided in the constitution
but the judges refused accept what mode ,yas
there OF compelling ITEM? If the House could
pass the substitute, they could legslafe the iudees
out OF otice they held their appointments at the
will of the legislature. What then becomes of The
independence guaranteed to them in the constitu-
ZION! The substitute proposed repeal of the cir
! cult court system; and II the judges should not
act, what redress ould be given to the peoples
| Would not their grievances be greatly augmented?
Mr.. ChriStiarcf G. C., advocated the substitute,
and Mr. Ghotson opposed il. The latter contend
| ing it was unconstitutional and mpolitic. If the
duties of the judges were to be thus augmented.
how was it possible that they could get through
with them in time to attend the General Court,
In all cases in which chancery and common law
Jurisdictions had been blended, experience demon
s'rated that the former had been sacrificed TO the
latter. lie referred TO the experience of North
carolina, and TO our own county courts in proof Of
the correctness of this remark
| Mr.. Viison replied at some length to the con-
| stitutiona objection. II had, or it had not been
decided by the General Court Ifit had. the dec-
sion entitled TO its weight If it had not it was
now TO be decided by that House If reference be
had 10 The constitution il would he found that The