Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-01-10

periously demanded at the hands Of the House. On
principles of policy the bill was not less urgently
called for. Judges were frsil men, subject like
others to the passions of human nature and it svas
better that they should decide uron contempts;
but that jury should do il, and after some time
had elapsed tor the excitement Of the moment &c
subside
Mr.. Pa,teson, of Nilsson, though, the bill pro-
posed radical change. The power sought to be
repeated had been conferred by the Fathers of the
CHURCH. The. power the Judiciary was the power
! OF the people, and how could they eAercise their
functions WITHOUT il? But, if they had been
clothed with too much power would it have
been overlooked in as and 1890. when Viz
gina took her ground against the upurpations
OF the federal go, ernment and Judiciary. When
Jefferson, Madison. Giles, TAYLOR and her other
great men took ground against power and in favor
Oh the rights OF tie people, would they not have
Topped or this excrescence at home before they at
tempted TO correct the sberrations of another go
vernmeni Would the able adv COATES OF that go-
vernmeni, such men as II. q. Otis and r. q. Har-
per, nave failed 10 point this frgh,ful power in
our own institution, if it had existed, and been
SUBJECT 10 the objections urged by Virginia TO the
federal governments Depend upon it they would
| nave pointed to our own abuses and invited the
employment OF our zeal in their correction.
.H. EdSing ton said, that the very wors, feature
In the bill, seemed most to &c admired BIZ Mr. Jack
\ A. tuc AutTueS Oh tDs people were ever 10
expire, he hoped 1t would not be brought about by
the injadicous application of remedies. Suppose
the bull passed in It's present shape and an nfor-
nation hled against man for contempt of court.
The judge OF justice insuled, must attend TO give
| evidence OF the fact
In the midst of the offender and his ratble as
socrates, lac must be examined; and in the course
OF the examination, the judges character becomes
tha sport OF ridcule, and the object of undsguisetl
contempt. In the defence of the accu.eJ tho corn-
| ments OF counsel would add to the humiliation of
MS feelings. Ii such scenes this become of fire.
quent occurrence, where he asked would he The in
dependence, the character Of your Judiciary Is
tins the way In which liberty is To be cherished
Mr. T. said, he rose take but this single view of
| the subject.
ar. Watkins, again adj, esse ed the House. He
had always thought the people of Virginia were
attached to libert, and principle; and he appeal
Ell TO The House as their representative to u, on
what ground The Underlined potecr of the udicia-
ry could be sustained All power ought 10 be so
defined TO be understood, and so limited as TO be
Kept within proper bounds. Could any gentleman
say what was llie amount of the ine or the period
OF Imprisonment the judges authorized TO in
HIct: Where is the Amitdtion-where is that
great buiwark TO the liberty OF the citizen the trial
by jury. The yilest rebel was entitled 10 it, Yet
whoever should be imagined TO have insultel a
court, was TO be deprived OF this sacred right, and
hned and imprisoned at the discretion of the Offend
ed party! And still we talk about attachment to
principle
The gentleman who last spoke might quiet his
fears there was danger 10 liberty from the occur
| renee oil what he suggested. In answer 10 the OBJ
Jeeuon as to the power 10 compel the attendance of
witnesses. he would say that the bill left the power
OF the courts TO their process as it now stood -
lie was not afraid TO trust jury in these cases
They would probably inilict more adequate punish
q II haI T. I
the power existed, there was no danger from it,
| But II wasenough to know that the pow err existed
l - induce him to restrain it,
| 1Hr. Blaek5i1n opposed the bill at some length
entering into analysis its provisions and point
ing out Its principal defects. He did not esteem i,
the more ON account OF its leading feature having
been borrowed from the Livinss ton Code az ha,
been remarked on another day. The situations and
characters OF the people oil Virginia were essential
i different from those of the people OF Louisiana
w hat might be suited TO mxed population COM
| posed of all nations and languages, and suddenly
ushured from. under the yoke of tyranny into the
| full enjoyment Of unlim;ted Freedom might be ILL
adastaa to the genius and settled habits of Virgin
ians. The gentleman Who fad Just sat down pro
fsssed 10 be the friend of the definition of
and why had he not defined the power in the bill ,
1t was still underlined and floating in the ocean of
! uncertainty. After all this discussion the House
knew more about conteInpts of court than abo,i
| the famed Sea Serpent The offence WAS like the
Caneleon; no two men agreed about il or saw it in
| the same light But MIR. Ii. asked who were the
judges that their power mich 10 be dreadedp
He referred TO their standing in society; The respect
due 10 them from their age; their meagre salaries
and the unexceptionable manner in which they had
exercised their powers N the bill OF rights as
binding upon them the bill could be, thew ~ ere
cautioned against excessive fines; they were sw orn
to administer the law in mercy. The eyes of the
/ ,I,,ta ,,.sf IL
amenabe To public opinion. The conductors of a
free press, that useful Of all classes of society
justly made them, well all other public off
| GERS, fair game, and were ready TO expose every
abuse oil power. All these were guarantees that
they would exercise their power with moderation.
They had done so in time past and il was fair tn
presume they would do in future. But i. was
| urged In argument that they NIGH do wrong
Have any thing that is not at the mercy of
others who chose to disregard the restraints of law
and the the obligations OF hono? 1t should be re-
collected that the duties OF the judges necessarily
brought them in contact with the viest of men
against whom they should have the most ample
power OF protection. 4 he bill did not give this
FOR the could commit an offender unles for
the second offence. He stated several probable
cases in which much Inconvenience would be
experienced from the courts not having the
power to commit the offender jail for the first
offence. There was little terror in the pros-
ecutlon for misdemeanor. You must first catch
the offender. But even when taken, aud brought
to trial, lis aiders and abettors will be lurking
about, and some ofthem will be sure to get on the
Jury, and ii will be impossible TO punish him But
how humiliating would 1t be for the Judge TO have
to come down to give testimony in the case? Mr.
b. here drew most forcibe and ludicrous picture
OF the examination of the Judge by the party accused
ii he undertook his defence, and of the iicence
that would be taken in the pleadiBgs and defence
The bill he thought calculated bring the judiciary