Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-01-10

anSt every public order. II essential 10 its ve r,
e<sence IT was hn'iomed upon the necessity Of the
IL was as necessary in the nature of things as tc
Oh in individuals. You called upon 10
o permitting Judges TO be nsui,ed without the pnwc, o.
hnouig punshmcn preventing recurrence of ,e 81
fence Nh W. deprecated the consequences of m, ~, -
every shape. " "' '1' ~
.5r hoorc of Rockbridee coul, neither sec the og,o,
o any 'errrcncc, nor if he did could he SANCTION this
particular bill Before I've wonid deprive oour,s ~ , 49,
''enoialiy possessed, aud necessary self pro,sc-
non, nc must he convinced the power was ,;r;, -
itself or bad beer, abused He knew of no s,c, - a.
self lie adveried the cas of Dan,icye and a,,
me proceedings md opinions Of The lodges in thar case
ne examined the details Of the b and stated cases
might occur and which nat pro. lied 70, IN, j. 70
render the punishment, eectna must he inflicted NJ, tho
% ne looked upoo the existence of this power in courts
-" cause which protected the equal rights of citizens
liberty. Wv say Va P'ohc
lir nay said that our system of iu,isnru,l,ce vas no.
"'', "i rendered this power essentially necessary He
looked upon the county as tie best mar, Of oar s
'e'as dispensing more justice than amy other tribunal
'oh enr The passHge Of thslaw would pr, siraic ta
9',-n Jus'lces oi the peace, ju,ors, ex
p"ssd To the ndgny o: having their moes pulled ,nu
' '"'m'"'ate power Of vindicaling dignity of the
c"u', except by the slow process ef prosecutions hat c-
zen would consent rs magistrates or ~ hat s,to,
W"' appeal 10 that for Justice: He considered tie
charge contemplated fatal TO d.nii aud xis,ence Of
we county counts already less able than courts from
tue num" aud fcquon; changes i'm the tetsops c,oosi.
Inc count to protect their dignity.
mr. Hdttias Of T. 4. was surprised at the diff rem,
Vswsot the opponents OF the ii Some CONSIDERING il as
taxing away al power, others that the power was ua
a'aua'e lie looked upon the bill, ouly a. fning the
powers OF coutS, and not robbng them oT single one
necessary to their existence dignity. WHY arc written
constitution considered necessary secure The ,cv of
hF people and where the difference between Govern
hrh' without niitann aud judiciary possessing unm-
yea power i0Juge cf conempts to inlict nunismcn
hif W. defended the provisions the bill coutc ndjno I'm
'cy only defined conien the trial Of Jury con-
S'" so sacred among Us, aud leaving every
power necessary preserve their dignity aud rights lie
CONQUERED in the opinion expressed of value at the
county courts but they possessed n the sa nc pow
tluI
cuIiar danger. -
~ Faiifso" Of Augusta, viewed the bill con arri,
tee powers of any fuuctiouayies whatever. The bill be-
lore the House did not deprive the judiciary single
p2wer lie Thought the subject unft for esislaon-and
th7i 1t ought to be left te force public opinion
.T- E'rre asked what II be done with offenders in
o"'aSr countless who before Judgment could be
wotld have ped into other States?
a'on Of King George called the ayes and noes
which ca Ii was supported.
'if 7oris Of Gloucester, and .H Smith, Of Grecnbr-
tT iorris of Wood, had intended TO enter into the
discussion but for the objections made bill. II was
100 big and too small, oo long and short The fact
was II prov;5ed Tor the evils inicued rencigd and
this perhaps the objection to it, lie reviewed the
objections TO the bill, aud ccutended that the same had
been urged against the Huhcas Corpus nd every other i'm.
pfovement upon existing institutions.
Mr. J0cson regretted that The attitude in which he was
placed 70 the House. required him deent the bill
adve4trd to the various objections to the BILL confessed
at was mrefiect--an inpereoiion however, incident
to all Things lie had framed bill IL zu hi,s e
bat to rally around tie standa liberty, tho Greatest eff
ier'e force He held in bis hand charter of ou fiber
ty and lie would he the scot aud scru of
The House he did prove this bill conorIablc to
us principles lie begged gentlemen legisiae upon I,rin
c'e' ana not eXpccncy for posterity, not the
moment Mr. jackson took extended view of the SUBJ
Iect' both its principle, and the provisions OF the bill
conend'"g that the arbitrary punishment ccntcnpts bv
va" ~ violation Of the bill of rights and the clause
Of tie Federal Constitution securing every offender ths
gh ne confronted with his accuer and 10 the trial by
jury eve regret that limits did perui, us to fol-
low hiF jackson ihrOunLOut his
Mr. Pdfsso}, of NeIson said, if tie bill answered its
eHi II affected political principle The power of the
Judiciary had bocn invested by ancestors the fathers
of the church. lie would approach the subject with ca
ton How the judiciary discharge their duties
unless their powers correspondent to the responsibility of
the trust Why had this power hCen overlooked in 90
and 1902 Why shoud it be considered Tor the FIRST
time dangerous: When jefferson, Madison, TAYLOR and
Giles bal defined tie proper limits Of power why had The
power OF counts con:ampis been overlooked? He was
unwilling to innovaie upon settled principles.
Mr. HHV explained, nd enforced his views Of the eject
of this bill upon the county courts.
Mr.. EHgjHSion to present one view of the sub
Jet which he thought had escaped those VINO preceded him
II Liberty about expire me hoped would not ex-
pc by remedies provided preserve it, He thought that
Tie necessity Of judicial tribunals appearing as parties to
prosecutions lily exposed them 4 loss Of dignity
ny exposing 'rm 70 Tie shafts Of jicule o bar, be-
fore the multitude.
Mr. VGtbas, of p T. replied the questions sked by
Mr. Everett AMI to other gentlemen He alleged that ,he
first principle of the government that all power should
D. 5" defined as to be well undcrsIood restricted
prevent abuse. Was tho power of coutenps
defined LIMITED? Could they no, inaict fine ana mp,
soHincu dsctcou3 Another sacred principle was the
t'ia 5y jury. Was that principle respected in the exer-
else OF the power contenpts: We h distinguished
YES by offending for principle. IN what C. So WIS
principle involved? In what was tine liberty
aud property of cEzens exposed arbitrary poy
or han IN that % Furnishing conlcarts by Outs? MIR
w. replied particularly the remarks of Mr.. Moore q
Rockhiidse and Nh Edginston. lie commended that the
power OF Furnishing was not ony safer in the hands OF
RES but that it would be cxcnplaIily enforced by
| them, in cases deserving punishment
Mr. B5bur'I would dctaim tire House for a few mo
mems 1t the bill had any merit it was ia the provision
derived from MI livngstous he had
not understood from what tat provision CANE he
should have thought very production. But he
indsposed to look to louisiana aud code composed
for its populations consisting of all nations and speaking
all languages for information. lie thought OF
and that ought to judge or ourselves As
definition of contetnpts it imposbIehey like
the Sea Serpent which appeared unlike different belo-
the camcleou whose hue different to different
! eyes
Mr. y. passed pancgyric the collective judci-
ary lie considered them the most merioIious and in
offensive class Of citizens lie could imagine motive
IT.. ft...f D.l.1