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

additional Judge. IL an unexceptonable bull was
offered. he would go with it, heart and hand. He took
that occasion 20 enter his dissent TO MIR. Goggn's
lutions
Mr. JPinston supported the bill absolutely required
by the necessities of the country. He opposed TO
sineeuresbut he could perceive tho consequences
apprehended by the gentleman from Brunswick. He
Pied tothe constitutional objections unsupported BY
the constant practice of the Legislature dividing
inereasidg and new modelling judicial Districts. Mr.
w proci eied AT great length TO defend tue constu-
tionaiity and necessity of the bill.
Mr. Christian, OF Charles City, hoped he could salts
f the House that The bill was unconstitutional. Its pas
sage asked upon the ground Of the permanent inca
pacity Of Judge Brown. He read a part of the I4:h
article of the Constitution If he was permanent
ly incapacita:ed, ought not successor TO he ap-
pointeds No would vote the BILL hut upon the
supposition the permanent incapacy ofJudge Brown
II we passed this BILL making the necessity
for an immediate election of u Chancellor. Suppose
Judge Brown to die: The Constitution would make it
the duty of the Executive 10 appoint successor They
could respect this law, in preference the Cons
tuition. He comnisse rated the situation the district
but satisfied that the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL he
conld look further.
MIR. Hood had not anticipated constitutional objec
ton lie had expected that the question of the badness
Of the precedent would present the ONLY difficulty He
thought the constitutional question clearfor the
suiion also prescribed t!at Judges should hold t>7r
Offices during good behay Jour. Judge could not be
removed but by impeachment. Tie only question TO
decide was, what was meant by incapacy? lie inter
rreted il 10 mean, the acceptance of incompatible
Office Was Judge b. ncapacitated or not? If by in
ability, he hoped the House would not consider this as
heng the incapacity intended by the constitution. He
in the actual and daily discharge of part of his
duties five could dsrlcc Judge b. for this, could
the same grounds displacc every Judge in the Com
nonwealth Mr.. w proceeded deliberately. TO
the constitutional difficulties advanced by MIR. Chris
tan and others.
sir. Pattcson, of Augusta, had not desired from his
pec:!iar situation 10 participate in the debate. Com
ing from The place where Judge b. resided knowing his
worth and excellence he afraid his feelings
rn the subject. Mr. likewise replied extensively 10
the constitutional objections urged by Mesrs Drom-
goole, Gholson and Christian
Mr. Dromgooie again addressed the House against
the bill. The poverty of Judge Brown had been i'm
properly lugged IN the argument; he had adverted
that and the appointment of his clerks with
great reluctance.
Mr.. Coggin thought that ne,c light doctrine had
been advanced in debate-tha Judge must be rich 10
he Judge. He amused at the doctrine of gentle.
men--it simply was, that though Judge had contract
ed with the State TO receive certain compensation for
certain duties rendered that he yet tue riy
ilege OF holding the state TO the contract, while lie did
not perform II himself. he expressed high opinion
OF Judge Brcwn-but his friends were making him q
dishonourable man, by conendng for his right to hold
the Office when he could no longer discharge duties
Tie called for the ayes and noes the passage OF the
bill which was supported by the House.
Mr.. Bouidin explained the vote he should give. He
had constitutional dificulties-tIc people of the dis
let desired additional Chancellor and havir no
constitutional scruPlc lie disposed to yield their
wishes.
Tha question the passage of the bill was carried in
the ncgative--aycs &C. noes %.
IN bill appointing additional Chancellor for the
WytIc and Greenbricr District, saying nothing of the
Staunton District and us obvating ihe consiitutio.
nal objection OF appointing Chancellor by Act of As
seJnblv
Mr. Cynp of Powfatan, observed that lie had vo-
ted in the negative on the last bill, but lie should
with pleasure for the motion to grant this leave.
Mr.. Gordon suggested that the resolution under a
rule ofthe House, should lie day of course.
Mr. PdtieNon NOV ed suspend the rule.
Mr. .3fdson, Of s. did think the rule applied TO
Caee-but n tba eoJ
king permanent tie new district contemplated and that
could not afterwards require the new Chancellor to
preside at Staunton.
MIR Dromgoole thought ,!erule ought not TO be sus-
pended-at the question of general interest and
ought therefore 20 take the course presc ibed. Mr.
t'dfteson concuring in this view, the resolution was
laid for one day on Tie table.
SATURDAY Feb. 4.
Communication from the Senate. The Senate have
passed the Bills, Reyiving and amending the act es
tabh:Fing Turnpike Road from Wiley's tavern, in
Fairfax point of intersection on the Little River
Turnpike, or on the line of the District of Columbus
9, authorizing the County Court of Mddlesex TO d
rect the sale of certain improved lots in the of Ur
baDna and for other purposes.
They have rejected the bill 'sconcernng William
White, administrator Of Jesse White, decd"
Mr. ncFarla'd from the joint committee to examine
the condition Of the Bank of Virginia and Farmers
Bank made report that subject
MI Wiisoa from tic select committee 10 whom was
referred The subject of the appointment of the Flour
Inspector in Richmond reported bill that snb.
jcct.
mr. jFILiams, Of Harrison. from the committee Of
Roads and Navigation, made favorable report the
snbec Of a rail road from the coal mines in Chester
field to J; mes River
Mr. Taylor called up the cngrossed bill, authorship
the Trustees Of the town Of Manchester, 10 improve
the common belonging 10 the said town.
hir. Harrie very Reluctantly opposed the bill. He
represented an absent individual whose rights were af
fected by this bil-who contcnded, indeed, that tie
property referred 10 was his. memorial was read in
support OF his claim, from Edward G.. Mayo, of Henri
co, accompanied by copies Of Records from The Office
OF the Richmond Superior Court of Chancery cvden-
cling the fact tat the lots in Manchester referred to- have
been formerly the subject Of controversy between the
Trustees of tie town Of Manchestcr and Col John
Mayo dec.-hat it has been decided by the Court Of
Appeals that under the original grant of Col Byrd,
belonged to the town Of Manchester conmon--ihat
Il -. ILL., =: