Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-02-25

Mr.. -neIlhdny replied to Sir. Christian. He
could not think that any man would undertake 10
impeach man whose character was SO cure and
spotless as that of Judge White.
Mr.. Briggs said that nothing could be more
melancholy than the condition in which the dis
triet would be left, by the rejection fthe bill. He
oiu NOT see any express prohibition in the const-
.uuon' 10 the creation of sinecures and pensioners
~ Is true they were inconsistent with the spiri, and
genius OF our institutions. The passage of the bill
was required by the imperious circumstances of the
case and was called for exception 10 the
general principle. He did not think an impeach
inent would lie, unless the charge involved crime
such proceeding would require more than a
year, during which time there would be no relief
10 Inc people. But did any man suppose tina,
jury OF honorable men, before whom Judge White
should come and expose the scars he had received
curing the Revolution, would deprive him Of his
Once and turn him out a pauper in the land whose
'oef'y ms valor had so essentially contributed TO
aeh'eVe The precedent had been set in the case
OF the court Of Appeals, on an occasion precisely
similar MIR. Briggs also spoke of the condition of
the people, In that district, as calling upon the
sympathy and justice of the House for relief II
Judge w. was TO live 10 years, what would be-
come OF that people Would they not be out
IA" Ell iirelief could not be granted he though,
II was high ,inefor convention.
| Mr.. Christian remarked that tine question was
not to be decided by our feelings, and thought Mr.
briggs had not examined the constitution with
suihcient care He read the clause in that nstru--
ment declaring that g the Governor, when he is
Gu. OIL Office, and others offending against The state
eithsr by administration, corruption or other
means by which the safety of the state may be
endangered, shall be impeachable by the House OF
| Deiegs'es From this clause he commended that
the ingredient Of crime was not the only founias]
uon o. an impeachment. He admired the pryate
'actef, and revered the revolutionary services
Drudge Whine as much any man in that House:
Out these considerations should never induce him 10
give 4 vote against principle. IIe repeated that
Jodse White was liable to impeachment; hut the
hrs' movement on that subject should come from
gentlemen Immediately interested. When he should
resign, or be removed, and presented himself here
ana enumerated his claims on the bounty OF his
| country, no man would I've found disposed 10 make
more ample provision for hin, than himself
Mr.. May replied TO Mr.. Christian according to
whose argument Judge w. must first be impeache,l
! anu dissraced; his manly spirit was to be broken
down, and then the gentleman would give him
pension. MIR. NJ. contended that Judge w. had
nothing to do with this question; it affected the
ps0P.e OIL popu!ous, wealthy and respectable dis
"ie' The House had the power 10 grant the relief
asked Tor by them, and i, ough, to be done. Ii
was no more the duty OF Others than of Mr. C. TO
oFing forward the Impeachment. He did rot think
nor did the people OF that district think that an i'm
|
were representative s ofthe tate; Judge White was a
member OF the General Court; and il was every
man s duty to seek 10 remove him, who though,
as Mr. C. did. The Legislature had the power 10
add to or reduce the number of judges at pleasure
ihey had done so in relation to the Court of APP
peaIs.
Mr. Campbell asked how was i, tina, the iuJpes
drought 20 the consideration of the House were all
20 POOR? Were they poor in reality. or only in
comparison with princely fortunes! The last was
the sort oil poverty which he apprebended existed
AS 10 the great evils in the district they could be
remedied by the simple resignation OF Judge
/ White. The evils which the revelation was
founded were not greater than complained of in
that district. He hoped the bill would be rejected
mr.. Taylor spoken in favor of the BILL He did
not give 10 the word incnpacity in the Constitu-
ton, the same Interpretation as Mr. Christian.
There were two sorts Of ncapacity one legal. and
the other bodily. He thought it meant the former
The gentleman Mr.. c, talked about principle
The Bill OF Rights part of the Constitution.
and 1t declared that justice should be denied TO
IL the bill be rejected, would il not be denial Of
Justice TO the district? The interests of the people
and their claims TO the benefits of the government
| ought not to be overlooked. These claims were
founded on principles which demanded the passage
| of the bill.
Mr.. Christian said that the members of that
House ielt 1t their duty 10 represent the particu-
lar interests oil the sections OF country from whence
| they come, and not TO look out for grievances
| which existed in remote parts The clause !, rho
! constitution ON which he relied, had not the word
! tncdpdeity in it. Under that clause a Judge who
rJnsrd to perform his duty was certainly liable to
! impeachment; the same liability existed when tho
Judge was disabled; for, the same conseouences;re
suited 10 the people. Gentlemen from that distric,
were pursuing course which denied Justice 10 the
| people; and 1t did not become them 10 make this
| charge the of L.
II unconstitutional. 1t was the duty of Judge w
TO resign, and it he refused, the administration of
justice ought to be insured by his removal
| mr.. Taylor thought that the cases of refusal
and inability TO discharge the duties were not pa
rael u was long established principle that the
act OF God injuretl man, Judge Whites I'M
fortunate situation was the result Of an act of nro
whence, sc.
! Mr.. Gholson had no constitutional ob;ections
| to the bill; but he said there were certain great
principles which were as obligatory on that House
as the constitution itself. lie appealed IN the
House to say, if il could ever have been intended
by me trainers OF our government that a Judge
should hold an office, and receive the salary, with
out performing the duty? continued ms, ,,e.,.
OF an Office, would in time be equal to a mis-user
Suppose judge TO remove TO Missouri and no, re-
sign; according to the arguments OF gentlemen, he
would he entitled 10 the salary; and another must
De appointed TO perform the duties. If's the act
OF God injureth man. in the sense in which the
maxim was here applied, the salary to Judge
ought to be continued after his death-In repIv
20 The argument of Mr.. Mcflhany, that Judge w.
was now receiving the salary, without psrforminp
Inc duties OF the Office, and that the passage or re-
Jection Of the bill could not be considered az es
taollshing pension. because he would continue 70
do the same in either case, Mr. G. remarked.
that this conduct of the judge was not sanctioned
6y fdtc; and the passage Of the bill would have that
4 effect. - -