Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-02-24
CIRCUIT COURTS

called up the bill concerning 'sCircuit Courtsn
On the question of filling the blank for compensate,
10 the Judges, Mr.. Wason moved the sum of $4,000
Mr. .ucJfahon Sl50O-Mr. Letter I8OO-Mr. Shsr
'a,d l633-Mr Watts Sl7O0
Mr.; CHRISTIAN, of Buckingham, said that if the bill
passed at ALL it ought to pass in shape acceptable tc
.ne 'uogesas 1t depended somewhat upon them have
IL carrier INTO execution. The Chanceors already
| received five hundred pounds.
Mr.. Gordon advocated the largest sum, believing
'hat IL was essential TO Justice duties benp reou
red by the BILL He considered the bill highly ,npor
tant.
Mr.. Crump, of Powhatan, expressing al the same
l'mc his hostility TO the bill in any shape moved S25OO
MT. DacH6Wn supported the proposition for $4,000.
Nir UHS0n said the bill contemplate an important
anu valuable change. Our system of judicaure was
acknowledged 10 be deecivc-this bill would ensure
justice TO citizens and that justice too, without going
to great distance for it. He believed the change con
emplaed was ,nperiousy necessary. He did not be-
ieve the country could get along without it.
MIR Taylor said in good faith he should vote for
S15Oo--sShc he should vote against the bill in all
shapes He should vote for because if the bill PASSED
oe reduction OF the circuits from ID to 10, would ill.,
crease the common law duties one-t third
MIR. Crunp. of p. declared that he had made t,e
proposition for $500 it'll good faith He had made il
under the COW icion, that if bill passed the aug
mentation of duties required this augmentation of sal
airy.
MIR. Ecereu said that this bill contemplated great
change in the judiciary of the country. He was not
prepared 30 vote itand therefore moved 10 lay the
bill the table The question on Sz5Oo ,v,r c,rr;
in the negative
| Mr. Briggs supported the sum of $1,000, which was
also negatived-ayes rs, noes iOl.
The blank was then filled with 5 800 by large ma
joritv. o. ~
MT. .hchidhon moved Ryder to the bill .iat the
ac snail be IN force from and after the st January
| 1877" The Ryder rejected on the I'd reading
Mr. CHRISTIAN of Buckingham, rose in opposition To
the bill He believed it incapable of execn,;on Thc
Cbancellors were to be made common law Judges By
VIVA! power could you compel them accept this juris
alcuon! Two OF them had lucrative law schools
as tito be expected they would give up these for the
sum OF $500 added TO the salary. The General Court
Judges were to be made Chanceors Were JUDGES
riding the whole year around their circuits competent
10 act as thancelors! If any of the Judges refuse to
accept the new commissions what be done?-
Inc courts o chancery would be abolished i'm some
parts o! the State. What a spectacle should we present
lie believed the law unconstitutional and totally inec
fecvc.
Mr.. Everett followed also in opposition Iavino
aside the constitutional difficulties others appeared &c
nm iosuperabe The bill had been induced by the
condition OF Judges White and Brown Ju,lne I3row
was TO be commissioned a General Court JUDGE and
Judge Stuart a Chancellor Would it be supposed
mat Judge Stuart could discharge the chancery anc
common law duties of that district? He did not he
ieve that tits bill would the difficulties Blu
ms great objection ts-ln few years we should
have complaints that the duties were too heavy to be
discharged by the Judgesanothcr change must be had
ana he feared that change would result in return tc
the old district court system.
VII WaSon, (patron of the bill replied TO Messrs.
christian and Everett, reviewing length the origin
progress and termination of the old district court evs
tenn; The beginning of the present district court sys
tenn, MS opera.ion the ineicency attending it. and b
eV1s winch II had brought particular portions of tit
state lie did not believe that the change proposed b
ms BILL would cause neglect of the chancery docke
IN the new courts increase the amount of busines
to an oppressive extent In the costs of the presen
courts OF chanccry, ard the distance from which sutton
were forced 10 attend, lie found a powerful arrumer
for the passage of this bill.
Il In reply to the constitutional objections Mr. JDTIso
sa'd mat the Constitution after declaring that the three
departments ought be distinct had left the repuo
ton oil the Judiciary TO the Legislature. The Judge
must be elected by ballot, but there was no clause il
inc Constitution, prohibiting Judge receive com
mon law and chancery jurisdiction. Did not the cour
Il OF appeals and county courts exercise both ursCc
tons! Was it ever supposed that their doing SO wa
unconstitutional? He thought there was no such OBJ
lection, and he hoped the bill would pass.
Mr. Cholson said that, if the difficulties of tL
country were greater than they were, thcg could no
justify the passage of this bill But he would not recu
TO those difficulties. but conine himself TO an appeal tt
matters OF fact In reply to the argument of Mir. VIII
son derived from chaucery expenses lac said that ex
Penses would be incurred in The new courts as well a.
'ne Old Laying aside the high constitutional obiec
f tons, he would III Inns examination of the bill confn
himself TO other objections Mr. GhOIson said that
was impossible that these courts could get along viii
their buSness-a single might occur TO coI;sum,
the whole OF the term. From the provisions of fi,
bIl and the distributions of the terms of the circui
courts might so happen, that but single Judge cou
any state of things be ridiculous? Did it conss
with good faith to abolish the chancery courts and dc
priVe the clerks of their Offices? Had any NAL fea
sancc IN Office been committed, toinduce this cgisIa
ton out OF Officer Though the Offices were of legs
iatIve creation, he thought it would be violation o
good faith. Mr. G. commented particularly on th,
9Th section, repeating various other sections of tie ge
neral court law. Among the sections repealed, wa
the one requiring special term for the trial of crni
nails Ought that TO be repealed because common Law
and chancery jurisdiction is blended BY the act9
i In relation 10 the union Of common law and chance
ny jurisdiction, Mr. Ghoison expressed his belief tina
me constitution intended 10 keep them distinct
But waving that objection the 9th section re0uired tin
present Judges 10 be elected when too the Constifu
non required them to be elected by joint ballot. NJ
gentleman would pretend that the Judges were boun,
TO act under this bill-why then esislae upon uncer
fanny II The present system imperfect il was
least pure lie thought the most Objectionable bil
he had ever seem
Mr. Iayfor stated his constitutional objections TO th
put u II were made TO appear that the provisions
the'Consttuon in relation TO impeachment could no
De carried into effect by this BILL he hoped it would no
oe passed Suppose this law TO pass.-and a futur,
.itnr,o Init IL