Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-02-07


hope OF change in the vote of single member
With the view OF testing the sense of the House
ne moved TO postpone the subject until the 3lst
OF March (indehnitely)
Mr. Ddrts OF II. supported the motion to post
pone until "Wednesday and opposed the motion oil
Mr. Wilson. mr.. Ghoison took the same ground
Inc question on Indefinite pos, pone,nent was
then decided in the negative, ayess3. SO. The
motion 10 postpone until w ednesday ne xt was then
agreed to, ayes 81 noes 49,
-hr. Utiis offered resolution that the c. of
r. be instructed to enquire into tire expediency of
aisrhLging from the delinquent list all taxes due
on lois and lands prior to The day of -
isiZ, winch Were on that day owned in fee simple
oy any other person than those in whose name the
same had been returned denquent--l.aid on the
table OF course
On motion of Mr.. Pageof Gloucester, the bill
concerning contempts OF court. taken up
Nr. Page moved to ill the blank in the bill with
Si'ooo as the hghes, sum in which court shall
De permitted tonne an individual. Mr.. kiger mo-
we'd to I'LL 1t with $500, The House refused 10 fill
with 81 900. Mr. Wilson moved Scotland MIR.
Ghoison SS0o-The blank was filled with $500
1tir Page moved to ill the blank as TO the
,ime OF imprisonment with three months. MIR.
Saur ders of n X. moved t,po months; .,Iy Nor
RS OF q. one month; and MIR. Saunders withdrew
MS motion In, favor Of the last. The motion for
three months was negatived, and MIR. Garland
renewed the motion for ftco, which was rejected
w to %. And the blank was filled with one
month
On the passage of the bill MIR, Jackson called for
the ayes and noes.
M Bouidin would vote for bill authorisiny
luoSe 10 put'a man m Jail, or ,imc him, upon any
other principle, but that it was aecessarU To ena
bic him TO execute the laws of the country, Did
1t occur 10 the friends OF the bill that there was
now no law on the subject! The decision and
practice OF the court had been founded on the din c
necessity OF the case. But if you pass the bill .
you give Judge authority on the subject, to be
exercised according to his discretion. He con
tended that the operation of the bill would be op-
pressye 10 the poorer classes, whilst it would not
be equally felt by the rich. The present power of
aJudge grew out of the power TO execute his Of
hce, and was never exercised but when the ne
cessity OF The case required it, and then it was
done at his own risk
Mr.. Mason Of s. said that whilst he had vo-
ted ssainsi other bills this subject he should
support the present. He was surprised at the ar
gunlen' OF MIR. Bouldin. He would ask if it
could lie material TO from what authority
the power was derived to punish him? Whether it
hows from the Office of judge from statute,
was not material. But was it not proper that the
power now admitted to exist, should be assigned
specihc bounds. In this respect the bill was a
guarantee to the rights OF the citizens. 1t con-
tanned another valuable feature 1t permitted IN
incivdHa! 10 purge himself of an unintentiona,
contempt. He admitted the necessity of preserv-
ing the dignity and authority OF the courts, and he
'housht That the bill did this whilst it threw new
guards around the rights of the citizen
M. Nay opposed the bill lie admitted that il
sufficiently guarded the dignity OF the court, but its
operation ON the citizen so clearly iavora-
oIe' IL would enable a witness 10 defeat any suit
or prosecution, by refusing 10 give testimony
Such witness, knowing the utmost sum in which
he may be fined; and the exact period of confue-
nient, refuses to give testimony and goes TO iail
ne ooee not mind the confinement, and he has
friends enough TO pay the fine. At present there
was no danger OF any man 5 pursuing this course
because such witness WIS liable TO inter,ninable
imprisonment, and TO an unlimited tine Another
objection was that party permitted 10 purge
himself on oath. Suppose witness refused to
give testimony, and should swear with upliited
hands that he meant no contempt but that his ST.
iehce was matter OF conscience Under this bill
such witness could not be made 10 give testimo-
ny, nor could be punished for a contempt.
AR. Mason remarked that there was a special
proviso In the bill which left full power in the hands
OF the court 10 enforce its process, and compel
witness 10 give testimony. 1t was true that a
citizen was allow ed 10 purge himself of conteupt
Ii he swore falsely there was a remedy He was
liable TO prosecution for perjury. "A party under
the present law and the practice of the courts was
allowed to purge himself of a contempt out of
court Why not allow him the same privilege in
relation TO contempts in court9
Ar May replied, and insisted that the bill pu,
IL in the power OF witness to refuse to give ,es-
timony, without being subject to any other punish
| ment than that provided in the BILL
Mr.. Gordon spoke in opposition TO the bill
III he mad ever gwen vote against human liberty
| he could wish 1t erased. IL he had ever lent 10
H. Ill r,(r min
OF IT, From the very of government il,
was necessary that the power of self-preservation
should exist. The officers ofthe government were
Vicegerenis OF the people and III acting on The great
Interests OF the people, they should be protected from
interruption. 1t a Judge exercise the power an il
now exists, II at his peril it mus, be regulated
according to the circumstances OF the case; and If
he act tyranncally and unjIstly, jury ofhonest
treemen will make him pay for it roundlv. He
could not pass law which exempted the judiciary
from this liability. The power TO punish for con-
teInpis had existed in England from time innne-
moral and in that country no evil had ever pro-
ceeded from It, Gentlemen from an oyerIove of
iioerty, mad con)ured up phantom, and apprehcnd-
ed evils which existed only in their own imagin,
tons. He would vote for law declaring that
judges were liable, like other men, fer their con
duct That was now the law, but gentlemen seem
ed not to think so. He said he never could con-
sent TO the passage OF law which authorised
punishments 10 he inflicted By fine and Itnprison-
ment, without the Intervention OF jury
Mir. Norris, OF q. thought gentlemen were
Inconsistent when they refused TO pass this bill, and
acknowledged al the same time, that the judiciary
had power to imprison man for life and fine him
to the amount of his whole fortune Yet tnis bill
gave too much power!
.IT. Biaehourn commented on ths great length
OF time which this subject had occupied at the las,
md /.
best bill that had been presented but he could not
vote for IT, lie urged, in detail, the objections he