Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-01-10

saw few words. He could see no necessity or
propriety in legisatipg the subject at all. But
|f LEGISLATION was necessary he considered the bill
materially and fatally defective. lie much
wedae,l 10 an,ient things that he would not make
changes when necessary. But whet the long es-
,abshed usages of the country that had been found
Greatly beneficial. were tai be changed, his mind
INNS, be thoroughly convinced OF the propriety of
Tho change before he gave his consent to it, II a
particular policy was proven TO be bad, it was in
c,mbent on those proposing change to show that
the remedy was better. But no good argument had
heen used 10 show that the power was improperly
vested in the Judges. There had been no abuses OF
the power-there had been even no complaints ey-
cent from individuals who had been punished, and
those ,puruurs were the result OF their passions.
In The case of cambridge, TO which aliusion had
hcen made, he cordially approved OF the coil
,,,ct nj The Judge and OF the decision Of the
General Court Punshments for contempt of
court. TO be etTectual, ought TO be inflicted imne-
1iairlv hut according to the bill the offender for
the first offence 10 be sent out ~ eosvf; this
mipht he the very thing desired by witness in an
important uia, where he did not wish to give tesi-
,nony. or juror who did not wish to serve. There
were a thousand cases of contempt not provid-
sd for Inv the bill. The power in the hands
of the courts was attended by many important adj
yan,apes. 1t was essential in the preservation OF
liberty and enabled them to protect the poor against
The rich The resistance OF our fathers 10 the tax
ON tea was not in point. There the resistance was
to the exercise OF power by foreign govern
ment without our ccnsent. II was not so here;
the power in the HANDS oil our own tribunals
to be exercised for our own benefit.
jLr liav said he would take one single view OF
the subject. ii the power To punish contempis
WAS to exist at all, Virginia was the commonwealth
above all others in which it should exist; and espe-
cially in regard to her county court system. That
system he thought the cheapest, the BEST the most
wise of all OTHERS foy the great purposes for which
IL was established. But the bill passed. the power
of the county courts to preserve themselves, to
assert their own dignity and man ain the good or
der cf their own proceedings, wouldbe entirely ia
ken away from them. For as soon as IL is known
that Justice may be insulted most grossly on the
bench and that there is no other immediate relress
but sending the offender out Of court the disordery,
he riotous, the malignant will, at once, fee them
selves at liberty to pursue the bent of their own
inclina,ions. The idea held out of prosecution
for misdemeanor will have little no terror in
ii; because the con,inuances, delays Sc will pro-
crastinate its determination Tor several years, and
the uncertainty of a conviction WILDE proportion
ably increased In this way the county courts will
be completely broken down. The jurors themselves
will he exposed to Intimidation land insult without
the means of their protection IN the court Would
the high minded and honorable magistrate who gets
not dollar for his services, be disposed go on
the bench amid such perils, and lie thus exposed to
insult and indgnity? And from this cau,e, would IL
not often happen that none but men favorable to
the views or interest of an nsoent and riotous
would compose the court for the trial OF case in
which he is interested? From the number of the
justices the county courts were more exposed 10
insults than the superior courts
Mr.. Watkine, of Pr. Ed spoke in support of
the bill. He was surprised a, the conflicting OBJ
iections TO it, One gentleman thought it took away
all power, and another that IT did not Leave enough
in the hands of the courts He thought the bill no
more than definition of the power to be exer-
cised Why were written constitutions much
preferable to unwritten ones, but because they de-
fined The limitations of power? Where were the
limitations Of the power held by the courts
Rights not limited and defined were no rights at all.
He contended that The bill left to the courts sutf-
cent power tor all necessary purposes. 1t provid-
ed that offenders should be out of court and a
prosecution ordered, it conferred all the power now
held with the exception that the courts should not
he the Judges in their own eases, but that jury
should decide them. He pu, it 10 tss House to say
whether il proper TO permit courts, acting in
their own cases. and under the irritation Of feeling
10 fine and mprIson citizen at their discretion.
Ought it not rather to be left TO the CALM decision
OF an impartial jury? He thought all the power OF
protection that a court required was the means oil
freeing itself of annoyance or grievance, leayng
the punishment to be inflicted in future. Whilst
he acknowledged the bill was detective, he should
support At.
.Hr. Pattcson, of Augusta, said that while he
was unwilling to deposit any unnecessary power
in the hands Of public functionares he wished them
10 have what was necessary to their protection.
He thought the judiciary had enough power at pre-
sent, and objected TO the bill as comforting more.
There was clause in it taking away any power
now held by them, which, of course they would
rf.l-
he thought it improper to leeislate all The con-
duct of the courts would be regulated by public
opinion, by the operation OF which any evil that
might exist would be corrected.
Mr.. Eueref asked il il not the certainty
rather than the severity OF punishment that prevent
ed crimes? lie asked If the courts on the borders
of the might not be insulted by persons ON
other states, who would be beyond the reach of a
prosecution subsequently to be ordered?
.1Ir. Mason, of X. &. called for the ayes and
noes. And after some remarks from Messrs
Morris of G.. and Smith,
Mr.. Morris, of w. commented on the opposite
objections 10 the bill, which he considee ed per-
feet and efficient remedy Of the evil complained
Of He admitted that many cases might be stat ed
not reached by it, but the thing might be said
at present, and indeed of almost every penal law
in force. The bill he considered would have pre-
cisely the effect the county, the superior
courts.
.1fr. Jackson spoke at some length in support
OF the bill. He also commented the opposite
objections that had been urged to H. No on the
statute book perfect; but it did not therefore
follow that it ought to be repealed. The bill be
said did not meet his views; but it was based on
spirit OF compromise among its friends. II was de-
fencibe in his opinion, under the bill Of rights and
the constitution of the state and of the U. S. AT
this moment OF domestic peace and tranquility there
WAS probably, usgent necessity for its passage.
But he looked head--he looked to the time when
party spirit should rage with violence, when we
shonld be agItaled by cominotions within and from