Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1827-02-09

> on the same days. The executive ,ror, rc,,;-, A..
u range The Circuits; but could they in Tire fnIGImon,
ePo", .he laws Row requiring particular
ours 10 DE held on particular days. Mr. G.. went
o dc'ais 10 show that the business of the conr,s void
ne greatly rerplexed by this law and that IL, ,;
you'd be 20 DEPRIVE some counties altogether of courts
40 iaJ could be able TO practise more than one
couhi-i'lls would be the effect Of the present b;II
MIR. Gaines thought the bill both uncons,itn,or,,
and defective in Details and viewing as an impotan:
question. he called for the ayes and noes which was sn
ported. P
Mr. Ejgngton agreed in the great importance of ,Ie
oii, and was sensible Of the difficulties bv which il
was cnvroned. In relation 10 the details of the bin
ne answered the objections of the gentleman from
nefhiey (Nlr Colsion.) lie said that there was no p,u
'iooh ~ Tie b! which required the Exec uye TO ar
range tc circuits That duty was required of the &C.
hcra! Court. If the gentleman had examined the de-
'i's u .'e OIL many of his objections would not have
oeeh urged iiepyIng TO Mr. Smyti's constitutional
objections he said there prohibition in the cons,,
non upon the Legislatures organizing future judicial
TENS tHc Constitution had adopted Courts as thew found
theh al The iine-but two courts only were cops,i,u
uonal courts the General Court and Tie Court of An
peas ana they were made so by the power to ,ry i'm
peachmen's The adoption of other by name did
not make them constitutional courts-he duties pro
Scfised by the Constitution only made them su,i -
IL was necessary therefore TO retain the Court of Ans
Peis and the General Court by narne, because ,bev
we're required by the Constitution TO try impeacbmop
but IN relation to their other duties and fine powc- r
organizing systems of judcaure the Legislature had
tdfc O!dn.hs Examining particularly the word, in
1 I"usutuuon 'the TWO Houses shall BY Joint ballot
appoint Judges insChancery, Admiralty, &cpNrE r
commended that the Constitution did not Intend tlicre
should De Judges in Chancery Had been intended
10 require court OF Chapcery the proposition ~,
'hstcau 81 IN, would have been cmpoyeL as in OTHER
cases He referred TO various statutes to shcw that mo
words I'm chanccry" did not import individual Chan
Gerry Court but the giving Of Chancery jurisdiction 10
common law judges. MIR. +. addressed very ;nro
nous and acute argument to the House TO prove ,hat
the Con'ttu ion did recognize chancery iu-jsd;c
Ion as any thing distinct from the Judicial Department.
spoken o! Gie third Department of Government and
10 be Kept distinct from the other Departments Chan
Gerry jurisdiction creature Of the law as nroveo
~ JUDICIAL history, and the cahs taken by tho uIaos
a'tas such within tie entire control of the
to be distributed modified i'll BY the esisIatu,
Mr. Edsinson wished for the credit Of our judicial his
"'y' hat inc case OF Hamper and Hawkins had not been
nl"gh before this House But as ii had been so brouch,
ne should examine It with freedom Mr. f. then examn
en inc opinions of the Judges in that case charged them
WIN uno"nness, and contenie that the Legislature
not bound by them. In rely objection e., ,o o,
Sttutionalv of this bill, that ChanceI,os Imn.,chr,
was to be tried by the Geuera Court, aud that ali ~
members of that Court being made (,hancoo t Wv,
act they would have try their own i:npracb,nen, 49,,
sa" mat there was no provision III the Constitution o, IN
impeachment c" Chamcellor and for the plain reason IN,
the Constitution recognized Chance urs The en-
assembly ni 'Irgnia had established wears i,r
Constitution was adopted, General Courl for Kennel,
with criminal civil and Chancery Jurisdiction T, VA
Sad mat this for Kentucky. But was nor Ken,uc. ~
then, an integral part of Egi.a. subject 10 her cn,;
tnn aud could an Of the :ue hav, be.n
constitutional, and here unconstitutional? This was a
conempoaneou exposition of the Constitution and
'!ch TO respect and consider en
AdvertIng 10 the policy of the law, Mr. Edsington gave
etaiied judicial history of the Supported tIp
, icy ei the proposed charge in very a BILE manner
nr Smy'h OF "ythe, replied to Mr.. Edgirg,o and SUM-
ported his former views. N9
Mr. May opposad the passage Of the BILL He would no.
ei"''c Whehe Inc decision of tie General Court in the
case OF Hamper and Hawkins was right or wrota :,
s"iIcient for him, that the General Court had cer;s
- oe unconstitutional To biera Chance.y and common law
jnrisac!ion-that this decision had been aclursced in m
'e Legislature and The people Of the State. If The bin
passed. what to be the effect of III Were the n r.
era Court Judges 10 be legislaed ou: of Office flov
ne example OF keH'ucky: lie inferred i, 10 be the -
Jeci {" the friends OF the bill legIslafe Them ont m oa
from the phraseology of bill w mar was 10 bcco
the four ChancclIors' Were they to be considered nc
"t""en l"uses-nr was there an implied contract IN this
o mat thcy were to 6e reelected: He said this was a
more daring INVASION o! The independence of the dicia
~ than The late proceedings in Kentucky We were s,y
ny ''S n, tat the Chance! should be ega,ed ou, G
".'' or resign. Had we right To do his-when th,v
ncid tcIr oiccs under the Constitution? lie would
Sc the bill passed: he jud OF the Genes Courf ,,,
refuse to take chanccry Jurisdiction. What wa ~ b
done; Could they be impeachcd conscientious r
81. 10 exercise an Unconstitutional power and when IL ho3
been 80 decided by their court? The l,, es,,h
Ing General Court in Kentucky, had been cited nv ,f
gentleman from Brooke (Ar. Edgjngton) as cont,mnor,
ne"us expression of legislative opinion, that il aa ~
unconstitutional to blend chamcerv common law i'm
TISn'ctnn But Kentucky viewed as a terrorv o,
not an integral part of Virginia, and fat nch, no
StIt!onai in ella ton to her. might NOT T.. g, -,
20 Virginia " "'""
On the policy of jic law, MIR. MAY ACKNOWLEDGED ,i
great evils OF the present system, ne saw no im,n
nent IN that proposed. He did that the union rs
chanccly and law Jurisdiction the sst,ne J,dro ,,,
10" be eNpe dicut, bun he did object to maki.r CO.
celior Circuit Judge. "
Nir EdgnGton briefly reioined, fter which the cues
ton taken Nv ayes a nd noes and car,i,d j.,
save-aycs sc. noes 9 l. ~
On motion Of MIR. Carol,
he House adjourned.
Trust Sale of Land