Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-02-09

said, Il was the opinion Of our abest 1urists and
some OF our best Statesmen that the act Of 1901
makiug the district Judgcs and rendering the Su |
pre;ne Court Judges stationary, was wise inca |
sure. Mr. /. believed il, aud he believed that !
it. repeal was now subject o; common regret
Mr.. L. trusted he hpd already answered the ar !
guiuent OF the gentleman from Berkeley predica
TED on The savingso! eNpence and removal Of de-
lays, which lie cOntended was TO result fOn this
bill. MIR. 4. here iSpeatci his conviction, that
neither OF the flvOrite object, OF that gentleman
would be acconp,shed-5ut on the contrary, the
evils complained Of aggravated. The argument
OF the gentleman a 10 the superior advantage Of
picG 00cs, over written testimony was certainly
misapphed, because this bill has no provision
changing the kind oftestuony TO be received in
Chancery Courts II remains the same but even
II IT cid, ara not prepared 70 admit, that in
Chancery court v,ve Voce superior to dcpo-
sitonS. Ca CrcfatherS cegtainly haze not thought
So In Chancery Courts willing that the OIL
characteristic, that OF deposdons or written test,
mony, shat remain. The superiority OF viva yoce
IN trials a; law, l never que stioued. Moreover.
the Intelligent gentleman frS.a Berkeley well
knows, that Whenever there is a serious question,
as TO the verify of testimony, the crcdbiiy oil
WITNESSES the Chancellor will of his own accord
or al instance OF either party refer The question 70
jury ia the form + an issue Having now in
very desultory, and fear uuSati ,iactory way said
Alr. /. assigned to the House the reasons OF his
objections TO the bill, he returned his most un-
tegned thanks 10 the House for its polite and pa
1
ed any claims of his upon it, he said he could not
but recognize in il of deep sense of the i'm
portance OF tn, subject felt 10y the House. than of
! respect for himself. He hailed in the circum-
stance an suspicious augury of the happy result
OF this days deliberations and resumed his seat
with the earnest hope that the bill would be re-
Ijected.
Mr. john 3. Christian of Charles City said, he
regretted 10 see the course, which the opponents
Oh this oill seemed disposed to pursue. 1t was
SUBJECT OF vast importance, and nothing irrelevant
should have been brought into the discussion
sir' the misguided fancy OF the gentleman from
Amherst has pictured 90 his imagination obec-
tons TO this bill which have no real existence and
are only calculated 10 frighten tInid legislators
rom discharge OF their duty / shall answer
such only OF his objections as seem to be connect
ed, i'll reality, with the subject
II Is alleged, that the passage Of this bill would
| De hotn unconstitutional and inexpedient. shall
examine first, the constitutional question Tho
clause OF the Constitution, relating TO this subject
Is IN these words: Tbs two Houses of Assembly
SNAIL by Joint ballot, appoint Judges of the S,-
preme Court of Appeals, and General Court, Jud-
ges IN Chancery, Judges of Admiralty Secretary
and the Attorney General, 10 be commissioned nv,
the governor, and continue in office during rood
oenaFlour. And whether this bill is unconSt-
'uuonal or not, depends upon what is the proper
construction to be put upon this clause of the Con
sitution. II il said, (which is ADMITTEDLY that bv
THIS bill equity and common law iuri sdction are
TO be united, il the same Judge, which II is fur
Their said, the clause of The Constitution to which
have referred, iOrbid5.
VIII FIRST state, what Understand tho far,ers
OF the Constitution intcnded-and then give The
reasons Tor MY opinion. / believe then that fhev
intended, certainly 10 designate the mode 10 viii.
by 'Joint ballot of electing the Judges | bs
icVe uiey intended TO provide for the independent
! tenure OF their office. They intended 10 recog-
niZe the courts there enumerated that is f,5t
they intended TO clothe the legislature with. tho
power, OF eiecting by joint ballot, Judges who.
"iieh commissioners were 20 exercise jurisdiction
over those subjects, which should be ASSIGNED tbe,
by law. They intended to recognize. e0uitv and
common law Jurisdiction, but they did not intend
10 say that these jurisdictions should or should
NOT he united IN the same judge, or that thew
should not They certainly have no; said .,,,-oSS
! ~, eilheir the one or the other-this will be adj
mltted by all-and contend they never intended
10 say either the one the other-but that they
intended wisely intended, 10 leave this matter TO
iuture ieSl !atlon They foresaw that the change
oiuI'e ana circumstances, might, render necessa-
ry changes IN the organization Of the judiciary
system ihey could not undertake TO determine
whether the future condition OF The State would
require that the two Jurisdictions should be seya
Tutet, or should be united. They had before
their eyes examples Of both systems the evs+ar,
OF inc mother country in which the iilrisdicong
were separate, and the system of our own State
IN wiHcl the two Jurisdictions were united Yes
or, al the very moment that Constitution was a
uoP'ed' we had III iull operation here in Virginia
General Court, the Judges OF which exercised
equity jurisdiction. But, says the gentleman from
Amherst, the men who adopted the Constitution
mad England before their eyes at the Zine of its
adoption; England that country, whose i,ldicjaI
system had furnished the great prototvpS fon,
"hich, ne says, ours was taken-that there the
lWoJ jurisdictions were separated; and hence he in
ieIS' the trainers OF the Constitution must certain
| y nave intended they should be separate. UDon
me ground Of aa5igmtyin this part of the Consfi
tuuoh, suppose the gentleman had a rigbt 20 rn-
sort TO cNtraneous facts and circumstances IN for
MY the construction for which he contends AM
ask IS, 10 be allowed the same latitude in return
Vili say, then, that when our Constitution wac
adopted, the Trainers Of il had our own State befc
thef eyes:-that there different judicial system
PreYaiIeo' teFe The two jurisdictions Of equity and
common iaw were united in the same iudGes -
And hence, the trainers Of the Constitution ro,,st
nave intended that they should still remain united
as they have not declared either cxpresslv.
think IT much more reasonable Gf we ynu.t inf,
mat they intended 10 adopt that system. which
was then IN daily operation before their ewes Buf
sT' cla!in not the advantage, which I think this
argument furnishes because I do not think The
reasoning just. intended it only as a rebutter,
nut sif' these two arguments together, furnish.
conclusive proof to my mind that the coostrnc
ton which give TO The clause Of fbe Constif'it; ,
under discussion, s-the true and Just CONSTRUCTION
WIN the English system before their cues IL,
Which ule two Jurisdictions were seDqr0fo,1-
me iFGInl system before their eyes in Which fl
Two Jurisdictions were United-tbe franoers sf ,,,-
constitution are silent. To what other lust concIn.
sion, then, can we come--but that thew dd n,t
intend TO say either, that they should or should
not DC separated But they intended, ves I saw.
sir, wisely intended to leave the subject n f.
disposed Of by legislation But. Sir. Il ~ saii
where there is ambiguity in Constitution Gtat
cOtcmporaucOus cXuD.itiOu NJ az ot,t,ftf q, D., rcf