Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-03-04
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE
HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
CIRCUIT COURT BILL,
Snocch al .NIr. Coode.-rcoNc1upr1

The advocates OF this bill have, on all occasions
insisted with zeal on the force OF auth0rity-thcS
have tiumphantly called the attention of IN,
House to the original organization of the Suprern,
Court of Appeals, in l779-they have shcwn tina
no separate g Judges in Chancery,'' were ap
pointed by the Convention which founded The
tiovernment-they rely the Court established
in 1882, for the district Of country of the AL
lechany mountains they cite the special Cour
OF Appeals.
The original formation Of the Supreme Court OIL
Appeals, occurred amid the storms of revolutions
ry coDttict-when our country was convu!sed by
intestine brols, and invaded by the most powerful
belgcrent earth--our statesmen occupied in
measures OF war, too closely TO deliberate on con
stitutioIral construction. When the modification
this Court became subject of subsequent ,nedi-
>taton, was regarded by the Judges as improper
~ orgarized, and modelled by the LeCis-
latuTc, because it was thought to be unconst;u-
tonaly organized The decision of the Legisla-
turc of 10, was reversed by the Legislature OF
1879, and cannot be quoted as authority.
The Legislature III l777, at the first session, UNI
Ger the new government, proceeded 10 appoint
separate Judges in Chancery," notwithstanding
the distracted condition OF the state, III despite OF
the fury OF the raging elements, in despite of the
havoc and spoliatien OF war--a more prompt com
piiance with the forms of the Constitution could
not have been reasonably anticipated-and this
occurrence should not be quoted authority "a
gginst US. The modification of the special Court
OF Appeals is founded in unavoidable necessity !;
and the Court established in 1882 for the district
of country west of the Allegheny, was exposed to
all the objections which may be urged against this
bill 1t was an unconstitutional act--it was but a
false precedent, which, however it may deludc us
from the path of propEety, can never change the
provisions of the Constitution: il was the act of
tribunal of power, only equal 10 our own, and can,
IN no wise, relieve from that responsibility
which must attach on every legislator, who is
cdlled on 10 interpret the Constitution OF his coun-
Try. This responsibility is the same with every
member of every Legislature. The act of our
predecessors can in no wise discharge from our
obligation TO exert the utmost energies OF nd
ture TO ascertain the true construction of the in
sirunent, and 60 devote ourselves to the interest
of cur country. The same responsibility must
have rested on the most obscure member of the
Lack-leafDing Parliament, as attached upon the
brightest star which shone in the Consolation
from which Fox, a Pitt, Burke an Erskine
and Sheridan, il!umincd creation with the SPLEEN
dor Of intellect. And, sir, without intending any
inyi6i0us comparison, permit me to suggest that
Che same responsibility must attach on the hum.
blest nrcfrber OF this body, as did On the purest
spirit Of those revolutionary sages, who animated
the body polite of revolutionary America, with
the genial rays Of wisdom and benevclcnce.
But suppose we adopt the doctrine Of authority,
and attempt TO fix the responsibility of deeds
on those who have gone before US we have the
decisions Of Judicial Departments, authorised by
the Constitution, 10 pass the validity of acts
The Court of Appeals in 'S9, after the most deib.
crate investigation, declared that Common Law
and Chanccry Jurlsilction could not be excrted
By the same judge. The General Court adjudged
ia Hamper aud Hawkins, that the Judges Of their
Court could not exercise Cbanccry Jurisdiction by
virtue Of their commission, Judges OF the Gene
raj Court hut that to enable them 10 do So thev
must be elected and commissioned as Chancelors.
Ills decision was made by a tribunal, without
whose aid, this bin can never be carried into eE
fect-and, yet, the decision IS disregat,led bv the
BIZ, and utterly dcspiscd by is advocates The
fifteen Judges Of the General Court are directed
without previous election, to exercise the powers
n Judges in Chanccry, in despite Of the decision
og Hamper and Hawkins, and in utter contempt Of
the paJpabe provision Of The Constitution, that
Judges 10 Chancery" shall be appointed by join;
ba1lo.. The Courts Of Chancery are discontinued
ana the four present Judges Of those Courts are
transferred ike stock, 10 the bench Of the Gene.
raj Court, and inye stcd Nith ample Common Law
Jurisdiction. The Judges Of the General Court
are created Chancsilors--the Chancellors are made
Judges Of thc GENERAL Court, not by virtue Of O.
lection aud commission, but b. force Of an act o.
assembly.
The Constitution provides, dat the Judges o.
Size CeDeta Court shall be appointed by Joint bal.
lot; when vacancies occur, they aye thus filed
Che Court consists OF fifteen Julges-shouId a Va.
rancy occur, by death Otherwise il would bc
iicG by joint ballot--no man would think Of FIJI.
ing it by Law. ltwonld never be conjeciured tlia,
We, BY law, could appoint ono Of the Chancellor.
70 that vacancy the practice under the Consiu
in has ever ser cfN-rwis., Ilow o''eq has 4