Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-01-19

YEsrERDAY-A communication was received
from TIE Senate. that they had passed the billsto
amend the act for opening, extending and improv-
inl, the navigation OF the river Rappahannock and
Is improbable Notwithstanding the. Fire
Companies in this Couunonwcalth-and TO change
the time OF holding the Superior Court of Law TOR
Iazeweli, with amendments TO all of them. These
amendments were concurred in, except those TO
the bill concerningth the RappIhannoc,, which were
laid the table.
On Mr Fitzhugh's motion, an enquiry was in
sttuted into the eXpediency of amending the act
against those who counterfeit letters or privy to-
kens TO receive money goods in other mems
hands.
On motion of Mr.. Hart, an enquiry WAS institu-
ted into the eXpedeucy Of altering the times of
holding the Superior Court of law for Randolph, to
the Friday after the first Monday which follows
the fourth Monday in April and September.
MIR. Gordon offered resolution relative 10 the
survey oil route for public road from Winches-
Ter through Duck Creek Gap, 20 Clark.burg-
Laid on the table motion of Mr.. McWhorter
Reports were presented from the Committees, by
Messrs. CruInp of Surry, White, SiiliG,an, Cor
don, and Kelly OF Nicholas
Mr.. Craig moved to execute the order of tie
day, for considering in Committee of the Whole,
the hill concerning the trial By Jury.
MI May moved TO discharge the Committee
from the further consideration OF the bill. He did
not consider that there any necessity for'lcgs-
aiing on that subject After referring to the de-
clslon that mad given rise to the BILL he said, that he
mad no Doubt but that the more deliberate opinion
OF the General Court would be in conformity with
the provision or intentionof the bill.
Mr.. Craig opposed the motion. He insisted on
the propriety of legislation. The Court might or
might not reverse the decision they had made, and
IN the present state Of things he thought it incun
bent on the Legislature TO interpose question
so important 10 the people as the trial by Jury.
The Committee were discharged, and MIR. May
then moved the indefinite postponement Of the bill
lie sand that the General Court, with but bare
quorum, had decided that counsel should not be
permitted to argue question when the only obiec
was, to make speech. The Court finding that
their decision liable 70 misinte rpre tation de-
termlned 10 reconsider it at the next term. He
could not see the propriety of thus fastening to
express the Legislative will, when there was not
the remotest probability that the judiciary would
sustain principle that was Objectionable.
Mr. Thompson, Of Amherst, considered as MIR.
Craig did, that this was most important question.
whenever the legislature felt indifferent on the
suh9ectof the trial by Jury, then would the decay
OF our liberty commence. lie contended that there
could be no danger in passing deciGr0tOTU law
and that 1t was impossible to say what evils might
arse between this and the next session of Assem-
bly, Inc Courts had too often interpoScd 81 stopp-
ed counsel, and said that the was too plain to
admit OF argument. The exercise OF this right, on
The part OF the court might lead TO the destruction
OF the liberty OF the CITIZEN because his case may
mus be prevented from being fully heard. He in
sisted that without the passage of such bill the
trial by jury would be merely an empty form. He
said that Mr.. May seemed TO admit that the deci-
sion OF the General Court was erroneous But,
from the report Mr. T. had seen, he understood
/ Uldt the determination to reconsider the decision
was in consequence of the urgent request of die
hnguished member Of the bar, who pressed the i'm
portance oil the decision, and was anxious that q
more mature consideration should be given to it
Out OF respect to this gentleman perhaps the court
agreed to revise their opinion.
MI l. commented the Importance of the
ulal by jury; the necessity Of preserving il in il.
utmost purity, as main feature in our democratic
lorni OF government. But, he commended, that the
power contended for by the Judiciary, destruc-
I'VE OF this great right. He complimented the
Judiciary of Virginia inferior in purity and in
tegrlty TO the Judiciary of no other country But
the unlimited discretion claimed, was liable 10
abuse, &c One OF the greatest safeguards to their
purity was, the publicity Of their proceedings and
the freedom OF discussion On all questions before
them Where discussion is unrestrained the peo-
PIE Will understand the correctness OF the decisions
laat nag, e pronounced, This could not be the
case, where dtSctlSsoa at the bar was silenced by
opinions from the Bench. Mr. 7. went with some
lnuteness, into the proceedings of our courts; the
rights OF parties in court, and OF their COUNSEL and
into me tendency OF the principle contended for
by the judiciary
Mr.. Allmand supported the motion 10 most
pone: No man was greater admirer OF the trial
by jury than himself; but he insisted that it was
no q IN danger He understood that the General
Court had decided that a Judge on a trial for =
misdemeanor, had right TO stop an argument adj
dressed to the jury in opposition to the instruction
OF the Court. Hthe counsel had performed his d,,-
ty in the case out of which this bill had grown he
would have excepted 10 the opinion of the Court
. The argument OF Mr.. Thompson, he said went to
establish the position, that Courts are no IonDer Ia
be Courts and that jUrieS are to be Courts ana iu
, ries both. The tendency of such doctrine he
contendcd, was subversiye of the practice OF thc
country that had been so long observed; and under
which we had enjoyed 50 much security in all orr
rights. HE was a plain matter OF fact man. and
looked 10 the beneficial operation Of things rather
than to theories, however plausible
Mr.. Gordon said that the statement OF the case
that had occurred in his county had been alluded TO
when leave was given TO bring in the bill The
case was, that presentment for unlawful gam
ing, the Court gave an opinion, against which .t'le
counsel argued before the jury. -Four iuries. hal
decided against the opinion Of the Court and fhe
question, whether il was competent thus 10 ar.rIe
against that opinion, had arisen Mr. o. went in
10 a more detailed statement OF the case in which
he took occasion 10 commend the patience e. the
Judge and the lberaiity Of the public prosecu tor
lie insisted That no counsel, however jnreuious
could prevail upon the yComanrv of the country ~
decide against the instruction OF the judge unless
1t be paipably wrong. He referred To anotl,cr
case, from buckingham, in which the Court deci-
ueu tlat conhssi should not be permitted TO argue
against the opinion 81 the Judge i'm relation either
to fact or law. Hc gave brief history of this
case also. From the occurrence of such cases hc
cOntended, mat power was claimed i'm This roe
pcct, that might be exercised opprcssyclv 70 fho
people And, IN reply to the argument that the
proper remedy was by exceptions to the opinion OF
the Court and an appeal, he asked. what was In
the mean time to become of the personaI Iberf,, of
the citizen Was he TO be inntred in a ,I,ipoeon.
until the decision II the Court should be reversed.
wncn, II the case had gone az once fairly 10 the in
~, he would be acquitted,