Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1828-01-12
From The Lynehturg F11rginian.


The following article handed in for publication
before te decision of the House of Delegates on The
Circuit Court Bill reached this place. The change
proposed vitality important, and ought to be freel,
discussed
To THE LEGISLATURES OF VIRGINIA
nave remarked Tor some years past, and not with
out deep concern, unusual disposition our Leris
iare TO betteihe condition of the people; and amongst
the thousand other schemes, / have observed one
winch Tor The last session or two seems TO give
lew of your body an unusual degree of concerns
jealous they that is almost led TO suspect thai
more IS aimed at than meets the eye:-I mean the
scheme OF amalGamaiing the Common Law and Chan.
Gerry Courts of our State.
would ask you, the people asking this channe
~ petition: Do we not go smoothly and camIy
enough under cur present C!Iancery Court and com.
mon law system? And would this change be no,ic
we're there no constitutional or other obection'
there are constitutional objections to the proposed
scheme, think any of common understandings
who will take the trouble give Our state cons;iufion
calm and disPasSionatc perusa, must adrnit:-The
l. Sect says, "The two houses of Assembly shall nv
'Jont ballot appoint Judges of the Supreme Cour, NJ
"APPeais and General CoWyt, Judges in Cf,fncey,,
'Judges of Admiralty, &c "-1his section taken in
connection with other parts Of the same instrument
most clearly show to my mind that its trainers did not
intend TO unite The common law and chancery irisdic
ton in and the peTson-Eor it is therein aso
provided, that Judge 10 chancery shall be tried be-
tore the General Court, and that Judge of the Gene.
rel Court shall be tried in the court of appeas tns
intending to prevent Judge from being tried in t,af
court OF which he was Elenberfor in causes Which
W'Sht give rise 10 an impeachment the Judges of The
court might act jointly and they might be under the IN
duence Of parliaty. Whilst under the proposed pI,n
a Judge would necessarily be obliged TO be fried in
that court Of which no a member aud who ran
question the improperly Of this? But is the scheme
not ippolitic,
The people are accustomed TO- and centennial wifi
100 7rereni system they neither desire or ask
change Why then force il upon therno-Tbe fact !,
ohaiSe IS Sought by some few purely from selfish
Interested motives, by others from discontinued
fchenlne spirit who, 10 say tie least Of them want IN
20 tilo S;aie t0'ac seryce"Expe1ience that bne,
guide ~ human ConCarBs, plainly demonstrates in tho
history OF orr comfy courts that The common Law ,nJ
equity jurisdictions in the same Judges will not ansycr
is tlcie man of you who does not absolutely i,nn
'c fact, tbat the cjanccry docket in those courts IA w.
&. .1cb neglected; 10 get Injunction in one oil
.,oe courts AMOUNTS in many cases, 10 payment Of
t.ie debit o. Suspension for ie-When 10 tue c!,ancerv
0is.sCt courts an injunction is very short lived most
generally being dissolved at the term next after the
G55nting.--Now which is best for TIC morals of the
country, that court Which, hard swearing is encCi.
yogcd By Suspension Of the debt for Iife-Or that
srhsrc speedy trial had9 Experience has satisfied
fe people Of North Carolina, where they have gys-
trnn resembling that which DOW sought TO be esiab
-cd bere, that their suits in equity neglected bv
the Judges ~ consequence Of the pressure Of common
law business, and their Legislature has been scckipo
20 make Change somewhat 10 resemble our present
srsfen-- Does not this speak yoIumes2--Bgaip are
here not other objections Can Judges now in Of
zee be impeachcJ aud rcoved in the event That the
lew scheDe does not sui. t5cII taste, VIII you give