Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-02-21

How cheap The estimation in which hold such /
authority, shall hereafter have occasion 70 cx- |,
plain. refer to II for the purpose of showing
that there has been great diversity of opinion a.
mong the Judges. the constitutional question iu-
Nolved iii this bill Reasoning. thea, of What i,
ilReIy 10 happen. from what mas ai6eady occurred,
We are Warranted In assuming 1t as more than
probable, that at least out Of the nineteen
Judges will coincide i'll opinion with the minority
oil their brethren III the case referred to- But
sirsuppose single fpdipidu0i among them should
entertain these scrupes, and refuse bo,li 20 exc
cute your law and 10 resign his seat on the
bench--wha. Is your remedy Where your means
oi enforcing his compliance The Judge who
administers the law, like the legislator who enacts
II, Is bound by the solemn sanctions of an oath 20
preserve the Constitution pure and ii.violate You
cannot impeach him, therefore, for what lac be-
heTes 10 be an honest * conscientious discharge of
ilS duty and without impr huent you cannot
remove lhm-ior sure Mr.. Speaker, no
inember of this House will avow himself the adj
vocate OF the Kentucky doctrine, Of the right 20
IesiSldtc Judges or q oFiro.
But, sir, i: may he sad tiiai The dissenting Jud-
yes VIII be bound TO waive their cousiiiu tional
scrnpcs, and submit 70 the decision of the aiority
OF their brethren. IL is true, M. Speaker that.
IA general, the opinion OF Superior Court binds
an inferior; because the Superior Court can re-
verse the decision OF the ieIiOr--so, the opinon
OF the majority of q Court (in relation TO porties
ltegant thereirD binds the minority for, o,,o qd
iiocs the majority is tic court. Ia these cases
mere Is particular subject matter for the action
~ uiC SOsItS, dllI II PRACTICAL mode which the
pfincpie, that the majority shall rule NAV be
brought 10 bear upon IT. But the case likely TO
grow out of the bill under consideration, Is ono
altogether OF different nature That bill as 1
understand II, abolishcs the office O. a JUDGE IN
Chancery, and converts it into Judge of the
General Court. Suppose the ChanceIlors when
Called On TO carry its prov isonS into effect shall
say' we have been elected and commissioned il.
tle manner prescribed by the Constitutions 10 an
olilce which that Instrument recognizes as sepa-
rate and distinct from all others. The tenure ut
inns Office Is guaIantced 70 tis, during rood beha-
Niour, and we have endcayorcd faithfully, consci-
enuouSiy, and TO the best Of our skill and abIi,v
30 qlSchaTSc TIC duties which pertain 10 IL We
are therefore entitled to retain our appointment
anu we do not choose 10 accept that of JUDGE nl
inc General Court, BECAUSE we honestly believe
The two Offices 10 be inCofnpstible' / confess
siF, 90 not know, nor have heard ofany means
ny winch you can cocrce them 10 the change of
.Sharacter, which you propose 10 legislate iIpon
mem. know OF no Judicial process that could
te"cn 'pe'l' ana am satisfied an Impeachment
would be fertile and unayaing. Indeed sir
am at loss 10 conceive how we should be able
even TO try The experiment of an impeachment
We could not iripeach them JUDGES IN Cham
because the hiil Itself sweeps those Judges
SnuTcly rom our codc-for il mcrpes the Office of
1iianceI!or ia that OF Judge of the General Court
we certainly could not mpeach them as :. .Judons
OF the General Court" because the case propostd
Ia Illustration, expressly sulposes them to refuse
such appointments.
But, sir, leave these points 90 be settled Ia,
gentlemen more convcrsant with them than NV
se"' anu proceed now 10 enquire what would he
me probable result of an impeachment s;lpposino
The difficulties have suggested TO he ren,oveG
what tribunal vii! convict Chancellor ,Iu,s nc
cused The Court Of Appeals? They have said
IN their memorial OF SO, that the common law and
Chancery Jurisdictions cannot be blended in The
same person. BY the General Court Their 10
ciSion, IN the case of Hamper and IjaIyLius l. a.,
9iGnunous against the consiitutioualitv OF vour
pill, In It's present farm.
Your whole scheme, then, may be defeated. moi
py ule contunacy OF obstinate and rcfroct,r,
Judge, but by the conscientious scrunles oC e, 10
nest man la free governments, Mr. Soeakar
the essential strength Of the laws consists in The
IeSPect and veneration in which they are held by
nose on whom they operate. This sir Is the mo-
Taf energy of free institutions which i, jntinifeIy
superior 10 the physical force by which ,nonarcIas
aud despntisms are upheld. Whatever. therefore
tends 10 lessen this respect, 10 impair this venera
ton, should be carefully avoided nv a v.ise ard
prudent Legislature. And surely. Mr. Sneater'
nothing can be better calculated to bring our eois
iailon into disrePute, than the passage of a INV
which, IN all human probability, must either re-
man dead letter your statute book-or rro
Gucc the painful and embarrassing result of brine
ing Two OF the coordinate departments Of the roy
eminent into direct, perhaps, angry collision.
Bu', MI Speaker, suppose all these difficulties
70 DC FcinoYed-laSe 1t for granted your law will
nc carried INTO eject, by the Judges unanimously
agreeing to execute it's there vet no reason to
doubt the policy Of blending the common law and
hancery jurisdiction Of our Courts l. there no.
thinG IN the experience OF other States that ,voId
call upon US 10 pause, and TO deliberate well betore
aGoPung so important change in our Judiciary ,
ne gentleman from Amherst Mr. ThompsoD) and
from Brunswick (Alr. Ghoison) have called vonr at
teniion to tie mischevous effects of this blended in
r'diction in North Carolina and Tennessee. And
3ou wen recoilect sir, the earnestness and conf
nehce WIN which the example of Ohio who has
given 70 llcf courts an organization like that sou pf
10 DC given 70 ours, was urged upon the House
during the discussion Of this question last winter
10y gentleman from the county of Brooke We
were told that there, the experiment of BLENDING
tlle TWO Jurisdictions had been fairly tried, and
that Its results were entirely satisfactory
But, Mr.. Speaker, is true that this much bosl
ed Judicial System Of Ohio is quite as popular NJ
h0He, as gentlemen endcavOriue 10 render n a
Droad: Distance, which always diminishes ui,tes
Ildl Objects, often increases the retufi0u hotb of
men ana OF things; and | cannot but suspect sir
That there l. some mistake unintenGonal am s,,re
In the representations that have been made 10 ne
on tins subject. hold in uy hand letter Crnrn
most Intelligent and pectable citizen of Ohio
}weu known 10 many OF the members &C tlis
iiou'e' ana whose name, wherever be is known
"Iii av0uch the truth Of any statement he may
make) which gives very different view of ihis
Hattar Z repre- sents Che Judicial ysteIn OF his sie
as any thing rather than as ara examine for or i,
talon. The writer Of this lciorsavs che l.s con-
teFsed with every Lawyer Of distinction in tJ,
place Of bis residence (Which IS Ch.licofbel-traf
ihey are unanimous ia the opinion that rtbcirl In
mcidry j. organized on a wFeichud plan-tbat-the
deem II essential that change should be made
ahN tiat t4eB dcprCcofe prrt1cHlaffv TINT feature
~ ltheirl SJsfea Uiicd crcitt{es seynylffe 01f
distinct ChoncDgj uFis9icti0a'' THAT. sin. eve.
n respectable Lawyer whom the writer of This lei
tee has bad an Opportunity Of cons,,Ii;,t,- q. I.r