Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-02-09
yIR CHINA nEGxsIATUaE
HOUSE or Delegates.
CIRCUIT COURT BILL.
Speech IF .1fr. Ihompso;, of' amherst


CcoHcLUDEp.1
] come now, Mr.. Speaker. said Mr. L 10 examine
tne question OF cAPediency, or in-expedicncy On
that point feel even less doubt than on the first
nc Ia" lsunnecessary, unwise. & more than Gat
II VIII prove mischievous. is friends tell Won the
people are calnorous for reform; not whisper ba
reached my ears; nor is there petition or me.
mortal on your table / admit we experience de
lays In the administration Of justice III sorne nor
uons OF the State, especially, and I am williDo IL,
go as far as any gentleman on this floor 10 rcrnove
these delays aud redress gievanccs-and 10 nv
nilnd the remedy Is obvious. III the complaints M
me gentlemen for Chancery Justice be well
founded, multiply the ChaucerV iistrjcfS-if thor
are not enough Circuit Court Judges 20 do the
business, augment the number In these parti-
cular districts where the course of Justice haa
Deen impeded by the visitation Of providence ia
the imbecility Of the iudge-give them INDIE
temporarily; diminish. and by that means ,.xne
ute the business oil the Court Of Appeals BY lon
ping off appeals from interloeutory DEGREES and bv
oevlslng some plan tor sending up TO that Court nlv
the facts which present the material point; of a
cause, instead of voluminous record, composed of
a long account or disputed facts. This is a harm
less and wholesome remedy. The one proposed bv
the gentlemen j; deleterious draurht The rem
ue'hch nave mistaken the cause OF the disease and
we need not, therefore, be surprized that they
nave mistaken the remedy. They have i'm their
minds, conicunded cause and consequence They
have supposed the evils complained of as referra
oie only to vice in the present system, and pro
t0SS ~ AGt4lChS l43eIl 1y means which, J de-
lnonstrate, Will not only aggravate them but beret
others, compared TO which those we no,y st,flr
are choice blessings. They set out with the uIau
sible and popular doctrine Of desiring 10 carry JUS
tice TO every mans door; and doubt not that Jv if
they wili gam proselyies but depend upon it, ihat
success achieved by such weapons will Weld then,
but an ephemeial triumph. Ii is an argument at
cdPt0ndu'n cuigus. 1t is principle if pushed to
,ie nov conteIidcdior which is reprobated
by the united voice of reason an ! experience In
the early periods of English jurisprudence. the
courts used TO follow the King as being the foun-
tam OF justice; but the worthy gentlemen have
t@lien INTO me other extreme, and would have the
Courts TO follow the stlitors | would have tj,e
Courts located at convenient and appropriate Mac
es, as the proper mean between the two extremes
really fear If this project succeeds that the friends
OF the people will be- for pushing the experiment
still further, by establishing separate courts in eve
~ corner of the county, in imitation OF the seno
rate elections, now so much the order of the day
Pennsy lvania once seized with the mania FIR
summary and cheap justice. To accomplish il .
she increased the jurisdiction OF her magistrates
ana adopted general aud compulsory system of
arbitradcn--AnI she accomplished it in one sense
OF the word-she cheapcned her Justice but did not
Improve the quality Of the commodity The effect
was, as have been informed, to impair the dig
NIFTY and ability OF her bar and bench TO multiply
litigation, and increase rather than diminish delay
II the old saying be true, that diseases and law
suits multiply by the multiplication of village doc
tors and lawyers, will not this system of carrying
II
is certainly true, that it will, if we have right
70 anticipate similar effects from similar causes
The reasons, amongst others, assigned for the
passage OF this law the delays in the Court of
Appeals, Supreme Court and Courts of Chancery.
II, as l have suggested, by multiplying courts.
you increase litigation, you multiply appeals; and
II Wlll not be coniended, that the MULTIPLICATION of
appeals will remedy the delays in the Appellate
Court. In the Chancery and Superior Courts II
- alleged that the judges cannot, or will not do
tho business nineteen Judges, four stationary
and fifteen aInbuiatory, cannot, or will inf say
they DO the Law and Chancery business of the
State. But this biz substantially reduces their
number from 10 to 10, and 10 are expected TO do
what 10 cannot. To reduce their number as
have stated for ali the purposes Of despa4cb ia
certainly the effect Of the bill The Judges are
10 be paid, and as two men cannot 20 one mile
sooner than one man, neither can the pair of udg
IS do more business than one judge--on the con
tfary, IN Nlsi PTius, or inerant court one can do
more business, and do it infinitely better, thantwo
Two together, are clog upon each other, and
serve TO impede rather than accelerate business
We have seen an Illustration Of this in the State Of
pennsylvania, 10 which | have before referred;
there, after experiencing the Inconvenience Of hav
ing their Nisi Prui Courts composed Of plurality
OF Judges, she changed her system with great All.
vantage, TO one judge. Now, unless gentlemen
can prove that there is something so suspicious io
judicial tact and excellence in being good part Of
their time on horseback. as 10 enable ten iudra.
iinerant, TO accomplish more than nineteen four
OF whom are s9ticnafy, ! insist, that their sv=-
TEN, instead Of mitigating the evils Of DELAY viii
aggrayate them. II the Chancellcrs were even
qualihed as Law judges, and rice persa (Which is
certainly not the case, and would appeal 10 the
judges themselves TO say if 1 wrong them when /
say so,) is would be highly inexpedicnt TO anal.
Canate the tSV0 Jurisdictions for 80 sure az there
II truth in Holy Writ, which informs us that no
man can serve two masters. 50 sure would one or
the other Of the jurisdictions be neglected or a.
polished, by judicial Ietislaton--the last conse-
4uence should much prefer 20 union Of sepa
rate aud distinct jurisdictions in the person Of ID.
same judge. In proof q this, il only necessary
10 refer 10 our own County Court Chancery Sys
teTO-to the example Of North Carolina, who hav
ing adopted the system now proposed for our adop
lion, ~ experimenting The most gfovoUs delays auc
veXadon, AMI Struggling % escape from ID. TO
Tennessee (tctose example n recent occdsi2
his teen considered Jy TrFinia as tooyfiy a.
S1Tifaii0n,) Who had adopted this union Of Jun
dcton & during ihc session o. tiic last Lcgislatur
was engaged n passing q law, (Which prcsum
dill pass having for its object tie establishment
distinct Chancery and Common Law Tnbutsle.
The judges Of Penlsy lyana doporc the want 1l
Chancery Systcm--ani Ncw YORK that boast.b
prompt and enlightened adm nstt ,Gon OF iusd-
fhai can boast 81 her Kents Sp nccrs a1d Sa
~, iudi-'I ofDau ems, c2npatsN,s win IN,