Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-02-12

You cannot try them in the General Court, be-
cause the offices OF Judge in Chancery and of
Common Law being united lin the same persons,you
cannot, ia such case, make court, without putting
some OF the accused upon it. Then, sir, what has
happened! A case has arisen requiring impe ach-
inent, but impeachment cannot be tried before the
GenCourt. But is there no other court before which
these gentlemen may be constitulionally trieds Yes
SIR, they may be tried before the Court of Appeals
And are lou prepared, Mr. Speaker to give any good
reason why the trial OF an impeachment, in such
case before the Court of Appeals would not aswell
satisfy the reasons Of the constitution, as if under
other circumstances, it had taken place before ;he
u eneral Court, or any other tribunal.
Gentlemen, in the course OF this debate, have
INDUCED largely in suppositions. They have sup
posed many cases which, it would be very reason
able TO suppose, would never happen. Gentlemen
seem to have forgotten the tailacious tendency of
reasoning from extreme cases. II is mode of
reasoning that may do well To amuse the fancy of
the eaphysician, but 1t is poorly adapted to prac
! teal uses, and lily becomes the statesmen.
But, MIR. Speaker, as the opponents OF the bill
have attempted TO bewider its friends by SUPPOSE
tons, it is but fair that they should realiate Now
let me suppose a case for the employment of gem
tiemens' ingenuity. Suppose not only that the
Judges OF the General Court shall become liable to
impeachment, but the judges of the Court of APP
peals' What shall be done? The constitution
makes no provision for such a case.
Ihis suppoSition, which have given YOU proves
one thing, viz that you may suppose a great ma
ny more things, than it is reasonable 10 suppose
Let US, then, cease TO bewider ourselves with alb
stract principles which relate to cases that will ne.
yer occur, and look TO and provide for the plain
natural course of events II is here our interests
iie-notin the sublmated speculaions of metaphy-
sizes and conjecture.
These views of the subject haze obviated from
my mind all difficulty on the ground of constitu-
tionality. The House will receive them for what
they are worth. will now drop remark or two.
upon the question Of expediency. 1t is admitted
on all hands, believe, that our present Chancery
system Is grieyous, almost beyond endurance
his admission implies the necessity of providing
remedy The question now occurs does this bill
furnish suitable remedy? II provides that there
shall hereafter be twenty judges of the General
Cour-that the State shall be laid off into Two dis
trcts-that two of these Judges shall, twice in the
year, ride around each of these districts and dis
pense justice 10 the people in each county, both ac
cordng to the forms OF Chancery and of Common
Law; with leave to separate and hold different
Courts, when business shall make it necessary that
they should 20 SO. 1t discontinues the present
| Chancery Court.-This is the general plan of the
bill, and to it, and the details many objections are
made-sone of the most conspicuous of which, /
propose now to notice: And first, it is sad if
we pass this bill into law, and any of the
Judges shall refuse TO act under the new commits
sion, we will be involved in inextricable difficult
ties Now, Mr.. Speaker, gentlemen have a right
TO suppose what they please; but they will excuse
us for not suffering ourselves 10 be frightened from
tons. IT may be possible, that some of the JUDGES
may refuse TO act; but, Sir, if they do, they will
resign their offices. Can il be imagined that these
honorable men, elevated TO their Offices in consi-
GRAFTON oil their patriotism, talents, and moral worth
Will stand out in stiff-necked opposition 70 their
Goyernrnent-to their State: Believe it who NAV.
l cannot.
But, suppose the worst. Suppose some of them
WIN not undertake performance of the duties re-
CURED. Why then, Mr.. Speaker I would say
impeach them' For, if we may constitutionalIy
require them to perform these duties they cannot
nave the right of refusal. Then comes the last
diiiicuty-and it is one of awful import What
shali we do II the Judiciary shall give the Consti
tuuon another construction than that which the
Legislature has given it. The Judiciary have an
equal right with the Legislature TO interpret it
In this extremity the people will have no recourse,
nut 10 their own original power. Finding that their
government wal not answer the end Gifts creation,
they must call Convention, and cleanse il of its
rubbish. This is the dark side of the picture
Ny imagination is not yet gloomy enough for
CONCENTRATIONS OF this sort There is too much pa
trotism too much moral virtue in our country. 10
justify the opinion, that such state Of things can
now arise. 49,
1t IS said, as further objection 10 the passage OF
me 6iii' that when the two Judges OF Circuit
snail separate and sit in different Courts, at the
/ same uine, the business cannot be done; because
the lawyers cannot attend both courts This
confess, may sometimes produce Inconvenience
but 1T is one of those Inconvenience from which
no system will be found entirely free and is mat
ter OF no moment, in comparison with the evils of
the present system After the Judges have once
gone around their Circuits and ascertained the cir
cumstances OF the different Counties they will he
able (and the bill gives the power) so to arrange
tnelr terms, as TO occasion but little Inconvenience
on this score.
further objection A Judge of Common Law
IS not lit to be Chancellor, and Chancellor is NOT
ut to be Judge of Common Law-one man can
not be every thing. My opinion is directly the
reverse OF this. If gentlemen will reflect what
QUALIFICATIONS are necessary TO the Judge of Com
mon Law, and what necessary to the Chancellor T
think they viii admit that they have fallen into
mistake: thorough knowledge of Law and in
corruplble virtue, are alike, the necessary aualif
cations OF both These will make either the one
or the other; and, without these, either would he
any thing else, hut Chancellor or Judre Rnt
or, are the duties of Chancellor and judge Of
Law so different as TO beget any inconpatibiitv NJ
Office! Wherein consist the duties of the Chancel
Tor: In giving TO the law of the land their true
interpretation, and in dispensing Justice ACCORDING
10 their discretion Wherein consist the duties of q
Judge OF Law9 In doing the very same things
may be- asked then, wherein consists the diffe.
renee between a Court of Law, and of Cbancerv,
answer, according to Sir VIM. Blackstone. priy,
clpaily IN three things-in the mode Of proof, the
mode oil trial, and the mode OF relief
gam Siij II IS said the change proposed by this
bill, Is calculated 10 weaken both Bar and Court
do not think 1t il rather calculated 20 difTi,se
thro the State the lights OF the Law, by drawing
distinguished Lawyers in their practice, to great,
or number Of places than they now attend
ne Judges depend for their Improvement very
much upon the illumination of the Bar Tte Rar
need nothing but business enough, and that slim
ulauDn which competition never fails TO supply. and
all oil my profession, will testify to the Abundance
A I = IL