Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-02-07

tonal Courts, TO he filled by constitutional J,,les
The opponents Of this bill contend for the latter
meaning Let II be remembered that this instr,I-
nent (the first written constitution and tho first
that deserves that namc.l was formed at the mn
ment of our separation from the mother country-l
The trainers OF IT had seen and felt he want of
written compact containing all the neccssnrV cheeks
and balances which result from the proper disrib,,
ton among the several departments in the orpaniza
ton OF free government. They had felt the tvror
ny OF an omnipOtent Parliament the arm of a sironr
Executive, and they remembered the fate of ,he
HusSels and the Sydncys. who had fallen beneath
the bloody sentences of d venal iudiciarv-tbcv
had traced that venality 60 its proper cansc-the
dependence OF the Judiciary upon the Crown
instead OF being elevated TO the dignity of CO
ordinate branch of the government ready at all
times To interpose their shield and guardianship
over the people against executive or Legislative
entertainments, our forcfatherS had seen the iudi-
cary OF England hold office by the tenure of good
pleasure and degraded into vile instruments mere
~ OF executive power These evils they had seen
and they could rot but have intended 10 provide a
remedy IN the new form OF government Indeed.
before this period, even their English ancestors
disguised by the judicial murders committed i'm the
reign OF Stuart, by such judicial monsters as
ScroggS, Jeifreys and Pemberton, had 70 guard a.
gainSt the recurrence of such scenes found IL ne
cessary To charge the tenure of the judicial Office
10 that OF good behaviour. The trainers declare.
IN the bill OF rights, that ii is expedent TO make
the three great departments of government sepa-
rate and distinct and independent of each other.
HOW then, let M ask, were they to effect this
purpose, but by making Constitutional Courts and
CONSTITUTIONAL Judges, contend they have
done? Would il not be imputing to them erea.
folly and great want of forecast, TO suppose that
whilst the Legislative and executive offices were
so clearly defined, made separate, iihmutable and
co-ehiStent with the Constitution, they had left
the judicial Office OF the mercy of the legislature
to vary with, and to depend upon their whirns and
their caprices Would il not lie strange 60 sun
pose, that they had noticed that department, only
n nrpG rib tItaav
which IS so minor consideration compared with
the Independence and perinanence Of the judicial
establishment? Ii surely would. They did mean
TO make the Judiciary Independent of the lcgisIa-
ture and meaning II the best mode Of effcctuating
mat intent, was by the erection of Constitutional
Courts. The power of department TO reno
del or abolish at pleasure another, is surely at war
with the idea of the independence of that other
II the legislature now have, by the clause cited,
the right TO abolish all any Of the Courts speci-
ned 1t has the right TO abolish with the Courts the
iudiclal offices aPperaining to them, AMI thus Ivy
legislative act TO remove the Judges for if we look
10 'he constitution, both the Courts and the Judd
GeS mat are 10 preside in them stand uDon the
same footing. Indeed, to say that the legislature
could abolish the Courts and not the Office of
5udge appurtenant, would be to say, il might Gre
ate sinecures in Office, which is directly forbidden
by the bill OF rights. And If the legislature can
abolish the Courts, and with them the judicial Of
nee, what becomes of the boosted independence
OF your Judges The gentlemen admit, they can
not reduce their salaries, augment their du-
ties, without an equivalent augmentation OF sala-
ry. They tell you they do not mean to touch
mar OF their heads, nor disturb their Independence
yet they claim the greater right than either OF
these, to remove from under them their Offices
IL Judges cannot hold sinecures which is forbid
den, they must be by the act, legisIated out of
office. Is not this then, calculated as much to inn
pair their independence reducing their salary
which the gentlemen admit they cannot do? And
VIII the Constitution tolerate the doing of that in
" can NJ l.ns L.
not But when pressed upon this point the pen-
tiemen get over the objection, that by their ACT
they might create siRecuTes by saving the Judges
aare not hold on, after the abolition Of their Offices
they say the Judges dare not face the ardent paze
and fiery indignation of an incensed people So
their argument places the Judges in the predica-
inent OF one accused of witchcraft in the olden
tlme-the mode OF trial appointed by our super
suuous ancestors, was among others, the ordeal of
wa'er-the accused was thrown into the Iake-if
he sank. he was innocent, but perishei-if he
swan, he was pronounced guilty, and perished-
death was the inevitable consequence of the ac-
cusation; and so by the arguments of gentlemen
removal is the inevitable consequence OF their law
should the Judges fail to surrender their consci-
ences to the holy keeping of this house.
Mr.. l. said, he would mention another extrane-
Gus circumstance that shed much light on the phra
sociology and Interpretation of the clause of the
constitution, before recited Before the Revolution
under the government of the Colonial Charter. we
mad but one court-the old general court composed
VI W. W ana tOunctl. which, with the eX-
ceptlon oil the county courts constituted the sole
Civii Criminal Common Law s. Equity Tribunal
OF the State This consolidation Of Jurisdictions
was then felt and complained of rs an evil-if the
trainers did not mean tn remedy and guard against
this grievance ofhayng the judicial functions OF the
state concc0teTet ~ On. treat Court WhV did they
not IN so many words say so' They knew how 10
express tnemsalveS--fo. we find, when thew cam,
to speak OF chat court, in which they desired no
change, to wit: the county court, they said So If
they did not mean to command the establishment
OF distinct and separate Tribunals, in lieu OF the
General Court, would they nol have said so in ex-
press language-a language equipolent? Have
they SAID sol answer no. But siicy lave said
the very reverse. ! would ask, if the line Of de-
inarkation between these tribunals is not more
broadly drawn, than it is in relation to the Lepisa-
ture and Executive departments about which there
mas never been adoubt. Butwhy weary ourselves at
the business of nice construction. why look for the
meaning OF the trainers in reasOninS a pri0ri2 WHY
look To the contrNtOrthe spirit? why LOOK TO contem
poraneous or judicial exposons of the instrument
when the letter Is so plain and unambiguous that
tie who runs may read ," What IS that MEANING,
simplJ what the letter in substance tells Won
that the legislature shall establish the Courts
aforementioned, and shall by Joint ballot of both
Houses, elect or appoint Judges to fill them which
JudSes snail be commissioned by the Executive
10 mold their offices during good behaviour
when the legislature have done this, their power
over the subject Is ftIucfits ofFcio. The Courts
and Judges are Constitutional Judges and Courts
and cannot be abolished or DESTROYED, exceut bv
the sovereign people, in their high and august ca
Iac4y OF Convention Similar clauses in the
Constitutions OF Pennsylvania and New York have
by their people received the same CONSTRUCTIONS
and suppose no one would pretend to doubt ,yhe-
Their the Supreme Court Of tho II gfs4os - . o.