Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1828-03-01


more explicitly, if you interpret their language
by those rules of phology so strenuousy insisted on
ny my friend from Westnoreland.-The use of the
conjunction . ahd' between the words .sSecre-
! t"ry ana = the Attorney Generel" justifies and
requires the construction which would be given
! 10 ue sentence, had il been used wherever the
comma occurs, or had ii been -interposcd between
the several members of the Sentence Had this uod,,
Oh expression been adopted, the section would have
read" i he two houses of Assembly shall by Joint
pailet, appoint Judges OF the Supreme Court OF
appeals and General Court, and Judges in Chan
Gerry, and judges of Admiraity''-The section viii,
its'members thus disjoined, could be Interpreted
no otherwise, than as if each member constituted
separate paragraph-Thus
Inc two houses of Assembly shall by Join;
hahot appoint judges of the Supreme Court OF
Appeals
The two houses of Assembly shall by Joint BAL
lot appoint judges of the General Court.
The two houses of Assembly shall BIZ ioink
ballot, appoint Judges in Chancery.
The two houses of Assembly shall by Joint bal
iot' appoint Judges Of Adniralty-Had this mode
OF expression been adopted, no doubt could have
been observation-disclosures contradiction the two
tribunals would have been separately established.
Out tho sentence as used was adopted for brevitv
and can be interpreted no otherwise than as il
each member had been made The subject of pa
ragraph-Distnct tribunals Were plainly conte,n-
plated by the trainers of the constitution-and
mere Is no human power less than sovereignty, by
whch they can legally be amslgamated. Each
member OF the sentence is separated bv tho s.roa
mark OF punctuation-The comma is insertad r..
tween each-The General Court and Chancerv
are as dstinctlyseparated the Judges of the Sl
preme Court OF Appeals and 90 the Attorney Ce-
neral but none would contend that these LATTER
ofnces are compatible that they NAV be exetci-
sed by the same individual. And there is nothing
IN the sentence torbidding their union which does
not equally forbid that ChancelIor sbau ba .
common law judge.
Again, Sir-No doubt is entertained that the Su
PreIne Court OF Appeals the General Court
were designed by the Convention TO be distinct.
az n EnAfn Ot,t.r -.
1ation OF the Court of Appeals The main end of
inns Court was TO afford the citizen all opportunity
oi appeal IRON supposed erroneous Judgment OF
Inc General Court, to the decision of the Court OF
Appeals; bat this right would be much impaired
or, indeed, rendered yalueless if the asneai were
taken from the opinion Of the Judges OF the Gene
raj Court, TO the opinion of the same Judges Sit
ing us members OF the Court of Appeals
That these two Courts were designed TO he sena
raie Is farther manifested by the regulations con-
cerhins impeachments. Versed in the springs OF
human actlon-consciOus of the sympathies which
naturally exist between those occupying the same.
SITUATION and enjoying identity o! interest--tlle
trainers OF The Constitution intended TO provide for
the impeachment OF those offending against the
safety oil the commonwealth, in a tribunal uncorls
nected with tile accused, and, as far az practica-
bic, exposed TO no sympathy for his sufferinps -
Inc General Court was selected as best calculated
LOT me trlai Of general offenders; but the Jud-
geS oil that Court, III common with their fellov,
men, were exposed 10 the frailties of human ma
ture-it was ioresecn that they might become Of
lenders and II thought necessary 10 ascertain,
the tribunal, uneonnected with Themselves betore.
whom they should be responsible for their cnor
mities-Ihe Court of Appeals was selected for fi,at
purpose ana thus ascerained to be separate from
the General Court But, if these two Courts were
designed TO be separate, so must have been me
General Court and Chancery; for they are divided
by the same note OF punctuation land if the franz
ers OF the sentence had intended 10 vary the inter
Pretatoh, they must, OF necessity, have varied the
punctuatIon-whIch not having done, we must in
Ter they intended all these tribunals TO be distinct
My convictions, too, farther confirmed by
rejecting on the occurrences of past time. The,
General Court, through the period of the Colonial
government, up to the day of the Revolution con-
tlnued IN the undisturbed exercise of Clancerv
Admiralty and Common Law jurisdiction. There
was general cofnnlixture OF every species Of ju-
risdiction Had the Convention designed 70 CON
unue that Court in the exercise of these no,vers
II would have been necessary only TO provide for
the establishment Of that Court and IL would have
continued to exert those powers. The clause re-
/ lating to the county Courts makes no alusion TO-
the character o! s jurisdiction-and those Courts
exercise the several species Of jurisdiction with
which they were invested before the Revelation
10 terms were necessary to vest them with a,i-
thorlty The same would have been true in re!a-
lion 10 the General Court; but the trainers of the
instrument were dissatisfied with the arraneeureut
They had witnessed the Inconvenience result
ing 10 the community, from this indiscriinnate a.
Indignation OF jurisdiction and intended TO secr,
| remedy, by providing for the existence of sepa-
rate tribunals. The introduction of the clauses
| JuuSeS III Cnancery and Judges Ol-Admira-
/ ty, could not be necessary, either TO create 81.
j. enlarge the powers OF the OF the General Court
because all Judicial power previously abided in
that Court. The only design was TO curtail those
powers--lhat curtailmeBt could only be ecctuatef
by divesting the General Court of Cbancerv and
admiralty Jurisdichon-and transferring them To-
tribunals established by the Constitution as better
adapted TO the exercise of such powers Hence
The necessity OF introducing these clauses Hence
u Is PLAIN, The Constitution contemplaes Chancerv
ana Admiralty Courts, separate and distinct from
the General Count and TO re-iuvcst the General
Court with their powers would be 70 defeat the
design VI the instrument.
Sir, will not impose on The patience Of Tho
House by demonstrating the necessity of an inde
pendent Judiciary. will not delay the dehbera
tons Of this holy, to pronounce an euIogy on the
results o; that independence. / will not rccur 4,
The pages OF history, to drag forth the enorm;fer
oil seryle wFetehes, who held their offices like
mcnals, at the viii OF their masters I will nor
address the imaginations of gentlemen 20 posrtray
the Hisefles which may ensuc 70 society iIom the
cfInSihB baseness OF a dependent Judiciary
hese considerations have been duly rcyolyed b.,
every rejecting man Of the age--atd must have
passed under solemn review before the minds Of e,;
cry member of this House. But were we 81,
terly regardless o. the Independence Of one
Judges, The trainers ofthe Constitution have pro,iS
ed againstour Tenissness. Ghe history of ENGLAND
baddeveloPed the enOrmities of base judicial serVi
~; and our foreiattcgs prOtting by The lessons ~
her experience. have established it, as fInda
mental principle OF the government, thsfour iudi
claTyshdn DC indepcndent--Our Bill Of RieLss A.
clares mat The Legislative, Executive gnd Ia,
dietary should be separate and distinct Our e1n
sutution adopting and enforcing that rrincinle