Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-12-31

abolish court with view 10 get rid oil judge and
then il 10 be referred to the boy TO say whe-
Their there were any duties properly assignabe tshn,
on the performance OF which his salary to be
tinued, was not possible theie col be any other
| than one decision Of the qnesiion-he Legisla ure
which hal taken the first step in abolishing his court
would assurey take The second, and declare there
TO duties which it could with praprety assign 10 him:
in such case there Was no umpire between the Par-
ties, AMI thus the anenJn,v Ut would leave the just
where il was.
| Mr.. DopDRipGE said that the gentleman from Au-
gusta locked only TO the and extreme case,
where court should be abolished ioi the sake Of dis
posing Of an obnoxious Judge; but he seemed to Tor
bosh court bona file, because II was useless. and
could be dispensed with. lie hoped the amendment Of
the gentleman from Orange would prevail
Mr.. NICHOLAS opposed the amendment Of Mr.
CABELLa putting the Judge at the mercy Of thu Lee
gslature. II could rarely happen that the modif caon
Of court would render the services of the existing
Judges unnecessary; and ii there even were one or
two surplus Judges, to maintain these would be far
better than putting the whole corps into the power Of
| the Legislature.
Mr.. MARSHALL said he wished TO submit 10 the
gentleman from Orange (Mr. MApIsoN,) for whose
opinion he need not say that he entertained very
profound respect. which he thong ut would
satisfy him that /, was morally impossible sucha state
Of things could occur, in which there should be no Ju.
dcis duties which could with proprety, be assigned
Judge thrown ont Of employment, by In niificaiion
or abolition oil one Of the cours Supporting such Judge
to belong 10 the Court Of Appeals the Inferior Courts
between that court anil the County Courts, pos
sbe such state OF things could arise In which there
would BE- no duties properly assignable TO either. LIST
Take the Court OF Appeals When could the case &C.
ssr when there should lie no Court OF Aplea! Would
the original courts ever be made final as ell orig
nal! Would any man le ave that discretionary with
any body Whatever! Would any gentle man say IN, re
should be no Court Of Appeals! That there should be
as many expositions Of law there were lnier:o-
Conrt'! There upwards c 100 Inferior Court. in
Virginis:weuld any say there ought to be
and odd constructions OF law in the Conmsnweal N,
Ho satisied there was none who would saw so
There mutb. then Court of Appeal. And If so,
could The time ever come <hen there would he ia.
dicial business for the Court Of Appeal, Modify that
court as they pleased, there must be appellate duties to
perform.
Then as TO the Inferior Courts he prayed gentleman
to consider what he had attempted over and over to inn
press upon their attention, that the question would NJ
longer occur TO wEo hal been COMM sion ed
as the Judge Of particular shod III. resolution
De agreed TO a. IL now stood, Ju lges cold be
stoned as Judges ct the Inferior Courts Of the Common
wealth, and their commission would extend to every
court between the Court Of Appeals and the County
Courts; courts which exercised among them all the
criminal jurisdiction OF The country and all of the civil
TOO, VIII CHI d! no. come before the county courts Coule
this business cease! Could the time ever arrivd
wh'n there would he no such duty TO perform? No
gentleman could look at the dockets Of these courts
aud possibly think that there could occur such
State OF things was provided for by the last amend
ment. That amendment stated an impossible cas- "a
case where there should be controversies between
man AMI man. and no crimes committed against Socie.
ty. II stated case that could happen: and would
the Convention the real hazard of putting al
most every Judge in the Commonwealth in the power
oil the Legislature; the sake of providing Tor an i'm
III
sib'e that such could arise, would be more
wise to pay judges salary for short Tine than TO
leave II at mere pleasure of the Legislature, say
whether Judge should retain his tfice or not. But
The case was impossible: and therefore he saw no rea.
ton TOR adopting either of The amendments
The debate was further continued on the one side by
Mr. Tazewe and on the other by Mr.. Stanard: the
former insisting that the supposed in the amend
nent, might frequently and if il should happen
that number OF Judges thrown out of Office by
new modelling of the Judicial SYSTEM either the amend
ment must be adopted, they would become band of
civi pensioners As 10 the danger of the Legislature
aboising Court 10 get rid of Judge il was balanced
by the danger of their setting up Court to give pension
1t the Court that had, in bad faith been destroyed was
to be up the next day. the Court which had i'm bad
iah been set up, might be abolished the next day and
then the Judge would draw his salary for nothing
He denied that Judges would be commissioned gencr-
ally, Judges of the Inferior Courts; as those
courts were organized the Judges would he commits
stoned as Judges OF one specific Court, respectively
Mr. SrANARD' compared the objection stated, and
considered the danger remote and visionary The
other not So Tor the case had actually and recently oc-
Cured in Kentucky. Such danger was utterly sub
versve OF the independence of the Judiciary In COMPARE
son TO this, the payment of few surplus salaries could
1t ever happen, would be but dust in the balance
should even such an extreme occur as parizans
being provided for in the last hours Of party power by
putting them into the Judicial office " thew were unfit
and ncompeens they could be turned out under the 9Th
Resolution by three-fourths oil the Legislature This
was complete remedy for the evils side while
Tor those on the other there whatever.
Mr.. SrANARD then read the following as an amend
ment he should offer when the amendment should have
been disposed OF, viZo strike the word sbu"
IN Mr. Cabcls amendment, and add these words But
when Court shall! be abolished and new Court sub
situted in its place. and the duties which had been as
signed the abolished Court shall he transferred to other
Courts, without providing other Judges than those be-
longing TO such other Courts, the offices of the Judges
Of such abolished Courts, may be abolished with the
courts oil which they were Judges: And when Court
shall be changed modified, and now or different du-
ties assigned 10 the Judges of such Courts the com
missions OF such Judges may in the discretion of the
Legislature, be changed TO adapt to the change or mod
hcation of the Courts"
Mr. s. did not consider il as indispensaby necessary
but was willing it should be inserted by way of explana
ton, TO remove all difficulty the latter clause of the
LIST Resolution.
Mr.. SCOTT thought the anne nlment would fail of is
oJec-as Legislature de termned in iis purpose might
early evade II by ransern the duty of the obnoxious
Judge to another existing Court: AMI afterwards at a
subsequent session organizing and re trans.
ierring the duties to new Judge.
The question being now put on Mr.. Madson's amend
ment, il was not agreed TO.
The question then recurring OIL the amendment of Mr.
Cabe.
Mr.. SrANARD offered the anne ndment he had read
[See above.1 4
This amendment gave rise TO a long and animated de
bate, IN which the merits of the original anendneu
were occasionally mixed In The discussion.
MIR. TAZEwELL opposed the amendIn mt az being a.
gdinst other parts Of the Constitution which provided
for the appointment Of Judges To make man Judge
OF particular Court by changing tn form Of his Com
Uiiulion prescribed for his becoming Judge of tina
Court. lIe coUli Not conceive how Judge ss such
could survive the Court 81
Mr.. SrANARD insisted that names did not alter
hiOgs-and II the game Duty substantially, was per-
formed, itmatered not what the Of the Court