Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-04-01
FoR rAE VINO.

Il.
addressed to you few remarks on the improperly
anu ncxp.dicncy, well as the eynity of selecf-
ing yonr representatives in tile State Legislature
from the body of the town.
should not lave asked yolr attention 10 this SUBJ
jet again, ) effort having been made to rebut the
views there presentcd) but for the understanding
from one OF the city candidates that he vonld i'm ui
tune address the people personally the subject
Having no prediction for public speaking and there
fore not meaning to place Inyselfin situation that
won'd al once be embarrassing and unplea SAINT, Lima
gine 20 any individual u. private and retired life
have 'holgit might not he ami TO present him
with lew other views OF that subject, HAT when he
does commence the task, he may go through with IT,
ana answer all the ole tons thai urged at once
or ~ use lis words. ':' the bn by the horns
have said IN former address that il was inexpedi-
ct IN the FIRST place. and secondly that il was rainst
The stict letter and spirit OF the constitution that
resident oitl.c city of Richmond should represent the
county of ienrico- that instrument reoi,irlnr i'm so
many words that representative shall be an actual
res,deh' OF me place which ne represents; and as
unoertanc the question, turns entirely upon this
point, 10 witt whether the city of Richmond is or is
not III the county of Henf,.u. | say il is not and
nave attempted already prove it in a former add
uress' ana Know many have been satisfied on the
SUBJECT Who entertained no doubts before beca ,Ise
they have, since their attentions have been called tn
the subject, investigated 1t for themselves; this am
authorized by many 10 say I'm addition to the views
heretofore presented on this sihcct, let me ask you
what means the corporation line between the CITY and
the county, Is Ii not a line of deularcatinn which
cnts of and detaches the town from the county, Is
IL nor me OF DIVISION as much other line
whch divides one county from another? Has this
CITY not It's own courts and jurisdiction own Off
GERS, Its own TAXATION and its own rcpresent atom
suppose this Same line now called corporation line
had been drawn by authority of the Legislature a.t
the same spot OF land now called the city OF Rich
lnond i1d been called the county oil Jacksop~ and
invested with the privileges that were conferred
on the town, of separate tayation representation
&c would any man living in the county of Jackson
then have CLAIMED to have been resident OF Henri
co: Assurndly not; anarran lis having been called
town after it s.thus cut of and invested with these
privileges, alter the matter in the leaSts
IL has been urged as reason why the town should
be considered inthe county, that the Courthouse Is
situated In the town? To answer this will recnr II,
a view taken above, and suppose again this same
piece of land or county OF Jackson % have been ci,
oil from thc' county of HCnrico and its limits
should embrace as 1t did, the Courthouse OF
HenricO. and for the convenience of both nort;os
as is the here, by general consent was allowed
TO REMAIN; then yon would have argued that the
county of Jackson. was in the county of Henrico be-
cause the lIenrico courthouse had not been removed
The Reasoning to my mind, is precisely the same
IT has also been said that the sheriff of Henrco
collected the Stie taxes County taxes they don't nav
for let that be asked and they'll tell you they are
ldents of Richmond, and not of Henricol from the
people Of the town. Admit it, and miuht not tho / O.
gisature have authorised the sheriff of Hanover if II
had been as convenient, the sheriff of Chesterfield
with the same. proprIety. TO have collected them or
might theynot nave authorized the sergeant to have
done IT! Aud itthey were to authorize the serpeant
at their next session, to collect the State tax mud
the people of the county, chose 10 remove thoir
court house hplf a mile out of town, tsrse two
simple acts, would remove every inch OF ground
which these gent, men think so terrible from unfIer
them, and their Whole argument would tumble to
pieces; for then, these reasons would fail why the
town should be nslered in the county; EXCEPT in
deed, another Of their arguments which had almost
forgotten, which Is, that the county has jurisdiction
nVp .hpf h,tfh
over the county? No Then lift proves ary thine.
It is the reverse OF their propositions it would prove
that tho county could represent the o,on but the tow
could MT represent the county, nasmuch as that fan
otcer OF the county may act officially in the town SO
may citizen of the county act for the town; but
as an officer of the town cannot act in the county
therefore, citizen of tne town. cannot act in the
county. so much for jurisdiction, which by the bye
proves nothing at all either way.
Or TO have given more brief answer 10 all their
reasons, might have said That if there is constitu
tiora obi ctiun there is TO any mans reproseninr
place OF Which lac is not actual resident that no
legislative enactment remove that objection:
aud III was intended, that man should have the
privilege ofrepresen,ing two interests or two places
without change of residence, tlIen say that the
objection Is as lasting the constitution itself and
cannot bc removed.
10 illustrate this fact lot us supnose that Mr.
IL own thousand acres of land, on the dividing Inc
between GcOchand and HcuricO, and that the line
runs through T. c land. to cut off nine hundred
acres IN Henrlco, and ono hundred in Goochlnnd his
residence being tho one hundred acres or in the
county of Gooctland he may represent the county of
GoOchland, but canpOi represent The county OF Hen
r'co although his interest IN that county, is nine
times as great rs IN the other; which take to be
stronger case, thnna man owning one hundred aces
IN the county Of Henrico and o house and lot in
Richmond, and allowing him the privilege 10 roprc-
sent The town to-day, aud the c, unity Tomorrow.
" has been eXultingly aeked, fla gentlena m owning
twenty five acres of land in tho corporation ofRjch
mt Yaofr -,
1t certainly must be- clear that Inc could not How
cou he be required TO hold twenty hyo acres orlaud
~ the town 10 VOC ~ the county while tho iuhnbi-
tans OF char,otesvIlie Cartersvile, Fredercksburr
archc tor, W chburg, and all these little towns arc
lowcdo vote in their respective countless on town
freehold Docs not this prove that the, town was
consi Tered % be cut off to ITSELF aud detached from the
county Fer ifhe could then vote on the twontyfvo n
cres, wht reorc can he notnow vote on the ame free
hold. which 1t held IN Manchester, (wherc there is no
d' tnct repr nta,ion &c. SCI would entite him 70
vote IN Chestor6clR Obviously for the reason that
is not in The county, otherwise he would have an in