Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-01-02
VIRGINIA CONVENTION.
THU.sDAY, Dec. 10.

Mr.. Marshall offered as an amendment to the
Report of the judicial Committee the following, Ia
wit: But the whole number lot Justices recommea
ded at any one time shall be commissioned, re-
jected."
Mr.. MAcRAE moved rs a substitute the following:
PrOcded, hotceUer that If any person be recon-
mended TO fill any such vacancy, appoint
ment, shall be disapproved by he governor, such
person shall not be again recommended to fill the
same vacancy, or new appointment"
He SAID it with great ditfdence that he ven u
red upon any question, and more especially, upon
relating to judicial system, to differ from the
venerable gentleman from Richmond; but great and
virtuous men in this body had differed upon almost
every proposition presented for our considerations and
each individual (though humble as he himself was)
must rely upon his own judgment, and could find no
guide in authority. He disposed rather TO en-
arge than fetter the veto OF the Executive upon the
communication Of the county courts for appoint
n .nts to the Magistracy. The present mode had
been regarded by many anti republican in theory.
aud IT Some instances, It had been mischievous in
ND he 6 a be 4ssed kcV to be o5
equate to It's end. In matters of Government he
did not profess TO be much Influenced by mere theory.
he should seek the discovery of the principles that
would work well; and he would apply as well as de-
duce them i'll reference to their practical conseouen
ces He feared that the various schemes of appoint
ment offered IN place Of that provided by the existing
constitution. would induce evil than thcv would
remedy The present mode, he believed, had, in
general, filled the magistracy with the best men in
every county, and had, at least, produced as good
men as would probably have been selected IN anv
other mode 1t had, therefore, IN The main answered
its purpose; and he disposed to retain it, but he
would subject 1t to such modification would in his
Judgment correct its irregular action. The county
had been called self-elective mapistracv bt
they were not: they were selfnominating BODY
and the Executive made the appointments, and exer-
cised negative upon the Recommendation of the
courts lie referred to the opinion expressed by
Mr.. Jefferson; aud he believed instances bad occur
sed of favouritesm from family influence and party
feelings. If family faction should attetIlpt to
liz
county, in what could it be frustrated but by
the due exercise of the veto of the Executive? And
hIw could that veto be made effectual IT, after the
rejection OF commentator by the Executive, the
court could renew it? 1t had been said that the
Executive might be mised, and be DISPOSED TO recal
Its dsopproval: but this objection might be obvatcd
by providing that the rejected nomination mipbt be
renewed with the assent of the Executive II had
been said, too, that the amendment would operate
total disqualification of the persons recommended
and rejected: but this a mistake; it only prevcn-
tea renewal OF the same nomination fill the same
ancy and a perpetual between tile Exec.
utve aud the court. The gentleman from Richmopd
iIad insisted that the Executive not as competent
make due selection of Justices as the courts of
counties where they rcside but he answered that
z Executive must be presumed to be rs comne ont
xcrcse It's veto, as The were to prefer their
nlnations: each acted in a mode and upon infDr-
IatlOn appropriate to the particular functions dele
gated to them The Executive competent or it
not " competent, IL ought to have power IN
make its veto cectual the end for which II was
given; and, If not, the veto should be taken away
from 1t, and the recommendations of the courts should
be without control. He did pretend that his
amendment would be ehectual in all cases, but no
believed 1t would have sautary tendency to prevent
or check the evils 1t was designed to remedy
Mr.. MARSHALL opposed the amendment as noinp
30 dlsquaify forever, man, against whom any obec.
ton was once made.
The Governor might send back recommendation
simply because 1t contained too many persons: vet .
according to Mr.. MAcRAg's proposition, they were
nil to be disqualified, and among them perhaps the
httest man IA the county.
MIR. MAcRAE said in reply, that the extent Of his
amendment has been msunderstood it ONLY referred
10 the same Utcdncy Tor which the individual had
been recommended, and rot TO any other. He men
toned the dissatisfaction among the PEOPLE. m rcs
ct 10 these courts and the desirabeness ri rerao
wing u. hs to the objection, far az it did applv
could be obyatcd by slight alteration of the res,Iu
on. lie thought the measure calculated To- lend IN
different practice in the county courts and prevon,
the present Sce-sdW between them and the Executive
The question being taken on Mr. MAcRAr's
amendment, II was rejected.
Being taken OH that Of Mr.. MARSHALL, it was
also rye,ied
(Hr MADis1N and Mr. MARSHALL ave
Mr. MAcRAg now offered another Amendment
refer ing, for his justification, to the earnest in.
tercst OF portion Of is constituents in this natter
1t was a. loilows