Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-01-05

same vacancy, or appointments.
ne $40 1t was with great diidence that he ven u,
req upon say question, and more especially upnn
one relating to judicial SYSTEM to differ from the
venerable gentleman from Richmond; but great and
Virtuous men In ths body mad differed upon almost
every proposition presented for our and
each individual (though humble as he himself wnsl
must rely upon his own judgment, and could find no.
guide In authority. He was disposed rather to en-
Large, than feter the veto of the Executive upon the
Recommendation of the county Courts for appoint
ments to the BIagistracy. The present mode bud
been regarded by many anti-republican in theory
and, N some instances, it had been miscellaneous III
practice: and he was disposed to apply constitutions
al corrective, II one could be devised likely to be adj
equate to its end, In matters of Government he
DID not profess to be much influenced by mere theory
ne should seek the discovery of the principles that
would work WE'LL and he would apply az wen as do
duce them III reference to their practical chnseoucn
ces. lie feared that the various schemes of appoint
ment offered In place OF that provided by the existing
constitution would induce evil than thew would
remedy The present mode, he believed; had in
general hlec the magistracy with the best men i'm
every county; and had, at least, produced as rood
men as would probably have been selected in anv
other mode 1t had, therefore, in the main answered
its purposes and he disposed retain it; but lie
wou subject 1t to such modification as would in hs
Judgment correct its irregular action. The county
courts had been called sefelec: i've ma pis rac,. hnt
they Were not: they were self.nominatinp body
ana the Executive made the appointments and oyer
cised negative upon the Recommendation of ill.,
courts. He referred to the opinion expresscd hv
Mr. Jefferson; and he believed instances had occur
4 feelings. If family faction should aten,pt ~
perpetuae, or strength hen itself OH the bench of >;
county, III what manner could il be frustrated but bv
the due exercise of the of the Execu,ivep Am,
how could that veto be made efTectual if MFR Tho
rejection of commentator by the Executive. the
:, court could renew it, 1t had been said that the
Executive might be misied and be disposed TO recall
Its disapprova but this objection might he obvint.d
by providing that the rejected nomination micht h.
renewed with the assent of the Executive II had
oeen SAID TOO tnat the amendment would operate
ION Mt 4 ba
and rejected but this was mistake; il ONLY nreven
tea renewal OF the same nomination to fill the sam,
vac ancy, and perpetual see saw between the Exec
utlve and the court The gentleman from Richmond
had insisted that the Executive was not as
to make due selection of Justices, as the courts of
the counties where they resdc but he answered thar
tie Executive must be presumed to be as con,,,eou,
10 exercise It's veto, as he courts prefer their
nominations: each acted in mode and nnon inf;,r
haton' appropriate to the particular functions dele.
gated to them The Executive was competent mr. :.
was not: II competent, 1t ought to have power Ia
make It's veto eiiectua 10 the end for which II Nns
gwen; and IT not, the veto should be taken away
rom IT, ana the recommendations of the should
be without control. He did not pretend That hi,
amendment would be effectual in all cases; bu, he
neIeVed would have salutary tendency to prevent
or CHECK 4, the evils 1t was designed to remedy.
| MT. MARSHALL opposed the amendments as poipp
ton made.
j The Governor might send back recommendation
simply because 1t contained too many persons: vet
according to Mr.. MAcRAEs proposition they were
all to be disqualified and among them. perh;ns he
r fIttest man Ill the county.
Mr.. MAcRAE said in reply thnt The eytort or Iii.
amendment has been misunderstood; it onIv rfrrad
To the same oacancy for which the Individual had
oeeh Iecommended and not to any other. He men,
Toned the dissatisfaction among the People in res
pect to these courts, and the Jesrabieness OF roma,
wing IT. As to the objection far as it did apply #
could be obviated by slight alteration of the resou
ton. lie thought the measure calculated to lead 10
different practice in the county courts and prevent
the present see sac between them and the Executive
Inc question being taken ON MIR. MAcsAt's
l amendment, 1t was rejected.
| Being taken OF that of Mr. M.Rsu.1, :, wos
also rejected 80
/ (Mr MADISON aud Mr.. MARSHALL aye)
Mr MAcRAE now offered another amendment,
referring, for his justification, to the earnest in
terest of portion of his constituents in this matter
1t was as follows
Justices of the Peace shall be commissioned dn
ring good behaviour. but may be removed in the
manner which shall be prescribed by law for m;shc
naVlour IN office, crime, neglec; of duty removal
from The respective counties, insolvency 80
lie said that as to the first provision all must aaree ,he
fountains of justice ought polluted by crime II had
peen sa indeed that this had been provided for by law
ne thought would tie found upon examinations that tie
Justices Of tho Peace only for ubehayiomr
once ann MOI lor offences unconneced with public
not give fair decision questions property Was crn
cerned he would that did not nav his own
debts was IN all cases, AN n roper depository OF the power
OF competing other people to pay theirs bat would say
to him without reason, condition was es,rme
y unavorabe 10 the impartial and firm administrator of JUS
was one very peculiar III It's constitution; and iourd
necessary 10 enforce the performance OF mulrarious G,nc
tons, by sutectng its administrators pecuuiary resr,
biy IN many important Depvaiion ofiis Office was
no punishment Tor If was Office OF and exncne n,
the incumbent and was without enoiu,ent and hem. ,;r
law has considered II necessary enforce regular Albums.
aion, by the imposition Of ncsa securifv aud an orr
ant one too which totally fails in solve,s
are required 10 aid IN important executive fnctons: and
they are Guiy oi neglect, they subject TO cen;arv mn
aites ihey are entrusted with lbe administration O.,
disposition OF imroran, funds both public aud irvae il,
eslect 10 WHICH, The hest pledge Of their fidelity and thai r.
ea on ny law Is their pscuniary responsibility They are re-
e lake adequate security from Executors and ,dEer g.
duciaTies oi estate and, IL they fail So ,cv are r,;
liable out OF their own property What will this sa ie II
ava, u ,e bencn ps occupied by 1soveu Justicr as -
sometimes The case:-And may This defect of resnr,
,ga , 10 III. Ubiquitous TO dgfaui Orphans, Nchr
pi 'nIs soI nave hapPened and aiozir haipiv ev 80
been lew IN number owing the general re,eciab,I, '
responsibility Of the County Court Magistrates hem ,
te1 10 nave prevented even those few The conrv con-,
invested with sort OF Legislative character; and r. ia, arc
ac,er 'hey impose, and appropriate the c5tir,y axe III
l1ru Ii hnrI. Z.