Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-01-09

doing from day TO day. He thought the requiring oil
two-thirds oil all the members constituting the Senate
in order TO conviction cvnced unnec degree OF
caution, and was calculated in practice produce great
Inconvenience: mght often lead to the acquittal of
Juige when he ought TO be condemned Members
might absent themselves avoid voting and thus yc-
~ individuals would have il in their power to screen
an offender They had the precedent of IL of the
constitutions as well IA OF that OF the United States in
favour OF the amendment he had proposed They pursu
ed its very words He asked what evil was likely &c
follow its adopon II any gentleman could point out
single case where Judge had been improperly con
denned for the want of such rule rs he proposed I,
strike out, there might he for retaining il
There had been but three impeachmens, indeed bu
two in the United States, and but Judge had beer
convicted in consequence. He believed nobody hac
lever complained OF injustice in that tance He could
could not say whether there had been mpeachments in
the individual States In England, where the House o.
Commons was prosecutor, and the House of Lords sal
as Judges simple majority of a quorum OF that House
had power to convict. And why should different
practice prevail her!
i The question was now taken and the vote count
ed by the chair, stood-Ayes As Noes IL; bat doubt
being EXPIRE sed as The accuracy Of the counta second
count was ordered; when Mr. Thompson called for the
yeas and nays, and they ordered by the House.
Before they were taken, however,
| MIR. Scorr said that he had been greatly surprised
al Tue vote which had been announced: and less
the argument in favour Of the ame lment. Here, said
Mr. 81 ~ party arraigned be fore Judicial ibunal:
criminal trial: The Senators sit ,rie of the fact,
and as Judges ct the law Now, II a slave, the most
AFFECT in the Commonwealth, is accused OF a capital
crime, he Is brought before Justices and he cannot
DC convicted uniess tnose D Justices
in the sentence. Again, f the humbes individual i'm
the Community Is on his trial for a crime OF any sort,
he cannot he pronounced guilty except his twelve
stitutional triers unanimous in their award Blu,
here you arraign high public officer before the Sc.
nate, and two thirds of bare quorum empowered
to pass upon him the heaviest sentence Of the laws yes
sir say the heaviest sentence of the law: because
character is dearer than ife especially such
stations There is another principle which enters
deeply into criminal ursprudence il IT, that the
existence Of a doubt a mere doubt as to the fact
charged. aCQus the accused. tyett Mt
from Amherst proposed that where there was nesr.
y one third of the Senate not merely in doubt to
the guilt Of the accused but perfectly ais6ed of his
innocence he is not to have the benefit of that doubt
but two thirds Of those pre.ent convict an Off
Ger Of importance under the government, and to
move him f. office. Such doctrine Mr. s. said wa
al war with all his notions on the subject of criminal
Justice.
Mr.: THOMPSON observed in reply, that the gentle
man from Fauquier lad atte mpted to ken the prose
cuton of a Judge before the Senate on an impea
ment TO aermina trial before court Of law. There
was no analogy between the cases. and could be zone
The award pronounced by the Senate was not in the
nature of punhment. II the Judge was charged W i'm
any criminal offence, the Senate was not the tribunal
at which TO try it-he was turned the court.
for trial, and for punishment il he deserved IT,
The charges before the Senate were for acts of DO.
li'ica characer-hey did not touch character cri-
mnal offences and ielonies did. And besides coul
not see, II concurrence OF two-thirds of the Senate
present 10 destroy Judges character by their
vote, how the concurrence OF number greater than
majority, but not quite amounting two-hiris in
ence as to the effect character unworthy of re-
gard. The character of The Judge would be equally
affec' ed-but his office would not:-true-but that was
the very thing 10 which he objected. HE office on vi
to he taken away by the vote which took his character
away In Tree and intelligent country like this NO
man who had come unier the ban of majority of the
representatives Of the people, should continue TO hold
his office; still ie,s Judge-whose Office was of suct
dignity in itself, and such importance 20 the Common.
wealth. The gentleman from Chesterfield had beauti
July and truly said, that the honour pay TO Judge
is part OF his authority: but could the people honor
Judge condemned bya majority Of the Legislature o.
his State, and saved only by wan, of votes
TO make up two-fhrds Of that body? Surely no. The
gentleman had referred to the unanmty required of
jury: but there was no more analogy there. The gen.
ueman was too good blackleer lawyer not to be vel
acquainted with the origin the trial by jury. Was the
unanimity Of twelve required merely as test o
the truth Of the charge! The gentleman knew better
IL was because in early times The Jurors, f thew gave in
false verdict, were liable 10 be atfntsl: in subse
qnent period the requirement retained not be use
wa. necessary to the establishment of the truth Of the
TACT lrged but from spirit OF civil liberty and o
mercy TO the accused 1t never had nor could be re
CURED merely test Of truth. The gentleman wa
aware that jury trial not conducted in the same
manner In all countries In Scotland for instance the
jury consisted of 10 men, and majority was
to convict AZ mere touchstone of truth this was ;
better mode than ours But the spirit of civil libsrt,
had given value to the rights and life Of The citizens
and unanimity IN the jury trial resortpd TO as
'eguard against oppression. MIR. T. concluded b,
'epeaung mar his amendment ran in the very words
employed in The Constitution of The United States
Mr.. GILES said, that he was constrained bv gems,
nj duty to offer remarks This subject; he shoul
gladly he SILENT but could disppnse with the obIiga
tons his duty imposed upon him The gentIea an from
Fauqnier. (Mr Scott had considered Judge
ed before the Senae. criminal on trial. before q
Court. There was the greatest dissnilar,v imapi.
nabe, between the two In the first place the
two bodies were not organized alike The Office of
Jury, was 10 try the facts charged and though thew
renderei general verdict, including both fact and Ia W
YETI the Court alone properly the Judge of the la
II tie principle of unanimy there FORE was re lied on
Il ought to be unanimy among the members of the
Court. But, who heard Of perfect unanimys being
required among the Judges? The only exception wa,
that in the Of the Slave; and that he as
ore OF the highest honors OF Virginia, among the ma
ny honors she had enjoyed. In the trial OF poor alb
ljec slave, the law made the Court the "next fe ad
OF the Slave. TO procure him counsel and then il re
CURED absolute unannity among his Judges But in
that case there was Jury the Court performed the
duty OF both Judge and Jury. Another distinction was
that Judge. before the Senate, tried in his poj
call not in his sonsl cspacity but man. trial be.
fore Court was tried personally in his private charac
ter az man, let him harpen to hold what office he
Commonwealth (for, both the clause and the amend
ment applied 10 others well Judges though this
seemed to be forgotten who holds disting sitna
ton under the State he receives honour, and he re
ceves money for rightly performing the duties of it,
and the question was, whether he should retain In
honour, and continue to receive the money of the pub
c against the will of other than two thirds of the en-
te number Of the Senate, before whom he had been
mpeached? Whether all absent votes were IN he
thrown in his favour. To him IL wa, perfect novel;
and would have been the inpentio,, of This body
all absent votes with without the will of the voters
were TO be thrown iDto the scale Of the accused.
It ~