Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1831-01-10

+, equit'hly on this subject wlhou, the aid of the
MT mormlis- where WAS the necessity of gran
ing hIn The privilege lie denled that he had
any right 10 ask it. lie thong hit the House had
business enough before II , aud that the memo
''ahsi had Geen sufficiently heard before the
Committee
} mr' Morris observed TINT he had been mis-
uhuefstood tie did not contend that the me.
notialisi had a right 10 the privilege asked But
the subject WIS OF great importance il was
constitutional qnestion-And il was n courtesy
due to the humblest individual. lie had heard
III me bar ni the House, many subjects Discus
seq oil great moment, by individuals who had
no positive right to adduss The House. The
gentleman who asked the permission consider
eh his interest, and that of bi, fellow Citizens
| involved m this queslion-and Oh that ground
ne (hr NJ supported the request. II was not
probable that such requests would occur so tfe-
qnehtiy as 10 d" any injury.
Mr. Leigh hoped the House would gran, the
leave asked to hear the gentleman. rhe aues.
non was one OF general importance, but Il pc
cn''afly interested the people OF the county Of
henrico. They were deeply Interested la hav-
! ing this question decided, decided forever, No
man ought TO be denied the privilege of being
heard by the House ON IN important subie I
/ pfesents4 by him iJr It's consideration Thr
request appealed AT once to the principle oi
| the lrave woull b. granted
MIR elmer said he should yo'e against the
motion. The question wa, whether tue .ne-
| nofiast had applied - the House TOR u public
| object, or from private interest. Itlhe former
was die case, tire House was surely compctrn,
to decide upon the question, and they could do
Il w'thoat the aid OF tae menoralst. IL was
SAID thai II WAS a constitutional question. II
So the House was surely COMPETENT 10 i,s dis
H. n Al
private grievance, the party bad NOTHING To do
but present his petition 10 The House and abide
| the resn T. II the pfncipie were established that
every petitioner on a subject of pubic interest
| should DO heard al the bar, would not every
petitioner clam the right How easy would il
he IN every cue. for petitioner 10 involve
some public q te siion III his petition and then
claim 10 he heard at the B r. uf,he House He
was decidedly against the motion al a bad pre-.
cedeni, which would be referred 10 as au,hori.
~ Tor cou'umlng the time of the Legislature
on future OCCASIONS, on subjects in winch the
petitioner had no right to be heard
Mr. Brodnax would make but a siugle re
mark. tie had NOT supposed thar the Hous.
would refuse the request of the memorialist =
! THIS case. The rules OF comfy seemed 90 re
pei such n supposIt,on. An individual asked
10 be heard al the bar of the House aad il Ger
tainly was no new request, Tor petitioners hae
often had that privilege. lie thought one view
OF the subject would show that the com,nitte,
might not represent that Individuals vpiuion
and sentiments. SuppOsing the views of iii,
memoriallt shOnli have been found bv III,
c"mn'ttre. III their opinion. un enable. aud sun
pose the House 10 accord with the decision %
the committee; would the people OF lienric,
be MS we'll satiSii d with tho decision n, the,
would II hose views had been urged ON he 1oo
OF The House, and ev.ry facility thus grantee
the memorial,st, TO support Me 30 ,,t,ou talk. ,
Ia his memorial Let us not, when HE oues
ton concerns member OF this House SO high
ly valued. do any thing 10 throw II doubt upot
the motives Of the House IN retaining hn In.
committee might n OF be he proper Tepre.puts
tves of the sentiments OF the memoriaIst In,
Chairman was boInd to present tho views o
the committee and suppose the committee Il
have len unanimously against the petitloner
how cou d his Size OF the question be preseu,e,
fairly TO thu House lay tue Committee? For hi
own part, he WAS opposed to the views of th
petitioner bat he thought that justice and couI
tesy required that the pen MISSION now aske
should be granted.
MIR. Morris said that the report Of the com
miee was not, probably, such as The genilema,
hom SUSSEX supposed II consisted of
mere statement that tlT, 81 ting member was
resident IN Itchnoul, and "A lraeholder in tn
county of HrnrIco' Tue committee had sup
posed that the question would be discusse,
| before the House, and therefore, had no
stated the grounds aad arguments on whcl
| the eligibility Of The member was contested
MIR. Eppes said he had no obJecio to hear
ing any individual who was the represenisl,,,
OF the people, and lie would say that, il an,
man had the power 10 operate on his mind
WAS the gentleman from Henrico. lie was WI
ling TO hear him but he could not admit III,
claim OF the memprlalist 10 be heard at the bsl
Of The House.
The motion Of Mr.. Morris was agreed to-
4 CuLPEpER ELECTION.
The report OF the COMMITTEE of Privilege
and = ect,ons on the petition of Josepf
| Gibson. against the election of joseph S
liansbroush, was taken up on motion OF Mr.
Morris.
i M. Goode moved a resolution to allow III,
par les farther time to obtain evidence and I,
refer back the memorial OF John 5. Pendlrlor
10 the committee, with orders to examine thu
facts contained in il.
On this question debate of grea, engh tool
place, in which Messrs. Eppes, Goode, Morrl4
| Gibson, (the conieslng csndidate) Hdnsbroneh
Preston, and Moo. {, took parI when on motor
OF Mr.. Gilner,
Tue House adjourned.