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

served upon him or them purportinp Tn nroo.cJ rom
e o"e' Justice or any associate Justice of the SUI
prcne Court OF the United States for the purpose of
this State. WV N'''"' '"' "
And be 1t tm,her resolved. That his Excellcncy
tue governor De, and he Is berebiy and re-
CURED, with ali the force and means pac,d Mt his
command by the constitution and laws of this State
to resist and rcpel any and every invasion from whate
,er qusr.er, upon the adminisra ion of the criminal
laws of this State. 49, ~
Resolved, That the State of Georsi.will never SO
Tar compromh her sovereignty, ms an independent
State. as to become party to the case sough, IN n.
made before the Supreme Court of the United State
! by the writ IN question.
! Resolved, That his ExcclIeucv the Covcr,,r h
an, he - hereby. authorized. to communicate IN TN
sheriff of Hall county, by express, SO much of the
foregoing resolutions and such orders as are necessa
To ensure the full eNecutio of laws in the case of
george Fasseis, convicted of murder in Hall county
J. Pnn PArRrcK CASE We promised a sketch of
ithr debate IN thc House OF Delegates on Tbursday
on ths contested election from Pstrck-but events
" information so much interesting to The nep
erai reader, have claimed our attrut on snc. ihn,
promise was made, that wo find it impossible e. com
ply with It, literally. We must therefore Redeem II
by an outline of III" case, and the argument and Nv
publishing Mr.. Stuar,s speech only at LARGE. rs ne
wa> personally interested.
a. one ar more OF the precincts in Patrick, there
was no ucputy-sherHi as the law requires, and the
commissioners wer" not sworn. In consequence of
tins non compliance with the law the sheriff sci aside
the polls of rho precincts thus situated and of the
/ n
turned HIM. Istcsd of NJ. Isaac Adams who had
c"nsiGe rabe majority of the whole vote of the conn
n.y. Mr. Ad ms contested the seat, when the Com
mit'er TO whom his memorial was relcrred deciding
hat tue irregularities of the election did not y-t
1t, and as he had acknowledged majority of ,,ood
votes, reported him entitled to the scat.
On Thursday last the Report was taken I'D when
Mr. RiUes of Prince George Offered n substitute
substantially Declaring tho election IN Patrick yod
on the grounds o. the numerous irrcuularl'les md
proposing to SGT u aside, and Cause rcw wr,. of
election to issue NJ read from the law passed
n the of 27-98 to show tina, was roc,;-
cd 20 have n deputy sheriff u, the Prcc,ncts-thot
the superin'cnd"nts were to b. s~orn-whch formal
tiles being totally dsregardcd. he election ounbt IN
DC v'ated. Mr. Z addressed a bret argument 20
the House TO show that IN contemplation of law ,
sworn officer was in all necessary 10 conduct nm
election lie sdverted to foreign anthoritIes-.bo,
o. Jmds' Hcn among thcm-whicA he unders ood
w"te To be inrnduc d against his views OF tho case
lie was no lawyer, and looked only at the statute OF
Virginia
debate ensured, which turned nearly exclusively
on IN" POM, whether the failure of the officers CON
quoting me election to take The oath required by law
amountrd to such an rregularty as vtatcd tho
election ~
The affirmative Of the proposition was contended
Tor by Messrs Leigh, Marshall and Rlves of Prime.
GeorSc-thc negative by ~. BrndnaS Vh,, won
tiemsn admitted th,t the sheriff had done v,ropS, m
returning the candidate having the fewer vo,es-ibnt
was point now universally conceded. Bu, II WINS
noi contens"d that that Of itself, vtated tho election
!, pI
was whe her the people of W gina were to be dis
because Ministerial officers had failed to
comply with TIE directions of tho la W. The rrcou
hity OF sheTe being do depu at of The precincts
was immaieria! -bocause the commissioners could
carry on the election without him-'he only on-sion
was, whether the failure 10 swear the commissioners
was such damnlng sin to render tho election !
VoId' Pheir qualification Gen. Brudnax ARMED was
mere directory provision of the law-It also dirsc
ted the poll books to be kept IN parallel nes--,ie
sheriff to make three northumberland many other
things OF minor Importance, violated at every sl-c-
ton. Eas the fanre to observe these directions IN
vitlate an election' Trey We're directions onv-ln-
dlcn OF dulesthe neglect of which was punisb. ble
IN the officer but which could not operate injury IN
the innocent If an election was TO be set aside On
such grounds, there would be a VA id election
An Irreghlarlty IN one county, precinct of a
county might vriae vote for President of the r.
sStacs Cen u took occasion 10 pass n severe phi
hpp'c upon the system Of precInc, olcctions-amd
rc'errou 10 Chancellor Kcnts opinion r. Johnson's
Reports, people of y York against Bush and other
as authority TO show, that ohiccrs acting vihnr,
oath DID not make void the done, though il sub
Jected them 10 punishment. The case r.CarroI 70 |
gas exactly in point-Bush and others road conuni.
sonsrs, had entered their duties O,,,hout The
oath required by aw-but Storrs * nt concurrnal
decided that they were commissioners de G,co-tb5t
they acted by colour OF auhorty--and that tho nc,
%nsvnlId. though The commissioners were punishable
he whole current Of authority was To IN. same Of !
feet Mr.. d. supposed the case of sheriff ocfino
without tho oaths-his 1cts were valid though he
fhal
bench without taking the oath Of Office. would !,
DC preiendod that writ of error would lie for That
The reason was TO be found in the convenience ofl
society, whose foundations would be tinnnd lin If
contrary course wer" followed. In this case. the
people OF Patrick had clearly expressed their voice
and tho benefit and will OF the electoral bodv ouch,
not TO he Sisresnrdod for informalities
on the other sde,it was replied by Mcssrs Leigh
hnrshnIl and Rlves-ihat it wastruc it was prnci
pie 81 law that the acts Of Sheriff. nr a judge dc
t"Ct2 were valid IN law. but. The principle applied
only to officers whoSe duty did not consist in ore ac
winch when performed, their fuuc'iors ceosod-
whose duties were continuing, Thus judge or tho
General Court, would incur punishment far dcciJ
ING case without taking the oath of o0icc--ve, Tho
judgment would be valid, because bia du,ies ,,oo
continuing. But suppose Juror in n question Of mr.
perry between and moi tn tnlr tho oath and H..
were TO appear on the record Does not ovetv Inyn
Know that the judgment founded on the verdict would
be reversed! Or, suppose wi'noss not IN be sworn
and that appeared on the record Is moi tina, obiec
ten sufficient 10 reverse the ipdrmcntp Mr. Ls,gb
sad he took the distinction 10 be this Where tho c
nee was permancnt--hc duties continuing scries of
oc,s-'hsn the act done was valid. though without
oath: Where II ed of mo ei,,,I, 81.