Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-12-24

ting TO try question oflawand this much a ques-
should understand what the law was and that its decisions
should take the of oil judicial procc cdngs-He
asked then whether this House had ever decided this
question! lift had the House the supreme tribunal
from which there was no appeal il bound adhere
to Its decisions IL Courts Of Justice bound By
precedent; if heE decisions nviolabe, II would
be impossible 10 calculate the sequences. Were
Courts of Law vary their decisions what security
would there be in holding property under them! How
then as to the decision OF this House? You have
said that certain persons eligible elected a Dele
gates and that certain persons qualified The
officers OF counties under the law, have been guided by
your decisions and il you governed by your for
acts, when is this question to be settled The pco-
pie, i'm that case, would be left without Landmark
seemed them to be clear that fths question had been
settled by the House, that decision ought 10 be final
II not would forever remain open dispute. That the
practice oil selecting members OF the House of
for the county of Hcnrico from the CITY of Richmond
was countcnanccd by the Constitution was evident
from various facts This House had session
the right oil the county so odoand in that House there
were fourteen or fifteen individuals who had been mem
bers OF the Convention by which the Constitution, was
framed By that House il was decided that Mr. Leigh
entitled to his seat Ifthen in the case of am ndiv-
dual of high and splendid talents the House had
to him the right 10 sit of members il could NOT
consistently refuse that right TO the who
now addressed them. But the question was of higher i'm,
port than the rights of an individual II was whether te
people OF Richmond should be deprived of right which
they had enjoyed since l7i2 down this time, and which
aho often disputed, had always been sustained Ii was
question which by some precedent ought be settled
tho there many other having towns situated
in them similarly TO Richmond in the county enrco the
question IN relation 10 similar elections in those had
never been stirred The practise had been frequent
in the county OF Norfolk and in the city of Williamsburg
situated in the counties OF James City and York-Yet
these several elections i'm the city of Richmond for the
county of Hcnrco had been contested and i'm each il had
been decided that the county had right to select lis
member from the city. Mr. w here cnumeratcJ 49,
cases. and read from the report of the Com Of Privileges
and Elections, in that of Chamberayne and McCrea i'm
in which it stated that the county Court of Hen
rico being in the city, the Justices sheriff other Of
ccrs residing there, and the fact that members
had been elected from the city, with other equally cogcn
arguments led to the decision that the member elected
was elgibeand this decision sustained i'm the House
by vote OF 80 to 3d. At the last session. Mr. Chamber
berayne made similar application, of the result of
which the House well aware. II was carried
against the memoriais and Mr. LEIGH held his seat Mr.
W. understood that that decision OH the grounds
that the city of Richmond component part of the
county of Henrico; and that the county had right TO
ect an individual from the city in he held property in
the county He would here correct which he un-
derstood prevailed among Of the members was
that free holders in re city of Richmond claimed to vote
in the county elections their city property II was not
So That right confined TO those who owned property
in the county The city of Richmond was entitled TO one
delegate and it was designed when that delegate was
given to the city which possessed large commercial
erest that that interest should thus be represented i'm the
Legislature But the member of the county not cho-
sen to represent that interest. He represent the
farming INTEREST," and well known that many of the
farmers who held lands in the vicinity resided i'm the CITY,
although they had interest its commercial affairs He
represented the county of Henrco and had no connexon
with the representation OF the city He had ed out
9S votes 142 that had interest the city whatsoever
IL was therefore, the people of Henrco who him
IL
zens OF Richmond beyond dispute and that the CITY
considered in all Legislative enacments as an int
portion oil the County was susceptible of demonstration by
reference to the statutes in which il MENTIONED Mr..
W. here read various statutes relating the city, i'm which
i was styled the town of Richmond, in the county of
fenrco; and also the act by which separate delegate
was given TO the city of Richmond, in which, Mr.. w
called particular attention the proviso 'that no town
freebooter should be allowed vote on such freehold for
the member of any couny."-The restriction here i'm
posed that individuals should not vote in a county
election upon town Freehold fRchmond had ceased
haya
oil this restriction! In that the very act OF
would have rendered such restriction unne cessary.
But as the Legislature knew that Richmond still remained
component part OF the County, this restriction was
requisite There existed proviso in acts bv which
counties were separated needed But in giving
the right OF eiectng separate delegate, the Legislature
said, we give you town election represent your COM
merciai Interest," and as an equivalent you shall refrain
rom Vo'ing on your town property in the county He
always understood that where a grant was made under
certain restrictions, the contract supposed be gene
rail- excepting with regard those speced Restrictions
lie believed the meaning of the be that an individu
nj should not vote both for member for the CITY and coun
y on the same freehold Under the Colonial Government
the practice had been different. Voters had right in
the Borough OF Norfolk, and in the City of Williamsburg,
to vote for representatives both for the town county on
the same property But the Legislature in 1855 that
no person should IN virtue OF town freehold for the
county candidates. Long after the passage of this law the
.y OF richmond was Tor many purposes portion of the
county and for most of them still remained Several
facts in support Of this statement aduced by Mr.
W.T. thus appeared that in general the city and coun
y were considered Identical and that in all in which
they separated the separation been specially pro-
vldcd for For long PERIOD the City of Richmond exer-
csed no separate jurisdiction at all Even the petty often
ces OF slaves, committed in the City, were tried in the
County court In relation to the powers exercised at this
day by the City authorities, il could not be maintained
that they established the assumed separation: for it would
not be denied that the County Court Henrico must be
situated in the countynor that the Jail must be in the
counyno that the Justices must reside within the coun
ty-for it had been provided that if Justice go beyond
the county limits without the amino repertend no should
lose his office. Whereas the County Courthouse and Jail
were in the City of Richmond-many of the Justices
the Sheriff, &C., resided in the City-and cases were
tried, and process served both within and without the
cy5 by the county officers. And all power was ex
erclsed by the authority of the county court cxcept in
matters in which II had been taken the county bv
special enactmens But it might be said that the county
oil Chesterfield had the right select member from
the town OF Richmond Such an assertion would he all
surd The county of Hcnrico had never received any
special power the city OF Richmond from the ceis-
iaturc All the authority it exercised the CITY was
derived from It's general original, and undisputed power
Inc power existed and daily exercised. The Grand
jury was summoned in the county court under the law
That the sheriff shall summon 81 discreet citizens of the
county Of Hcnrco His practice TO take the m ndis-
cnminatey from the city without its limits; and vet
every case before jury is stated having been decided
by ~ citizens in and for the body the county of enrco
IL was clear that in all these matters the county and CITY
were Identical He might be told, that although this
might have been true under the Old Constitution il
was not true under the new one. And il had been
supposed by that the word "actual inserted in the
latter gave Interpretation to the provision as TO
ehglDihy But II gentlemen would turn their attention
TO the Old Constitution; they would find that IL required
that the individual should be "actual resident in the
election district, in order TO be eligible seat in this