Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1834-10-24

law Ia requiring tho Magistrates thus 10 convict the pti
sonsr unless he ,hould his Innocence besides being
violate oil tue fundamental principle OF ctlminai ial,
winch supposes the prisoner be until con-
tory appear, IS contrary 10 the Sh the Bill OF
'shs That section secures the accused in all cIn.
mai prosecutions, the right 10 be confronted with his accu
peers single glance at the law will show that this rgh,
sNioteI by ITS provisions The PRISONER is truth;
vie'ed before he aues;ed The degree OF supi.
cion which authorizes the arrest is sufficient Tor the con
viehon. no witnesses 10 sustain the prose culon, are
required 10 be summUned-none TO be examined. The
Whole proceeding as directed BY the law, il anomalous
and should this law lie considered constitutional the very
novel spectacle III Tree Government. uigh be presented
OF eiuzen seized AMI ttoSU into prison upon the sus
pcion' oil two OBSCURE individuals without being lurn-
ca with the charge sksinst bin without responsible
accuscr-witlout The sxsniua,i of single witu,.s
aud "iihout trial by jury. IL was in vain 10 cay ih.
THIS was not likely 10 1t was TO guard gaius
the possibility OF such occurrence that the s, and
ION sections oil the Bill OF Rights were adopted lie
quoted the csae OF the Conuou~ alb ps Horton ".
"a TO show that under simt.r provision oil the gam.
'ns law, The Judges oil the General Court had unAni
'nonIy Determined that the accused bad right 10 As
trial hy jury lie knew that there were cascs in which
ho Magistrates might lawfully commit party to i,il
but they casSsin which tie object of the law
TO prevent, not 10 punish ollsuecs-he procecd,g
niiiatcry, not Goal. There was a distinction between
commitments in execution and commitment Tor safe Gus.
.ouy' he comn!' men, here required, com niner
IN execution; aud in all such he consdered that the
right Of trial by jury shontd be preserved In conclusion
he quoted oe opinion OF Judge Rosnc tho case of Wills
u.s. Jackson, Munt 1853 to show the spirit 10 which that
rntneh lawyer regarded every effort 10 impair This sacre
Sht oil the citizen 10 his personal liberty; aud asked thai
The prisoner might be Discharged rom custody
The Judge decided Tho law under which the prisoner
had oeen committed, to DO unconstitutional, therefore
void, AMI ordered him 10 be discharged.
SUOseqJe oily At the request of the Justices no
couiiDed the prisoner, he communicated ia the follow
Ing note the rcasous lot his decision.
RICHMOND, Sept. 20, 1884
DEAR SIR:-i take pleasure in complying Win YOUR
request that would state in writing he ground, upon
which discharged McEilgott from custody to day.
Inc prisoner Was committed under the 7b section OF the
Act o Assembly, Of the lS day OF January 1919 n Rev
Code, p 563) The wsrr.nt OF arrest was signed by
yourself aud another Justice Of the Peace but when the
firoher was brought up Tor examination, that other
'o'nee was not present, and third Justice united with
you IN The warrant OF commitment upon the ailur. of
INC PRISONER to discharge hinself, give security
according to the provisions Of the Act. This supposed m
regularity was relied on by OF his counscs but
dId not decide the point, although deemed it worthy Of
consideration discharged tie Prisoner, the ground
oil any iniormaity other supposed npropetv in the
proceedings OF tho Justices but because considered
he law under which they acted uncons uiional in the
following respects " ~
The warrant Of is authorized by the act upon
INC hare suspicion Of the Justices without requiring anv
lore too msch Of the character and nature Of those
warrants, which are rspobated alike by tho general
scheme and ,pirit 81 our Institutions and nv hs Ioh
ton Of the Bill OF Rights.
z Upon the appearance Of tho Prisoner in pursuance,
oil he warrant Of srres evidence any farther bro
ceeding Is necessary 10 his conviction His puh Ia as
sumed and it s tho duty Of tho Justice, 10 conm, bi
TO jail Tor twelve months, unless ne will ex~pao him
sen, or admitting himself 10 be guilty, give security for
ms violates the hghs susrsnted by the Bill Of RIGHTS
anu constitution, TO every citizen 10 he furnished with
inc charge sgainst hE be confronted with his aceu
sers. and 10 h' tried by jury OF his country.
without entering into farher de tail the above ,re Tho
Geera principles upon wAich my decision grounded
commenting the lorocarsnce Of the Justices AZ shewn nv
'heif refusal 10 take upon thom,evs, the settlement OF
grave constitutional Question in such mode aud beey
therefore, 't they we're right in executing tho law
uhder Tue eircumstnces OF the case TO Iol
10" 'her example al least lar call to my aid some
ouner Sunge or Judges Not being able do so, how
ever te my duty TO relieve tho prisoner from imsri
sonment not authorised, conceived, by any obligatory
enactment IN our laws Respectfully. Yrs
ID fncI