Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-07-26
GENERAL COURT.-(Late Session.

The Court has considered, with all the attention due
TO the subject The motion made on former day of the
term, for rule TO scw cause why nlnnddnUS should
not be directed to the Judge of the Circuit Superior
OF Law and Chancery for the town Of Petersburg, to
store Louis c. Bouldn the Office Of Prosecutor for the
Commonwealth in that Court, fiom which he was lately
removed We fully sensible Of the peculiar deicacy
CT the question submitted, involving it does the
tent Of own authority under the law ccnerrng the
power of appointmentand that we !ncur some espo-
siby BY deciding without further argument. that Pro-
secutorS for the Commonwealth in each county hold
their Offices at the pleasure Of their respective Courts
but such being clearly opinion Notwithstanding the
able eIyare argument have heard. we think il better
for all parties and wiser itself, 10 state 1miHe the
result of our deliberations and put end TO this
pleasant here b. refusing to grant the rule asked
for than continue and increase Inc excitement na,u-
rally growing out Of such controversy. by granting The
rule returnabe TO the next term with the moral certainty
Of being then compelled to discharge it.
If We felt ourselves at liberty in the adjudication OF
question of law TO rely with any degree OF conf
dence on considerations of policy and expedlency 10
which alluslops made in the argument, we do
not think they would be found favorable to the claims
| now advanced We not aware that any evil or in
convenience has ensued in consequence OF the general
and until may say the universal impression pre-
valing Virginia, that the tenure Of the Prosecutors
Office both in the County and Superior Courts. was at
the pleasure of those Courts respectively NO dllhcuy
| has hitherto been experienced in obtaining the SER
vices of able and efficient Prosecutors nor is 1t believed
that any has been prevented from accepting the
appointment, by The reflection that he might BIZ deprived
OF i, in summary way. Judges, acting under hlg re-
sponsbl!ity, rather inclined to take the Counsel ad
vice and 10 .bea and furbea than 10 do what is always
Il painful and invdlous uc-So that practically the othce
has usually held during good behaviour, and some
times longer. YET the impression prevailing, that the
Courts mig determine tat pleasure has without doubt
eyrlled q sa!uary influence the lncumbens, anu
induced them pay closer attention to their duties Than
they might otherwise have done. We cannot THINK mat
| this conviction has all in,ercred with the adj
nlinistration of the criminal law. is likely to pro-
| Il, ph,or, IN hn
or those other conpances with his hutHors or OPT
! MONS. to which allusion has been made The reia-
tons which exist, and which must always exist between
the Bench and the Bar; the character OF The latter Tor
Grmnes and Independence the little comparative value
Of the Office and above ALL the publicity OF all proceed
ings in Court of Justice, arc sufficient guarantees
against all such undue Influences On the other hand,
if YOU make the tenure Of the Office in question one dur
nr e-if you place the officer beyond the control Of
the Court; which is alone the constant witness OF the
manner in which he performs his duties and the best
Judge of his qualifications, you render him III effect,
wholly Irresponsible 10 expect his removal by a Tor
mai Impeachment would under any circumstances, be
entirely out Of the question, and no means OF removing
him by Joint of the General Assembly, has been
devised, under Constitution 1t resort is TO be mad
to an information indictment, the Court must IN ge-
neral institute it, and appoint some other person
to act least temporarily, for the Common wealth; and
thus exercise the very power which Is now denied 10 H.
This other person must be member OF the Bar, ana we
know how difficult nay how impossible il would be, to
induce Of the fraternity to prosecute another except
in fragrant Of moral delinquency. Then, jury
would have TO pass upon the accusation whatever It
miuht be- and 10 determine tic fitness perhaps, OF the
individual for office, of whose duties they could have
but very inadequate concrpllon II he was popnIa'
however undeservng, he might be acquitted; onnoX-
ous, either man or politician, however 'a'h'ui uS
an officer he might be condemned. The mode OF
trial too would be calculated to enlist parlizans-
excite The frelings-produce open collisions between
the bench and members OF the bar, especially IN the
| Counlv Courts and perhaps divide The community
az, iDtn ac a
div subsde And these difficulties should be surIn"unl-
ed by more active interference OF the Judge or JUS
tees than it would be decent to exercise, or ny any
other means the modes OF prosecution referred ~ "ooia
afford remedy only in ul miSbeha1tor IN 9Dce,
and would leave the that might frequently occur
of loss of character land Of course OF useiessnes III sucn
sta,ion) Of ncaPacity from disease or oner"'Se'
wholly without redress Looking to these consequences,
we are fully persuaded, that to deprive the Courts. II
they now possess it, Of the power TO superViseths con
due, of these officers and to deny their power OF removal
would be to place them beyond all real responsibility
and 10 confer offices for e where The Condition oil good
behavior would be merely illusoy. We therefore tiH
if the law has established such tenure OF ohce, II
would neither be consistent with the policy OF the Stale
dency, to introduce it. or course, we attach no
weight the arguments based upon policy or exPedi-
ency and therefore orbear 10 this part OF the SUBJ
| iect further.
An attempt was made By the able Counsel advocating
this rule TO compare the Of grant OF an Office 10
grant of land; where the grantee at the common law
took an estate for life. unless smaller estate was limit
cd We conceive there is just analogy between the
grant of property intended FOR the sole use and benefit
Of the grantee and the grant of office for the public
use and benefit The cases are Too dss'maF IN their OBJ
iects 10 authorize predicate OF one what true IN
regard to the other. public office is created for the
benefit of the People, and the estate held in 1t by the
grantee ought to depend exclusively upo" consideration:
Of public utility. The private advantage Of the grantee
tate in property and the rule governing its founded or
private considerations, and is merely arbitrary ihert
many obvious reasons in favor of the stability ane
independence of some Offices and of the greater re
sponsbly of others which, as conceive, entire
ly independent of those applicable 10 grants OF property
Thus, there is marked distinction in this respect be
tween Judicial Offices and such merely minstera
although connected with the administration OF justice