Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1836-07-26
which analoges, derived from grants of property.

y.
! neither illustrate establish
1t would have been pertinent to this enquiry il
the Counsel could have maintained the proposition that
at Common Law, all such offices as The in question:
were held during good behaviour. In this, we think ne
has not succeeded There were doubtless many arclen
Offices in England connected with the courts aud in the
gilt ct the Chief Justices other Judges, which were
held during gond behavior, because usage and custom
had established ,hnren 10 SUCH Chef ustcc Ho-
bart alluded. (Hubarts Reports D. 1881 in the OF
Cut aud Clover, WHEN he said, 81 grantthe Of
hoes OF my gill as Chief Justice, for less time than Ia!
HE. This IS apparent from the observations of Chief
Justice Holt ortha saying. In his Judgment in The Case
OF lia'"nIi aud Fox Il Shower 53l lie refers to this
remark OF l'ari, and observes hal all The Chief JUS
ce had To t" was 10 point out tie person that should
nave the otce and the custom settled his estate III It,
The case OF HarcUurt and Fox vas one in %hch the
custom had not settled the estate for The Clerk of the
Peace there had been created by of Parliament There
lore The cour did not re- the principle that, IN an
oce tins created the grantee took absolute estate Tor
lie unless less estate given, although that princl
PIE would have been decisive of the question: But the
Judges, and among others Holt himself were compelled
10 rely on the words OF the statute which declared that
tt Clerk OF The Peace 10 execute the duties Of the
nce, and 10 take and receive The fees thereof nr
iog time only as he shall well denran himself IN lbs
saul oiice The question one Of consructIon ana
the Judges attempted TO prove, that The officers aud-
Cd TO by Hobart were IN by cnSt0m, during good bella
vor in that the Clerk of the Peace in for
the same estate, by Act Of Parliament
In tic argument of the case, reported in the 4th Mod
well IN lie counsel tor the flGHtlN,
gncnGo laid down the proposition which has been cited
from 9th BAG POO I'll, THAT by the Cannon Law all
officers of Courts CT Justice in for their lives, only
removable for miSbehaviour." The Court in its judy
mcnt does not affirm this proposition general one and
the Counsel for the other side answered. lha this was the
rule as To many ancient ricrs but not a-hat the Of
nee OF Chancellor for example, could not he granted for
e because II had never been so gramtrdtha custom
and nothing else prevails in all these cases"
There other authorities. besides. those
cited by the Counsel for the applicant, and admitted by
him TO lean against the side he espousrd, which Prove,
that The Courts at very early period exercised the pow
"i removal TO considerable extent. Among these is
the of Naux and Jefferson G Dyer H. b. where it
determined that the Court OF Common Please might,
hnuS discharge hluzer, IA very ancient officer OF
that Court,) although record entered at the rolls,
and he caS caIcd 70 anSrer-the Office being
considered held at tic pleasure ofte court. So,
in 4th Mod 80 is SAID that If the King grants
Office in any of the Courts at Westminster, the Courts
MAJ remove the officer from nsuiicency, and they
the proper Judges Of his ability. And in another in
2 Dyer D. l3D b. the Office Of Chief Pronnatory being
vacant the g. Justice appointed another: and then evoked
the gift and conferred the office on third person. The
ether Judges did not approve Of This latter appointment,
and the only question was whether they UEe mapily Of
the Court could not controu the C. Justice; whcrenpon
precedent shown, proving that in grants Of
Office by the Crown in the Courts at Westminster, these
Cours might refuse to permit unfit persons 10 be imposed
upon them The current ct authorities satisfies that
there ANY general rule, giving estates for HE,
to officers of Courts Of Justice, but that they we're Gc
quenty removed at the pleasure othc Courts for unit
ness insuicrncy.
The Office Of Attorney General in England like thai,
Of Lord Chancellor, always At the pleasure of the
king-So that Of the Solicitor General and Of every
other prosecutor for the King. They c"nsiGercd
as the servants or agents Of The King perform in his
behalf particular duties These duties did not in general
pnrlake any degree Of the nature Of "diciat dutes
although connected with the administration Of iscr
hut were, 10 most purposes, purely llsc!.a and the
office ministerial office.
N,,,' m III
whose tenure had been fixed BY imur oral custom.
Euch inclined to think, that the doctrine has been
nj all times such il is affirmed to be by the Supreme
Court of Pcnnsy vania, in the of Reynolds Bus
sicr ) Sern. and Rawles 43l In that case, question
arose the power Of The Governor TO remove Off
ccr.appHnled under The Constitution Of that Stale, which
conferred on him alone the p0welo appoint but was silent
as removal 10 the tenure 0 the Office The Court
decided that tie power OF removal was an incident 10
the appointing power: observing, that as IN the tenure
ministerial offices in general there ca be no deob that
il is during pleasure, unless The law by winch the oilce
is established order 1t otherwise. HE Court gees on
10 say, that this was not question. 1t engaged
the attention Of the Congress Of the L. Slaes alter
the formation of lhc Federal Constitution, By which the
President nonnatcs and appoints by and with the ADVICE
and consent Of the Senate. There was some piaGsDiity
in the argument that the tenure OF offices should be at
the pleasure Of the President and Senc because the Pre-
sident could not appoint without the consent oil the 81.
nate and the Constitution is silent 10 The power oi
removal. Yet it determined with general approDa'
ton that the pleasure of the President was Tie tenure
OF Office.
The Court of Pennsylvania here alludes 10 the dCci
sion % Congress in the year s when the Executive o..
fees were established after that famous Debate in WINCH
orr lamcnIcd Madison e. cGrHm rt tcner"b,!e no.
men took 5" distinguished part IN maintaining the
power OF tn" President. Whether the dHctrne then eS-
tablis she'd WAS founded sound constitutional prlmc;
pes it is for In say, and do NOT mean 10 he
Understood affirming denying It's corrrcness we
rciv the fact that il then established with &C.
neral appreciation " and we believe serious question
lnpn Tho
from Sergeant and Rawes. that the power which APP
points an officer has authority 10 remove him. j The
Constellation or lac establishing hc cc does not order
o!kerWiSc
Be this. however. as it may, one thing We presume
cannot be dcncdnanaiy. that il Office is created
and lis tenure is not scd may look To the course ut
legislation the subject 10 determine whether 1t was
Intended to be for life Of during PLEASURE and that
if from that survey, from the objects and provisions
Of the law ITSELF from the known practice under it, or
from concmpora pSp"sition we can gather The m
teniian of the Legislature other body creating ii we
ought to give il effect. Chief Justice Holt IN the case
Of tarconr and Fox already referred TO- declared that
he was the inclined 10 the opinion he gave. be
cause he knew tie temper and inclination OF the Paria
ment when the act made. And in the very late
case of Smith and Latham, reported in 9Th Bingham
where it was decided that the office Of Paymasrr OF En-
chcqncr Bills held al the pleasure OF the Commis
snnrs Of the Treasury, who appointed him. the Court
nf Kings Bench said % that this not being ancient
common law office, Of which the duration and appoint
ment we're governed by ancient usHge, the question OF
its duration and is other than enquiry into
the meaning and intention Of the statute creating IT, -
Such an enquiry with reference 10 the duration and te
nure of the Office of Prosecutor for the Commonwealth
in Virginia must, think, result in The conviction that
the Legislature intended TO give freehold in it,
We have already said that the Attorney and Solicitor
Generals in England at all times appointed and re-
moved at the pleasure Of the Crown. They held and
still, hold their offices during pleasure, whilst the tenure
judicial office has been placed stable footing
Prosecutions at the distant Asszcs, frequently
Quoted by Kings counsel appointed for the occasHn ana