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

each Of these Courts should appoint Prosecutor for the
Common wealth, who should be allowed five dollars per
day for every day he might be engaged i'll the public
SERVICE TO be certified by the Judge provided the sum
should not exceed $50 per unnum.
Under this act it was extremely difficult to induce any
prosecute when important cases were depending
and believe the Judges were frequently Obliged To
engage the services of gentlemen for short periods ny
temporary appointments. They changed them at Their
pleasure and under that law necessary That they
should do 81, it sometimes happened that: one wei!
enough qualified Ia Conduct ordinary prosecutions wou
be unfit unwilling conduct those Of more import
ant character We d. not know that any changes or re-
movals were made in the Superior Courts against Tie
consent Of the appoinire-bu we believe ILe power ne
yer doubted and in tie parallel case ni tie County
Courts. several Of we'll recoIect various instances Of
the power Gf removal being cxerLed without assigning
feas"s or hearing the party aud without the right be-
ing questioned or denied.
In ls3l when the Circuit Superior Courts Of Law mud
Chancery organized in each county, the Lrglsa-
lure enacted the provision giving The Courts the pow
er 10 appoint their Prosecutor. At this time that body
could have been ignorant of the general impression
which, it is admitted had for long time prevailed, re-
speeding Tie power of REMOVAL and that such power had
been actually exrred by at least OF the County
Courts. Public attention, too had just been called TO
the tenure Of uher Offices and yet attempt made
10 restrain the power, understood 10 exist and to have
been exercised in relation 10 the Prosecutor for the Conn
monweaith in the respective Courts.
The Of The office Of Attorney General had just
been changed from during good behaviour, to one at
TIE pleasure Of the appointing power ne same lnillS
had occurred in the Of The Clerks of te Superior
Courts, who placed by the Constitution under
the power of the Judges, and removable al their
pleasure The Judges themselves no longer allow
ed to hold by tie tenure of good behaviour alone. The
"enper aud inclination Of the Convention and Lcglsa
ture obviously adverse t" the freehold tenure in Of
ce and under the circumstances it is Impossible to be-
eve, that it could be intended to place these more I'M
pnrlaH Cccrs al the pleasure of the appointing power,
under modification another; and TO give to Attor
Ies for the Common wealth, Commissioners Ut the Courts,
Commissioners 10 take dispositions, and various other in
rriur officers connected with the administration OF JUS
cc freehold estates. For it is TO he observed that any
arguments, satisfying the mind that Prosecutors for the
CoumUnwcal hold during good behavior removable
~ by impeachment, indictment or inUrnann--eG equally
prove that the other officers mentioned. wei! as host
Of others appointed by the Executive under The direction
Of various laws making no provision Tor their removal,
hold by the tenure
The Counsel who argued this case, strongly urged that
the Attorney General under the old Constitution Of
Virginia, Held Ills Oihce during good behaviour 1t was
fair infer that officers pcvlorlng the duties in
the District and County Courts, held theirs by similar
tenure We do hot admit the Of such ill.,
ference, ana wc have attempted to sho% that the fact
otherwise. But, if the argument is sound one, ii
would surely be much stronger TO prove, that when Tie
tenure of that high Office changed by The Con-
slituon TO at the pleasure o the appointing power
it no longer the intention OF the Legislature that
these inferior officers should hold appointments for life,
deterniuablc only by conviction of nisbcavnur, par
culaIy when by changc Of the law, their salary
pensation was to certain extent placed at the dIscrc
ton oftie Court The discretion which conhdcd in
make them allowance for their services, might be
equally trusted in the matter Of removal.
upan the whole we cannot doubt the power Of the
Courts 10 remove their Prosecutors at pleasure, subject
responsibility for its abuse, exists in ether
cases-and ure, for the given above, unan
mouSY OF opinion, that the rule asked for he Denied
Judge Thompson requests me to say, that he does not
wish be considered sitting in this case. not having
heard the argument bu, that his extra judicial opinion,
as Tar us he has examined the in conference in
accordance with that just delivered.
JUICE ScoTr delivered also opinion OF his
which will be published in next No.