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


n Kings Bench said, that this not being an ancient
common law Office of which The duration and appoint.
ent governed by ancient usHge, the question oil
its duration and tenure is other than an enquiry into
the meaning and intention Of the statute creating IL -
Such an enquiry with reference 10 the duration and tei
nure of the Office of Prosecutor for the Commonwealth
in Viruiniu must think, result IN The conviction that
the LEGISLATURE he 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
of judicial office has been placed stable footing
Prosecutions at the distant Asszcs frequently
Quoted by King counsel appointed for the occasion, and
designated, perhaps, by The AuorEey-General In this
country before the Revelation, the Attorney General
COR the Colony held his Office "uriate or directly from
the kim and at his pleasure" The Kings attaInieS
or prosecutors the county courts "" have every r'a
son believe, were recunmendcd by those COURTS Dull
appointed by The Attorney General, ana By Nun rchoV
able pleasure being considered merely as hts ufphueS
This state Of things continued after the Recuncn and
after The Constitution Of l776 had fixed The tenure OF le
Attorney Generals office, during good eeiaVIof
Our laws indeed silent on the SUBJECT oul we are
informed by gentleman Of this city, that about tt year
17S7 he nominated by the county court OF Cha''s
City as fit person fill the office OF Attorney Tor mat
county and after received lei!tT from INC teh
Attorney General, authorizing him 70 act IN 'Ea capa
city And we learn from other SOURCES, that such was
the practice in similar cases When the District Courts
were established in the year l7SS. the law maze Il LIE
duty Of le Attorney General TO appoint persons " pro-,
ScCup I'm Sucn courts rs I:e COuu not
thus placing the Prosecutors in those courts on The same
footing with the Prosecutors in The county courts IL
conceded in the argument that if these officers were
tic Deputies Of the Attorney General they were reoV-
able al his pleasure. We think this is sufficiently appa-
rent from Inc terms Of the authorizing the appoint
menl in such he could not attend himself But
it appears concusvey in the law ascerlanhg lclF
salaries which gave 10 the Attorney General certain
salary and o each of his deputies in the District CouE''
$50 per annu flis deputies in the county courts were
paid in different manner.
Such was the situation of these officers holding at the
pleasure Of the Attorney General and as his deputies
until the 25th Of January, le00. when il was enacted
that Attornes TO prosecute in behalf of the Common
wealth shall hereafter be appointed in the District ana
all other inferior courts OF this ConmonweaNh'-oy an
order such courts respectively" This act on chang
cd the mode of appointment. II said nothing about lie
tenure of the office But if thattenur had heretofore
been the pleasure of the appointing power and never
was considered as for life during good behaviour
we think the inference irresistible that change was
intended in this respect it would have been express
ed The pwer appoint. with all its Incidents wa:
conferred fully existed before; among which the
power 10 remove at pleasure was one.
In 1908 when Superior Courts Of law were establish
ed in each county, it was declared that lie Judge