Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1845-01-15
To tAs Ed,ssrs Of iks uvAiss
J,SrAly 8, lsi5.

JlSpAly g, 1stS
Gsntemen-I have seen several publications In the I'm
quirer addressed the Legislature Of Virginia. and sned
"a Commonwealth Attorney" Having considerable
aveon TO lawyers, and particularly sganst that portion
elined perusng his Addresses with the exception Of hk 30
No. which appeared la the Enquirer OF the Sd Instant
There he appear. hold the idea the Judges the
Msgssic and the Jurors rsrher remss in their
duct-thst hcj udges and Magistrates are themselves.
olaton al the iaw-and that the Jurors do sufficiently
regard the legal Injunction "dilicenty enquire into.
took an exceeding delight in long list VI pscsenmen,s,
and would otentmes congratulate the Jury the first
tsn after their dischssc. by saying they had done WELL
but might have done better, &C., adding that OF the
BIG fish had escaped. and that they worth much
TO him than the email ffy, Who generally
plague than profit lie pursued this UNDERMINING. ibe
raj and uueeng course until the sheriff became Disguised
with his conduct much thu, after carl playing
and olckiag AZ the tavern, which judicial officers
afterwards on the stool OF repentance for having INDUCED
too freeysome lest they had incurred the disPea
sure ct their wives and all in and dread - to the
dgent enquiry OF the Grand Jury and the relentless rkR
OF the pcnurious little Commonwealth Attorney
that N despite Of their philosophy, they manifested. the
Court Approached considerable uneasncss; which being
perceived by the deputy sheriff.. they summoned. tor
the next Grand Jury, old grey.headed farmers,
who. Notwithstanding what may have been their ma
tural disposition diligently enquire nto infrae
tons OF the law. their information was 50 circam-
scribed BY their physical biIy pry the
more properly this occasion, the msorunes OF their
fellow czens that after listening stcntvey the wosdy
slowly to the Jury roc and. after short DELAY. returned
most deliberately and rcveenty into Court with the fol-
lowing words clumsy but egbiy written their paper
We the Grand Jury, Agre no pressnfnenfs 10 wake
The disappointment great little prosecutor,
~ho could not bear witness the slightest inaenon OF the
law unpunished, that he pulled his hair rage OF dis
appointment and vexaiion, truly amusing 10 OF the
by nders who suggested him the pfopey, before he
discharged the Jury ct comphmc ntne them. tho Court and
the spectators, the almost unprecedented high state ct
good morals the county The suggestion how
he discharged the jury hope that similar have not
influenced writer Of the Enquirer in his heavy CON-
plants against the delinquency Of Jurors in not sufficient
y attending to the aforesaid injunction OF the law,-"d
geny enquire inio, &c; for, tar have expe
hence ot the defects and odous propenSes vt human
ture can safely that mankind need no statutory en-
enlargement diligently to enquire into the offences and
nisdemeanors OF their neighbours-he encouragement,
10 mind would be that command IN the
sacred volume which SAITH and mulfy" So,
there be delinquency in tho Jurors in this respect
II is more attributable TO the hard times whicbhaSe render
ed them little lenient in regard cases. the enforcement
Ut which would be unjust and inquous, than - dere
cton duty; oiteniimes there merit in the
violation than the enforcement OF the law The writer Tor
the Enquirer would recommend that the should be
summoned remote from the preparation OF the crime and
that the offender should be much limited 10 the latitude
extended him in the right OF challenge. | will
conclude this article by obecng briefly TO both
these positions. No m7n's should he de,ermin
ed by either good bad. Now if you select the
from the acighbourhocd OF the offender, hay
ing previous acquaintance with mis- general conduct
they would be apt Ia INFER the general conductor the nd
vidua from the and aggavaion OF the offence and
would be apt deal rgdly with who seldom Of
Tended, with whose conduct uniformly bad be-
ing qianed with the good OF the offender and the
qualities that might be pleaded in exienuaion OF the
offence they would imbibe their peiudices with much
facility against him, against IN whose favour but
little could BE- urged and the prejudice imbibed II
would be difficult eradicate it. Whereas If the neigh
bours cailsd upon decide, they could once dis
eminatc with rogard 10 the duiy they would have u per-
form; and, the words of the Commonwealth Attorney
a slight punishment might be inflicted for an aggravated
offence and a punishment for conduct less hagL
| tious
As regards the right OF challenge, mig sometimes
happen that might have many friends and win
dicve enemies equally and his enemies nigh
attend his trial purp sey wreak their vengeance anC
certainly the law would be defective ii it did not extend
hm latitude OF challenge sufficient the kind devils
PAUL PRY.
P. s. am lawyer, and never read dozen pages 10
law book in all my life did attempt read portion
the last Locofoco Tax Law but became incensed that
have had but little political communion with the party
since and would be glad if they would CalgIls'
plan and elevate their laws beyond the reach Of huma
eyes That our civil and criminal code requires muc
amendment there be question, but hinS It wou
be dangerous policy act ihe suggestions Of an
Commonwealihs Attorney without the most ample consi
deration and the greatest possible precaGtOn. P. p