Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-07-31

| Mr.. STOVALL sustained Inc molioh, 90 =
was consequential amendment, explaining 'iia.,
unless This provision be agreed on, anu uu ,aG
other now CAM election districts may oe ''
| unrepresenled 80 os,sd
Mr.. IRVING opposed The moiion' anu a'"s0
| the ayes and noes.
Mr.. BASSELL moved the previous question:
on which The vole Stood, AZ 10 20-no quotu :.
Mr.. HOWARD OF Floyd asked call OF inc
House, and soon after proposed 10 wEnu.l" -
bur the House, by vote, refused leave 10 wihu'dM'
The Clerk then called by name each MEMBER
wbo rose ard announced himself "heIe." o
Several motions were made by Mr. . ~
VAIL and others, TO dispense with Inc iul'hei
call. but all failed.
The roll being gone through once, ana Inc ao,
senees noted, The Clerk commenced The call
second time. and few excuses were made and
received; when MIR IRVING moved TO dispense
with further proceedings with The call, and ASKED
tile ayes and noes on The motion.
Mr.. YERBY urged the importance OF Inc
molon-as, if the call be not dispensed win,
the Serseant.al-aIms would have 10 60 lof me
absen,ees. [some OF whom were distant some ooo
miles. and the House would spend days IN hear'
ing excuses, evidence, &c.
Mr.. ROBINSON thought The people should
know The reasons Tor the absence oil shelr hePte
Ia ives. -.
The House agreed 20 III " W u'SPe"S~ ~
further proceedings with The call.
The nreyious question was then sustained and
Mr.. CONWAY'S motion TO recede from us us
agreement 10 the Senate's amendment as ABOVE
was agreed 10; ayes 50, noes 81. ro,t
The House, then, on motion OF MI. CoN'
WAY, agreed to The Senale'S amendment.
The question then being on the Sena'es
alhering 10 their amendment, requiring Two sen
annual company muslers, Mr. MONCURE oil D
moved committee Of Conference, 10 confer on
matters of disagreement between the Two 20
dies, and TO correct some errors In me mrs! par
OF The Code, consequent upon The changes oy inc
Senate OF some sections OF the Militia Law.
The SPEAKER expressed the opinion, mat
by the Parliamentary rule, the committee OF Con-
ference could only act on the matters oil disagree
ment between the TWO Houses, and moi on o!her
matters.
Mr.. STROTHER sustained this opinion oil
the Chair, and said that The only remedy lor ef'
rors and omissions vas to pass new bill Tor cor
rcrting errors, &c.
Mr.. MONCURE, OF S., was Informed by The
we'll versed Clerk, that he knew OF cases IN
which commune OF Conference had acted ior
the correction OF errors. IL was, al all events,
perfectly competent Tor The House 10 adopt pro
ceeding, which would override The paTliameuta'
ry rule He therefore offered resolution, thal
the Senate be requested 10 appon: committee
oil Conference OIL their part 10 meet committee
on The part OF this House, TO take INTO considera-
ton the disagreement of the two Houses upon the
amendments 10 The bill concerning The Clvl Code
of Virginia. part / and upon any omissions IN
amendments OF both Houses, necessary 10 be sup.
piled.
Mr. MONCURE asked 10 be excused from
serving on said committee, which ne thought
should be composed OF The friends oil The House
proposition on the militia question.
The resolution was adopted, and MIR MoScuRE
OF S. requested 10 inform The Senate thereof.
The House, then, look up The fourth part OF The
Code-lhe question being on the motion Of Mr.
Mayo TO amend The l2.h section OF The jury law,
allowing the Trial by jury TO be waived, or The
number reduced 10 seven, BY The consent OF par.
ties, SO as 10 except "pleas OF The Commonwealth"
as well as case OF felony.
Mr. MAYO, al some length, defended the mo-
lion, and opposed the Innovations on the ancient
trial By Jury. So highly did he regard the ancient
trial by jury, guaranteed by The Bill of Rights.
thai he was not willing 10 allow prisoner 10 avail
himself OF this privilege TO give up The Jury oil
twelve, and leave il 10 the Court. Mr. M said
thai il would prejudice the cause OF The prisoner,
were he, on being appealed 10, 10 refuse his con-
sent TO dispense with jury We have pTin.
ciple that no man can be convicted save by the
unanimous verdict OF his peers; yet under This
provision in the Code, majority OF The Cour!
two Justices may convic, and imprison man
Indefinitely. Mr. M protested against SO danger
Gus policy
MIR HARRISON OF L explained the section,
which he regarded as perfectly harmless. ~ The
argument OF The gentleman, it would be yiola~
iion OF The Bill OF Rights for man 10 plead
guilty" ard This was often done. Mr. H. APP
peatd to the House TO waste no motc linie in
1 ~; hon mi VI ~
day which had been devoted 10 the Jury law.
Mr. MAYO replied, and argued thai there was
no analogy in the Two cases referred 10. lie
thought instead OF Fastening GA we ShHae pa y
cessaTy to carry out The law.
Mr.. WATSON analysed Mr.. Mayo's otjec-
lions TO the sscion-and thought The case assu-
med by MIR. M. so far from prejudicing The pri
soner, would operate in his favor, by inducing
a sympathy in his behalf. MIR. w. said that
CONFERENCE.-The cases we're every day disposed
OF without The intervention OF jury sometimes
dismissed, with Judgment for costs or for fines.
MIR. w. approved OF the section as il stood. he
was Tor leaving The question 10 The Common
weallh's Attorneys and the prisoners counsel.
MIR SYME, anxious 10 leave this place before
the equnoxial rains make The roads bad. moved
the previous question; which was sustained.
Mr. MAYO'S amendment was lost, 40 to al.
|
been counted, second count was made, which
resulted as follows: ayes 10, noes 40.
Mr. SMITH, then moved 10 strike out The
whole section, and called for The ayes and noes.
He regarded this section as an ente ring wedge for
the destruction Of The ancient right oijury.
Mr. MONCURE offs. explained and defended
the section-as in no wise abridging or affecting
the Trial by jury, 10 which he was as much devo-
led as any man. He asked The House il they
were ready TO deprive any person OF the right 10
decline jury, so as 10 save COSTS, &C., when The
punishment is in money-esrecially when now
a man may confess judgment and, by his own
consent. subject hiniseltlo punishment in The pen
iteniaIy. Very often il is an advantage TO a
man 10 have trial by The Couu-so as TO allow
him TO take an appeal and correct the mistakes
OF The court below. Shall we deprive a man oil
This privilege 2
The Law loves arbitration and Mr.. NJ. looked
upon this provision tora Jury oil seven, ty consent
Of parties, as the highest species Of arbitration
Again, The provision will save The necessity Of
five Jurors amending, as well as the expense Of
.heir compensation, which The Code proposes 10
provide. On every ground, the section is unob-
Jcctiona5e and judicious.
| Mr.. SMITH assai!ed This section a an inefac-
lion on The ancient trial by Jury. We had bel.
Ter first abolish the Bill Of Rights, which guar.
anteed trial by troslrc Jurors. We nigh, as
vel iniract The liberty OF the press and other
great land marks OF liberty. Why have sepen
jurors2 Why not have three, or one ever; as il
would save trouble and expense, on which So
much stress has been laid Z II Se once break
from our moorinss, there is no safety for the
great principles OF security 10 the lives and lib
cries OF the cilizcns. Mr.. S. asserted that, un.
der This section, man, in his absence, may be
imprisoned by the consent of his counsel He
believed that The people would never agree to see
this dangerous provision remain incorporated 10
, The Cole.
Mr.. COOK called The previous question, which
| was susla ined.
The motion 10 strike out The section was lost,
ayes 80, noes 60
Mr.. WILLS moved 10 amend The 18th sec
| lion Gu IN nrouidp No ,ltu nj con IN ~,