Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1851-07-29

ted In the constitution IN single cnuss tho teae
the constitutional provision. Of the constitution OF The
United States upon this subject. These provisions are
now before me- B. article scv.nth Of The amendments
TO that constitution, it ,.e.larel that in suits OF
common law where the va.us In controversy shall ex-
coed twenty dollars the right Of trial By jury shall he
preserved" The only difference between tie pro-
vision that hold in my hand, anil the provision Of
the constitution is in declaring Of what number that
Jury shall be composed SO far therefore, thi. PROPOSE
ton in regard TO civil SUITS guarantees jury of twelve.
confirming that jury on to suits OF Common law DO
not agree with ry friend from the county Logan in
his opinion that these terms "suits at law"
may embrace that very class OF cases alluded to by
him. All controversies in a court Of common law are
suits at common law, depending in the court o conon
CIV, to be governed guided and directed BY the rues
that govern all controversies in court OF connen
Ilt~.
! Mr. FERGUSON. I beg cave to ask my friend
question. Would the provision require suits against
sheriff. to be tried BY iury'
Mir. SCOTT. No sir.
Mr.. FERGUSON. Then Of sorz.s +. san apply
to those ctses
Mr.. SCOTT. It would not any moro apply. because
wherever the law gives the rsnedy it prsscrioss tho
tribunal BY which that remedy is 10 be governed.
therefore the law would direct the tribunal and Jury
rial need not bs guaranteed any than in the court,
f the federal government where the remedy is now
given They have ne7er been Looked u,,ou common
law SHIT, + he guided ard drsc'c By this section oil
lie constitution These terms, "srts at comm law"
not considered applicable, bccase tue constitution
gives the other r. meCe. ii cases Of that sort
Now, in regard the latte. part Of this provision,
have followed the provisions OF the constitution Of
The United States which are Substantially nothing but
rcatErmaton Of what is dec! I'd in the bill of rights
liz: and In all criminal r sec",ions the accused shall
enjoy the ri ht of speedy trial by imp .rtial ,ry
D, like number, using ain St the language used in the
ill OF rights and SUBS. an:ia" Tho language used Ia
he constitution OF the United STATES would not de-
from the Number twelve ia any jury either In GRIM
! az hp13 "a
Il you determine to have jury if you call it jurr.
lei it he jury the good old jury OF ancestors, the
! Jury Of twelve like the number and differ
very much from ms friend on my left in the e.tma,o
he seems 10 plncs upon jury trial Give It to ms
under a wise and good judge In civil and criminal
ases, and it is above all price, il IS above all value.
would cling TO it rs one CT the sheetanchor. of Ii.
! liberty Of the commonwealth. If you choose to
have arbitrators. if You choose TO depart from tho
jury, take your arbitration. Let the parties take tho
case out Of the courts, and send it beyond thu
court. Bur the moment You bring then part and
parcel OF the court. the instant You call them to tho
jury box and swear them in the presence Of the court
10 hear the evidence and be governed by that evil
dcnce under the direction Oft wise and just judge give
me the old trial OF twelve men, and then all will
be right. | did believe would be led into sny
discussion of tins kind. throw this suggestion an
substantially embotving what seems 10 be desired
know very well that my colleague differs with me il
portion Of his proposition, AM that IN increasing
The Jurisdiction 20 thirty dollars, wherr you NAV o.
pensr witt; jury. Ibeg leave TO call his a,;ertie,
and that Of The committee also, to the rule given by:
constitution of the United States rule appica Slo
only 10 suits at common law in their courts. II has
been thought 10 apPy 10 pending suits in S:ao
court, but applicable alone to law suits pend
ing before the federal Judiciary, no where else
II has been .oemnly decided by federal and stas
courts.
Mr.. Bolts It's precisely in the parti uar to which
ny colleague la. referred that differ. do not iroa
the reading Of the amenoment--
The CHAIR. That proposition is net now pending
The gentleman from Richmond, Mr.. ScorT j referred
10 il BIZ way OF argument.
H:r. Bolts. At this stage OF the proceedings I will
ert m!s If BY saying, that regard the proposuu
submitted By my colleague (Mr Scor) upon this que,-
ton direct infringe Of the constitution OF tie
Unite States do not with him upon the con
,trucon given to that clause Of he constitution OF tie
Cni:e States which requires trial BY jury in all ca
ss where the sum in controversy shat! exceed thirty
olLr4. The gentleman seems TO suppose, that this
intended to apply exclusively the federal courts
Why, have not supposed that the jurisdiction of the
federal courts extended embraced subjects small
in amount as the sum of twentr dollars will nv col
league INFORM what IS the rule upon that subject
! Mr. SCOTT. They do not
Mr.. Bolts. 1t va, not intended 20 apply to federal
courts The federal courts enter min no such iurlsdc-
ton OF Ia controversy exceeding twenty dol.
J lars.
3lr. SCOTT. I will answer Inv colleague, BY stating
that the Jurisdiction of federal courts in suits atcom
mon law, il now lmi ed TO the o. $500. 1t wea
formerly $500 but they ba". iuci sased the sum TO
$500 Bat there sub ects in crutroversythere are
suits st common law-proccediuys at Common law.
which may be brought before that court in which the
subject may be less than that amount But while
have the floor, with bis permission, will make nnohar
renlark-that suits were at cnmta"r law, wien that
provision incorporated The jurisdicton of these
court, au the proceedings to b. had in them had not
been pre- csibed or fixed III the uton and were
dependent upon the law. So that provision of the CO..
tuition might have been made operative upon
less than twenty dollar. in amount
! G n.inued to Suppial.n' No. Sc