New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-01


TITO TIE repr. w1tAout ny notice L
him or suy opportunity to defend himself
The same charge. having, in snS ssspe or otner
been brought h. fore tC.h Houses, 8 Jolst Commit
tee wa, appointed, before which Dir. Ames sP
pesred and ,poke. The result Of shis hearing was
aunaninou. report Of the Joint Committee, en-
,r.ly exemptirg Mr.. Amcs be having clearly
shown that bi. statement as reporter ws made up
from the depoeiiOus filed in the case. md wss
funy borne ont hy them. Nor did bis triumph
atop here. The original Committee of the House,
By which the charge hsd been indor,ed. suses-
qu.n.ly reported that, upon further investisatNn,
they were sstis6ed that there WAS nothing IN tho
report which orgh. to subject the reporter to any
censurs 90 the part Of the Assembly.
Beside this cels sure Of the reporte. thus inslly
disposed of. this Committee had set eat IN their
original s,ort that the Supreme Co,rt' In the
decision of the Ises and Hazard ease, had exceeded
their legitimate equity powers; that the decision
was contrary beth TO the letter of the law snd the
spirit snd intent OF Rhode Island institutions, and
that the General Assembly possessed, and ought to
exercise. the power Of rec.ifyins such sbuses,
either by ordering rev tri.l, or 10 such other
manner as would promote the ends Of justice,
which power trey proposed TO exercise IN taise
~ the ps.ssge Of resolution setting aside the
equity proceedings and the Judgment thereon, and
leaving the comp sinant to seek his remedy before
court Of law in conformity with the requirements
Of the Constitution and laws
This report formed tue subject of debate during
the entire session Of the Assembly and drew out
manJ able speeches. b. those who opposed this
resolution. il was denied that the Assembly pos
sessed any such powers Sc this resolution proposei
TO exercise, of snnuing, BY act CT resolution, the
decisions Of the Supreme Court; or, secondly,
that If it did possess any such powers, this case
presented any occasion Tor usiag them. The
question, as We formerly ob,eryed, as TO the
powers of tie Assembly, is peculiarly Rhode
Island question In no other State Of tie Union
could il possibly be suggested that iae Legislature
possesses ary power 10 annul or set aside the
Judgment Of coart of law. Tne Constitution OF
Rhode I.l,ni, quite recent, IS everybody knows
in its origin appears 10 be founded on the
model adopted by al tire other States
II contains the same division Of the powers of
Government into Executive, Legislative aud Judi
ca But il also contains Il clause reserylrg = the
A,.enbly sn the powers possessed ~ that body
under the old charter. and SIS under that charter
the Assembly exercised q sort of omupotent power.
incudlDg IN certain cases Judicial authority, the
adyscstes Of the uulhfyiDg resolution insisted that
the same power sui apPertained 10 the present
Assembly and that under that power this resolution
might well De passed. But TO tni, j. was replied
and certainly with great force, that the clause Of
reserya,ion above referred 70 cOud not, m common
reason, b, s1ppossd 10 include those u,,Is powers
which the Constitution hsd in special aud positive
terms previously conferred upon tue Supreme
Court The whole object Of the Constitution wss to
limit snd restrict the powers of the assembly, sud
il was absurd 10 suppose that this work, the doing
of which had cost the STATE 80 much, the 6nai ter
minarion of lorg and bitter controversy, h,d al
been undo1e in the very &c; Of doing, sud the
Assembly BY the clause above referred TO- left jas!
ompipo,eat as ever. Moreover, it wss denied
hat the Assembly hsd ever 8. any tine exercised
by power ike tha. implied in the above resolution.
Such judicial power as the Assembly hsd formerly
,1erci.ed, il exercised a. Court proceeding upon
evideuce sad argument; il lever undertook, bys
pure arbitrary act OF legislation, 70 axe property
VI Of oue msn's hands, of which be was IN posses
ion under judicial decision, and TO pass II over 70
another.
But, we're the Assembly admitted to possess sny
such extraordinary power as til, resolution lamed
for it, the present case-so the argument proceed
ed-did 10; sford any occasion for its exercise.
Why turn Hazard over 10 new lIwsGis unless
there was reason 10 suppose tbs. before neF tn
bubal he would maize out such q case as would en-
ti.le bin 10 substantially different decision
Why So, a. this late day, uPon allowing him
bearing before Jury he might h:Se hsd such
htsriI 9. had be asked fer it. IN the already
.djudsed. AID that tue counsel whom te employed
did DO. see fit to apply 20 the Court iOr susa hear
Ing sfeTds eonclu,ye evidence ihst they i'd not
think ,btir client had anything 70 gain by {. How
could De Ives had perfectly good Prims fscie
Gaze. namely, Hazards contract in writing, sgree.
ing TO sell the farm for certain prices price, a.
the tine the contrsc. wss made, fully adequate.
That man is bound ts fulfill his bargain is plain
principle of common justice, jus! a. much regarded
BY Juries &. it is by Courts Of Equity. In order
80 be excused from fulfilling this contract, Hsz-
ard must chow some reason why. The reason
that be alleged wss that the agreement which he
Ssaed was different agreement from WIS. ne
suppo sed !. TO De- positive instead Of conditional
ssTe, meni and ths, be signed II IN ,uca hurry -
sot 10 be aware Of tbs circumstance This wou
have been 8 good defense lad Hazard been able 70