Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1860-03-20

odions act should be repealed. The petitions o
the people against the unjust act were rejected
Was the invasion of the rights of the people o
the Colonies, as thoughtto have been indicated
by the circumstances, really intended by The
British government? Let the mighty conse
quences which followed answer the question
What was then thought to be indicated by the
circumstances, has long since become the truth
of history, and confirmed by the independence
of the Colonies, achieved by seven years wal
with Great Britain; by the illustrious character
| of Washington in leading the armies and fight
ling the battles of freedom; by our unequaled
Federal Constitution, and more by great and
mighty nation, the home of more than thirty
millions of free and happy people having the
motto engraven upon their hearts that the prlCt
of liberty as eternal g5gs11nce.
Is there any analogy between the circum.
stances thus believed to have fore-shadowed these
great events and now proven to have been theil
indication, and those by which Judge Thomp-
| son became candidate for the Judicial Office
of this Circuit? It is believed there is, and
now propose to examine the circumstances rela-
tive to Judge Thompson's becoming candidate
and show that analogy.
By the Constitution of Virginia, adopted June
90 1776, the Judges were appointed by joint
ballot of the two Houses of Assembly, and COM
missioned by the Governor to continue in office
during good behavior. The character Of their
| g Az /;
uing in Office together with causes and means oil
removal oirtualJy gave them the office for life
without regard to their fitness to perform the
duties required. 1t is true Judge was liable to
be removed for NAL administration, corruption
or incapacity, had the constitutional provision
been more free from difficulties and thus avail
able for that purpose. The mere incapacity Of
advancing age, while he had even an imperfec,
command OF the faculties of his mind and could
get to the cour t-room, was no Sufficient cause
for removal Of a Judge; because no Virginian
with Virginia heart, however much aggrieved,
could have asked, that a judge be removed for
such cause, and have taken steps to accomplish
the object; but, if so, then such a person would
have been driven from the tribunal, with indig-
nation and scorn, and from Virginia as obnox-
ious to her spirit and institutions.
Then, to have removed Judge for any cause.
if that had been even possible, it would have
been for ''mal-administration or corruption"-
Could it have been done for these2 | recollect
of no removal, though do remember one case
where the attempt was made, on account of al
legged official misconduct. The removal of the
Judge was not accomplished ; and it was posi-
bly, right that it so resulted. ~-a 4"
The difficulty to remove Judge was this -
the offence charged to have been committed as
well as the evidence to establish it, had TO be
submitted to the House of Delegates for its de-
cision, whether the charge was proper, and the
evidence sufficient to sustain it. Ii these dues
tions were decided in the affirmative, the House
might impeach the Judge so accused, to be pros
ecuted in the Court of Appeals; and s'if found
guilty, he was to be forever disabled to hold Of
fee under Government, or removed from such
Office pro temp0re, or subjected to such pains or
penalties as the law should direct" according to
the Judgment of that Court. Here it will be
perceived that there were three penalties pre-
scribed to the conviction of Judge, whatever
may have been his offence. By the first he was
removed from office forever; by the secand, only
removed pro tempoge or suspended from his of
flee for time; and by the third, no removal at
all, but merely Subjected to pains or penalties, y
as the Court should decide. a
By the sixth section of the fifth article of the
amended Constitution of Virginia, adopted jan
nary 18th, 1880, "a Judge could be removed
from office by concurrent vote of both houses
of the General Assembly; but two-thirds of the
members had to concur in such vote" This
was modification of the Constitution adopted
29th June, 1875 as to the plan Of removing a
Judge but there was no change made as to his
election. With this modification, the law. as to
election, tenure of office, and removal of Judge.
continued the same until the amended Constitu-
ton of August LIST, 1851, was adopted and went
into operation. The evils of this system of cleo
ton and removal from Office are manifest
When vacancy occurred in the Judiciary, the
moral and legal qualifications of the candidate
to ill the place were not so much considered as
his party predictions, zeal and service, or his
family influence Added to the evil and to its
aggravaton, the members Of the General Assem-.
bly,, except those representing the vacant Cir
cult being from the more or less distant coup-
ties OF the State and thus such strangers to the
material of the Circuit, were more or less DEEPEN
dent upon the information furnished them by the
representatives of that Circuit, to enable them
to make choice. Did they azaoays seek that
information and if so, We're the representations
a6te to give it imagine not. In this way.
the Judge must have been nearly always thus
0~tuatty elected by the representatives Of his
Circuit, numbering usually from eight to ten in
diylduals. But, as compensation for this ap-
parent evil, do believe those eight or ten were
generally LAWYERS. JUNIUs.
VIRGINIA CoURTEsY.-Mr Sennott. counsel
for Stevens and Hazlett who were executed at
Oharlestown, Va, on Friday last, in a letter to
the Richmond Enquirer says:
'Gov. Letcher gave me no assurances of anv
sort except very kind promise Of an introduce
ton to some Judge of the Court of Appeals. if
came here to conduct Stevens Appeal from the
Circuit Court The hearing before the commit
tee so generously accorded to me, was obtained
by going up to the Capitol accosting the first
Senator met, stating my erraud and my name.
and asking for it! | never was in the CITY be.
fore, and had not single acquaintance in It'll
may mistake, but | do not believe that such a
courteous, magnanimous action would be per
formed for person coming upon such an errand
by any other Legislature in the world. l will
add that in other parts of Virginia have been
well treated; but here, have experienced
hospitality that have as yet done nothing to
merit-that no stranger could have a right to ex.
pect, and that will make me remember the city
Of Richmond very long.