The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-01-10

By Mr.. ANDREWS Inquiring into the
exnediancy Of the erection Of houses OF
corraction forHinors convicted of criminal
By MFR. BAawruL: Petition of citizens OF
Petersburg asking protection OIL ISL ID
james river.
(.syTrF g LEAVE TO LEeTUEE. / TT.
MFR. LorFNsrEiH presented communities
ton from Mayor Kelley. OF Riehmondi ASK,
Ing that the use of the Hall Of the House d, o.
| Delegates be granted Mr.. N. a. Caiklns, Oh
/ New York. on Wednesday evening, LOT
lecture on ." Obtect Teaching" Inc re-
| quest was granted. .,.,,..,,.,.
80 ~ THE JURY LAW. .' .@.--: :
The motion of Mr.. LovENsTEIN to recon-
slider the vote by which the making up of
| the list of jurors was confded to hoard
consisting of the Judge. Commonwealth
Attorney, and Clerk, instead Of to the
Judge alone, came up In order.
DIR. STUBS favored the reconsideration,
believing the action of the House had been
rather hasty. IF members would reflect,
they would remember that this mower
would in many instances be confided to, a
board, a majority of whose members by no
means represent the intelligence of the
Ecounty. In some sections of the State it
would result, beyond doubt. in the exclu-
sion of the best material fssn the jury
| jury service. The argument that the Com
monwealth's attorney and clerk are better
acquainted with the people would not
answer, for this is certainly not the case
where one or both of these officers are
carDet-baggers. .s. l..-... q.
Mr.. WALKER, Of Westmoreland, submit
ted another argument in favor of reconsid-
GRAFTON. The selection fiurors should not
be the province of those who, like the clerk
and Commemorative attorney, from year
to year, have to depend upon the popular
voice for reelection. The judge is subject
to no such tribunal, and is therefore less
likely to be influenced by improper con-
siderations. -.......- g."
Messrs. STEVENS and BRIsBY (both color
ed) urged the impolicy of increasing the
powers of the county judge as Indicated by
the last two speakers. .r... Z. 49,.
Mr.. PoPHAM also opposed the reconsid-
Grafton. It was particularly inadvlsable,
he held. to give this power to the judges
who had more than one county in their
jurisdiction. It was hardly probable that
such judge would be sufficiently well
acquainted with. the citizens of more than
one county (that in which he resides) to
select venire from, their number. Party
spirit dictates this movement, and it should
be branded as party measure. <,:.., -
tention to the fact that the ciuI jury bill
was Under consideration. The Common
wealth's attorney Is not an officer of the
State in civil cases, and if the provision now
being discussed was not stricken out, he
might demand the right to have voice in
the selection of a jury in cases in which he
is himself retained as counsel. This is not
an unwarrantable supposition. where the
Commonwealth attorney has been elected,
as is sometimes the case, by catering TO the
worst passions and preJudices Of the mob.
The House ought not to hesitate TO retrace
its steps, so as to leave the bill as reported,
or else change the board so that it may be
free from the insuperable oblectlons that
Mr.. DANIEL said the passage Of the bill
without reconsideration Of this question
was certainly opening the door to fraud,
and at the same time virtually providing
that iuries shall be composed of members
of the predominant political party In any
given county.
Mr.. THOMAS regretted that party politics
had been dragged into matter in the con-
sideration of which members should rise
superior to mere party considerations. TO
confide the selection of jury to a board,
instead of to one person, was no innovation
upon the time-honored practice of Virginia.
In county courts, under the old regime,
the power was not vested in the presiding
justice, but in not less than three justices
of the court. 1t was the proposition
to give it to one person alone that
was an innovation. Even if party politics
are to be invoked to bolster up a cause
which cannot stand upon it's merits, the
gentlemen of the Conservative party ought
to be satisfied with having the control OF
the entire judiciary of the State, and with
having already conferred upon the judges
remarkable powers. Why add to their du.
ties and responsibilities? He would remind
the other side that this is a day of revolu.
tions, and that it is not impossible that a
few years hence this hall will be filled with
members of another political complexion;
May they not then wish to invoke the aid
of the clerk and attorney in the selection OF
juries in certain counties. -'-
Mr.. BURKHoLDER called the pending ques-
ton; it was ordered, and the motion to
reconsider was carried-ayes, 81 noes, 48.
Mr.. BELL, of Matthews, then moved to
amend the bill so as to make the circuit
judge, instead OF the Commemorative at
torney, member of the board. Rejected.
The question was then taken upon MIR.
THoMAs's amendment, and it was rciect.
ed-ayes, 52 noes, 6O. so the Dill, as IL
stands, gives the power of selecting jurors
to the judge alone.
The motion of Dir. WOOD, to strike out
the 3Sth section Of the jury bill as reported,
came up rs unfinished business. The sec
ton sought to be stricken out provides
that, unless trial by jury is demanded by
the parties, the court shall decide cause.
The motion to strike out was favored by
Mr.. PoeHAM. e1-.- =: y
Mr.. DANIEL gave notice of his intention
to submit an amendment to the effect that
in certain cases q case may be decided, un'
der the instruction of the court, by three
persons selected by the parties to the suit.
~ "'h' LEAVE OF ABSENCE !,
was granted Mr.. HoLLoaAN for two days,
Mr.. BowDEN for three, Dir. BRIsBY for four,
Mr.. WooD for four, and to Messrs. BURGESS,
PEATRoss, and HUDGIN for one day each.
Adjourned. ...,...a.