The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-04-14
THE "PESTIrER0US JAIL.
Judge Guigon VS.. the City Council
Optnion OF tho BIustingS Court on
the Response of the Council TO
the Courts Nandamus.

In the return of the City Council to the
rule to show cause why they should not
erect a sufficient jail they answer:
First. Tnat it. was the duty OF this court 10
appoint inspectors TO report upon the condl-
ton of the Jail, and this not having been done
they were utterly ignorant of It's condition,
and could draw no other inference than that
it vas sufficient.
Now, inasmuch as the rule was TO show
cause why they should not MereUtcrr
erect sufficient Jail, not why they had
failed to do SO heretofore, it would be
| sufficient TO say of this part OF the answer
| that il is i'm pertinent and not responsive were
it not that it is calculated to create the false
impression that il was not the business
of the Council to act in the premises
until the appointment Of inspectors
and n report from them condemn
| ing the Jail. So far from this being
! true, the law makes it the duty Of the Coun-
cll. at all times, TO provide q suitable Jail,
well secured" "sufticient for the come
nient accommodation OF those who may be
confined therein, so That convicts and those
| not convicts may be in apartments separate
| from each other and from other prisoners
| leach apartment 50 constructed that 1t can
| be kept comfortable" aud TO "keep the Jail
| in good repair" (Sections and of chap
| ter 80 of the Code.) This is The primary
! duty of the Council one it does not appear,
and iS not alleged, they have performed. The
duty of this court is simply >upervi>ory-to
a>ctrtlin whether the Council has complied
with the law, and to enforce compliance
with its requirements if the Council refuse
to do their duty in the premises: 80 that II
the members Of the Council who "took
the trouble" as they say, TO examine
the recerdS Of this court to ascertain
whether inspectors had been appointed bad
taken the trouble instead to ascertain what
we're their own duties. and had properly uis-
charged them, theIe would have been no oc.
cisiun for in>pcc' orS, and no harm couid
have come from the failure 10 appoint lneui.
am not unwilling, however, TO accept my
share of censure Tor overlooking the act
which conferred this power upon this court,
though IT lS proper TO say that it is a muistc-
rial. no, judicial, duty, found IN part OF The
Cote, rrc>cribin" the manifold duties OF
city and county officers. seldom looked into
by illu.rs or lawyers, and transferred 10 the
Jurisdiction OF this court within The last few
wears 1rom the Circuit Court of Richmond
one of those matters OF detail that slumber
among the statutes until startled into activity
| =
| which clilscd this Investigation and these
proceedings. 1t is II provision that has
never been acted on in the city of Rich
mond, no >uch inspectors ever having
been appointed until now, As | am
advised. even during the long and rlgillnt
administration of Judge Meredith, now pre-.
s.dent of the Council.
ReSpordcnts further allege that at the
first meeting OF either branch after the re-
port of the inspectors. and before the date
and Sercice of the rule, there was intro
duced and referred to q committee JO'nt
resolution OF inquiry about the Ju, It's con-
dition, the cost Of repairing the old and OF
erecting Il new one.
This statement, while it is true in fact, is
unfair in reference. The rule wps made on
the dav the report was made, and was pub
Iished 10 the city papers, and no doubt known
10 every member OF the Council some days be-
fore the Board met. Since then. At meet
ing of the Other branch, the report and rule
were simply received without feadIng, or
reference. or action of any kind nor has any
action been since taken, though more
than month has elapsed, and both
| branches nave twice met. MeanWh'le
over one hundred and fifty men and women,
many Of them unconVictcd Of any 0nSnce
| against the law, aud some OF them Inmates,
arc Wing in i.il which, according to the
sworn statements OF the inspectors, Il TO
| tally uutit for the purposes ot jail" "hltnr,
i!.,,,uulpd, and uc>tirerou~." "whcrc men
are confined in il cell six feet by eight feet six
| inches" "rll, u>lvc i'll the extreme" "anti
| unit. in 1ur, ior the accommodation Oi
b;u'rS. mucn less OF human beings Ger.
| tainly, With such report. made under oath
| by such citizens Is those inspectors, and not
denied on any hand or in any particular, any
| court NAV we'll hasten is much as possible
| the Ineaus of rehet, especially II, as The re-
spondent> courtcouly suggest, that reel has
| been DELAYED solely by the inaction OF the
court; and even the dignity of Common
| Council should not tc TOO deeply otleUded
at Il prompt demand under the law TO
remedy this evil.
| But the respondents further suggest
that the rule awarded was premature
and unnec, sSarp al the time, and thai
the court should have waited to see il
the Council would not take the proper
steps in the premises before the harsh and
| unusual proceeding 10y mdnddmuS.
| Ii IS enough TO say in answer TO this tha,
,he action Of the court was in strict obedience
| 70 the mandate o. the law, ~hich declares tia
"upon such report" as That OF the inspect
ors :. it shall be the duty ot such court &c
award a rule in the name and on beha!l o
| the Commonwealth against the members ol
tne Council TO show cause why il per emptor5
,ooudaDius should not issue commanding
them to erect JUL" &c. (Code OF Virginia,
pare 4S2. scc'on - SO that, whatever harsh
nts. there may be, it is of The law ana not
| of the court, and the lawyers OF the body
| might well have informed their associate:
| that process of courts Of justice Issues
| ,rajnst members Of the Council precisely as
| il iSsut : against the humDieSt citizen.
| i, will be perceived thut the ioregoinGaccu
| satlons, which purpOrl TO be answers 70 tle
| rule, are not only lmperlinent ana lfIeSpoh
sivc but unjust, and either Intentionally OF
ionoranlly dl>courteouS. The tone OF the
answers forbid tne belief that it was the lor'
| mcr. and it must therefore be the ltttef.
The onlv response which can be regarded
| as at all responsive 10 the rule Is mat Wnlch
declare, that the respondents have taken tlle
| ini,iu,ory steps to provide sufficient JAIL
and that they intend to provide the same as
| soon as practicable consistent with ihe IN
| tercsts of the community.
| II has been shown what has been done Dy
| the Council in two sessions OF eacn Drah"u
and in a months time i JOINT resolution o.
inquiry referred TO q committee III one
branch uunoliced 10 the other. so That IL
Hould seem that The intention TO proviae O:
soon as practicable Il sufficient Jail is more
manifest in the response of the Council than
| 10 their action, and the mandanuS would IS
sue on this return at once but that or
animation of the rule it appearing
| trat il only requires the Council te
show cause why they should not be re-
ouired to erect Sufficient Jail, which
Technically may be- objected 10 as not sum