Bristol news. [volume] (Bristol, Va. & Tenn.) 1867-189?, 1879-08-19
TIE BRISTOL COURT.

LAST week, at BlountvilIe, Judge
Hacker decided the act establishing a
court of law and Chanccry at Bristol
unconstitutional. An appeal was mt
once taken to the Supreme Court Of
Tennessee, aud in September we will
have the decision of that body, in
quite time tor the fall session of the
Court That it will reverse The decs.
ion of Judge Hacker we have scarcely
a doubt. The County Court Of Sull-
van had refused to order the paymcn.
of the usual Court expenses for Bristol
ana thereupon Judge Hacker was ark
ed to compel by mandamus the issu.
ance of the order. But Tie people of
Blountvllle, seeming to fear that the
Bristol Court would eventually swat
low up the Blouutville one, said like
the Dutchman, they neither cared for
man-damusses nor God.damuses. So
they demnrred, alleging the act es.
tablishing the Bristol Court to be un.
constitutional, In this, that 1t contains
two suhjects-to wit, the Law Court
and the Chanoery Court. The con.
stitution provides that no billshall be-
come n law which embraces more than
one sulject-lhat subject tie express
ed in the bill. Now in 1877 In the
case of Gassett Us the State, the Su.
preme Court of Tenn. declares that Il
statute of doubtful validity Is re-
pugnant to the policy Of the law and
the traditions Of the Courts, to pro-
nounce II repugnant TO the orgauic
law If the decision of the case can re-
pose upon aay other grouud.
No man can assert, with any claim
to credence that because the act to es-
tabllsh n court In Bristol provides for
both n ldt0 and chancety court, that
It therefore clearly contains two sub
lects.
Again; "'rhe object of this provls.
lion Is obviously judlcious and wise.
ut was intended TO prevent improve.
"ment as well ma fraudulent legisla.
"tion, which most often occurs by |
grating sections aud clauses In n bill |
'McongrUous with iis general subject |
'aud Inconsistent with It's declared OBJ
''Ject rs indicated by its tlIlen
Can any man affirm that these two
kinds of courts were mentioned and
provided for IN this bill to cover up .
"imprOvldence" or to effect any thing |
fraudulent" or that the two kinds of
Courts are 'incongruous" or "Incon.
slslent with each otherPn
Again: Judge Cooley says: 1.-THE
generality of n title Ia no objection 10
20, 80 long AS It Is not made cover
ITO legislation, homogeneous IN itself
land which, by no fair intcadmoak
"cnn be considered ~ havInga neces.
'sary or proper connection
But to conclude oil this Judge Cool
" hhalIy says; "The general purpose
OF these provisions Ia accomplished
when law has but one general object
which 10 fairly indicated 10y its title.n
With these references we think II
may be foreknown that the Supreme
Court will allow this decision Of Judge
Hacker to stand Just about one month
mo longer. We are sorry Judge
Hacker has not the chance to review
his decision, for we believe lac Ia nh
honest man and would reverse IL.
Our Blouutvlllo friends may dis
miss their fears We don't want
their Court. We think they ought TO
allow that we have u right to our own.
They may keep theirs until we nll up
the space between us and them 10y
the growth OF Bristol aud even then
We shall grant them court II they
wish one for convenience. IF Blount.
Vile, like the mother OF Bates, has
given birth toa giant on lts Sullivan
arm, IL ought 10 promote is c0nveh.
ltnce 10y stopping this fOolshnpss."