The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-03-21
Nico and Stubbs. who argued to show
that the bill was unconstitutional.
A srRPRIsE

"a Sthfh hiTbs
Mr.. Sayers (Readiustcr). OF Wythe. fol-
lowed Mr.. NicOl. II was thought. when be
took the floor, that he did so for the pur-
pose Of advocating the bill, but TO the sur
prise and discontinue OF his party friends
he came out and made forcible and manly
protest against it,.
Mr.. Sayers said: As an humble men,
Der Of this House enter my solemn protest
against this bill. [Applause.l l mean to
enter my protest and vote against it and do
everything in my power to prevent its pas
sage. IL Is monstrous What is the Deces-
sity for 1t? These judges were legally and
constitlltionally elected. What right has
this Legislature TO remove them? Why
should this Legislature be assuming to
vacate these Offices? Why take UP the
time OF the session in putting in new
judges and rearranging these districts 7
I Iappcal to the members on my own side
OF the House not TO pass this bill. Have
you thought about the amount OF work 1t
will entail upon the Legislature! IL you
pass this bill and oil the offices are vacated,
then we have to 60 into the election. What
will be the result? WewiIl have the most
disgraceful scramble for Office ever seen in
this State. They will come here with their
lobbies, and how long will it take us to ac-
complish that taskY Then we will have to
fix the time for holding the courts. How
long will il take us TO accomplish this?
The Constitution says these judges are
elected for eight years. IL provides the
manner by which they can be removed.
No steps have been taken to remove these
officers in a legal way. Until that is done
| cannot give my support to their removal.
II they are incompetent VIII 90 for their
removal. Many Of them, perhaps all OF
them, know are able men, capable to dis
charge their duties. SO far rs | know, in
my section OF the State, have heard no
word against them.
In the name OF fourteen hundred Reid
jusicrs that voted for William +. Cameron,
and whose sentiments am proud TO voice
on this floor, | solcmnly protest against the
passage Of this bill; in the name Of the
great Readjnster party, for which have
suffered much, Iprotest against the passage
OF the bill. | appeal 10 the members on
my side OF the house that we have enough
to do. Ii Is time we were doing the work
we were sent here TO do. Let Us dismiss
the bill.
Mr.. Mayo argued TO show that il was the
Tx III vi ttlf illiuii lilt NbllNti-
tuition to rC;irrangc the judicial circuits Of
the Commonwealth whenever it was deemed
necessary. lie was sorry that such was the
law. but it was nevertheless so.
Mr.. Stuart said that the passage Of this
bill would establish the precedent for
change in the judiciary with every change
in the political complexion OF the Legisla-
turc. He was unwilling to see such pre-
ccdCnt established. He cOntended that II
would be detrimental to the public inter-
csts to decrease the number Of judicial cir
cults.
Mr.. Cogbill characterized the bill as a
revolutionary measure. No good reason
had been shown 10y the other side for
making this change. He argued that no
rCirrangcnh'nt OF circuits could deprive a
Judge OF his ofiice--a removal could only
he made for cause. He charged that this
was purely partisan measure, and one
which could only result in harm to the
State.
Mr.. Griffin argued TO show the unconstl-
tutionality Of the bill.
The pending question being ordered,
the motion TO reconsider was defeated by
party vote.
Mr. Graves moved to table the bill. Lost.
The hour Of 3 o'clock having arrived,
the chair was vacated until = O'Clock.