The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-02-05
githmlond nispatrh.
SUNDAY. .......fEBRUARi D. 1851
The Difference.

Inc D1NGIclCC'
Several years ago, before the oul'en'o
Cour, Of Appeals had had occasion 10 oc-
eide the question iudlcially, the Democrats
o, the virginia Legislature were called
upon TO elect certain judges III pace ol
others who had not served out their iul'
terms. Hinder such circumstances, the
members OF that body were not only ~
liberty 70 decide for themselves whether
these new Judges were TO be elected Tor
sun terms or to serve cut uncNpired terms,
but ,hey had no choice in the matter. They
were compelled 70 como to conclusion on
the subject, and 10 act upon that concln-
zion. This they did. And they decided
that they had the power to elect judges TO
scfS, oft uncXpircd terms.
We have I'm the discussion when has
been going on in regard 10 this question oil
The power OF the Legislature TO elect
Judges for less than fall terms never eX-
pressed an opinion as TO whether the SUI
prcnlc Court OF Appeals had decided that
question a. we thought II ought to DC de-
cided or not. We occupy exactly the
ground taken by the minority OF the Com
nittec Of Courts OF Justice Of the House
Of Delegates IN their report TO that
BODY week or two ago. We
decline 10 discuss q question which the Con-
rtitution has empowered the Supreme
Court of Appeals TO decide, and whose de-
cisiou is binding upon Us and upon every
citizen Of this Commonwealth. That COM
rnit.ce had upon il one or more gentlemen
who had few years previously reached n
conclusion different from that stated in
their report. But the circumstances had
changed. In the first instance, the ques-
ton was as to what The members OF tho
committee considered the constitutional re-
qnirement 20 be. In the last instance, the
oucs.lon was as TO what the high
est judicial tribunal in the Com
monwealth had authoritatiycly decided
the constitutional requirement to be.
There is, therefore, no change Of opinion
indicated in this last report The gentle
men had the right "a decide for themselves
50 long as the courts had not adjudicated
the point'at issue. But once the judgment
OF the tribunal appointed by the Constitu-
ton to decide The question had been rem
dured, there was no longer any room for
two opinions a. b. what a sense OF public
duty demanded Of the Legislature. Such
Is the position of the Democratic members
Of the present General Assembly. 1t Is IN
impresnable one.
But mark the contrast. hr. JAMES {.
TAYLOR and one other lawyer induce the
House Of Delegates TO pass q resolution
which treats with contempt the decision OF
the Supreme Court OF Appeals, and sets mp
the opinion OF those two lawyers and thir-
ty-odd non-profcssional men rs sufficient
te Justify reversal by legislative body
of decision Or the highest judicial tribu-
nal Of this honored old Commonwealth.
We have said heretofore enough in regard
10 this fragrant outrage upon the Supreme
Court Of Appeals and the people OF Vir-
ainia. We recur to it this morning only
for the purpose Of emphasizing the I'M
Unsuitable and wrongful action OF the
two Readjuster lawyers Of the House Of
Delegates and their thirty-odd associates,
as contrasted with the law-abiding spirit
manifested by the fifteen Democratic
lawyers in that body and their associates,
m bowling with obedient submission to the
Judgment Of the tribunal authorized by the
Constitution 10 decide all such questions
80 IS to bind the consciences OF every
Judge in Virginia. 1t is only revolution
lists who refuse to allow Judicial tribunals
10 decide Judicial questions.