Richmond enquirer. [volume], December 24, 1833, Image 3

About Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867

Image provided by: Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

                
Kii'liiiioai<l, Tuctulay, Dec. 94.
tin: factious fanatics.
Wo have no doubt, that nil the well-informed and
the great muss of the citizens of tho North, are most
strenuously opposed to the movements of Tnppnn,
Ciarrison & Co. Yet there is no doulit that the fa
natics of that country ore at work. The late meet
ing in Philadelphia is a proof of it. With the view
of putting our citizens on their guard against such
machinations, we lay the following communication
before our readers. The police should bo on the
alert, to detect and to arrest these vile incendiaries.
These wretches must he circumvented, or they may
do mischief in their way. Are our laws strict enough
at present—or, is there any defect in them, which
the present Legislature may supply ?
COMMUJV/C.1 TF.D.
A letter from a gentleman in Philadelphia to lua friend
in this rity, speak* of the proceedings of tlio National An
ti-Slavery Convention, (which was held in private, with a
rentinel at ilia door.) He says, when he went in,” Gar
rison had the floor, and spoke for about half an hour againd
the people ot the South, in tho most malignant manner
conceivable. Alter he had addressed tile meeting, lie beg
ged leave to introduce to the house two Presidents of the
Anti Shivery Society of the New England States; and to!
and behold! who should they he, but two fellows as black
as midnight! They made their remarks, and read several
letters from this Sambo and lliat, from ditlerent parts of the
United States. Ono was resit by Garrison from a black
brother in Petersburg, who said the lime wss fast ap
proaching when liberty would be sounded in Maine and
echoed in Georgia. Garrison read as many as five letters
Irotn ditlerent men in the Southern States, and several
trout Missouri. Among the resolutions adopted, was this,
brought in by Garrison: He moved that a catalogue be
made out of the different Ministers of the Gospel in the
United Slates, wlm were base enough to hold slaves, and
fh it their names should be held up to (be world, as men
who were damning themselves at eveiy breath! A com
mittee was to be appointed, to go tho rounds of the South
ern Sistes, to find out the preachers owning slaves. You
may expect a supply ol such men in Richmond.”
In the menu time, we also submit to our renders
tho renewed ussttrances of our Northern brethren,
that they will keep a vigilant eye over these incen
diaries—in the following extract from the last “ New
York Standard” :
“'»• have received the Declaration ol (lie Anti-slavery
Convention, assembled at Philadelphia, December 4th,
1833. It in a piece of warm declamation, appealing to re
ligion* prejudices, calling upon the church to enlist in the
crusade against the Southern slave holders, and replete
with cant, ft denies that the holders of slaves are the
proprietors ol what they claim, and that, therefore, free
ing slaves is not depriving them of their property; and it
maintains that no compensation should be given to plan
ters who emancipate their slaves. It promises to orga
nize Anti-Slavery Societies in every village, town and
hamlet in the United States, and to enlist in their cause
the press and the pulpit.
‘•We should not have noticed this inflammatory hand
bill, were we not apprehensive that our silence might
be unfavorably construed, and a belief might he induc
ed that we were disposed to relax our opposition to the
mad acts of these dangerous men. The Declaration
will probably be extensively circulated by its authors,
and the antidote should accompany the poison. Our
Southern brethren may feel assured that the support
ers of these doctrines, so subversive of their rights, are
insignificant in point ol number, and that in spite of
llnir appeals to religious prejudices, and their endeavors
to enli«t the church in matters of legislation, they will
tail most signally in their efforts. They are narrowly
wa ched. If they have succeeded in agitating the com
munity fora time, it has beon because the people are un
willing to listen to doctrines or to sanction measures of so
alarming a 'endency; and not because the supporters ol
these doctrines and measures are formidable either for
number or inllucnce. In Ihe city of New York, at least,
there is a feeling of opposition to their course almost as
strong as that which exists at Ihe South. They slick at
nothing in their ellorts to carry their mad projects into
execution, and it is not strange that they should seek to
prostitute the pulpit to their uses."
T11E ISSUE.
The issue Is now made up. The People must
rule the Bank—or the Bunk must rule them. Either
the Constitution must predominate, or the Charter of
n tremendous Institution, mado in direct violation and
contempt of the Constitution itself. Choose ye be
tween them! Choose between the Bights of the
States, and the Liberties of the People ; or, n tre
mendous Institution, which threatens and mocks at
both.
If this Institution, so far exceeding the resources
of the Government, or the convenience of its Citi
zens—not n Bank of 10, hut of 35 millions—not a
Bauk adjusted to the reduced revenue of the Trea
sury, and to the extinguishment of the Public Debt
—hut a Bank created in very different circumstan
ces; created in defiance of the Constitution itself,
without the proper checks which a free People
should demand as the conditions of its charter—
with its powers abused as they hove been—tamper
ing with our elections, with the press, and almost
entirely wielded in fact by a single man in Phila
delphia—if this Bank can now, hy putting the screws
upon its own customers and on our State Institu
tions, produce a pressure, and still more a panic, so
ns to prove itself stronger than the people nnd their
immediate Representatives, with one of tho firmest
Presidents which this country has ever had in its
administration—if it enn do this, why wo may almost
ns well give up the ship. We may ns well lay our
liberties at the feet of this monster.—Re-chnrtor it
now, nnd we tnny almost any it will he perpetuated.—
Certain it is, that nothing hut one of those violent
shocks of society, which nearly nmount to a Revo
lution, can hereafter shake its existence.
Yvn must mnKc up our minus to moot and Uoty
tliis monster, or submit to its power. It will press
upon the people. It may gore them not a little. It
inny effect some shock in the commercial world.—
We must expect these consequences from the des
perate convulsions, and the enormous power of the
monster. We cannot hope to get rid of it without
struggle and without suffering. VVe are now pay
ing the penalty of that sin, which Clny and Calhoun
and others entailed upon us in 1810. Such po
liticians as these were the men to create nn institu
tion, which we cannot shake off without much la
bor, resolution anil patience. But a free people will
not yield their rights and liberties without a grent
struggle. Nay ; they will not yield them at all.—
But, they will purge off the sin of those, who crc
ntod the Bank, “ with hyssop,” and they “ shall he
clean.” VVliat, though they may have differed nmong
themselves about the precise period of removing the
deposites ? What, though insidious efforts have been
made to generate suspicions about the deposites in
the Slate Banks? The people will look to the main
chance. Shhll this Bank he revived—or shall it not?
Shnll we break down the mnti wlw is doing all in
his power to break down this mammoth and over
shadowing power ? Shall we restore the Constitu
tion, or shall we submit to a tremendous and uncon
stitutional institution ? Hut more anon!
ANOTHER CANDIDATE,
A Convention, composed of the "Mute Bights" member*
of die Georgia Legislature, and delegates from die severs!
counties unrepresented there, assembled in Milledgoville
on die 12th iost., to nominate a Congre.ssion.il Ticket for
die ensuing canvass. The following was made out at two
balloting*:—“ Richard II. Wilde, Roger L.Gamble, Geo.
H. Oilmer, Seaborn Jones, Win. C. IJanicll, Thomas F.
Foster, Daniel Newman, A. 11. Chappell, Mirabeau B.
The following Besot, tion was then offered by Mark A.
Cooper, Ksq. of Putnam,and unanimously adopted :
" Regained, That we recommend to the people ol the
United States, Col. George M. Troup as a suitable candi
date f>r die negt Presidency. IDs r.ealoua advocacy of,
and firm attachment to, the prlririptes of Stale Bights, de
signate him as (lie individual be«t calculated to promote
the republican doctrines we advoca'e ”
The Augusta Chronicle (a Nullifi-r) approves of all the
proceedings, except die nomination of Gov. Troup. It at
tempt* to show die '’impropriety and impolicy of nominat
ing” him—and it promises to present its"viewsol die mad
end suicidal impolicy of nominating any one, or of inter
fering at all in flint most corrupting and destructive of all
■contests to the South, a scramble for the Presidency. As
ihlngs now stand, we would trust there it no Southern man
mho look* for honor* or office* beyond the limits ot hi* own
•tats; and sli*ll feel it our duly t0 caution the Southern
people not to place themselves again one inch within the
power or Influence of any man whose ambition is «et up
on tU.it dazzling, delusive, and most corrupting object."
Mr McDuffie’s Speech is one of the Liewenf the day.
We give it to gratify die curiosity of our readers._The
Orator having let off some of hi* steam. It i* presumed
that the ebullition of the hotter will cease after a few day*
We umlerstand that die majority!* the If. of R. will
Gal—end that (lie Deposites will not be restored.
I Ti emend out.'—Mr. McDuffie admit*, tbat (he Bank of
I the U. 8. •• wields a tremendou* power."—It is true.—It
is a power over the ciiculatiug medium, the exchanges,
the prices, the markets, the property of almost every man
in the community,in the handaol twelve men in Philadel
phis, wielding a capital of $:t.y000,000, in addition to the
Public Depo*ites. The monster extends Its arms to
every State in the Union—collecting the notes ol every
Sta'e Bank, returning them to tlieir counter, making
up a. balance against them, and draining them of their
specie, the very life-blood of such InsHution*. But
it does more—It thus ilfudi not only the property of
the people, and the resource* ol the Slate Banks, but it
can wield a tremendous power over the politics of the
country—over the pro«e—over our election*—tnd over
the great movements of the government. If It should
"suh-erve the purpose* ol the Executive," which Mr.
McDuffie affirm*," wields a power still more tremendous"
titan itself,—that slate ol things presents, according to his
notions, the greatest danger which the U. S.’ Hank can
produce.—But suppose it should go against, not only the
Executive, but the Congress and the people—Suppose, it
•ihould fad into the hand* of a political party, and in the
midat of a foreign war, waged for the defence ol our
rights, but waged against the consent of its partzins, this
tremendous engine sliouUi do all in its power to thwart ita
operations—should call in its paper—produce a pressure
on the people, and exhaust the very sinews of the war it
self, what should we then think of its power or its utility!
Extract of a Letter Jrotn an old and tried Republican.
" Tits campaign has opened at Washington with great
spirit, anil we may expert a desperate conflict. The tac
tics of the Anti-administration Party are already developed.
Mr. Clay lias raised the curtain somewhat incautiously, I
should think, and Ilia attacks have hitherto ratlisr shown
Ins rage, than hi* piudence. But it is plain the Senate ie
to be made the theatre lor the devrloprinent of the plot.
There, the troops are already organized by the election ol
convenient Committees, ivho«e Reports are to make a lodg
ment on the public mind. That body can act with releii
ty and effect. It will get the start of the other House,
slid it expects to carry its measures by s coup de main.
By throwing before the people artlul and plausible state
ments, it is hoped that public opinion may be brought to
hear on the House of Rcpresentativee in lime to affect its
legislation. In the mem tune, the Bank is moving Hea
ven and Earth to prolong its bloated existence. Printed
Instructions are sent into every tloub>ful District to get
signatures enough to alarm, and, perhaps, controul the
Representatives. J.otters from Washington, filled witli
idle rumours, and unblushing falsehoods, are circulated far
and wide—and every means, whether fair or foul, is put
into requisition, to ensure victory. Under these eircuin
stances, the conductors of independent Presses have be
fore them high ahd arduous duties. If they quail or relax
in their efforts, we aro lost. Nor, in my poor judgment
ought minor differences of opinion with the Pre.-ident, to
prevent them from giving to his leading measures an en
lightened and proper support, when so much depends upon
the issue which is already made up:
Re to his faults a little blind,
llo to his virtues ever kind.
Is now a principle, not of policy, hut of duty."
Philadelphia Banks.—Tlie “ U. S. Gazelle” of
Friday states, that the Presidents of the State Hanks in
the City ami County ol Philadelphia iiad a meeting on
Thursday Iasi, lor considering the best method of relieving
the pressure in the money market. They came to a reso
lution, recommending that the Board of each of the Banks
should memorialize Congress in favour of a restoration of
the public deposites to the U. S. Bank, as a measure more
likely than any other to restore confidence and produce a
salutary ellect.—This movement in the Philadelphia Banks
does not surprise us. They havo been uniformly in fa
vor of the Bank ol the U. S., with the exception, we be
lieve, of the Girard Bank. They have regarded that
enormous Institution as a sort ol balance-wheel to the cir
culation of the country.— Besides, they do not participate
in the public deposites—and this is an additional reason in
favor ol the course they are now pursuing. The facts and
arguinentsof all those who are in favor of the National
Bank must be received with great caution.
There is a Coalition getting up between the Nullifiers
and the Nationals on the subject of the Bank. They are
now rallying on the common ground of the Deposites—
They arc both railing about the State Institutions being
employed as the Depositaries of the public funds—and
yet they are fully aware that there is no other alternative
than a Federal or State Bank*! The motive of the com
bination is obvious. They hate the Administration—anti
in attempting to pull it down, they are inevitable concur
log in the object of putting up the bank. Mark the
consequence!
The Washington Correspondent of the Rthimore Pa
triot say-: “ Next week, we shall have Clay in the Se
nate, and McDuffie in the House.”—Exactly so! The
National and the Nullifier will pull together—in favour
ol the Bank—hill with this difference—Clay will carry
the Senate with him—whereas MrDnlfte will meet a ma
jority in the II. ot R., which nothing can shake. Alibis
fury in behalf of the Bank cannot swerve them from their
purpose.
GOLD!
Wo have also the most Haltering accounts of the Gohl
Region of Alabama. The Georgia Democrat slates, that
it *• averages lorly miles in width, and the gold is said to
be of the linencss of twenty three and a half carats. The
Coosa river runs through the district lor a hundred miles,
and affords deposited ol gold in abundance —With very
careless work ami slight machinery, these deposits* yield
from one and a half to two and a halt penny-weight* a
day. The vein hill mines have not been touched, and lit
tle of the deposites have been fully examined.*’
We have had an opportunity of examining some beau
tiful specimens of the Gold Oro ol Virginia. They were
brought to this City by Mr. Jackson ot Fredericksburg, as
they were taken Irom the “ United States Mining Compa
ny in Spottsylvania County,” about ten miles above Fred
ericksburg. On the tract of land which the Company own,
there are two mines. The gold is found embedded in quartz.
In all the specimens we have seen, the particles of gold are
in tersperard through the quartz (a species of flint)—and in
some of tlirin, are rich and beautiful efflorescences. They
have all the appearance of being rich in metal. The read
er will rcrollect Mr. Featherstonhaugh’s statement, that in
some of the veins and deposites in the Gohl Region of Vir
ginia, the quartz contains from ten to forty per cent, in
weight of native gold, so puio as to rise as high as twen
ty-three to twenty-three and a half carats.
The Baltimore American says, very truly, that “As in
Virginia, so in Alabama, there is no doubt that sufficient
capital, under the management of persons of sufficient en
terprise am) skill, would devolve an immense fund of
wealth, and advance the prosperity of the Stale very
largely, within a few years.”—At this time of pressure,
but which may be relieved by a supply of the precious
metals, the motive for working our mines in an efficient
manner is ol course increased.
The author of a coarse article in the last Norfolk Bea
con does us injustice—but that quality is so common now.
a days, that we have no special reason to complain ol him.
We admit that the author of the Address to the Legisla
ture has made out a strong case—but on broad, general
principles, we adhere to the same conclusion to which
we arrived last winter, in favor of the appropriation to the
Portsmouth Kail Road.
CASE OF HABEAS CORPUS.
Robert H. Randolph is discharged. On Saturday,
the Federal Court pronounced its decision—both
Judges concurring in the result. We understand,
that both the Judges concur in the opinion, that the
Government of the United States may hnve recourse
to the ordinary remedies for the recovery of whate
ver balance may be due. VVe now lay the opinion
of both Judges before our rentiers :
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Held in the Capitol at Richmond, Dec 21, 1833.
Chief Justice Marshai.i„ >ind Judge P. P Harbour,
composing the Court.
OPINION OF JUDGE BaRROUR.
Ex-parte Robert R. Randolph, on a Habeas Corput.
This is s H sheas Corpus, issued by this Court, upon the
application of Robprl B Randolph, alleging that ho was
imprisoned by the Marshal of the Eastern District of Vir
ginia, without lawful aulhoiity.
The Marshal returns as the cause of the detainer of the
party, a warrant of distress, issued by the Solicitor of the
Treasury of the United States, against Randolph, for a
sum ol money stated in the warrant to be due from him to
the U. States, and which ho has failed fo pay in I' j man
ner, and al the lime required by law; which warrant was
issued under the 3rd section of the act of the 16th May,
1820, concerning the Treasury Department. From (ho
warrant, and the account annexed to it, and referred to, as
part of it, it appears lliat the sum claimed from the party,
is claimed as being due from him, a Lieutenant in the Na
vy, at acting putter, on board Hie frigate Constitution,
for his transactions in that character in the year 1828. It
appears from another account produced by the party, and
duly authenticated, that he had inOet. J828, settled his
account as acting purser on board the Constitution, as ap
pears by (lie certiHeateof the then4th Auditor, and which
•etihmnnt was sanctioned by the Comptroller and those
count, on wbirh the warrant of distress was issued, under
which the party ia imprisoned, ia one staled at the Trea
sury of the United States, in February, 1833, against the
party as late acting purser of the Frigate Constitution, for
the same period embraced in the account above-mentioned
fo have hern settled in October, 1828; the present 4th Auditor
of the Ireasury, having opened the former account, and
re-stated it so ss to produce the result stated in (tie account of
February, 1838, beforementioned, upon the ground as ap
pears from the lace of this la-t account, of the subsequent
discovery ol errors and omissions, since the settlement of !
(hat of 1828.
Upon this state of facta, the party’s counsel have ar
gued, that he Is entitled to he discharged; and in the course
of the argument, have brought into di*rus*lon, many and
various points, the first of w hich is of the gravest Import: !
it cells in question directly, the constitutionality of the
afct of Congress, under which this proceeding is had. The
derision ot a question of this sort, is certainly the highest,
arid most solemn function, which the Judiciary could he i
called upon to perforin; for, as wss said with sententious
brevity by the Court, in one of the earliest cases on this 1
subject, It involves the Inquiry, whether the will of the
Representatives, as expressed in the Law, is, or Is not in con- !
flirt with the will of the people, as expressed In tire Coo
siltuiiou. (Jreat, however, as is the responsl*.ility in
volved in (his exercife of Judicial power, I should meet
It without difficulty, If It were necessary lo the decision
of till* cause. Hut I fully concur in the sentiment of
counsel, that whilst on a proper occasion, it ou((ht to
he met with firmness, on the other hand, it is the part
of wisdom, to decline the decision of such a question
when not necessary. From the view which I have
taken of this case, I do not consider It necessary, and
shall therefore pass it wi>hout further remark. It was
contended at the bar, that there were many errors com
fitted by the Auditor, in the dating of the account, on which
this proceeding is founded. To all the arguments ol this
kind, there is one general answer—that we a e not silting
here to revise this case, as an Appellate Court, upon a
court of error; nor is it before us, as the proceeding*of spe
rial jurisdiction* in England are belore the King’s Bench,
by certiorari. In either ol those a«pccts of the subject,
the c**e would be belore ua immediately and directly, and
then the question would he, error or no error, ami then
the arguments which I have just referred lo, would be in
|iniut; but, sitting as we arc, upon a habeas corpus, the
question is not, whether there i* error in the proceeding*,
hut whether there was jurisdiction ot the case, in the An*
slitor ol the Treasuty. it was settled a* early as the great
Marslialsea case, in 10th Coke, 76, and the principle has
never been departed from, that where a court lias jurisdic
tion, and proceeds in verso online, or erroneously, there
the proceeding is only voidable; but where the court lias
not jurisdiction ol the case, there the whole proceeding is
coram non judiee, and void: the books, both English sud
American, abound in ca*ea exemplifying this principle.
Hut a Habeas Corpus will not lie, where the imprison
ment is untilr voidable pioress, hut only where it is mere*
ly void; lor void process is the same tiling as if there were
none at all; and then the party is in effect imprisoned, with*
out any authority whatever. Hence the queali< a would
■eem naturally lo arise, whether the Auditor had jurisdic*
•ion in the case—in other words, whether the perron and
the subject matter are such as to biiug the case within
the provisions ol the act ol Congresa— for these are the
criteria ol jurisdiction. This question was oUboraUly
argued at the bar, ami I have considered it with great
care. I forbear, however, lo enter into the discussion
of it here; because, although it rhould he clearly made
out, that the Audi'or ha I once hail jurisdiction, yet upon
the facts iu tliis *■ auo'her question aiiscs, which, in
niy opinion, is c. ve ol the case, ami that is, alter the
Auditor shall once nave settled an account of a public offi
cer, and closed it, as in this case, is it competent for him at
an alter time, upon on allegation of error, or omission or lor
other cause, to open it, re-slate It, and upon the account thus
re-staled, to institute proceedings by a warrant of distress
against the debtor? I think it is not. Let us try the question
by reference to someanxlagous cases I take it to he a sound
principle, that when a special tribunal is created, with limited
power, and a particular jurisdiction, (hat whenever ihepow
•r given is once executed, the jurisdiction is exhausted and
at an end—that the person thus invested with power is, in
the language ol the law, functus officio. This proposition
i*, I think, sustained by the casein 6th Bingham, 85, where
it is said by the Court, that when a magistrate, who has pow
er to convict, has once convicted, Ins jurisdiction is at an
end—he wjunctus officio. Could he at any after time,
upon some suppo*rd error, quash, or in any way impair
the efficiency ol his own conviction? Suppose a contro
versy to be submitted to arbitrators, and that they had
made a final award, and delivered il, could they after
wards, of their own mere motion, change or set aside their
own award? Lest, however, it might be supposed that
there might be any thing peculiar in this case, by reason
ol their being judges ol the parties own choosing, let us
suppose some cases of special jurisdirtion or powers given
by law. Under the acts imposing direct taxes, assessors
were appointed lo value the lands and slaves of the coun
try, with a view to a just apportionment. Alter they
had made and completed their assessment, so that it was
once communicated, agreeatity (o the requirements ot the
laiv,could they afterwards, in any manner, have altered it,
*0 as to change the valuation? Suppose that commissioners of
bankruptcy, had once decided on a given case—that the
party was a trader—that lie had committed an act of bank
ruptcy, and had,in all respect*, completely executed the
potyer conferred upon them, could they afterwards, by
their own authority, have vacated, or set aside their act?
Finally—suppose that the commissioners appointed (un
der any one ot the treaties under which we procured an
indemnity from Spain, France or Naples) to adjudge the
claims ol our citizens, had fully executed that trust—had
made and announced an entire distribution of the fund—
could they, at an after time, have varied their own adju
dication? In all the cases which I have put, I enquire
into the power ol the special jurisdiction, of its own
inerc authority to alter or impair what they had done.
Examples might be indefinitely multiplied—these are suf
ficient to illustrate my ides, viz. : that whenever a special
jurisdiction has once executed the power with which it
was invested, their power is at an end, as to the subject in
relation to which it has been executed. Let us trace the
injurious consequences of a contrary doctrine. Until the
power ol the Auditor is once executed, the officer knows
that it is his duty to account, and having accounted, to pay.
Hut if, alter the account had once been dated and closed,
he could open it again, how olteu, and within what petiod
ol lime, shall he do it? There is obviously no limitation
either as to length ol time, or to frequency. Suppose, al
ter once stating it, ami then opening it and re-stating it up
on alleged error, he should think he had discovered error,
he must open and restate it again. It will be observed, too,
that though the Auditor in this case did give the party
notice, the law does not require it; unless, therefore, he
shall be restrained to one settlement, it would be compe
tent to him, years after the death of the original parly,
without notice, in the absence ol his representatives, who
might be dispersed through (lie United Slates, and in the
absence ol all proof on their part, to re-selile the account in
a manner which would produce great injustice. But, again;
il if he competent to him to open the account in favor o\
the U. S., the adverse ot the proposition must be equally
true, upon (he principles of justice; it must be competent to
him aim, after the lapse of years, to open it against the U.
H., and in favor of the pat ty. Might not this course most in
juriously affect the public interest? It seems to me, that
a doctrine which leads to such consequences, cannot be
sound, nor is the Government without ample remedy,
though this power shall he denied to the Auditor. I sup
pose there can be no doubt, that a bill in equity would lie,
to surcharge and falsify, as in case of a settled account be
tween individuals; and moreover, according to the doctrine
of the Supreme Court, in lltli When. 23J, even at taw,
although a settled account would be priina Jacie evidence,
yet it could recover, upon proving mistakes or omissions,
any sum of which it had been thus unjustly deprived.
Nobody doubts the power of the Auditor to settle the ac
counts of the public officers from lime to time, as they
shall fail to account, or pay any sums accruing after pre
vious settlements; the objection is, to re-settling an account
once settled, and which must have imported to have been
a full and final settlement, at the lime when made, for the
law requires that to be done.
1 have felt some difficulty upon the question, whether
a Habeas Corpus could be sustained in favor of a party
imprisoned under civil process, as in this case. The dif
ficulty aro-e from the doubt expressed by two high autho
rities, although decided by neither. In exparte Wilson,
6th (’ranch, 52, the party was arrested by a ca. sa., and
was in prison bounds. An application was made for a Ha
beas Corpus, on the ground, that the creditor had refused
to pay bis daily allowance. The court said,it was not sa
tisfied, that a Habeas Corpus was the proper remedy, in a
case of arresf, tinder civil process. In 15th John. 152, the
Supreme Court of New York, except one of (lie Judges,
express the same doubt, and refer fo the case in Crunch.
1 he Judge, in delivering the opinion of the Court, says, if
it were necessary to decide (lie point, lie should say, it
would not lie in such a case.
I suppose mat probably the doubt oiigmale l from this
foe'. The celebrated Habeas Corpus Act ot 31 1 hsrlea 21,
which, as Judge Kent, iu his Commentaries, says, is the
basis ot almost all the American statutes on the subject,
and which in pacltce, by reason ol its valuable provi
sions, lor ensui mg speedy action, has almost superseded
the common law, has been held in Kngland, to be confined
tn criminal caret. All the Judges ol Kngland in answer
to a question propounded to them by the flou«e of Lords,
answered: I hat it did not ex'end to any case of impri
sonment, detainer, or restraint whatsoever, except cases
ol commitment lor criminal or supposed criminal mat
ters, 31 Hac. 433. JVote. At the same time this question,
in substance, was put to them: Whether il a person impri
soned, apply lor a Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum, at
common law, and make affidavit, that he does not believe
that his imprisonment is by virtue of a comini menl,
lor any criminal, or supposed criminal matter, would
such affidavit, as the law then s'ood, be probable cause
for amending the writ? The question being objected to,
was not put. This would seem to leave the point, in an
unsettled state. V'et there are two hooks of authoiity,
which I think sustain the doctiine, that the writ is not
confined to criminal case*. Blackafone, in his 3rd vol. p.
132, says, that the great and efficacious writ in all manner
ol illegal confinement is the Habeas Corpus ad subjicien
dum. .Bacon, 3rd vol. 421, says: Whenever a person is
restrained ol his liberty, by being confined in a roinmoti
jail, or by a private person, whether il be for a criminal or
civil cause—he may regularly by Habeas Corpus, have
his hotly and cause removed to some superior jurisdic
tion, &c.
Now, the act of Congress authorizes us to issue the writ,
“for the purpose of inquiring into (he rattse ol commit
merit.” Upon (his the. Supreme Court iu 3rd Peters, 201,
expatIc Watkins, remarks, “that no law of the U. Slates,
prescribes the cases in which this great writ shall he Is.
sued, nor the power of the Court, over the party brought
tip by it. The term is used in the Coosilotion ss one
which was well understood.—Tills general reference to a
power which we are required to exercise without any pre
cise definition ol that power, imposes on us the necessity
ol making some inquiry into II# u*e, according to that law,
which is, in s considerable degree, incorporated in our
own.” ,
If, in making this inquiry, we were to consult the Bri
tish Statute alone, we ehotild find ft, a* already stated, con
fined in its construction to criminal cases.
Hut if we look to the common law authorities which I
hare mentioned, It seems to me, that we are justified in
applying il to a r*«e of rivtl process.
Indeed, we know it to have been repea'edly applied In
Kngland to the domestic relations ol lile, such a# the libe
ration ol a wile Irom the unjust restraint of a husband,
snd a child from that ot a parent.
Ami certainly, we are well warrsnledin tusking (his re
ference to the Common law; beeaw«e, although it is ad
mitted by all, that it la a source ot jurisdiction, yet it is
haldtitilly, rightfully, nay, necessarily, referred to for the
definition ami application of term*—indeed, there are many
terms in the Constitution which could not otherwise be un
derstood.
Nor do even Die double expressed in Die cates Irom
Crancti and Johnson apply to this—lor, both of those were
on processed civil execution, issuing from a Court of Re
cord and General Jurisdiction—whereas, this is a case of
process, issuing from a special jurisdiction, which can nei
tlier be supervised by certiorari, nor re-examined by writ of
error. In this case then, if a Habeas Corpus would not
lie, there would be no remedy for imprisonment without
lawful authority. In cures of execution from Courts of
Record, the Courts themselves can quash it, if it do not
conlorm to ibo judgment;— if it do, alMj j„j-,llellt be
erroneous, it can he corrected in a Court ol appellate ju
risdiction. Upon the whole view ot the subject, 1 am ol
opinion that the party should he discharged.
OPINION OF CIIIKK JUSTICE MARSHALL.
Robert U. Randolph, late acting Purser of the Frigate
Constitution, was brought into court, on a writ ol Habeas
Corpus, anda motion is now made (or hi*discharge trout im
prisonment.
The writ was directed to the Marshal of this district, in
whose custody he is. The return ot the officer shows the
ciuso ot c. p:ion and detention to be a warrant issued by
the accounting officers ol the Treasury, under authority ol
the act passed ihc 15th day of May, 1820— which, alter
reciting that Robert H. Randolph, late acting Purser ol
the United States Frigate Constitution, stands indebted to
the U. S. in the sum of $25,097 88, agreeably to the set
tlement ol his account made by the proper accounting ol
ficcrs of the Treasury, and has railed to pay it over
according to the “act lor Die better organization of the
Treasury Department,” command* the said Marshal to
make the said sum ot $25,097 88 out ol the goods and
chattels ol the said Randolph; and in delault theicol, to
commit hia body to prison, there to remain until discharged
by due course of law. II these proceedings lail to pro
duce the said sum ol money, the warrant is (o be satisfied
out ol his lauds and tenements.
The return shows that the body of (he said R. B. Ran
dolph was committed to prison, aud is detained by virtue
of this process
Several objection* have been taken to the legality of
the warrant, the first and most important ol which is, that
the act of Congress, under the authority of w hich it is
sued,is repugnant to the Constitution ol the Uuited Slates.
It this objection be eus aiued, the warrant can certainly
convey no authority to the officer who has executed it,
and the imprisonment of Mr. Randolph is uulawlul
The counsel ol the piisoner rely on several parts of the
Constitution, whicli they suppose to have beeu violated by
(lie act in question The 1st sec. ol the 31 article, which
establtxhes the judicial department, and the 7ih amend
ment, which secures the trial by jury in suit* at common
law, are particularly selected as having been most obvi
ously violated.
No question can be brought before a judicial tribunal
of greater delicacy than those whicli involve the constitu
tionality ol a Legislative act. It they become indispensa
bly necessary to the case, the court must meet and decide
Diem; but it the case may be determined on other points,
a just respect for the Legislature requires that the obliga
tion of its laws should not be unnecessarily and wantonly
assailed.
i ue aci oi congress, under Ihe authority of which the
piocess by which Mr. Randolph is im|>ii-oned was issued,
makes it the duty of certain officers of Ihe Treasury to
settle and cause to be stated the account of any collector of
the rcveuue, &c. who shall fail to render his account or pay
over the samo in the manner or in the time retjuired by
law, exhibiting truly the amount due to the United Siates,
and certilying Ihe same to (lie agent of the Treasury, who
is atithori/.ed and required to issue a warrant ol distress
against such delinquent officer and his sureties, directed to
the Marshal of the district in which such delinquent offi
cer and his surety or sureties shall reside; which officer is
commanded to make good the money appearing to be due to
the United States, by seizing and selling the goods and chat
tels ot such delinquent officer and his sureties, and by
committing the body ol such delinquent officer to prison,
there to remain tin tl discharged by due course of law.
If this ascertainment of the sum due to the government,
and this issuing of process to levy the sum so ascertained
to be due, be the exercise ol any part ol the judicial pow
er ol the United States, the law which directs it, is plain
ly a violation of the first section of the third article ol the
Constitution, which declares, that "the judicial power of
the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court,
and in such Interior Courts as Congress shall Irom lime to
time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Su
preme and Inferior Com ts, shall hold their offices during
good behaviour.” Ihe judicial power extends to "con
troversies to which (he United Slates shall be a party.”
1 he persons who are directed by the act of Congress to
ascertain the debt due from a delinquent receiverol public
money, and lo issue process to compel the payment ol that
deht, do not compose a Court ordained and established by
Congress, nor do they hold offices during good behaviour.
I heir offices arc held at the pleasure of the President ol
the U.S. 1 hey are consequently incapable of exercising
any portion of the judicial power, an I the act which at
tempts to confer it is absolutely void. In considering the
validity ol this act, tlieiefore, it is necessary to discard
every idea of its conferring judicial power. We must not
view the statement or certificate of the account as a judg
ment, or (he warrant which coerces payment as judicial
process. I hey must be viewed as mere ministerial acts
performed by mere ministerial agents. They cannot be
otherwise sustained.
i will lor me present assume that the power of collect
ing; *»*es anil ol di«bursingthe money ot liie pulilir, mny
authorize the legislature to enact laws by which the agents
ol the Executive may be empowered to settle the ac
counts ot a'l receiving and disbursing officers, and (o issue
process in the nature ot an execution to compel the pay
ment of any sum alleged to he due. But these agents
are purely ministerial, and their acts are necessarily to be
treated only as mitiisierisl acts. The inevitable conse
quence is, that their validity must be decided by those le
gal principles which govern all acts of this character.
I hese require that the authority, whether given by a le- i
gislalive act or otherwise, must be strictly pursued. Such
agents cannot act on other persons or on other subjects
than those marked out in the power, nor can they pioceed
in a manner diflerent from that it prescribes.
1 his is a general rule, applicable to such cases general
ly: it applies with peculiar force to that now belore the
Court.
I will not attempt to detail the severities and the op
pression which may follow in the train of this law, if exe
cuted in contested cases. They have been brought into
full view by cotinsel, in their arguments, and 1 will not
again present them. It may be said with confidence, that
the Legislature has not passed any act which ought, in its
construction, to be more strictly confined to its le tier. By
this rule its words will be examined.
The first objection to this warrant is, that Mr. Kandolpli
is not one of those persons on whom the law was designed
to operate.
Ttie act does not declare that every debtor of the public
shall be subject to this summary process. The particular
persons against whom it may be used are enumerated.
Those slated in the second section are, “any collector ol
the revenue, receiver of the public money, or any o her
officer who shall have received the public money before
it is paid into the Treasury of the United States.” The
obvious construction of these words is, 1 think, that they
describe persons who hold offices under government, to
whose hands the public money comes before it reaches the
Tieasury. A collector of the revenue is an officer of this
description; so is a receiver of the public money; and the
following wonlt: “or other officer who shall have received
the public money before it Is paid info (he Treasury of the
U. Stales,” demonstrated the kind of persons who
were in the mind of the Legislature. The subsequent
words preserve the ides, that regularly appointed
officers only were intended. The word officer is retained,
and is regularly used throughout the section, showing
plainly, that no other debtor than one who was properly
designated by the term ojffi4cr was contemplated by the
act. Throughout the section, too, the sureties of such of
ficer are regularly ronnecled with him, and subjected to
Ihe same process, so far as respects their properly. I do
not mean to say that Ihe liability ot the officer is made to
depend on his having actually executed an official
bond with sureties. I do not mean to say (hat an offi
cer, regularly appointed, who should receive the mo
ney ol the public before the execution of his bond, might
not he liable to this Treasury execution. But I mean to
say, that this language proves incontestibly (list the Le
gislature contemplated those officers only, who were re
quired to give bond with surety, as the objects of the law.
The sureties are spoken of throughout, as inseparable Irani
the officer, as existing whenever the officer exists.
This secMon does not comprehend (he rase of a purser
in the navy, hut I have thought it necessary to enf»r in'o
Its exposition; because il has a material bearing on the 8>l
section, which does comprehend persons ot that descrip'ion.
The 3d section enacts, “that il any officer emplojed or
who has been heretofore employed in the civil, tnililary or
naval department* of Ihe (Jovemment, to disburse the
public money appropriated to the service ol these depart
ments, shall lail to rentier his accounts or to pay over in
Ihe manner ami in the lime required by law er the regu
• a ion« ol Ihe depar ment to which he is accountable, any
sum ol money remaining In the hands ol such officer, it
shall be the duty,” &e.
I a what persons does (be won! officer, a* until in thi*
section apply? Is it to every commissioned offieer In the
army or navy of Hip (J. H. to whose hands any public mo*
ney may be rntrnnteil, or i* it to those officer* only whose
regular duty it in to receive and disburse the public mo
ney, and who are appointed for that purpose? The lan
guage of tlie aentenre, I think, answer* these questions
to a reasonable certainly. It is "any officer employed to
disburse the public money appropriated to the service ol
these departments respectively.” A military or naval ol*
ficer is employed for military or nival duties, not
to disburse, the public appiopiiafed to the servicer ol
his department. I cannot suppose, (hit a military nr
natal officer to whose hands money belonging to the
public may come, is bom the words of the act, more
table to Ibis summary and severe proceeding than
any individual not bearing a commission, to whom the
same money might be confided for similar purposes. The
subsequent words of ihe sentence, “shall fail to render his
sccoutils, or to pay over in the manner and in Ihe limes re
quired hy law, or Ihe regulations of the department to
which he is accountable,” fcc. also convey Ihe Idea that a
regular disbursing officer, whose duty was presrribed by
law or hy the regulations of the department, was con
templated This Idea is still more strongly supported hy
that psrl of the section which adopts all lire provisions ol
Ihe second section, and applies them to the sureties of the
officer who ia designated by tbe act, as well as to tbe of
ficer himscll. I think then the fair construction of the
law is, that regulaily appointed officers who are required
(o Rive official bond*, were alone contemplated by the le
gi'lalure. If wo lake into consideration the character and
operation of the act, the extreme severity of it* provision*;
that it departa entirely from the ordinary cour»e »l judicial
proceeding, and prescribes an extre;ne remedy, which i«
placed under the abiolute control of a mere minialerial of
ficer; that in such a case the ancient established rule is in
favor of a strict construction, my own judgment is satisfied
that this is the true construction.
Was Mr. Randolph an officer of this description?
The process by authority ot which he is iu piison, de
signates him as “Robert H. Randolph, late acting Putaer
ot the United thates Ligate Constiiu'iou.” The word
acting, qualities the word Purser, and shows that he did
not hold that office under a regular appointment, hut tor
tiie time being during the existing cine'g nry. The
omission to include his sureties in the warrant, as the aw
directs, shows that he hail given no sureties; and this
fact unexplained, i« evidence dial no official bond with
sureties was required, it might lie added, that the ex
planatory accounts, to some ot which reference is made
I" the warrant, prove with sufficient clearness that Mr.
'I imberlake was Purser ot the Irigate Constitution, then
crinsing in the Mediterranean, and that on Ins death
Lieutenant Randolph was directed to perforin the duties
ot Purser during the cruise. It is then apparent that he
w as a mere acting, and not a regular Purser.
Mr. Nicholas has routended, wi“i much plausibility, that
having taken upon himself the office, tie takes upon him
self also all its responsibilities. This argument is true to a
certain ex ent, and, as tar as respect* responsibility alone.
Is unanswerable In a regular proceeding against Mr.
Randolph, no person will be hardy enough to deny his
responsihiliiy to the aame extent as if lie hid beau a re
gular Purser.
It is not his respondhilily to the United States, but his
lihability to this particular process, which is (lie subject
ot enquiry. Is a mere acting Purser designated by
this law as one of those officers against whom this summary
process may be used? It is in vain to say that he coincs
within the same reason, ami is within the mischief against
which the statute intended to provide. The statute docs
not reach all public debtors, and lias selected especially
those for which it is intended. No others can be brought
within its purview. These principles of strict construc
tion, which apply, I think, to all laws restrictive of com
mon right, forbid it.
i iicflo reason* sau-iy iny own judgment, trial Mr. Kan
dolph was not an officer to whom the law applies the pro
cess under which he is imprisoned.
If it were necessary to assign any reasons for (his dis
tinction between temporary and permanent officers, it
would not be difficult to find them. The permanent officer
usually receives his money Iroin the Treasury, or by its
order, so that the document which charges him, appears
on the books of that Department. The temporary officer
writ seldom be placed under the same circumstances. Ho
may, and generally docs, receive the money with which
he is chargeable, in such a manner as to leave (he amount
a subject of controversy, in this particular case, Purser
Tiinberlake must stand charged, I presume, with all the
monies advanced to the Purser of the Constitution. The
portion of this money which came to the hands of Mr.
Randolph, would not appear on those books, and may be a
matter ol controversy between him and Timherlake’s re
presentatives. Congress might very reasonably make a
distinction when giving this summary process between an
officer whose whole liability ought to appear oil the books
ol the Department and an agent whose liability was most
generally to bo ascertained by extrinsic testimony. Hut
it is enough for me, that the law in my judgment makes
the distinction.
The accounts extracted from the hooks ol the Treasury,
and laid before (he Court, furnish other matter for serious
consideration.
The 2d section of the act requires, that the account stat
ed by order of the First Comptroller of the Treasury,
“shall exhibit truly the amount due to the U. Stales.” For
what purpose was the word truly introduced? Surely
not to prohibit the officers of the Government from exhi
biting an account known to be erroneous. Congress could
not suspect such an atrocity. Its introduction, then, indi
cates (lie iilea, that this summary process was to be used
only when the true amount was certainly known to the
Department—when the sum of money debited to the offi
cer appeared certain, and either no credits were claimed,
or none about which a controversy existed. The amount
due to the United Slates cannot be truly exhibited when
the claim is shown hy the account itself, to exceed what is
really due. I do not mean to say that the debtor is not bound
to show with precision, the credits lo which ho is entitled.
I do not mean to say how far his failure to separate pay
ments made from his own funds, and from those of his pre
decessor, may deprive him in a suit at law, ol the credits
he claims. I mean to say only,'that the amount claimed,
is not the sum truly due to the United Slates, if the ac
count itselfshows that a smaller amount is due. The ne
cessity ol withholding the credit may justify proceed
ing, against (he debtor in a court of justice, in which Ire
must make good his credits; hut will not, I think, justify
issuing an execution without any judicial enquiry, against
the tiody and estate of the delinquent, lor a sum confessedly,
more Ilian is due.
The 3<l seciion omits the word truly, but requirea -that
the account shall be stated, and directs the agent of the
Treasury to proceed in the manner directed in the pre~
reding section, all the provisions of which are. declared to
be applicable to every officer of government chargeable I
with (he disbursement of public money.
It may be contended, that the provisions of the preceding I
section thus adopted in the third, are those only which re
late to proceedings afier the account is stated. Hut I do
not think this the fair construction of the statute. I think
the Lag:*ldture can no more have intended in th one case
than in the other, that a Treasury execution should issue
for confessedly more than is due, by which the person of
(he debtor should he imprisoned, probably interminably,
and his properly sold. Congress must have designed to
leave such cases to the regular course of law.
If these principles be correct, let (hem be applied to the
case before the court.
Mi. Randolph ia charged in the account on which the
I warrant issued, with cash left by Purser Tiinberlake, on
| board the frigate Constitution, and according to his own
confession, received by him, $11,483.
7 hat he must account tor this smn is certain. I shall
not enquire now, whether the Treasury might issue an
execuiiou for it, or ought to have applied to a court of
justice. I will proceed to other items of the account.
He is re-charged with slops issued hy him, which be
longs to the estate of Mr. Tiinberlake, as appeared by his
books.
Is this lo be settled at the Treasury, tinder this act of
Congres*. or does the enquiry properly belong lo a court
of justice?
He is charged with German linen, belonging to his pri
vate stores, which he turned into the navy slore at Charles
town, as slops. This item had been allowed to him on a
former settlement of his accounts. It is not alleged that
this linen has been r eturned to him. The United Stales
may, and probably have used it. Whether he is entitled
to any, and to what credit, for this item, is a proper en
quiry for a court of justice. The Treasury may refuse the
credit and refer the question to a court ol justice, but can
not, 1 think, issue an execution lor it, as the case now
stands.
The material item allowed in a former settlement of ac
counts and now re-charged, is the amount ol advances on
his pay-roll to officers and men while he acted as Purser of
the Constitution, it now appearing by the memoranda of
sales, by the evidence ol Commodore Patterson and others,
and by the general state of (be account, lhat portions ol
these advances were made out of the money and stores ol
Purser Tiinberlake, and out ol the ship’s stores.
I will not make the obvious objection to this item, that
if Mr. Randolph paid the money or sold the stores of Mr.
Tiinberlake on his own account, he ia responsible to (lie
estate of Mr. Timberlake, and that the Treasury Depart
ment of the United Stales does not represent him, nor that
credits given for money paid hy Mr. Randolph as his own
cannot tie rescinded by alleging that the money really be
longed to another person, nor will I enquire by what au
thority the Treasury Department settles the accounts be
tween Timberlake’s Kepreseutaiives and Randolph. But
I will say, that this entry admits that part ol the money
was paid by Randolph out ol bis own liinds, and certainly
diminished his debt to the United Slates lo that amount.
Consequently, the whole amount lor which execution is
sued was not due.
If I am rorrect in saying that this summary process can
be used only to coerce (lie payment of the sum actually
due, not to eoerce the payment ol more than is due, that
such controverted question ought to he decided in a court
of justice, then this warrant has been issued in a rase
which the law does not authorize—in a raso which ought
to have been submitted to a ronrt ot justice.
On both these points I am of opinion, lhat the agent ol
the Treasury has exceeded the authority given by law,
and consequently that the imprisonment is illegal.
I have not hid time Instate my opinion on the remain
ing point on which my brother Judge has given his opinion
It is of no importance, as I concur with him on it.
Mr. Randolph is to be discharged from custody.
FOR TUF. F^VqVIRKR.
THE UNITED STATES’ HANK.
I( cannot be denied, that the United States’ Hank con
■titutea a kind ol fonrih estate in onr Federal Government.
As *tlie Church In England is represented In Parliament
by the Lords spiritual, so this Hank has in our Senate, its
Lords virtual. There is Metropolitan Hiddle, by Humey,
his prosy—Archbishop Clay—Archbishop Calhoun—Fre
lin***, Hi«hop of New Jersey, and others;—a complica
tion, ss much to be deprecated by the people, as the much
dreaded union ol Church and Stale. To change the fi
gure—the American Senate has become a sort ol ampltic
lyonic council. It already has the Delphian treasure
committed to its care and superintendency ; and when we
shall have become a little more national, under the auspices
ol tho Magnus Apollo ol Kentucky, it will then also have
the care ol the Delphian Oracle. This august national
council will control the " National Hank,” the National
Religion, and the National Power. All things are becom
ing mo«t gloriou-ly National—“National Government,”
“National Hank,” National Liberty, National Sins, and
National Holiness. There will soon be no such trifle* as
State Government* or S ate Hanka, personal Libetiy, per
sonal Sins, or personal Holiness.
On looking back a few years, when none ol these Na
tion*! monster* disttirbed the virtuous quiet of a band of »*
so dated Republics, wc are ready to eaclaim, •‘Ifhabod, the
glory is departed.” We are humiliated at seeing the dearest
interests ot (be people ebandottded by I tie i r servants, while
they are enlisted on behalf ol a monied corporation, which
ha* I lie effrontery to tell the people they cannot do without it.
Aod rmnnot the people do without the United States Bank?
Then it it needles* longer lo conceal Irum ouiachf' (he
fact, that we are betrayed and enslaved! We can, in the
strength of onr virtue, and in the majesty of our power, de
molish tin* stupendous mas* of corruption. Where was
• liis Bank, w hen our virtuous lathers won for us the liber*
tv we, as yet, enjoy f Where was it during the many
vesrs of prosperity which succfeded the warof the Revo
lution ! Where is it now, and what are the consequences
of its existence ? It tells us we live by its bounty—it is
defiling every thing that was pure, corrupting III* chan
nels o( information, hurling defiance in the teeth of the
Federal Executive,«n<! agitating (lie country from its cen
tre lo the circumference. Crush it we must, or be infal
libly enslaved. I I re-chartere.l, it w ill elect the next Pre
sident, put the Constitution under its leet anti the people
into chaina. LVCURGUS.
Virginia lA^ixlniure.
______ OK '
Saturday, Dec. 21.
O mo ion of Mr Spencer, a report of the Committee
of Courts of Jus'icv, rejecting the petition ol George
Smith and Mary J. G. Smith his wife, praying that cer
tain lands in (he county of Greensville may be sold, &c.
was takeu up. Mr. S. moved that (lie decision of the com
mittee he reversed, which motion, alter some explanation!
Irom Mr. Barbour, was rejected, and the report agreed to
by the House.
On motion ol Mr. Harwood, leave was given to bring
ill a bill to amend the act lor opeuiug and improving the
navigation of Dragon Swamp, passed lt>th February,
1828.
On motion of Mr. Garland, the Committee of Courts of
Justice was directed to inquire into the expediency of so
amending (lie law in relation lo petty juiies as to provide
that the Sheriffs shall, previous to the string of each quar
terly and Superior Court of his county, summons-ju
rors, good and sullicient men of III* Bailliwick, who shall
attend during the sitting ol the Court, whose names shall
all be put into a box, and when a jury is wanting, to draw
from (lie box the names of so many a* shall be necessary
to form the panel; and to provide tor (lie compensation Of
(be jurors; and for tliat purpose the tax on law process and
county seals bo increased, and appropriated to the use of
the counties, which, with other means to be provided by
the counties, shall constitute a fund, out of which, the ju
rors in attendance shall receive a reasonable compensation
(or their service; and that the said jurors shall be privileg
ed from arrest during the sitting ol the Court.
Oil motion of Mr. Brown, the Committee of Finance
was instructed (o inquire into tile expediency ol aiuandmg
and reducing into one act, (he several acts and parts of
act* concerning the taxes ou licences (o keepers of ordi
naries and houses of private entertainment; to merchants;
lo vendue masters; to biokcrs; lo vendeis ol lottery tickets;
to hawkers and pedlars; to exhibitors of public shows; on
I law proces*; ou notarial seals; and certain o her subjects, &c.
On mo'iou of Mr. Booker, the Committee ol Finance
I was instructed to iuquire into the expediency of increas
ing the salary ol (he Governor ol this Commonwealth.
Air. Parrio't, Irom the Committee ol Agriculture and
Manufactures, reported favorably on so much of the peti
tion of citizens ol Stafford and Spollsylvania, as asks lor
tho enlargement of Ihe powers ol the charter ol the Fre
dericksburg Manufacturing Company. [Agreed to.] Ihe
Coinmitte* was di-charged Irom so much of Ihe same
petition as prays tor authority to said company, to build a
tree bridge across tho Rappahannock, which was referred
to the Committee of roads, 6ic.
I lie Speaker presented i* message from the Governor,
transmitting additional statements relative to the condition
of the North Western Hank of Virginia, which was, on
motion of Mr. Harrio t, ordered to be printed.
On motion of Mr. Barbour, leave was given to the
Committee, on the subject of the removal of (he deposited
from the Hank of the United {states—to ait during the
scsrion of the House this tiny.
The engrossed hill, releasing to Mary Broirn the com
monwealth's right to a tract of land formerly possessed
by Thomas Bird aud Maigaret his wife, was read a third
time and passed.
Tlie various bills incorporating Mining Companies were
rerommined, in order that the amendments adopted in the
House should be applied uniloi mly to each of them.
The Speaker presented a communication of the Presi*
dent of the Jaon s Hiver Company, transmitting a copy of
a communication from the Stockholders of the Guyandotle
Turnpike Company, proposing on certain conditions, a
surrenderor their entire interest in said Turnpike, which
was, on motion of Mr. McDowell, ordered to be printed.
Petitions were presenjed anil referred—By Mr. Ball, of
Rezin S. Farr, ol Hancock Lee,and ot I. T. Kid well, each
asking to be relieved from tines lor unlawful gaining—By
Mr. Brown, of sundry merchants of Petersburg, praying
that the tax on licenses to retail inerchantk itiay be gradu
ated according to the extent of'their capital and business.
On motiou ol Mr. Barton, the House adjourned.
Atonday, December 23.
Oh motion of Mr. Barton, (he Committee of Finance
was instructed to cntiuire into the expediency of retrench
ing the expenditure of Ihe State.
On motion of Mr. Michie, tho Committee of Courts of
Justice was instructed to inquire into the expediency of
providing by law for the appointment ot Commissioners by
(he County Courts to take deposition?, and of authorizing
the taking of depositions debate epse, and ol witnesses
about to depart the Commonwealth by commissioners as
well as magistrates.
On motion ot Mr. Mosby, the Committee of Courts of
Justice was instructed to inquire into the expediency ot
so altering or amending the tuurlh section, ol the act of
Assembly, passed the 7th March, 1826, to alter and re
form the mode of proceeding in the Courts ol Chancery,
as to provide (hat Commissioners in Chancery shall not ho
required to retain reports in their hands for the space of
ten days after their completion—but shall immediately
thereafter return thorn to the clerk’s office.
And the same Committee was further instructed to in
quire into the expediency of repealing the sixth section
of the said act, which provides, that atter reports shall
have been returned two months preceding any term_
cases may be set for hearing—and of enacting in lieu of
said provision, that clerks shall be required lo set all
cases for hearing, in which reports shall have been return
ed -days be/ore the commencement of the term.
On motion of Air. Mullen, leave was given to bring in
n hill to legalize certain entries and surveys in Hardy,
made by William Heath, deceased, late surveyor of that
county.
The Select Committee on the subject of gold mines, re
ported the seven bills re-committed to them on Saturday,
with an amendment to one of them; which was agreed io,
and the hills ordered to be engrossed.
The engrossed hill to authorize separate elections in the
county of Shenandoah, was read a third time and passed.
Mr. Cunningham presented the petition ol citizens of
Norfolk Borough, asking for the repeal of the act of last
aession, directing Hack Creek to be filled up.
The Committee of Courts of Justice, reported favorably'
on a resolution to provide for the purchase of an additional
number of copies of Hening’s Justice and the Revhed
Code for the use o( magistrates—Agreed to—favorably rn
amending the law regulating the compensation of witness
es—and unfavorably on a proposition to authorize const*
hies to execute writs ot capias ad satisfaciendum, issuing
upon judgments rendered by a single magistrate—Agrctd
fo.
Various cdher reports, and bills on their first and second
readings were acted upon.
On motion of Air. Duff, the House adjourned.
MARK I AUKS.
Marriod in Chesterfield, on tho D»c. by Ihe ftov. Mr. JVonnU.
ly, Air. William A. A. Graves, to .Mias Mary l-\, daughter of Richard
A. Gregory, all of the above county.
Married, on Tueailay, rlieStiih Nov., by tho Kov. Jno. Clopton, M-.
Henry M. Shearman of Now Kent county, to Mis* Sarah A., iccoml
daughter ot William Taylor. Esq , of Charles City.
In Brunswick county, on Thmadny evening the 12lh inat., by tho
Rev. Mr, Clnitioinn, Mr. Wm. B. Wolf, formerly of I'eteratuirg, lo
Mise Martha Ann E. Shell, daughter of tho late Dr. John Shall, of
Brunswick.
At Westwood, on Thursday, the full inatant, by tho Rev. Puke F.
Berkeley, Mr. James Robertson of Chesterfield, to Mias Martha VV ,
daughtci of Mr. John it. Kobortson, of Amelia.
die]d~
At I'otaraburg, on Sunday, tho 8th inat , after a lingering itinera,
Mrs. Mary Zimmerman, in Ihe 47th year of tier age, wile of Mi.
Beorge Zimmerman, of that town.
Wo nro very sony lo atato tho dnalli of a moat worthy and lament
ed citizen of Richmond, Jons G. Wiu.isms, Esq., who died nt
Cbarlo.aton, 8. C.,on tho tfuh mat,, on hta way to St. Augustine. M< .
W wna for several sosaions a Delegate in tho Viiginia legislature—
was an excellent l.nwyor at our bar— for some time tho President ef
the Common Hall—and esteemed in nil Ihe rotations of life —On Fri
day last, the Common flail of this City came to the following Reso
lutions :
“ On motion of Mr. CJualavtis A. Myra, the following proamide
and resolutions were unanimously ndojUod. The Common Council
ol the Oily of Richmond having been informed, that John O. Wil
liams, Esq., lata a member of this body, and for many year a the Pie
liding officer thereof, baa departed Ibis life while on Ins way to St.
Augustine, and being fully impressed with a sense of his high moi I
worth, and the purity of hia conduct in the discharge of hie duties:
• Hmolreit, That the me nb-rs of rhe Common Council do deeply
sympathise with the family of their estimable fellow-citizen, John
(J. Williams, Esq. in tho irrepaiable loss which they have sustained
by Ids death.
•• tltsotrnt. That the members of the Common Conned will wear
the usual badge of mourning lor ono month, ns a tribute of respect
for Iter deceased.
«• Jpwofred, That a copy of those resolutions be transmitted by lit#
clerk n. the Common Conned to the family of tho doceasod.”
AN OVKR8EER WANTED_At my Farm known
a* • Reaver l)am,’ on James River, in Goochland
rounty—a single man, witli unexceptionable recommen
dations, ami in everyway rompctcnl for (he btisinose, can
have immediate employment, ami will be paid very liberal
wages. CORBIN WARWICK
94. _ W-H*
RANI) FOR SALK — I Oiler for sale my Plantation
J called Clorrrlnnrt, lying in (be county of Prince
William, lift milas distant from Alexandria and Washing,
ton. It contains 1200 acres, has on il a large Dwelling
Home, Ilarn and other improvements, and an excellent
Mill Site, on which a Saw Mill is erected. The land has
hren well oiled, and for several years past Improved by the
use of clover sod piaster; the effects of which, are no
where more visible, or more fully proven: It is divided
info-fields of an equal and convenient sire, and under the
|,est enclosures. This Plantation is justly considered
among the best in the upper country; its situation is
healthful and beautiful.
Aa purchasers will view the premises before making an
offer, further particulars are deemed unnecessary. If de
sired, immediate possesaion may be given. Letters ad
dressed to me (p st paid) may be directed to this place.
•CHARLES SHIRLEY CARTER.
N. B. In my absence, Mr Edmund Newman, Agent,
will attend to gentlemen wishing to view the premises.
Richmond City, Dec. 24ih, 1838. [89—tf ] C. 8. I H