Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Letter to Editor
December 4, 1805
Norfolk Gazette And Publick Ledger
Norfolk, Virginia
What is this article about?
A letter from Richmond defends the Court of Appeals' majority decision in the Marshall vs. Conrad case against criticism in the Enquirer, arguing that political considerations should not influence judicial rulings and affirming the correctness of the judgment on Winchester town rents.
Clipping
OCR Quality
98%
Excellent
Full Text
Richmond, November 29.
Mr. Davis,
Observing with astonishment in this day's Enquirer an unfounded and very illiberal censure on a majority of the Court of Appeals, it is thought expedient to take some notice of it, lest the baleful poison should produce the nefarious effect intended by the author. The paragraph alluded to runs thus:
"In the celebrated case of Marshall vs. Conrad,
"which we have lately detailed in our paper, Judge
"Lyons, the presiding member of the court, did not
"deliver himself at full length; but simply contented
"himself with concurring in opinion with Judges Fleming
"and Carrington. Three Judges, therefore,
"were in favour of allowing Mr. Marshall's claim to
"the rents in the town of Winchester: the venerable
"Judge Roane stood alone in his support of the
"rights of the people."
The writer of these remarks is persuaded that the people require nothing but true information, and the free exercise of their unbiassed reflection, to form a correct judgment on the conduct of the servants of the public: but be that as it may, no political consideration whatever ought to influence a court of justice in deciding the rights between citizen and citizen: and no motive of policy should induce a court to strain and torture a statute to discover an intention and meaning never contemplated by the legislature, in order to deprive a citizen of his justly acquired rights.
It will, no doubt, afford Mr. Ritchie great consolation to be informed of an incontestible fact, that two of our very able and venerable judges, who hold lots in the town of Winchester, and are consequently subject to pay an annual rent on them for ever, are of opinion that the judgement of the Court of Appeals is perfectly correct.
[Virginia Gazette.]
Mr. Davis,
Observing with astonishment in this day's Enquirer an unfounded and very illiberal censure on a majority of the Court of Appeals, it is thought expedient to take some notice of it, lest the baleful poison should produce the nefarious effect intended by the author. The paragraph alluded to runs thus:
"In the celebrated case of Marshall vs. Conrad,
"which we have lately detailed in our paper, Judge
"Lyons, the presiding member of the court, did not
"deliver himself at full length; but simply contented
"himself with concurring in opinion with Judges Fleming
"and Carrington. Three Judges, therefore,
"were in favour of allowing Mr. Marshall's claim to
"the rents in the town of Winchester: the venerable
"Judge Roane stood alone in his support of the
"rights of the people."
The writer of these remarks is persuaded that the people require nothing but true information, and the free exercise of their unbiassed reflection, to form a correct judgment on the conduct of the servants of the public: but be that as it may, no political consideration whatever ought to influence a court of justice in deciding the rights between citizen and citizen: and no motive of policy should induce a court to strain and torture a statute to discover an intention and meaning never contemplated by the legislature, in order to deprive a citizen of his justly acquired rights.
It will, no doubt, afford Mr. Ritchie great consolation to be informed of an incontestible fact, that two of our very able and venerable judges, who hold lots in the town of Winchester, and are consequently subject to pay an annual rent on them for ever, are of opinion that the judgement of the Court of Appeals is perfectly correct.
[Virginia Gazette.]
What sub-type of article is it?
Persuasive
Political
What themes does it cover?
Politics
Constitutional Rights
What keywords are associated?
Court Of Appeals
Marshall Vs Conrad
Judge Lyons
Judge Roane
Winchester Rents
Political Influence
Judicial Impartiality
What entities or persons were involved?
Mr. Davis
Letter to Editor Details
Recipient
Mr. Davis
Main Argument
the court of appeals' decision in marshall vs. conrad should not be influenced by political considerations, as justice requires impartial rulings on citizens' rights without straining statutes to favor public policy over individual claims.
Notable Details
Criticizes Enquirer's Paragraph On Judges Lyons, Fleming, Carrington Concurring For Marshall's Claim Vs. Judge Roane's Dissent
Mentions Two Judges With Winchester Lots Agreeing With The Decision
References Mr. Ritchie