Daily Richmond Whig

FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 20, 1829.

The nominations made by the meeting on Monday night, have as far as we can learn, met with general concurrence. Gen. Marshall is acceptable to all parties, and nearly to every individual. His great talents, long experience, profound acquaintance with constitutional law, and the almost divine beauty and republican simplicity of his private life, have eradicated the remnant of ancient party bitterness. The vote in his favor, will be next to unanimous.

The next in order in the nomination, is John Robertson, Attorney General—a man known to them who know him at all, as possessing a powerful intellect, fearless independence, and the most unaffected and enthusiastic attachment to republican liberty.

Mr. Robertson is objected to by some, as carrying his desires of reform too far—as being willing too entirely, to trust the people.—If this last be in fact, an objection, Mr. R. is certainly obnoxious to it. He is willing to trust the people, practically, as well as theoretically. He does in truth, as well as in pretence, believe them capable of self-government, and he does desire to confide to their hands, the exercise of all powers, which from their number and their territorial diffusion, it is possible for them to exercise.

He is in favor of radical reform in the Constitution—in favor of reducing the enormous and eternally increasing expenses of the government, of lopping off the Executive Council, of making the Judges more accountable to those who appoint them, and who pay them. Will any man object to him for these opinions? Is there a single man, Conventionist or Anti-Conventionist, so wedded to error, & enamored of abuses, as to oppose himself to these reformations in the Government when the Constitution comes to be overhauled? We engage for it, not one.

Why then should these opinions constitute objections to the choice of John Robertson? But say some timid souls, with an alarmed aspect, Mr. Robertson is in favor of electing the Judges. Horrible! What a dreadful thing to elect the Judges, instead of giving them a life estate in their offices, which in at least five cases out of ten, makes them fat, lazy, insolent and good for nothing! What an outrageous thing to desire, that they like all the other officers of the Republic, should at least once in ten years, be held responsible to that people, whose servants they are, and whose money supports them! We would have the people be on their guard against this slang about the independence of the Judiciary. It is talked of as something too awfully sacred to be touched, tasted or handled. It is judicial profanation in the eyes of some, to express an opinion that Judges should be responsible, for the manner in which they exercise their functions, like all other public functionaries. But let the thing be a little looked into, and it will be found that all this horror, which has infected at least many others, proceeded in the first instance from strong, and it is countenanced and encouraged by lawyers. Nobody should wonder that lawyers have such a holy horror of a responsible judiciary; for the obscurest of the tribe doubt not of one day gracing the bench. They make the case of the Judges their own, because they expect in time to be judges themselves. This motive has banded the whole brotherhood, against touching, what they are pleased to call the independence, of the Judges; and when we come to remember their numbers, talents and great social influence, proceeding from their superior intelligence and the nature of their vocation, it is no matter of wonder that they have inspired others with as sincere a horror of meddling with the Judges, as in their own cases, it is artificial and fictitious. We have never seen or heard of, the man, who desired to destroy the independence of the judges. The utmost that the most radical desire, is to render them responsible, so as to secure the more faithful execution of their duties, by making them periodically elective, or removable by a joint vote of the two houses of the General Assembly—giving them salaries at the same time, sufficient to place them above dependence or temptation. Would not a judiciary so guarded, be independent? Is it necessary to their independence, to place them utterly beyond the reach of being compelled to perform the important duties, which they are so well paid to perform? Must they not only have high salaries, but hold their offices for life, and discharge their duties or not, at their sovereign (for they are sovereign) will and pleasure? The dreadful evils which have flowed from, the present judiciary system—the complete damming up of justice in some parts of the State, the arbitrary and tyrannical conduct of one or two of the General Court Judges—the delay, expense and vexation, which wait upon the system everywhere—ought to be sufficient we should think, to teach every man, the necessity of making Judges responsible. The want of that responsibility—the fact that the Judges are now placed above public opinion, and popular retribution—is the fruitful source of all the numerous grievances under which the people have smarted, are smarting, and will continue to smart until responsibility is introduced into the judiciary system. It was because we were sensible of the opposition of most lawyers to redressing this grievance—an opposition resulting we verily believe from purely professional views & feelings—that at an early stage of the canvass for the convention, we entreated the people of Virginia, not to elect all lawyers to compose that assembly. We repeat the advice, and we assure them that if they do not follow it, that branch of the government whose action is most immediately upon them, and which stands most in need of reformation, will go without any.

To the extent of rendering the Judiciary responsible, without impairing their independence, the Attorney General carries his ideas of reform. He does not wish to destroy their proper independence, but their irresponsibility only. He does not wish to place them in a situation, where interest may induce them to electioneer, or influence the purity of their decisions. As public officers, paid, and well paid, to render public services, he desires to make it their interest, to discharge their duties promptly, faithfully and efficiently, and to remove them if they do not. He would impose the same moral restraint placed upon their conduct, that they shall not at their arbitrary pleasure, and without listening to defence, say, 'Sheriff, take that man to jail.' Where is the free man who does not concur with him? What Republican can be in favor of tolerating the power of arbitrary imprisonment by judges or any other set of men? We honor Mr. Robertson for rising superior to the prejudices and interests of his profession, and thinking like a free citizen, instead of a mere lawyer; and we firmly believe that the scare-crow of his being favorable to the responsibility of judges, by which it is sought already, to frighten the ignorant, will when the people fully understand the nature and the motives of the cry, operate in his favor.

The next gentleman nominated by the meeting, was John B. Clopton, Esq. of New Kent—the Senator from this District. Mr. Clopton is so well, and has so long, been known to the people of the district that it is superfluous to speak of him. The name of Clopton, is identified with Republicanism, and the mantle as well as the name of old John Clopton, descended to his Son. Were we to speak of Mr. Clopton, as we really think of him, we should be accused of making a studied panegyric instead of speaking our plain opinions of the man. There are names of greater celebrity in the district, but we are unacquainted with the man whose historical and constitutional acquirements, better qualify him for the task of revising the fundamental laws of the State. Mr. Clopton is literally, and always has been, one of the people, and knows their wishes, wants and prejudices. He is a lawyer indeed, but he does not appear to us imbued with the technical formality and hair splitting qualities of the profession. He is a friend to moderate reform—to reducing expenses, to getting rid of the fifth wheel, the Council, and to some extension of the right of suffrage!

The last in the nomination, is Gen. Wm. Chamberlayne, of New Kent. This gentleman is a farmer, and in Convention, will support the interests and wishes of the life-giving order of which he is a member. The meeting desired a farmer—they did not want all lawyers—they wished some of the people to be in Convention. They did not think it indispensable that a man should have qualifications to make a great speech, to enable him to give a sound and judicious vote. They knew Gen. Chamberlayne to be a man of powerful natural intellect—to have had long experience in the affairs of the world—to have paid close observation to the manner in which the Government worked, and to have practical information from having been many years in public life. We are happy to say that the nomination is highly acceptable as far as we can understand.

It has probably caused some surprise that Johnson, Stanard, Leigh, Brockenbrough, Nicholas and others were overlooked—but some of these are in nomination, and will in all probability, be returned from their native districts, and the meeting did not think that this part of the district had claim to more than two out of the four.