ym "! . .

a swtf.' .jl s 4 m . ya 'ffl i f a - V

t- -.j !

Syttf --- A.-fii J.I - . - . r - 4 Lna rfv'W $ - a $ - ms.km. B msito' rt vih&-

v . ,ws,yffc.nr

as ra" v m w j -

(k f? rsr sMy&XjW

kJr- -. umnu.iuCTjnnp.,JiitiijjmfTWwr ayjiajuggauioniiggg "' sir jkiuii t unwsvm: igftmgajBajpwayjgatfwJWCT a rTsagrfragtajaaarora gacygaiTwo Dor.r.Ans ANn a half True to bis charge he the Herald ofcomes, a noisy world; News from all nations, Iilmh'rinp at his Bad; fpEIl ANISUM, IN ADVANCE.

New Series No. 2. Vol 3. Lr,AliTUJN, Ky. FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 13. 1820 J Vol. XI.

iientucky IifcgsatYe.HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES.

Wednesday, Dec. 14.

Mr. Turner submitted the following report.The committee raised to enquire whether aDf,

and is any what, military preparations have beenmade to prevent the house of Representatives orany of its committees, or any of the courts of jus

oe, from tho discharge of their legitimate func-

tions, have, according to order, made such enquiryind submit for the consideration of the house thefollowing report. -

Under an actofassembly of last session of the le-

gislature, purportlng'to repeal the law organizingappointed sour

Individuals jndgcs;of said court, who assumed thepowers of judges, appointed F. P. Blair their clerk,and proceeded to act as a court

That the judges heretofore in officesdenied theValidity ofsaid law so far as it went to vacate theiroffice and relied on the provisions of the constitu-tion securing to them their offices until removedby impeachment or address.

The newly organized tribunal contended for thevalidity of said act, and made an order directingthe papers and records of the coujt to be taken fromdie clerk of the old court byforce, which was accor-dingly done.

The citizens of the Btate being greatly divided inopinion on the question of the validity of the saidact of assembly, the old court and those who sus-

tained its pretensions determined neither to resistthe captain of the papers and records nor to at-

tempt to retake them by force, but to appeal to thegood sense of the people far the protection of theconstitution and the independence of the supremejudiciary.

An appeal was accordingly made in which appealthe new court and its friends joined.

So far, to the credit of botluparties, it appearedthis dispute was to be settled by reason and not byforce. Eoch party expressed an entire determina-tion tosiibmit to the decision of the people.

The election resulted ic savour of the old court,and for a time delusive hope was entertained that,faithful to the pledge ofabidingthe decision of thepeople, the new court and its friends would end theunprofitable contest; that we should again be onepeople, and that in suture tho wisdom and energiesof the state would be directed IjO the advancementof those great objects of staie concern which are oc-

cupying the attention of our sister states." Before the commencement of the present scsion

of the legislature there were some circumstancesoccurred which diminished the confidence enter-tained that the contest was it an end: yet all looked forward with anxious care to the message of thegovernor for information of a Conclusive character.

It is true a large portion of the community had(leased (o look to that branch of the government,with aaycanfident hope of rcQcivipjwiiat we shouldnaturally look for from the father of his people.

The message when it came was a hitter pill to sixty--

two hundredths of the people. It proposed a compromise, the terms of which were to yield the greatconstitutional question which they had settled insavour o'f the old court, and is this were not done.the reorganizing law and the new court were to besupported, & the old court was threatened to be re-

futed hyforce "through scenes yet untried."A committee was raised in this house to ascertain

and repdrt the ohstactes in the way of the court ofappeals in tne discharge o us mines wiui powersto send for persons and papers. That committeereported Some of the above facts, upon which re-

port a resolution was passed declaring that the judg-

es in office before the passage of said act of assem-

bly were yfit the only constitutional judges, and thatthey had the power and ought to exercise it of ta-

king their papers from F. P. Blair.Said judges accordingly entered up an order on

the 7th, inst, directing their sergeant to take saidpapcrsahd records'and deliver them over to theirclerk.

Your cpmmitlce would state that the foregoinghistory of the judicial contest was necessary lomake the facts emoraced in the order directingtheir inquiry intelligible, of which they now submita condensed statement; also, the depositions taken,which arc made a part of this report.

It appears in proof that George M. Bibb, Esq,has a law office in tho town of Frankfort, in whichoffice there are several rooms. That said office isimmediately fronting the chamber heretofore occu-pied duriue this session by the H, R. and aboutone hundred yards distant therefrom Said Bibb'soffice is between the room where the old court heldits late session and the office of F. P Blair and a- -

bout sixty yards distant from the latter? EdwardB. Bibb is the son of George M. Blob, is an attorney at law, and commands a company of militia.The company is furnished with muskets from thepublic arsenal. That Capt Edward B. Bibb oc-

casionally eccupies one of the back r.ooins in hisfarther's office, and in which room the aforesaidmuskets are kept when not in use by the company- -

ItaUo appears that Marcus B. Dosha, a 3on ofthe governor is reading law with G. M. Bibb andin part occupies said room where said arms are kept.Mr Bibb married the daughter and Mr Blair thestep daughter of the late Gen. Scott.

The first week in November or the last in Octo-ber last, Mr Dallam, a young man who acted as de-

puty under Mr Blair as clerk of the courtof'appCals,went to Capt. Bibb's room where said armswere,in the night, ami told Capt. Bibb, Mr Blair want-ed some muskets, and Bibb loaned Dallam 12or 14 muskets, which he carried to Blair's office,and they arc jet there. Bibb did not see Blairthat evening, hut Blair has since informed him thathe wanted said guns to defend his possession of thepapers. It appears that the old court sat on Fri-day hcTqrp the first .Monday in November, and theLegislature commenced its sessions on the firstMonday in November. On the 8th inst, and thenext dav aster t'he old court made the foresaid order tt take the papers, capt Bibb loaded eighteen!ofsaid muskets with poirder and buckshot andscrewed on the bayonets. To these facts Capt.Bibb testified himself, but refused to state the ob-

jects of this loading and fixing the bayonets ou saidmuskets. It appeared by other testimony, thatCapt Bibb had said that he had loaded said guns toresist the execution of the order of the old court.That said gnus were actually sired off at the timethe II II. adj'ourned on the 10th instant, within ashort distance of the chamber where said body sat,as the members were passing out of the house.

Yoiins Mr Dosha stated that he was presentT7lten the guns wore loaded, and he supposed theywere 'loaded Tor the purpobo aforesaid; but he didnot hear Oaptf Blbb say so. He also stated, hehad been'spoken toby Mr Blair to assist him indefening him in the possession of the aforesaid papjrs, and tb-- he considered himself bound to havedone so cither against the order of the court or the

msp of representatives.

KxiuaanrjwmxxrMnnm vuMMnmramtmnamiamiamaaamaamam

The proof shews that divers persons had either beenrequested to assist Mr Blair in forciblv retainingthe papers or had voluntary agreed lodoso.

It appears, that Mr Blair had iuformed the Gov-ernor he intended to use force in thedefenco of hispossession ofsaid papers.

It appears, that the public records and nancrshave been forsome considerable time past, removedfrom the office where Mr Blair formerly kept themand secreted, so that the citizens who have suits mthe appellate court cannot see their papers, obtaincopies of their title papers, which are on record insaid office, or ascertain any fact or facts which theirinterest may require.

They would here stale that they are sully con-vinced, that Mr Blair is not the constitutionalclerk of the cnurj. of appeals. He however claims'to bo such. The laws and his oath require him tokeep his office open, and his records ready to br in-

spected by any citizen who may require the same.A large portion ot tlieevidtnceof the tales lo landsare in his possession. There is a daily call for thesepapers, and for copies by persons from every partof the state, yet in defiance of all law and all right,the originals cannot be seen nor copies obtained.

1 he foregoing statement of facts cannot but makeon the minds of your committee the strongest im-pression of the awful crisis at which the judicialcontroversy which agit ates the country has ar--

party spirit and nuwise legislationhave sufficiently blighted the prosperity of the oncemost prosperous part of creation. Yet in all ourstruggles anddivisinns, reason, and not brutal force,was alone appealed to.

Jlidging from the declaration of his excellcncin the canvass for his present station, whatever thepeople desired was to be the supieine law of his administration. The threatin lusmessage to rsistthepopular will, as evinced at the late election, was onthat account heard with the greater surprise. Stillthat his excellency would openly or indirectly at-tempt to execute his threat, or that he would con-nive at the fact that others were preparing to shedtho blood of his fellow citizens, and that he woulduse no efforts to prevent it, was not believed.

Nay, your committee must say, that they hadfondly cherished a belies that there was on officer,nor pretended officer of this Government, that wasready to light up ihe torch of civil war and imbruehis hands in the blood of a brother: yet unwillingas they w ere to believe the fact, they are constrained to report to vou. that bold arrangements havebeen made for these very purposes. Your commit-tee, therefore, recommend the following resolution.

liesolved, bu the II. It. of the Commonwealth ofKentucky, that each ana every citizen of this commonwealth be advised and admonished to abstainfromaiding and abetting F. P. Blair and his associates,in resisting or attempting to resist, the Sergeant ofthe uouri oj Jtppeats. in me execution oj the orderor process ofsaid court, and all other attempts to ex- -

cite commotions in the country , or to disturb ihei pub- -

tic peace and harmony.The reportand resolution having been read and

the question being propounded on the adoption ofthe resolution, aueDate ensoed which took a widerange, and became highly animated, and in some in-

stances harsh. Most of the members accustomedto address the house participated. The debate last-ed till aster candle l'glit.

Mr Tarlton moved to amend the resolution byadding the following.

Provided however, That no citizen of the com-monwealth either in his official or private capacity.shall attempt by force to rescue the papers now inthe hands of V. r. blairtiie clerk ot the new courtof appeals. Rejected 32 to 5H.

The question then recurred on the original reso-lution, which wis adopted by the following vote.

YE-i- Mr Speaker, Messrs. Jas. Allin, Bain-bridg-

Blackhurn, Breck, Brcckenridge, Brown.Bruce, Bruton, Cosby, Cowan, Cox. Crittenden,Cunningham, Davis, Duke, Dunlap, Jvans, Far-mer, Ford, Gaines, Gihson, Gordon, Green,Grundy, Hansford, Hanson, Hardin, Haney,Hiltchcson, James, Lee, Logan, Jlatshall, Mays,M' Connel, Morris, Napier, New, JSuttall, Ow-ing- s,

Payne, Reed, Skyles, Slaughter, Stephens,Sterret, Street., Rich'd Taylor. Robt. Taylor, Z.Taylor, Tiinherlake, Thomasson, Turner, Under-wood, Waddle, Walker. Watkins, Wilson, Win-gat- e,

Alex. White, Woodson, and Yntis 64NAYS Messrs. J. J. Allin, Barbee. Chenno-with- .

Coombs, Elliston, Fletcher, Fulton, IlasU-in- ,Lackey. Martin, Maupm, M' Clanahan, M'

C'ormas, Miller, M' Millan, Mi flius.Peinn, San-ders, Spalding, Tarlton, Thomas, Wade, Ward,Wilcoxen and Sam. White 25.

REPORTMade in the House of Ripresenlativcs, on,thg blh

December, br Mk Hardin, from the seLect committee, raised(in pursuance of resolution offered byMr. Gaines, and adopted on the 3d) (A enquire whe-

ther tfie Court ofAppeals had sustained, or had virtu-ally decided against the occupant laws of this slate;with the resolutions, which accompanied the Rejort,and wet e adopted by the House.

The select committee to which was referred aresolution, directing an inquiry to be made, wheth-

er the Court of Appeals, in obedience to the decis-ion of the Supreme Court of the United States, hasdecided the occupying claimaot lav. null and void,and a violation of the constitution of the UnitedStates and the compact made with Virginia, hashad that subject under consideration, and has giv-

en to it that attention which the importance of thesubject required, and respectfully report thereup-on:

That an act was passed by the legislature of thisstate, on the 27th of February, 1797, entitled anact concerning occupying claimants ofland. Thatthe judges composing the Court of Appeals, did,whenever the question came before them, eitherdirectly or incidentally, recognize the validity ofthe act ot 1797; the uecisiuns to inai poini are nu-

merous, and cau be sound in 1st Bibb. pages 62 and118; 2d Bibb, 305; 3d Bibb, 108, 208, and 373.The people of Kentucky, from experience, weresatisfied that the occupying claimant law of 1797

sell far short of doing them justice, and ahorded averv inadequate remedy for the mischiefs which,from time to time, the occupants had to suffer. Different attempts were made in the legislature to a- -

nriid the occupant laws, which for several succes-sive years were defeated; but the people persever-ed in their efforts, and on the 31st of January, 1812an act was passed, entitled " an act to amend anact, entitled an act concerning occupying claim-

ants ofland." When that act passed, great doubtswere entertained of its coiislitutionalitj; the ablestmen in the slate were divided in opinion, and theGovcror refused to appiove and sign it, because heiclieved tbe enactment of it was forbidden by the

compact between Kentucky and Virginia.In 1815, spring term, the case ot rowlei against

tlalbert was brought before the Court of Appeals.Judges Boyle, Logan and Owsley, composed the

TYiJhgl tTRff Iff! IT a inrrirJT'' "!

court. In this case, the constitutionality of theocenpant laws was presented for the direct decis-ion of Ihe court. A great diversity of opinion ex-isted amongst the members of the bar, as to whatWould be the derision the court met the questionfull and fair, and,decided in savour of the occupantsadd that the laws were constitutional; which decis-ion is lo be sound in 4th Bibb, page 52.

'The Co'irt of Appeals, consisting of Boyle, Logan and Owsley, part of the time; and of Boyle,uivsiey and llowan, part; and of tfoyIbTOwsley vV

Mills, the residue of the time, has eriven a numberof decisions since the case of Fowlerand Halbert,in savor of occupants being paid for their improvements, under the occupant laws; which decisionscan be sound in 4lh Bibb, .pages 335, 461, and" 3121st Marshall, pages 42, 187, 137, 304, 388,240, B8J,and 444. 2d Marshall. naires25 and 485. 3d Marshall, pages 15, 59, 141, i'0.2. 280 and 510. 1st Lit- -

tell, 272. 2d Littell, 20, 86 and 280. 3d Littell,447. 4th Littell, 315. 5th Littell, 20;78, lt7ajid305. Littell's select cases. 278. Monroe's reports.sour cases, pages 36,229, 149, and 264; and at thepresent term, in the case of Bodley against Gai-the- r.

The committee would here remark, that anumber of these decisions were given since the de-cision of the Supreme Court of the United States,of Green and Biddle. This commit'ee is well a- -

warc that the joint committee last session, raisedfor the purpose of inquiring; into the conduct of theJudges, has, in strong terms, intimated that thejudges had, in effect, decided against the constitutionalitvof the occupant latvs, and that the Governor, in his message at the present session, has insm

ated the same thing; but the present committeeinvite the house and the people ofrkeptiicky, toread the decisions here referred to, and decide whois right and who is wrong. The committee doesnot wish to be understood as casting any reflectionsupon me joint commiiiee ai me lasi session, or uieGovernor at the present; one has greatly mistakenthe import of the decisions, and the other has beenbadly advised.

It has been asserted thai the Court of Appealswill recognize the appellatejynsdiction of the su-preme Court of the United States, and consequent-ly, that they will be obliged ultimately to submitto the doctrine contained in the case of Green ndBiddle. Is the Supreme Court lias appellate jurisdiction, which is conceding all that is contendedfor yet the fault would not be in the judges, hut j

the forms of the two governments and their peculiarorganization. But the committee has no hesitationin avnwinsr the fact to be, that the Judges, Bdile,Owsley and Mills, have denied tbe appelate juris-diction ofthe Supreme Couft.in relaubn to ouroc- -

cupantlaws. A reference is here made to their decisions sinre that time, and particulaily the one ofBodlev and Gaithor. When the groi-ud- s are examined upon which the appellate jurisdiction oftheSupreme Court is based, it will be sound to he, thatHie compact Willi Virginia is& comraci, aim mai aviolatiqn of contract is prohibited by the constitu-tion ofthe United States. The doctrine of theCourt a! Appeals is, that the legal obligation ofthecontract, is the remedy which is a part thereof;now itis manifest that there is no legal remedy toenforcea contract between sovereign powers, andhence i; is sometimes called a treaty,, and some-times a compact. The only arbiter between n

(tales is arms, which has never beenlegal remedy. That this is the doctrine

ofthe Court of Appeals, the committee refer to thecase ofacksou vs. VVino,4tli Littell, 326, ill whichcase it s expressly decided, that the compact withVinrinis, is no contract within the constitution ofthe Unied States, because thijre is no legal lemedyto cnfoice it

That tbe Judges of the Court of Appeals to wit,Boyle, Owsley and nulls, instead ot having mamfested i spirit of hostility against the occupants,have in the opinion ot some ovqr suspicious personsdisplayed too much of a kindred feeling, and partiality towards them.

Tbe Supreme Court of the United States, in thecase of Green and Liter, reported in C ranch, andto be Found in 3d Bibb, 04, decided, that a demandant in a writ of right, could maintain the action,wiUiont ever having had actual possession. Asterthatdecision was given, the case of Speed and Buford came on for hearing before the Court of Appeals, la "which case the same point was involvedThe colirt refused to acknowledge the decision ofthe Supreme Coutt as authority; and decided thatthe demandant in a writ ot right coma not maintainhis action, unless he proved he once had actual possession of the land in controversy, which saved tothe settlers and occupants their land, in all casesaster twenty vears possession. The case is to besound in 3d Bibb, page 57. Tbe r ederal Courtsthis state has decided against the constitutionalittof of seven yers, to actions for land;but our Court oi Appeals, has, in the case of blauglter and Kendall, to he tound in 1st Marshall, page370, decided in savour ofthe law, and that the samewas constitutional. Grei'f doubts were at one limeentertained what would be thq limitation to suitsiq chancery, upon adverse entries for land; wheth-er it should he twenty or thirty years. 'The thirtyyears limitation had most advocates. When thequestion was brought before the Court of Appeals,m the case of Heed and (jrlenn s. ISullock; LiUtclreselect oases page 512, the court decided in savourofthe limitation ot twenty years. J he faupreinoCourt of the United States, in the case of Greenand Liter, above referred to, decided that a settlerupon land, could not protect his possession, b shewine a better title in a stranger, and that the personwho sued him, did not own the laud. J he t ourt atAppeals, in the case of Colstuq and McVay, 1stMarshall, page 250, decided that an occupant couldprotect himself by shewinga better title in any other person.

The committee has ascertained that the Oourtof Appeals, has in no one instance, in relation tothe land claims ot KcntucUy, and the various suitswhich are brought to investigate the same, submit-ted to the decisions of tho Supreme Court of theUnited States, but on the contrary, the Supreme.Court has changed her decisions to conform to theopinions ofthe Court of Appeals, in the followingparticulars: First, the buprfinc tourt has con-formed to the decision ofthe Court of Appeals, inrelation to the limitation of twenty years, to a suitin chancery, upon adverse entries, in the case ofElmendorf, vs. Taylor and others; and the courthas also changed the doctrine laid down in Greenand Liter; and in the case of Green and Lancaster,has decided that an occupant can set up the outstanding title of a stranger.

There is butono case, to wit, tho Commonwealthvs. Morrison, decided uy ihe court oi Appeals,which opinion was written by Judge Rowan, inwhich, the appellate jurisdiction of the SupremeCourt is acknowledged. In that opinion the courtdecided that the act of Congress chartering theBank ofthe united states, was uncoustiuilicii!;over which opinion, when it declared an pc! of Con-- i

Bfaunu anggECjrfparoTMMMBPi fjuizmn

gress void, the constitution of the United Statesgave the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction: 5

Upon what authority the Governor, in his mes.-sag- e

said, that the Court of Appeals, composed ofJudges Bo)le, Oiv6tey, and Mills, was "a gate,afiways ready toonuri at the summons of an giiegi'jj,ythis committee i"J at a loss lo conjecture; for suretysuch a heavy and grievous charge ought nut to b..e

made without some cause, and yet your committeeis unable to And any.

The Governor in his' message, has said that thonew court, "is a tower of slrmrgtb-,- ' to resist the'fen-croachme-

of the Federal Judiciary." Yol(rcommittee isunuble to find any authority ojlocj?-iminfth- e

new court tht would warrant Ui:3,is-sertiu-

gsIn the case of Dougherty vs. Triplett, the cputt

has strongly intimated an opinion, that the occu-pant cannot be paid for improvements made fyfiyears before the dflpointment of commissjoneM.This decision destroys every beneficial effect .of :ylour occupant laws and docs not oppose "a tewjbrpfstrength" to the doctrine laid down in the case ofGreen and Biddle. Is the committee wre to judgefrom the political life of the Chief Justice ofthatcourt, it would be authorized to draw astrong .in-

ference that he was unfriendly to occupants in ev-

ery puinl of .view. The journals will shew tkat hovoted against the seven yeais limitation acu In1809. he voted against a bill to amend the occupaotlaws. In 1820, he voted against another occupantbill. The como'ittee can hardly believe that these .

votes of Mr. Barry, and t1 e decision in (he case ofDougherty andTriplett, above refericd to. can-b-

the certain indications given by tbe new oourtothe governor, that, that court will be1 this "tower ofstrength," and yet the committee can'Sscertauinoother evidences furnished the Governor, to warranthim in making the assertion.

It is with great pain and anguish, that the com-mittee has witnessed for some years pas!, the en-

croachments of the Federal Judiriar); and thecommittee does most solemnly protest against theinvasion of that department ns the government pf

ithe United States, upon the sovereign rights ofKentucky. The committee denies "the cgnstitir-- Itional power ofthe Federal Jndcrs, to make suchrules as have been promulgated by that court; andthey also deny the.. constitutional power ofthe Su-- I

premb Court to give a number of decisions latpjypronounred by that tribunal, and particularly, theUnwarrantable interference of Ihe Supreme Courtin the internal policy of Kentucky. But howr,aidin 'what manner, the Judges, Bojle, Owslftj sodMills, sic to be visited, srourgf d and punished fyrthe sins f the Federal Judiciary, the Governrhas not informed the legislature, unless broad andround assertions are taken for foots. Those Judgeshave neither aided orahetted the Federal Judicia-ry, in its decisions and rules, nor have they in anyway or shape, recognized their obligatory effectTl committee submit tbe following resolutions:

RisOl-ied- , That the Judges Royjo, Owsley "andMills, have, in the opinion of this house, uniformlysustained the constitutionality of the occupant law,and an assertion' to the contrary, is unsounded iufact.

Resolved, That Judges Boyle, Owsley andWillsare not accountable, in any way,lor the acts oftheFederal Judiciary. Mr

REPORT. ,Of the Committee on the part ofthe ScnqU lo confer

la relation to the Court is Appeals,The cemmitte on the part of th'e Senate, raised

under a joint resolution, to confer with a commit-tee on the part of the House of Representative-si-

relation to the ourt of Appeals, beg leave, to re-

port, that thry submitted to the committee on thepart of the House of Representatives the proposi-

tions' contained in the papers marked A. &, BT inanswer to which they received the reply maikedC. to which your committee returned tbe repqnpemarked D. which closed the conference TJIoyarepaiiledto say, that their efforts have heen un-- Isuccessful. Thsy did hope that this disagreeablecontrtversywould be ended by the exertions of .thejoint Qprnmittec, without anysacrifice orcompro- -

mistroTpriuciple on either pari, ana mey solacethemselves with the reflection that they have doneevery thing in their power to produce that end.

JAS W DENNY, Chr'rt:JOEL YANCEY,YOUNG EWING,JOHN POPE,ANDKEW S. HUGHES,JAMEs ALLEN.(A0

Tbe committee on the part ofthe Senate raisedto confer with the committee on the part of theHouse of Representativer in relation to tbe Court

lof Appeals offer the following propositions: r, .?1st. 1 tie Appellate court to ue consiuuicaou

equal and reciprocal terms.2d. All the individuals1' claiming to be judges of

thu CoUrt of Appeals to yield their pretensions anda new Court to consist of sour judges without regard to party) to be formed as may be agreed on.

3d. Ortwoof the late -- Judges and two ofthepresent Judges.

4th. Or (is the committee ofthe House of.Reprc-sentativ- es

prefer it) six Judges to be appointed,the old Judges to be three of them, to receive newcommissions with a salary of $1000 perannum.

The committee ot the Mouse oi neprcseniaijvesmay have choice of the above propositions, and incase of the acceptance of either, the reorganizingact of last session and the act regulating the salar-ies ofthe Judges ofthe Court of Appeals to he re-

pealed, and in case of the acceptance of the fourthproposition, it will be provided by law that whenthe number of Judges shall be reduced by death,resignation or removal to three, the salary shaI be$1500, and the act of December 19th I.79C- - to be

and all other laws in relation to-th- e

Court of Appeals in force prior to 24tji December1824, to be revived. '

The foregoing propositions are made with a viewof pointing out the several practicable ineaus ofrestoring tranquility to the country; and foilht;purpose of making known to thecommittee on. thepart ofthe House of representatives, the choice ofthe propositions that the committee ofthe Senatewould themselves prefer the following bill is pro-posed.

(B.)An act to ameml the act establishing the Court

of Appeals, and to repeal the act reorganizing aCourt of Appeals, passed the 24th day of December1824, and for other purposes.

$ 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly ofthe Commonwealth of Kentucky, That theCourtof Appeals shall herealter consist of sour Judp-es- ,

wLo shall be commissioned according to law, anythree of whom shall constitute a court- tie ofiheinshall be commissioned and called thf Ch efJusticeof Kentucky and the others the id, 3J, and 4thJudges.

5 2. That the act approved December 19lh 17Pfi