the ordinance called their constitution, as
every other ordinance, or act of the legislature, subject to be altered
by the legislature for the time being.

1. The convention which formed that constitution, declared themselves
to be the House of Delegates, during the term for which they were
originally elected, and, in the autumn of the year, met the Senate,
elected under the new constitution, and did legislative business with
them. At this time, there were malefactors in the public jail, and there
was, as yet, no court established for their trial. They passed a
law, appointing certain members by name, who were then members of the
Executive Council, to be a court for the trial of these malefactors,
though the constitution had said, in express words, that no person
should exercise the powers of more than one of the three departments,
legislative, executive, and judiciary, at the same time. This proves,
that the very men who had made that constitution, understood that it
would be alterable by the General Assembly. This court was only for that
occasion. When the next General Assembly met, after the election of the
ensuing year, there was a new set of malefactors in the jail, and no
court to try them. This Assembly passed a similar law to the former,
appointing certain members of the Executive Council to be an occasional
court for this particular case. Not having the journals of Assembly by
me, I am unable to say whether this measure was repealed afterwards.
However, they are instances of executive and judiciary powers exercised
by the same persons, under the authority of a law, made in contradiction
to the constitution.

2. There was a process depending in the ordinary courts of justice,
between two individuals of the name of Robinson and Fauntleroy, who
were relations, of different descriptions, to one Robinson, a British
subject, lately dead. Each party claimed a right to inherit the lands
of the decedent, according to the laws. Their right should, by the
constitution, have been decided by the judiciary courts; and it was
actually depending before them. One of the parties petitioned the
Assembly, (I think it was in the year 1782,) who passed a law deciding
the right in his favor. In the following year, a Frenchman, master of a
vessel, entered into port without complying with the laws established in
such cases, whereby he incurred the forfeitures of the law to any person
who would sue for them. An individual instituted a