The History of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia

by S. J. Quinn

Finding its requests and orders disregarded, the court issued an order declaring that the Council must build a new courthouse or provide a better place for holding court, but even this did not appear to hurry the Council, which moved along in its own quiet way. This controversy went on for several years, the court requesting, ordering, even threatening, without avail. It finally reached a point where it seems to have exhausted its patience and determined to assert its authority.

On the 14th of June, 1849, the court being composed of Mayor Semple and Justices Wm. H. White and Peter Goolrick, the following order was made and entered on the record book:

“It is ordered, that Thomas B. Barton, John L. Marye, Robert B. Semple, Wm. C. Beale and John J. Chew, who are hereby appointed a committee for that purpose, do examine and report to this court, some plan for the enlargement and repairs or rebuilding of the courthouse for this corporation, for the convenient administration of justice; and the said committee are also requested to examine and report whether any other public building, belonging to this corporation, can be so changed as to answer the above purpose, and to inquire and report the probable cost of such plan or plans as they may approve and report upon, and it is ordered that the justices for this corporation be summoned to attend here at the next court to consider and decide upon said report.”

While this order and the appointment of the committee, with its instructions, created considerable comment, it did not seem to excite the Council or precipitate any action favorable to the proposed building. At the next court eight justices were present in answer to the summons issued at the last session of the court. Those present were R. B. Semple, Robert Dickey, Beverly R. Wellford, Wm. C. Beale, Wm. H. White, Peter Goolrick, Wm. Slaughter and Wm. Warren.

The report of the committee appointed at the previous court, was made, and the court declared “that in obedience to the act of the General Assembly, which requires that courts for the corporations within this Commonwealth should cause to be erected one good and convenient courthouse, that it is necessary and proper to build a courthouse for this corporation,” and the report of the committee “having been returned to court, and therewith an order from the county court of Spotsylvania, releasing to this court all title and interest the said county has to the jail and courthouse, within this corporation, and the said lots on which they stand, being considered by this court, it is approved and confirmed.”

The court then appointed a commission, consisting of Mayor Semple, Beverly R. Wellford, Wm. H. White, Thomas B. Barton and John L. Marye, who were instructed to contract with some responsible party to erect a good and substantial courthouse on lots 42 and 44, or either of them, according to the plan submitted to the court, or that plan modified, if it was found necessary, the cost not to exceed four thousand dollars. The commission was to report from time to time to the court.

This action looked as if the court intended to exhaust its powers or have a new courthouse, but a few days’ mixing with the people seems to have raised a doubt in the minds of the members of the court as to the wisdom of their action. At any rate, when the August term came the full corps of magistrates was present. A petition, and counter petition of the citizens of Fredericksburg, in relation to the action of the court upon the subject of rebuilding the courthouse, were severally presented, when, on a motion made to rescind the order for building the courthouse and laying a levy therefor, the vote stood as follows:

For rescinding, Robert B. Semple, Peter Goolrick, Wm. C. Beale, Robert Dicky, 4. Against rescinding, Beverley R. Welford, Wm. H. White, Wm. Slaughter, Wm. Warren, 4. The court being divided on the question of repealing or enforcing its own order, the subject was dropped so far as any action of the court was concerned, and was not again brought up for several months.

At the April term, in 1850, however, the court respectfully requested the Council to appoint a day to have an election, that the voters might express their wishes as to whether or not a levy should be made for the purpose of building a courthouse. This paper, although it placed the court before the Council in the attitude of an humble suppliant, was read before the Council and laid on the table, as all former papers from that source had been.

This seems to have ended the efforts of the court to secure a new courthouse or the repairing of the old, either by entreaties, threats or by the power given it under the acts of the General Assembly. Thus things continued for one year, although the question was warmly discussed by the citizens, who were very much divided on the subject. An election was to be held the following March, and the court, finding itself defeated in all former efforts, transferred the question to the people in their selections for members of the Council. This was a wise move for the friends of the measure. The election was held and a Council in favor of building a new courthouse was elected. The eyes of the public were now turned from the hustings court to the Common Council which had just been elected. The contest was not long delayed.