Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1802-03-11

vi6,n in the contribution II prevented
the ta,e being che JUICES in their ewn
cade, and deprived them of the power
Of denying j 'itice. Is there a principle
of ethics more clear than thar man
ought not to be judge in his own
caufe, and is not the principle equally
ftrong when applied net to one man,
be, to a Collective body. 1t was the
hap2inefs of our Gruations which enables
Us 70 force the greateR tate to faoni'
20 the yoke Of jultice, and it would have
been the glory of the country in the re
m ,tea times, if the principle in the con-
firurion had been OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
had the Gates to dread! Could they fear
injaaice when oppoied to a feeble indi-
vioual Has a great man reaion to fear
from poor one And could potent
rate be alarmed by the unfounded claim
Of Jingle perf,u! For my part ! have
Away. though, that an independent tribu
nal ought to be provided to judge on the
claims againa this government. The
power ought not to be in our own hands.
We are no, impartial, and are therefore
liable without our knowledge to do
wrong. 4 never could fee why the whole
S community mould not be bound by as
fsrong an obligation to do jufice TO an
individual, as one man is bound to do it
to another.
In England the fubjef has better
chance for jaftice againf the foyereign
than in this country citizen has againtt
a fa,e. The crown is never its own ar
bitter, and they who fit IN .dgmert have
no interef in the event of their decifon.
The Judges, Cir, have been eliminated
for their conduct in relation to the fedi.
ton act, * have been charged With iearch-
ing for victims who were iacrl6ced un-
der it. The charge is eaGty made, but
has the gentleman the mears of fupport-
ing it !! 1t was tie evident deGgn Of the
gentleman to attach the odiun of the
5edition law to the judiciary; on this
lcore the judges are furely innocent
They did 70, pats the act, the Legislature
made the law, and they were obliged by
their oaths to execute it. The jud ses
decided the law 10 be nltitutionaI, and
l arm not now going to agitste the quef-
zion. did hope when the law paiIed,
thar its effect would be uletul. 1t did
not touch the freedom of lpeech, and was
deiigned only to refrain the enormous
abuies of the prefs. 1t went no farther
than to punifh malicious fallhoods pub.
li(hei with the wicked intention of &C.
ftroying the government. No innocent
man ever did or could have fuffered un-
der the law. No punilhment could be
inflicted till jury was iatis6ed that a
publication was falfe, and that the party
charged knowing it TO be falie had pub
hthed it with an evil dehgn.
The mifcondutt of the judges, howe
yer on this luojett has been conhdered
by the gentleman the more aggravated,
by an attempt to extend the principles
of the fedition atf, by an adoption OF
shofe of the common law. Connected
with this fubjett, fuch an attempt was
never made by the judges. They have
held generally, that the contribution OF the
United States, was predicased upon an ex-
ifing common law. Of the foundnefs OF
,ha, opinion, / never had a doubt.
ihould icArcely 60 too Tar, were | to FAY,
that frips OF the common law, there
would be neither contribution nor govern
mens. The contribution is uninteiigible
without reference to the common law.
Aud were we to 60 into our courts of juf-
tice with the mere hatstes OF the United
States, NOT ttsp could be taken, not even
con1emp, could be punilhed. Ihoie TIA
tutes preicsibe no forms of pleadings, they
contain no principals OF evidence, they
fnrn,ih no rule OF property. 1t the Com
mon law d3es NOT exit in mott Gales taere
is no law, out the will OF the Judge.
I have never contended, that the
whole os the common law alta he'd TO the
contribution, but only fush parts as were
~ {,,srtt of o,,r