Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-04-04

on OF which the defence OF the accused
materially depo deG, tending 10 prejudice
the minds OF the jury against the case of
the said John Fries. the prisoner, before
counse! had been heard in his defence.
2. In restricting the counsel for the said
Fries from recurring to such English au-
thori;ics as they believed appos.'e, or from
citing certain statutes ofthe United States,
which they deemed illustrative OF the POI
sitioi:s, upon which they intended 10 rest
the defence of their client.
3. In debartirg he prisoner from his
constitutional privilege of addressing the
Jury Through his counsel) on the law, as
veil as OH the iact, which was to deter
rnine ms guilt. or innocence, and at the
same tune endeavor;ng TO wrest from the
jury their irdisputable right TO hear ar.
gnment, and determine upon the question
Of law, a. we'll as the question OF iaGl, in
vowed in the verdict which they were re-
quired 10 give.
.frticic H. That, in consequence OF this
irregular conduct t the said Samuel Chase,
| as dangerous to our liberties, as i, is novel
| % our Laws and usaSes. the said John Fries
was deprived Of the right, secured 10 him
| by the eighth article amendatory Of the
constitution, and was condemned TO death
, without having been heard, by counsel, in
his dcfcucc, to the disgrace of the charac-
ter OF the American Bench, in manifest
violation Of law and Justice, and in open
contempt of the rights of iuri.s, on which
ultimately rest the liberty and safety of the
American people.
! .STficL III That prompted by similar
spirit of persecution and injustice, at a cir
cult court OF the United States, held 4,
| Richmond, in the month OF Nav, one thou
| sand eight hundred for the district ofVir-
gInia, whereat the said Samuel Chase pre-,
! sided, and Lefore which "a cer;ain James
Thomson C@llcnder was arraigned for a
libel on John Adams, then president o.
the United States thc said Samuel Chase,
with intent 10 Cypress, and procure III,
conviction of the said Calender, did over
rule the objection OF John Bassct, one ofthc
! jury, who wished TO be excused from serv.
ing on the said trial, because he had made
up his mind, as 10 the publication from
which the words, charged to be libellous
III the indictment, were extracted and the
! said Basset was accordingly sworn. and did
serve or the said Jury.
| article ~. That the evidence OF John
Taylor, { material witness on behalf oi
the Aforesaid Calender, was not permit.
, ted by the said Samuel Chase la ne giyer
/ IN, because Che said witness could not
/ prove the truth of the whole Of one OF The
charges, contained in the Indictment, al.
! ,-lh oil. IL. 4
| than one faa.
! Irf'cie 7. That The condu8 of the said
Samuel Chase was marked, during The
whole course Of the said trial, by mani.
fest injustice. partially and iniempcrancc,
viz.
/ /. in refusing TO postpone the trial, al.
, tho aD affidavit was regularly filed, stating
the absence OF material Witnesses on pc
half Of the accused:
=. Ia The use OF unusual, rude and con-
/ temptuous expressions towards The prison
er's counsel; and in insinuating that they
wished 10 excite the public fears and in
dlGnaton and TO produce that insubordina-
ton 10 law, 10 which the conduct Of the
judge did at The same time manifcstlv
tend:
80 In repeated and veXatious Interrupt
tons OF the said counsel, on the part OF
The said Judge, which at length induced
them To- abandon their cause and 'thsir eli.
ent, who was thereupon convicted aud con.
demned TO fine and Imprisonment:
4. In an indecent sollcitude, manifested
by the said Samuel Chase, for the convic-
/ ton Of the accused, unbrcoming even a
public prosecutor, bur highly disgraceful
to the character OF judge as it was Cub.
veTsiye of justice.
.frticie VI. That at circuit court of
the United States, for the dIstriG of De-
laware, held at New Castle. in the month
of June, one thousand eigh, hundred,
whereat the said Samuel Chase presided,
--the said Samuel Chase, disregsrdiue
the duties OF his office, did descend from
the dignity of Judge and stoop to The le-
vel ofan informerb by refusing TO discharge
the grand jury, although entreated by Sc
versl of the said Jury so to do; and after
the said grand jury had regularly decar-
ed, through their foreman, that they had
found no bills of indictment, nor had any
presentments 20 make, by observing 70
the said grand jury, that he, the SAID Sa