The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-12-13

trial proceeding before the Senate to give IN
evidence the teRimony alluded to in page 1873
And he had no doubt but the Senate would ad.
! NIT all evidence of this kind to have its proper
weight, becaufe it fcems to be universally adj
! mitted and has been long underitood, that in
proceedings by way of impeachment that
technica! preciGon is not required, which is re.
CURED by orr courts of law on indictment, il
however gentlemen are cmba'raiied, about f:av-
ing this teltimony directly pointed, this may be
eahlY come dt. They can add it to the article
rs another count is added to bill Of indictment.
This mode is very well known, and may be Il
dopted by thofe who think it neceHary fo,
his part he did not think it necefary.
MIR. Boyle withdrew his motion for the pre-
ftnt.
The queeion was now taken on the ftcond
article and carried, eighty members riing in the
affirmative.
The third article before the committee.
Mr.. ]. Randolph read the following teitino-
ny i'll lupport of this article, viz.
When the trial commenced, Col. John
Taylor, of Caroline, was introduced as wifi
Defs for the priioner. believe he was fworn.
The council wiihed to intcrrogate him, This
they were not permitted to do, until they had
itated the points to which his evidence related.
They were then obliged by Mr.. Chafe, TO re-
duce the quefions, which they wilhed to pro-
pound to Col. Taylor, to writing, and then TO
fubmit them to his iGtpcGtion, that lie might de-
terinine whether they fhould be propounded or
not.
Col. Taylor's evidence was rejected.
The ground of this opinion as ftated by Mr.,
Chaic was this, that col. Taylor could not
prove the whole of one charge. The charge
was, the judge (Chaie) faid, So that the PRECEDENT
was protected Authenticated he had proved
faithful and terviceabe to the Britiih intereG."
Proving half, he iaid, was doing nothing; both
facts mutt be proved. It WAS commended, on
the part Ofthe priloner that fit was neceiIary
t. prove both facts by the fame wilnciS, the
charge in both points would be proved by the
teftimony of col. Taylor. He would prove
that Mr.. Adams had protected ariitocratcal a.
pinions; and that he had proved faithful and
tervlceable TO the Britiih intcreft, in the way
meant by 60 the Profpect, &c. by voting 7rainit
the iequeitration law, and the law fufpeSding all
iutercourfe with. Great Britain. The Judge
(Chaic) repeated that the evidence was inadmif-
hble, that the council knew it to be 70. and that
they only wanted to deceive and TO millrad the
populace."
And afterwards he added the following viz.
g LnterTVgatorr 4tb.---Dd Mr.. Chafe refyfe
to the prifoncr the teftimony of witnefs, be.
cauie he, the faid witnefs, could not prove the
truth of all the facts fet forth, and upon which
the indictment was grounded
45fIUfr.---Aiter the jury in Calendars
cafe were fworI, col. Taylor, of Caroline. who
attended rs a witnets, in conlequence of A fvb
pceBa ferved upon him ON behalf of Calender.
was called 20 the book and fworn in the uGual
form. Judge Chafe at This moment aiked, with
contiderable hate and eagernefs OF manner,
what the council expected to prove by the wit
de was informed that they meant to ak him
nefS?
whether Mr.. Adams had not avowed in his
preience, fentimeEtS inimicaI to republican
form ofgovernment, and whether he did not,
whif Vice-Prehdent, give the eating vote in
the Senate, againt the iegueftration of Britiih
debts, and againft the fufpenlion eff intercourfe
with Great Britain. Judge Chafe demanded
that the council ihould fate in writing the ouef
tons meant to be afked. The council for the
defendant oPpofrd this, becaufe, although
number OF witneties had been examined on the
part ofthe United States, no fimilar requiition
had been made with refpe6t to them, becaufe
1t was contrary TO the practice in the fate
courts, and becaufe ALTO it was UNREASONABLE in
itielf, and calculated to fubjett every quetion
of fact to the controul of the court. Judge
Chaie, however, inftedthat the uefions ihou!d
be unlimited TO his previous deciiien. They
were accordingly put in writing, and were a,
follow, to wit
"I. Did you ever hear Mr.. Adams expreG
any ientiments favorable to monarchy or ariftc-
cracy--and what were they?
2. Did you ever hear MIR. Adams, whilR
Vice Prcfdent, exprefs his dfapprobation of
the funding fyitem?
"3. Do you know whether Mr. Adams did
in the year 1894, vote againft the frqucRration
OF Brtilh debts, and for topping all intercourfe
with Great Britain?
CATER having examined the queRions, Judge
Chafe declared that Col Taylor's evidence was
He declared that no evidence
could be received that did not uftify the whole !
charge. The charge, fd he, is, that the ira !
verier fad Of the Prehdent, he is profefed a.
ritocrat and has proved faithful to the Brith in.
tereft ;--now you NUT prove both points, or
you prove nothing; and as your evidence re-
lates to one only, it cannot be received--you
muft prove all or none. This was in Gubfance, |
and it is believed the precife words in which !
judge Chafe fated his obie aion TO Col Taylor's !
evidence. The Council aiked the Judge whe- |
Their they could not be allowed to prove part Of
a charge by one witneis and part by another
To this judge Chafe replied, that if the counfel
could prove the whole Of any one charge by
Col. Taylor, they might do il, otherwife they
fbould not examine MIN. The council contend
ed that Col. TayIor's evidence applied TO the
whole of the charge which the Judge had Rated
in his opinion--That they meant 10 prove by
him, that the Preddert had profenei apti-re-
publican Continents, and had proved faithful