The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-12-15

rant, annexed TO the ARTICLES or impeachment, IN
which are the words "to aniwcr a Certain pre-
sentiment found againR him (Callender) by the
grand jury"
The queition on agreeing to the 5th article
under confederation was carried, the yeas were
70, and nays rs, and are as follow, viz.
YEAs.--Meiifs. Anderfon, Archer, Bard, Be
dinger, Bilhop, Boyd, Boyle, Brown, BRYAN,
Butler, Caicy, Claiborne, Clark, ]. Clay, M.
Clay, Conrad, Crownnihield, Cults, Dawfon,
Dickion, Earle, Eppes, Findley, Gillelpic, Good.
wyn, Gray, Gregg, Haibrouck, Heiiter, Holmes,
Jones, Knight, Larned, Leib, Lucas, M'Cord,
Meriwether, K. Moore, t. Moore, Morrow,
Melton, New, Newton, jun. Nichoifon, DIN,
Palmer, Patterfon, ]. Randolph, I. NJ. Ran
dolph, J. Rea, (of Pennfylvan,a) ]. Rhea, (of
Tcnnehee) Riker, Summons, Sanford, Soaver,
Sloan, Smile, Southland, Stanford, Stewart
Thomas, Thompfon, Trigs, Van Horne, Var
mum, Whitehil!, Wilton, Winn, Winfton,
Wynns--7o.
: NAys.-Mefirs. Alton, Betton, Blackledge,
, Campbell, Chambcrliu, Chitteuden, Clagett,
: Cutler, Dana, Davenport, Dwight, Elliot, Ell
mer, Goddard, G,iffiR, G. Griiwo!d, r. Grif-
void, Hait,ngs, Holland, Houeh, Hunt, Jack
: fon, Kennedy, Lewis, jun. Livingston, Lown-
: des, M'Crcery, Mitchell, Mott, Platter, Purvi-
ance, Rodney, Root, J. c. Smith, ]. Smith,
Stanton, Stedman, Stephenion, Tasgart, Tall
mage, Tenny, Thatcher, Iibbits, Wadiworth,
9 w lllllWS---i5.
| The iiXth article under confederation.
! Mr.. Rodney. AS intend to vote againft this
article of impeachment, l mean to ailign nv
reaions in as few words rs will enable me to be
! Clearly underftood. 1t has been admitted on
all tides that fuch intercting proceeding as that
/ IN which we are engaged fhould be conducted
with caln3nefs and temper, void of every fenfa-
ton arifing from hottie paiiions; but particu-
iarly when we conGder all the circumstances
connected with the object of this impeachment,
man OF talents placed in an eminent elevation
OF Office, qualified to afcertan the bearing OF
your evidence and teltimony, too much caution
cannot be ufed, and gentlemen are fulfilled in
their minute examination into the relation be-
tween the charges and tefimony upon which
they are erected.
coniider this article Objectionable bccaufe
| there is concealed within 1t principle pregnant
with mitchell TO this country if it be adopted,
1t will go to ettabliffi principle mott dangerous
and opprefiive. 1t goes TO tar as to fay that the
courts of the United States have criminal iurf-
di6tion at common law. If gentlemen will at
tend to the article they will obierve that it cites
! the act of Congrefs eftabliihing the judicial
courts of the United States 70 far as relates to
! the regulations of the feveral ftates, and they
| are enacted to be the rules of deciiion of thofe
courts IN trials at common law-and then it
gees on to charge judge Chafe with violating
| this very act. 1t is the act of Congrefs which
gives life to the act of Virginia in the United
States courts, and it iays that the ftatute ihall
be enforced as on trials At common law. The
brit enquiry Will be what was the meaning of
the Legislature in uing the expreilons " in trials
| at common law - and to afcertain whether Cal
| lender was tried by the common law or under
the fedtion act. Law writers are not more
clear, precife, Or correct, on any fubiect, than
they are in their definition of the common law
1t is the unwrtten law, as contradiftineuifhed
from itatute law. A gentleman fugsefts to me
that the common law mentioned in our itatute
Is merely to mark the difference between our
Admiralty and Maritime juriidiction. We ufu-
ally refer to Englfh authorities for an explana-
ton of the technical words we borrow from
| them, and there we find that the common or
unwritten law is 70 called to diitinguifh it from
| ftatute law-and this is the broad line laid down
| by Virginia herfelf in late declaration of her
Legislature drawn up by one of the sreatef}
ltateimen that ever that or any other country
produced. They declare that the United States
government has no common law iurifdiSfon.
all their powers mutt be exercifed in virtue of
fome ftatute made under the conditions of the
contribution. In eating our eyes over the con-
ftltutiOn we ihall not find fyable of the words
common law the frif time it appears. it is in
.he I'll fviaii5. 10 Gcbts exceeding
20 dollars.
The judiciary bill refers to the civil iurifdicti
on of theie courts in cafes between foreigners
and citizens, but there is no where to be found
a word that gives to the United States criminal
jurlidiction 1T common law. MIR. Chafe held
this opinion hmfelf, as you hear from the aifi-
davit of Mr.. Read, who obferying the attack
upon Judge Chafe in the Wilmington Mirror, re-
minded him that the fedtion act did not protect
the judges from lbels; they had no cognizance
thereof and it could not be puniihed but through
the fate courts. Even in England they paid re-
fpect to this diftinetion. The frft trial of Rine
wick Williams, commonly called the mniiter,
for his abominable wickednefs in cutting wo-
men as they paiied him in the freet he was
indicted under a particular ftatute Judgment,
was fuccefsfully arrefted, though he was after
wards indicted at common law for ahault and
battery aud convicted.
To make the allegation conform to the prin |
ciples, it ihould be faid that Calender was tri- |
ed by the common law where was the autho- |
rity at common law Callender's was not a !
civil cafe, between citizen of another fate G. |
himfelf-No,i was criminal cafe, under a parti- !
cuaritatute, he wastred by the itatute law, not
by the common law. He was confirmed in this |
opinion by the report ofthe cafe, where it ap- |
pears that fuch eminent men as Mr.. Hay and |
Mr. Nicholas, preferred to rely upon an affida- !
Wit for poftponement, rather than bring for
ward the ftatute of Virginia alledged to be deci-
five they would fhortIy lave their CLIQUE II,