Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1804-03-29

BY th- erid with h1ving commit it, ga
and whether the evidence can (m,,o,, !
charge, and was'her the crime aledscd fif o.o ,'
ed) is of fuch natoFe as to fubi :a him w. =
Impeachment, under ,hc,conltl' Of the - %
WitnelIes have been extnnsd TO eR,hro
fome charge of mifcondud, by Judge Chsr, M
the trial of John Fries, for treafon, for which ,p
Judge ought TO be impeached of high crime, , NV
mifdemeanors. The committee have M, o..
their opinion, that any charge Of miconduSt ~
the laid trial is Imported by the evidence p,o5a
ed before them; and the hone Of reprefentativs,
is Left to form their own opinion, from tn. ~,
mination of the depoftions. As the commit.
have nat Ratcd any ACT of milcond 1t OF the ~ To-.
on the trial Of Fries, which they ought to baS.
dore. / can only conjecture their opinion fra,
a pcrufl of the depoGtiocs Of William Lewis ana
Alexander J. Dallas, (ehe council for Fries) and
the depoGtions Of William Rawe, difriGt auo,.
ncy of Penny lania, and w. S. Biddle. Tn.
evidence of Mefrs Lewis and Dallas is evidently
given to prove that by the improper, unprecc.
densed and illegal conduct of jpigc Chat, afr,
John Fries was indicted for train, and orioy I'd
his trial btf0re the petit jerry, he was deprived
Of the brnSfir of counf.i, 10 violation Of the
contribution Of tie United States. This miGcpn.
dua Of Judge Chafe is Rated by thefe two VIII.
rtG. to have oufGasI of fcveral aAs.
Fitf, in giving hi, opinion Of the law of usa.
for, on the ovrrt RS Raied in the indictment 4.
CAN'T Erics before III. petit jory was Iworn, and
was tHer f,rc in point Of Amr, highly improper,
Unprecedented ard illegal.
Second, thar jadge Cf.f. DECLARED g that the
court hid made up tisif n,iUd as to The law II
tyealln and hid reduced i, to writing & that the
council ought 20 cooduct yhemfelves confotmably
10 it and if they bad any faalt to ftd with the
opinion of the Court or had any thing to fay on
the law, to fheW tIlat the court were wrong or
had mitaken it, the council mdG sdirels them.
ie!ves! 70 the cours and not to the jury.--
That this declaration of Judge Chat: deprived
the'pctit ju:y OF tLeir constitutional right TO De.
ternlnc the law /; well as the fact, in this td.
al for ,reafon.
81. That Judge Chafe declared that be or Ii.
conrt, would not fdRer part Of the Ra'ute of tie
Unted States relating to crimes lE5 than itEcalon
nor cahees at common law, or und'r tthc fatue
law of Englaad, byt0isas to the Engifh revolu
ton in lo68) 10 be read 70 the jury. Thef
three acts OF The Judge were cohd:rcd, by tn:
council for Fries as ytAri9ims on them, ard
an invaion Of their pyefeDsanal rights. -
MeGrs Lewis and Dallas, in their DEPOT.
tions, declare, that tfom this premature OPT
mo- of judge Chafe, as TO the law of ucaiou,
and his opinion thar the petit Jury had no right
10 decide law as we'll as f4t., and from the above
restriction On their conduct as conniel,sthey did
gcfufc TO defend Fries on bis trial, Il is plain
that the concluion intended to be drawn from
their evidence is, that by tbs conduct OF ladSc
Chale, as Gated by The Ecourfe Of Fries, they
acted with proprie:y, and that, by this conduit
ofjadge Cha!c, Fries was deprived OF the ben'-
fix of counicl. Mr.. Lewis filmed, as the rea'
on Of his reinfal odefsnd Fries, " tha; /. night
ard probably would be of material uie 10 nm
with the PRECEDENT I ne Gaonld &c convicted )"
s. Mr.. D Has, depoftd, {" hat he s. Mr.. Laws
were sres;lyS Influenced, in the conduit wn'''
they puslued by their opinion Of the means
mott likely to fave the life Of Fries, under all
the crcuTRarces OF lis cafe,
The frit enquiry IS, whether the op'n:on'"
Jddae Chaie, delivered 6y MN 10 MI Ie"iS' ~,
OF the council Tor Fries land by hin F-tuicdl was
improper, and Unprecedented in point OF tine,
and was therefore ilIegaS ? and the ] iscon1
enquiry is, whether the corda6f OF Judge Ca'I'
as Rstcd by Menrs Lewis and Dallas, # accGra"'
is cyi,ss or 1ajlcmrnn2r mpencb0dE under the
contribution OF the United States 1t IS ncHN'
bent on thof: who maintain the affirmative 70
eitablinh it, before correct opinion can Dc
formed :.
Al the circumstances Of the case ought to ..
taken into consideration. First, Fnes had been
tried and found guilty Of the same crime OF Urea, ,
son the wear before, after a trial OF nln; oS :? &
three of which were t:k:o up BY MessFs, h7"'l
and Dallas bis counsel IN his defence osTUDs
The la,u IN Tie case of e les had been decided y