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

fend the Judges eond.e, i, has been irppofed that
the tTiai OF Calender pubihej, but tic motives
for publication what they my, tbs matter 81 great
notorety, that the gentleman VINO reported It, a
vioept political partizan FOR the party then IN pow
Grand il WAS generally unde7lood that the print
ed report of the caue ,e.dcd olteu the public feel
ings which had been excited againt the Judge by the
relation of ,hoie who had been preent the trial
and the point OF treating the council rudeiy and
contemptuouy, ought be noticed that tine repor-
acknowledges he 10, prelent on the hi days
of the trial. That it was no. uniavorahle detail
OF Judge ChafeS conduct might be Inferred from this
Circumstance, that the committee TENT Tor this tetti
mory, on the lvsgeition OF gentleman from Connec-
teut--Bu, this report the trial esbl.hes be-
lyond doubt ali the allegations in The part moved to
be hricken land when You recollect the time il
was pubied and the appearances at that tine 1T
not b. tuppoed IL meant or;niiiiate him. No
1t was meant to rsicue him from popular odium. Mr.
Writ, OF the couiirl, addrefng the court,
interrupted by Judge Chaie in hele words, take your
feat, fir, if you peae." Is this the uilal language
from the bench to the bar Let the clerk read that
account OF the trial, and you will find it ,ilue OF
damnng evidence Of every sad Yet forth in the article
| The queition on the amendment was taken
and loft.
The queftion was taken on the 4th article by
yeas and nays, and are as follow:
| YEAS.-Mehrs. Alton, Jun. Anderton, Ar
cher, Bard, Brdnger, B.liop, Biackledge,
Boyd, Boyle, Brown, Bryan, Butler, G. w.
Campbell, Cafty, Claiborne, Clark, J. Clay,
M. Clay, Conrad, Crownnihield, Cuts,
DAYTON, Dckfon, Earle, Early, Elmer, Eppes,
Findley, Giefpie, Goodwin, Gray, Gregg,
Haibrouck, Heiiter, Holland, Holmes, Jackion,
Jones, Kennedy, Knight, Larned, Lcib, Luz
Gas, M'cord, MfCreery, Mcriwether, n. r.
Moore, 7. Moore, Morrow, Mott, Mellon,
New, Newton, jun. Nicholfon, DIN, Palmer,
Patterfon, J. Randolph, 7. NJ. Randolph, J.
Rea (of Peunfyvania) J. Raca (of Tenneilee)
Ri.ier, Rodney, Root, Summons, Sandford,
Searer, Sloan, Smile, Southland, Stanford,
Stanton, Stewart, Thomas, Thompfon, Tngg,
Van Horne, Varnum, Whitehill, Williams,
WILTON, Winn, W'inaon, Wynns. Eighty
| four.
| NAYS.--MefIrs. Baldwin, Bottom, ]. Camp
bell, Chamberlin, Chittenden, Ciagett, Cutler,
Dana, Davenport, Dwight, Elliott, Goddard,
Griffin, G. Grifwold, X. Grifwold, Haftings,
i1oueh, Hunt, Lewis, jun. Livingston, Lown-
deS, Mitchell, Platter, Purviance, J. c. smith,
ii. Smith, Stedman, Stephenson, Tageert, Tall
mage, Tenncy, Thatcher, Tibbits, Wadfworth
l--S4.
The fifth article under confederation.
Mr.. Kennedy declared hirnlef oppofed TO this
article, and afierted that the teftimony did not
fupport it. He had read and Investigated the
act OF the alIembly OF Virginia, and found that
the fe6ion relied upon was fufceptible of ano-
Their contribution. He quoted the words of the
act, and added, here we find that the court
may order the clerk 10 iifuc luminous, or o.
tbsr proprr prOeeG. Theie words are fupprei-
fed in the article under confederation. 1t is 4
known maxim III courts Of confidence, that the
lfuppretnon of a truth, or the faggeftion of a
fafshood are equally weak and wicked. And
II ought to be equally improper for us to fup-
preis truth, or acdgea faliehood, in 70 To-
Tenn atranfa6tion as that of impeachment. If
after the word luminous in the article we were
I To infert the words or other proper proceG it
might go great way towards altering the OPT
Mon of the members. other procefs
can iliue befides luminous? Ifyou will not
truh luminous you will take the body this
Is capias. If there be 10 oslier than thefc two
| writs, If was in the difc.etion of the judge to
order a capias. If perfon commits I great
| crime, though not capital, capias may be the
proper procefs; for 4 luminous will only be
a notice to the party to run of. Tie therefore
could not agree to the frit part of thcarticle, &
the latter part was left unfupported, if the o.
! Their failed. II the court had right to award
| a capias it neceGarily followed that the party
| mutt be arrefted if found, and if arrcfed, he
mutt be committed to cloie cufody, or give
bail for his appearance there is no other mode
or avoiding imprisonment upon arreh. Has
there appeared any proof that Calender made
an application to be bailed? If he did not, he
| could not be refufed by the judge. Nothing of
this kind has been heard ii pTooff, aud until
then we Ought TO withhold our aient to the
latterpart of the article.
Mr.. NicboLto0. The laws of Virginia relative
| to this point, if he rccolie6ed rightly, were
that in capital cafesa capias is ordered to iiiue
for the apprehension Of the offender but in ca.
fes of crimes lefs than capital luminous, or O.
| Their proper proceiS fall i1ue. What is the
practice of this ttate He had never underftood
| that it was the practice there to iliue capias
| for the apprehension Of f,nall offences, but
luminous to anfwer at The next court after the
| prefentment.
Mr.. ]. RAndOip5. My friend (Mr. NJ is not
! miitaken IN the law, aud the practice 70 far as
| he knew 1t was whatevery reafonabe man would
!uppoie 1t to be, that is conionant with the law
itfeif There are two difintt fpecies of crimes.
| one capital the other not capital. The hrf
ipeciesis divided into treafoDs and felonics-
The iecond con,-.ns all other lefer crimes.
Fortbe hrit ii is mentioned in the law itEelf,
that capias is the proper proccfs but in the
tecond IT is to be by luminous, or other proper
proceis TO the next court.----BY coufining
the writ of capias to capital cafes it alto infers
that caplas is not proper procefs in cafes un-
der capital.-If the court awarded a capias
then 10 Calender cafe, they did what the law
did not authorize them to do, and which the
practice in our fate courts did not warrant