Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-03-31

y ace in the circujt court Of the United
States Tor the Virginia GIstcitt during
the May term of that court, IN the year
1900.
Iaf.rrqgqt9,v Sd. Relate tho circum-
stances Of that trial.
.fpszyer. During the May term of the
circuit court Of the United States, Tor the
Virg MIA distri6l, in the year 1900, IN in
dictment was sent to The grand Jury d
gainst James Thomson Calender as the
publisher of work entitled - The Pros
pea before u,"-a great many passages
from the work were stated W the indlct-
ment and charged on Calender as sedit-
Gus. The grand jury found the indict-
ment true bill. Calender was not in
custody, but resided at the time in Peters
burg warrant was issued against him,
and some days afterwards ne was arrested
and brought to Richmond by the marshal.
This Arponent having previously formed
determination To appear as one ot Cal
lenders counsel, after is arrest he, tcgc-
ther with George Hay, esquire, had a con-
ference with Calender 10 examine the
charges against him and TO ascertain whe-
ther he was prepared for his defence
= N.ldNAt oAdN-Nl III biAS ilirAlNb X ll
were very numerous and dissimilarin ihcr
kli, and we soon perceived that II would
be impossible 10 be eaared for the dc.
fence without the attendance of u number
OF persons, several Of whom resided at a
great distance. We were Of opinion also
that many documents were necessary
which it would require time to procure !;
and thc charges were so mutifsrious, aud
required a particular examination of SO
many facts and events OF public nature,
that we believed if our evidence was pre-
sent zee could not pc prepared during the
term 10 do Justice 20 our client. Under
this conviction We advised Mr.. Calender
10 NOV: for continuance of the cause,
and a. Eidayi, was prepared under his di-
recGons to found the motion on. This
affidavit is filed amongst the papers in the
cause In the federal court. | stated that
Calender expected to prove by the per-
sons whose names were mentioned IN it,
certain facts material to his defence the
facts which he eVp- he'd To derive from each
witness were particularly stated in the aft
davit IL will appear by comparison og
the affidavit with the indictment, that ,ue
facts stated by Callender as being known
10 MS absent witnesses, apply directly 20
many of ne charges of tn iroictment.---
E4flre the motion was inaiiy decided on
By ne court, they directed the cause t.
iiy over far few days, ard in The mean
time that Calender might subpoeua su, p
of his witnesses as were within reach
Subpoena accordingly ISSUED for general
Mason, Colonel Taylor OF Ca,oline, and
(, .I.. =
du~iav which the courtc nnseutci h. cause
IT. rAt lie. 1t became necessary that We
shout urge the court for continuance,
a. non~ OF Callendcr's Witnesses attended
but colonel Yayl0t, aud as this gentle
mans eyideac@, tbolgh deemed by rs very
jmDort10', applied only to part OF The char
ges - nc indictment. We accordingly
renewed the notion, and it was urged
WI Great earnes ness, under convict
o. nat fair trial could not be had with
out Eailen6er's Witnesses, and that a. ma
nv of them lived ~ the distance Of several
hundrsd niles and the prosecution had o.
rir'na;cd only a few days before, il was
impossible that Calender could have pro-
cured their attendance. We thought al
50 that be had a constitutional right 10 oh.
tam compulsory process to compel the at
tendance of his witnesses. |he court re-
fu ed 10 graGA a continuance. and Judge
Case declared, as the reason why the
Continuance was refused, that Ca,lendcr
had not stated IN his affidavit that he
could prove the truth Of all the charge
stated rs the Indictment that it was ne
cess7ry that Calender should prove the
truth Of al the CHARGES 10 obtain an ac-