The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-06-27
2, LANSINGRURGH June S.

LANSINGPURGH June s.
At a circuit court held in this county on Tuef-
day lat, before his honor Judge Thompion,
came oil the trial of the editorofths paper, on an
Indictment FOX libel on Morgan Lewis efduirc,
chief i;ufice of this Fate. The indictment was
found at court of general feiiions in October
lait, and was removed by eer.iorari into the fu-
prerle court: The words fct forth as libellous
on the record, were extracted from publication
in this Gazstte of tue esd AuguG lat, Eating
deciGon of the chief iultice or the trial of Har-
ry Crofwell, accompanied with fome remarks,
| and were as follows -" The Judge QLewis) On
the trial refufed MIR. Crofwell the privilege Of
producing his witne.les )" the following words,
but which did not appear upon the record con-
clNded the fentenCe-t' declared that he would
not futfcr them, were they prefent, to open their
| lips, to prove the truth of what Croiwell had
written expressly charged the jury that it was
entirely imnaterial whether the libel was true
or not: that it WAS not for them to confder
whether the words amounted to fuch libel as
ought TO DC purified: that whether the motives
of the defendant were good or bad was wholly
out ofthe queftion; that if the ju,y, was iatisf-
ed that Cromwell was the publilher, and that the
inuendoes were properly proved, they mutt
pronounce a verdict of guilty." The other
parts of the publication confited of obitrvati-
ons naturally arifing from reflection on the
consequences which would neceliarily refut
from 70 alarming, 70 dangerous doctrine. The
whole was republication from the Utter Ca
zette.
The publication being admitted by the defen-
dant, his honor the judge remarked to the coun-
Gil, that as the law relative to libcls had not yet
been fettled by the fupreme court, he was at IL
! berty to be governed by bis own opinion. He
then obferved, that although different deciii-
on had been made on late trial, he fhould per-
mitthe truth of the words iet forth on the record
to be given in evidence, not as a ratification,
but as an item to thew the intent of the defen-
dant and fhoud fubmit generally to the conf
Iteration of the jury both the law and the fact.
Foot, diftriGt attorney, who was prefent at the
trial of Mr.. Croiwell, was then called on as
witnefs, to prove the truth of the publication.
He refufed to be fworn and on being quefti-
oned, twas difcovered that the only execute was,
that he had not been fubp9naed. To fave time
and the trouble of making fubpena, his tefi-
mony was relinquifhed and Mr.. Van Vechten,
the defendants council, offered himfelf as
witnefs. He fated thathe was prefent at the trial
OF MIR. Croiwell, and that the chief jufice refu-
fed an application to potpone faid trial, for the
purpofe of giving MIR. Cromwell time to procure
witneis to prove the truth of the publication
: for which he was indicted and declared that
. he qVonld nor permit bis qvifneDcJ TO be Ezvorn,
: Tuere they in court. He alto produced copy
, the trial of MIR. Crofwell from which it APP
I,eared that t! chief jittice charged the jury,
''that it was no part oftheir province to enquire
or decide on the intent of the defendant or
whether the publication was true, or fafe or
malicious; that the only queftions for their con-
liberation and decifion were, whether the defen-
dant was the pubfher of the piece charged in
e me Iuuenuces that II they were iatsfied as to
S thete two points, it was their duty to find him
/: guilty."
: The truth of the words upon the records be-
D ing thus proven, the ditrict attorney moved for
leave to read to the jury the whole of the publ
cation from which they were extracted. This
was objected to by the council for the defendant,
lnaimuch as the puplic profecutor had been at
liberty IN the rt initance to ielect the materals
for the indictment from the whole publication !:
and 1t would be paying poor compliment to his
understanding or integrity, to fuppofe he had fe-
lccted thofe which were the leaft hbellous; and
that asthe detendantha had not claimed the privilege
threading any part of the context, to explain
, what was let forth on record, the public profe-
cltor ought not to be permitted to do it. The
objection, however, was ovenuled.
MIR. Van Vechten then commenced the de-
fence ; and in an argument of comfortable length
pointed out to Il c jury the important confeouen-
ces involved in the queition fubmitted to their
deciiion; that it was for them to determine
whether the proceedings of our courts of iuftice
might with fafcty be publifhed; whether the
conduct OF our public officers was to be fhielded
from the public eye: whether the liberty of the
preis was to be preferved in this country whe-
: ther printer fhould be puniihed for publfhine
the truth. He commended, that as from the ma
ture OF our government all its officers were a.
menable to the people, were in fact their fer
wants, 1t was necefiary, it indifpenhble, that
their proceedings fhould be publilhed, that they
might be known. He dwelt at fome length on
the Importance of the trial by jury, and urged
the neceility of their refiting every attempt to
encroach upon the privileges. He alto contend
ed, that as the publication in queaon related to
the official conduct of public officer, its TRUTH
which had been fully proven, ought to be con-
iidered as complete publication. His whole
argument was, as ufua, clear, ftrong, eloquent
and imprelfive.
Foot then bawled the jury for fome time, and in
his nual way; but as he hnel applied to his haran-
que the ePthet " BLUNDERING," it would perhaps
be ungenerous to iube2 it criticiGn. He however
attempted peruade the jury that the words on the
records were faie for that the refual of the chief
Juitiee to allow MIR. Cromwell the privilege of produe-
ing his witneiies the trial. but on the DIFF
euiion OF preliminary quelfion, before the jury was
fworf But we feel difpofed to pardon him for this
pitiu qulbbc ior had he not ayed himielf of it. he
muH have remained ent.