The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-12-13


the call of member as related to the par;icu.
lar article under confederation. He recolleacd
upon the impeachment of Judge Pickering that
the gentleman Oh the other tide OF the Houfc
lron New-Hampflirc called for reading the
particular part of the tcftimony, mon likely 10
eXtTicasc the officer impeached, or produce A
conviction IN the minds of others fIch as he felt
hmieif--he hoped the fame courfe of proceed
ing would be adopted by the committee, and
iuch portions would from time to time be read
as members required.
The Chairman put the queaion on reading
the teitimony generally, which was loft OF the
divihon, being only 40 in the affirmative, & 81
in the negative.
The fecond article being under confderati-
on.
Mr.. BoyIe moved to amend the latter part of
the article by ftriking out the words in Italic &
inierting thofe in parenthefis-" John Balet
one of the Jury who wiflled to be executed
from ferving on the faid trial becaufc he had
made up his as to Qhat) the publication from
which the words charged to be libeIlous in the
indictment zVere extracted was within the ftatue
OF the UnitedStates upon which the taid Cal
lendar wasincicted)&c." Making the allegation
IN this way you will find it fully fupported by
the tetimony, for they are the words of the
teitimony itielf; it is faid that the 9Th Juror
acknowledged that he had formed an aneeuivo
cal opinion that fuch book as the Profpee
Before Us" came within the Edition law.
Mr.-------fuppofed that the rule adopt
ed by the committee aeainit the reading of the
general teitimony would not prevent particular
parts as they apply to particular points from
being read, b. -efore called for reading 70
much of;he evidence as related TO the Juror
mentioned in the Cd article.
Mr.. NicboJan mentioned page 1ss OF the de-
petitions of the witneties on the part IF the u
nited States as the place where the clerk would
find what the gentlemen wanted
Which being read as follows:
:" Perhaps it is not improper here to obferve,
that the eighth juror anfwered when the previ-
Gus quefticn was put to him, that though he
had never read or heard the charges in the in
dictment, and knew not what the travcrier had
publiihed, yet he had formed IN unequivocal o.
pinion, that luch book as sc TIE Project Be
fore U.s." was, came within the fedition law:
But no objection was made TO him, and he was
fworn like the rea."
Mr.. 7. R0ndoIpb referred to page Sc near the
top for other coroborative evidence.
The clerk read the foiIowing
One ofthe jury, John Baiiet, ftated that he
wa; unwilling to ferYe, having made up his mind
as to the book called "The Profpea, &C.
but as he acknowledged that he had not formed
and delivered an opinion concerning the charg-
es IN the indictment, hecaufc in TACT, he knew
not what the were, IS olyje ttiSn wa over-rui-
ed"
And alto from page 81, as follows;
I" 1t is 10 be obferved that Mr.. Balitt who had
been fummoned on the jury, fecmed 20 have
comfortable fcruples at ferving, and ftated that
he had expreffed fome opinion al TO the " Prof
peel Before U.s." Judge Chaie howeve~ de-
cared MIR. Bafiet a good Juror, and he was
iworn and acted as Juror
MIR. ]. Randolph thanked his friend from
Kentucky for every fuggcition tending K, ;u-
prove the report of the committee, confident
that his motives were highly coInmcndable
The report has been referred by the Houfe to
committee of The whole for the purpoft of OBJ
tanning by a full, fair and free dfcufiion, two
objects; frf, to determine whether the charges
exhibited are fuch as the Houfe are willing to
prefer aganft the perion impeached, and in or
der If they be found incorrect TO make them as
perfect as pcilible. On both theie points u-
vite difcu0ion in the name of the GeieGt commit
tee, VINO brought in this report At the fame
time with to iuggeit 10 my friend (Mr. Boyle)
the oroprcty of re-examining his idea and az
certaining whether the eighth Juror alluded to
in the account of Callcnder's trial is the Juror
mentioned in the teitimony of Mr.. Hay, and of
Mr.. Nicholas. Thete gentlemen mention the
juror by name. Mr.. RobiniGu's account of
the trial mentions him by number. Now if it
mould appear that the eighth Juror was not
Mr. Baiiet, mua not the article fall TO the
ground ifthe propofed alteration fhould take
place. think it one OF the ftrongeft circum-
tances in this article that Juror was compelled
to ferve after Rating that he had made uo his
mind as to the criminal offence on the auction
he was about being iworn well and truly TO try.
The committee will perceive comfortable va
ration between the tetimony in page 1873 & IS.
In the irit the writer introduces " with per-
hapsit is not improper here To obferve," that
the eighth juror aniwered when the previous
qucftlon was put to him, that though he had
never read the Indictment, yet he had formed an
opinion that fuch book as the &" Profpect be-
fore us" came within the fedition law. This I
believe is the amount of what is fad in that pace
and It appears from this to be an incidental cir
cumitance only; whereas if you turn to page
SO IT IS there fated with the ccareGt precilion,
that he was unwilling to ferve bccaufe he had
made up his mind on the book called the Prof
Pect II does not appear to be drawn from
him by the previous queRion, but it does APP
pear fully and unequivocally to 5e>of his own
mere motion, a contentious fcruplc TO try
what he bad already pat judgment upon. In
my opinion the report is better as il ftands than
It would be with the alteration, and fubmit to
my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Boyle) whether
Il would not be better to let the article fand,
rather than fail before the fenate, if it fhould
turn out the 18th Juror and Mr. RalIet are difTc-