The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-05-28

VI VIC rlgnt ieCnr1u to defendant
OF having the afiinance of council in their de
tence. The reafonng therefore Of the Judge
if;t proved any thing, would prove too much
1t would virtually deitroy the moft valuable pro
vl"ons IN our contribution for the protection o.
| the rights and liberties OF the citizen; and All
thor''e Judge or court of pleafire TO difpeuft
! with constitutional restrictions, when they found
1t convenient 70 to do.
! But in the prefert inveitgaton, the correct.
neis or incorreStnefs OF TIE written opinion deli
vered by the judge, is not in queaion this O.
plnIon is not charged to be in itfelf incorrect CT
erroneous, but the offence charged is in the
manner and time of delivering it /; the attempt
therefore by the judge to juftify his conduct,
by Uniting that the opinion delivered was cor
rect and AUTHORIZED by former decGons, is a
mere evaiion of the real charge alledged in the
impeachment, and an exertion to prove what
was not denied or put in Quefion. Ii cannot,
therefore, in fact aid the accufed, or make his
cafe better than it would he if fnch opinion had
been evidently erroneous (; but it is not intend
| ed, IN this place, TO admit the correctness of
the opinion delivered by the Judge in writing,
by not going into the difcuifion of it but this
dhculhon of the opinion is omitted here, be-
caute its correctness or ncorrectnefs is rrele-
want to the preient queaion, and, therefore, un-
necetary to be difcuiied.
lition Rated, TO wit, that the JUDGE did impofe
on the couutel engaged on behalf of Fries. ar
binary retrictions and control, in the exerciic
! or their profe.iional rights, unknown to-,
and unauthorized by the laws and ufages of
the nation. In fupport of this part of the
charge, there is the evidence Of Mr.. Lewis, who
| ftateS that when he delivered the written opi-
MON in the manner already noticed, he OFFER
we'd that on the former trials, there had been
great waite OF TING, by council making iore
| iPeecheS TO the jury on the law AS well as on
the fact, and ftated his difapprobation of their
| having been permitted to read certain itatutes
Of the United States, relating to crimes lefs
than treaion, which he or the court declared
they would not iuffer TO be read again, and that
caes at common law, or under the ftatute law
OF England, previous 10 the Engh revolution,
had nothing ia do with the queilion, and that
they would not fuffer them 10 be read tia;
they had made up their mind on the law. This
is in fubifance the evidence of Mr.. Lewis on
this point; and il is ftrongly Imported by that
OF Mr. Dallas, who, though he was not prefcnt
when this ftatement was made by the Judge, yet
! corroboratcs the truth Of it by the ftatement he
made to the court afterwards on the fame day,
| as made to him by Mr.. Lewis, aud by the cir
cumitances that took place in confequence
thereof. Mr.. Dallas alto ilates that the Judge
laid, as he thinks on the next day, that in ar
guing upon the law the council mutt addrels
the court alone and not the Jury. The evidence
| OF Melrs. Rawle and TilghnaD, fnpport moft
, OF thefe facts in fubftance, except a 10 the
Judge refnhng to permit the ttatutes of the Uni
ted States to be cited, and differ only as to the
time at which the Judge made thefe declarati-
ons theie faGss, therefore, are fupported by
evidence that cannot be fhaken and were The
evidence given by MIR. Lewis and Mr. Dallas.
b3tp DIV hv L.
Rawie aud Others, more weight and credit
| ought to be given TO hecvidence of the former
gentlemen than to that of the latter, though all
may be men of equal integrity and veracitv ::
for their is a material difinction between the
credit DE to witnefes as nen of integrity and
veracity, and the weight or credit that ought TO
| be given to their evidence as containing a cor.
reG and full ftatement of facts two men m ~
! he Of equal crediblity iii focety, and equally
tenacious of depohng the truth vet the evi
dence of the one, as TO a particular tranEl6tjon.
may defcrve much more weight aud credit
than that of the other, in coniequence of his
poTeliing better means OF information, and be-
ing 70 circumtanced as to feel more intereft in,
and receive itronger impreons from the facts
that may have taken place TO in the cuefion
! before us, Mr.. Lewis and MIR. Dallas felt the
| nrongeIt interef in the tranlaction that took
place their rights as council were invaded. and
the mprefIions they received were Grong and
not oafIy efFace6. Mr.. Lewis had the mo(t
corte6 means of information; his attention
was arreted by the paper containing the opiu-
on being handed or offered to him the fa.e.
ment of the Judge containing the rehrictions Al
ready fated, Immediately followed, to which
he attended; he could not, therefore politely
be minak7n and the imprefion, 70 Rronrly
made by 70 extraordinary tranfa6tion, could
not be eraied from his memory. This was not
the cafe with Mclirs. RawIe and Tiphman !.
for though Mr.. Rawle was concerned for ;he
proiecution, he Rates he was much engaged
with other bulinefs the opinion delivered was
alto in favor his lide Of the queaion, ard of
courie the affair was notlikeyto excite TO much
the iGteret Of thofe gentlemen, or make 70
deep an imprellion on their minds. The ev.
dence, therefore, of Mr.. Lewis and Mr.. D1l-
las, may be conlidered as a correct ftatement of
this tFanfattion. Thefe reftriaions, therefore,
impofed upon the council, of not citing ficb
authorities as were ufualIy permitted to beufed,
and net arguing the law to the Jury, are unan-
thOriled by the laws of our country, and CONTRA
ry to the ulages and practice Of our courts of
iuftice and in the cafe in queRion, amounted
10 prohibition to argue the cauft in any poGi-
bic way that could be of the lean fervice TO
the defendant. That thefe reflrielions were IN
authorized by the practice in our courts, is ETA
bliihed by the evidence of every witnefs that has