Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1805-02-16

tn. artrcl-. IF impeachment exhisitsl
Ecaias, ala, ia the said court, BY the ho-
nDra,ie the house af representatives ST
the Unite. States, in support OF their
imoeach :leat against him, for high
GRIN 5 AID mis;t ~ anors, supposed to
have been By hira committed.
6Nat. htsMgencsr.}
CCaqfrped.J
On Wednesday The ss,h day OF the same
month, May, eighteen hundred, Philip
=, rboae Nicholas, eco. now attorney gen
eral Of tne state OF Virginia, aud George
hay'.sq..' now district attorney of TIE Oak.
ed State, for the dis,ric, of Virginia, az.
pe AIRED, n the said circuit court as counsel
Coz he said Calender and on Tux sday
tie KID Of June 4eilowirg, his srlsl COM
men ed, before this respondent aud the
sand Cyrus GrifEn, who Them sat as assist.
an, indge. .Ihc petit irrers bsiFS called
ever, e,ya, Of them appeared, namely, Ro.
b>tt GaIobl=, BERNARD M3ckhsm, John Bar.
rsii, Wiiliat, Au,;ia, William Richardson,
Tnomas Iias!sy, Mathew Harvey aud
John Easset WHO as Ties came 20 6e
sworn, were severai!y asked on oath, by
direction Of the court, whether they had
ever termed and delivered any opinion re-
spectirg the subject matter then te be tri-
Ell, or concerning The charges contained in
the indictment p They al answered IN the
negative and were sworn IN ch'ri 10 try the
issue. The counsel for the said Calender
declaring that 1t was unnecessary to put
this question to the other four jurymen,
Wiiulln Mayo, James Hayes, Henry S.
Shore and Iohn Prior, they also were i'm
m.dlately sw orn 10 chief. No challenge
WIS made by the said Calender or his
counsel, 20 Any of these jurors; but t.e said
counsel declared, that they would rely on
the answer that should be sivenby the said
Jurors, to the question then PCT BY order
OF the court.
Alter The aforementioned John Basset,
whom iris respondent suPfoses. and al.
ms to be the person mentioned IN the
arlrcle of Impeachment now under consl-
deratiun, had thus answered ia the mega
tive. to the question patio him by order
of The Co1is, IS aforementioned, w'"ca
this respondent states 10 Be the lgas and
proper q arsiion, 10 be put 10 inrors on such
occasions, he expressed 20 the court, MS
wish to be excused from serving on the
SAID trial, because he had made rp his
mind, or had formed his oPjuian. "that
the publication, called The Prospec: be-
Sore Us from which the YGkjs charged
in he in4,c,mens as llbello were said
to DC extracted, but which he hid never
seen, WAS, according to the representation
Of il, when hs had received, within the
section law" Bat thx court did NOT c,a-
silcr this dcclac-J:on BY the said J"ha
Hasset, as .I,Gcient reason Ter wish
da~ang ia from the Jury, and accord.
Ivy directed him 10 be sworn in chief.
In TINS optoion and decision, as IN al
the others delivered during the ,riM il
cacs n, this respondent eoncurred with
hss colleague, III. a.ors mentioned Cr-
rus Griffin, IN whom none ct these OPP
mons bave been considered as cinln..
lie cont, a,.s tia, the opinion i.scf was
le. al AID correct; aud he drsiess that liz
c, ncurrc u N II, under the influence af any
esprit OF persecution aud ipiustice," or
wl;h any Intent to Cypress and procure
the co.y :ct:cn of the prisoner )" as IS mos:
uat-"Y aileuged by the second article oil
ir,9, achatai. His reasons were correct
Sri .ysa,. re VIII submit them with coz
fG-ney % tbs ,.oacursbie court; which.
aiIhau, IA /, canaot condemns nm Tor al
incor.cc; aP'r.v,, proceeding from. a" ho'
nest error is Judgment, ana ought not to
take on !:ss!G he power Of enquir;ns into
TIE correctness Of his decisions, bus rlcrr-
ly hat Of e<amininy the purity cth: mo-.
.n-s, viii, nevertheless weigh his rea.
soa., for the purpose ofjndsins how lar
they are Of .uthc,eat force, to jnssitys be-
hsttasethey m,sh, have appeared salts
ia.,nrv Il, Inn LIE they rnipht have so an-