The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-07-05
}Dteanti,gs of Counsel,
ON THE
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 81.
C&r. Key, III fontmuafiOn.1
&r. Key, III eontinnafion.1

will now proceed to the third article, which
when correctly. underRood, will be found as DEF
titute of impeachabe matter as either of the o.
ther articles. Iii as follows:
That with intent to opprefs and procure
the conviction of the prifoner, the evidence of
John Taylor, a material witnefs on behalf of
the aforefaid Calender, WIS not permitted by
the laid Samuel Chaie to be given in, on pre-
tence that the faid witnefs could not prove the
truth of the whole of one of the charges con-
tanned in the indictment, although the faid
charge embraced more than one fact"
In opening the cafe one of the hon. MANA
gers enquired what human fubtity or ingenu-
lty could devife to extenuate this act of the re-
fpondent. Our reply is that il requires no
fubtilty or ingenuity; that it was correct in
point of law, and that the cafe is 70 clear. thar
he who runs may read The court mu1 per-
NIT me to obfefve that the article prefents an
abttract cafe, not growing out of, or connect
ed with the evidence. This court, 7 appre-
bend, is not fitting here to decide this abflraet
point, whether in any cafe it is admfible to
prove one fact contained in a particular charge
by one wituets, and one by another but to de-
termine whetherin this cafe, where one witnefs
was offered to prove part of one charge, and
no other .witnefs offered to the fame charge. i,
was proper to receive the teftimony offered. 7
contend that the decifion was correct on the
cafe before the coBri. The Indictment againh
Calender contained two counts, each of which
embraced twenty difinct fet of words. Col.
Taylor was called to prove particular facts
contained in one of the charges. II is not ne
ceffary here to difcufs the propriety Of order
ing the queftions TO be reduced to writing. as
that is the iubjeGt of the next article. Col.
Taylor, without meaning any improper ufe of
words was witnefs on Ejaculation for no
man has higher refpe6t for his character but
bottom the remark on this circumstance, that
feveral days previous TO Col. Taylor's appear
ance, an affidavit bad been drawn, on the part
OF Calender, for continuance, in which the
names of nuribsr of material witnehes were
Rated among which was an hon. member of
this court (Mr. Giles) and gen. Nfafon, but in
which the name of Col. Taylor does not appear.
1t appears that iifbp9nas had if1ued for three
witDe1es two of which did not attend. for
whom no attachment was prayed. Col. Tav-
Tor alone appeared and the counfel were GER
tainly ignorant at the time he was fworo. what
he could prove. Mr.. Hay HIS declared that
neither Calender or MS council knew what Col.
Taylor could prove. Was il not correct in the
court, under thefc circumstances, TO ak what
he could prove Col. TAYLOR was protiuced.
under m expeaation,it is fad, that he could
prove the twelfth Get fwords contained in the
iecood count OF tir iod6tment. Let us TO elm
cidate the conduit oft1e court, refer to tie tef.
timony Of MIR. Robcrtfon, man diffinguifhed
for his Geographical talent, which remains on