The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-03-30
" oLUME -

=
Taylor might fuggeR other auctions proner TO b.
put Nor do uie the precile words in which Judo.
Chaie made an objection but do remember ,h2t
the objection was made. The principle on which n.
founded his objection this that col TavIor's g
violence did not go to uffcation Of any on. en,ir.
charge and he declared COL iavlor's EVIDENCE 10 be
inadmiilib'e on that ground. The judge was then
aiSed by MIR. Nicholas, whether we might not prove
part OF charge by witneis, and the other part
by another. The Judge anfwered him, that he deGr-
ed INN TO undcrland the law as he had propoundeS
it; and the law this that this could not he
done; thar col Tayors evidence related only to one
part OF charge and that he could prove one rart
by one evidence and one part by another. 7 then
oberved TO the Judge, that thought col. Tavlor's
evidence adnilble even on the principle laid down
by the COURT that thought his tetiniony would go
to prove beth member. of the fentence the one af-
ferted that Mr. Adams was an arnocrat the other
that he had proved faithful and ferviceabe 70 the
brlh interett and that he could prove that he had
heard Mr.. Adams make the rem rks already Gated
and that he had proved lervceable 70 Gredt-Frain in
the way meant by the author that is in givina the
two votes IN the Senate alluded to in the work The
judge did fay in expreE terms that the po6,on IN,
ken at the bar wrong, but he laid that the ev;
dence OF col. TAYLOR inadmiihble and thar the
council knew it to be To- and believe it was at tn.
lame moment OF trre he (aid that our obiea was 70
deceive and milead the populace. remember theEs
" ". d.
ing that the ATTEMPT had made to render ferv;ce
not to the man but the cauie infead OF aford7r
iervce to the cauie only brought on me the oblouuy
OF the COURT etmyielf dfguaed and laid no more
on the fubiea.
recollect that we were requefted bv the
Judge to reduce to writing the quehions that
we wifhed to PROFOUND 70 Col. TAYLOR.
thoueht the meafure 70 novel and unprecedented
that was not difpofed to comply with this de-
ire he auctions were, however, ffated in
writing by MIR. Nicholas, who ohferved that he
hoped we would not he confined in the examin-
alton of the witnefs to the ouefions thus Rated
In writing. Ii mitdke not. before the uuefti-
ons were reduced to writing, Mr. Nicholas made
ioine observations about the mode purified by
tne court IN reference to the attorney for the
United States, and that cxerCifrd towards the
council for the prifoner; that the attorney for
the United States had not been required 70 fate
IN writing the quefions he wiihed TO af-. when
tins remark was made To the Judge he r,iC that
the atfor sy for the United States rad Gated in
the opening OF thee I'll that he expected 70
prove; " hut though this were done. we were
not bound 70 do t." My innpre fion is that
word eicaprd the Judge feveral times.
Mr.. NieboI6n. Wat word
Mr.. Hay. The word "w e.''
DID it refer to tine court "a well =,
the attorney?
Mr. Her. So, Sir, underfood it.
Inc fourth article relates tothe refufal ofthe
Judge to poifpone the trial on the affidavit of
Calender; on which can only fav that the af.
idavit was filed. but whether regularly drawn
or rot do not know. This affidavit, accord
ing to my belt recollection, fated the abfrnce az
material witnefes.
The next article relates TO filbietf, that il is
very unpleafant TO me TO make any remarks IN.
on, oecanfe feel myfelf TO he a party concern-
ed: The Judge is charged with
Mr.. HNp here read the Sd, 4th, and sth cIau(.
es of the fourth article.
mere were many expreiliOns ufed by Tudq.
Chaie during the trial which were uncoranon,
ana which thought, and Till think 70 be TO.
with retpect to the aipcrty with which he cen.
fured me, Nall not
Mr.. Harper interrupted the witnefs. and de-
hred him to fate the exPrelions, and let the
court judge for themfeves.
Mr.. hay. The irft expreiiion. which made
very itronc imprefiion on my mind, was this !:
In the courte of the argument, urged bv me in
iuPPort of the mott N for continuance 70 the
next term, affirmed it as clear petition, that
the law of the fate Of Virginia, which direAs
that the Jury fhall ai,fs the fine. would govern
in this cafe. As foon as got to that nar oftbn
argument the Judge INTERRUPTED me, and cave
me to underitand that was m;faken in the law,
and added, the aiieilment Of the fine by 'he Jury
may be contormable to your local and fate laws
but when applied to the federal courts. il isa
=" qVid notion" In the cafe Of Col Tavor's g.
violence which lave already Gated, the Judge
iaid that we knew the evidence to he in,dmifii-
bic, though we prefed it upon the court, and
then the expreliion followed which has been all
ready mentioned, that we were endeavoring to
m'llead and deceive The populace. At another
me he WIS ple7fed TO ohfcrve, gentle men. Won
have all along been in error in this csuGe. and
Won Periiit in pYefiing vour INTAKES on the court
On more occ7fons than one he CHARGED the
counte with advancing doctrines they knew TO
be wrong. endeavore1 in one part ofthe caufe
20 ta'isfY the court thai the book called the
Pro'pect before Us. could no b. given in evi.
dence in iupport Of the Indictment becarc. the
tile OF the book not mentioned in the in
dlctment. In funport Of my arrument, OBJ
ierVed to the court that if the Indictment mem
toned the book from which the charges were
formed, and an fubfequen' profscution fisuld
afterwards be in9ituied, the traverfer would
have nothing more to do than to produce CO.
py of the record, and plead il in bar Of fuhf,-
quent proiecutipn; but that according to the
opinion of the court, the i'uatiou Of the traver-
fer would b. more precarious than according TO
the doctrines for which commended, for hiatt
fraverfer, if he 0iould plead former profecuii-
on in bar, would not be able to prove the fa1
by COmD1riup fhp record With tI., I'll ,..u.