Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1805-03-20

eoHfQtTed ~ me fndfcfmfufF and II Is re-
!markabe that the whole argument OF the
respondent upon this point, goes to JUST
fy the question which was actually put, &
which he probably expeeted we should
prove that he. did put, rather; than that
which he himself declares 10 have been
RrePounded by him. Such question
must necessarily have been. answered in
the negative .Basset could never have
seen the Indictment land although bis
mind might haye been made UP on
the book, whatever opinion he might have
formed and delivered as TO the guilt Of
Caliender, or however DESTROYS ne might
nave been OF procuring his conviction and
punishment, still pot having seen the in.
dIcsmept, he could not divine what pas
sages of the book were made the snbieet
OF the charges spd by The criterion esta-
hiishcd by tho Judge, he was a good ju-
ror. But If the Jurors mind was thus
prejndiced asaipst the book and the wri-
ter, was he, merely because he had not
seen the indictment, competent to pass
between him and his country on the char
ges contained in it, and extracted out of
the bookl Ard even if the question had
been such as the respondent states, vet
being put in the conjun6tive, the mos, in
veterate foe, of the traverser who was art.
fui, or cautious enough 10 iorbear the ex-
preston. of his enmity, would thereby
have been admitted as competent to pass
,etween the trayerser and his country in
acriminal prosecution.
The. Sd article relates to The reieelion
of John Taylor's testimony. This fact
also is admitted, and an attempt is made
to justify y, on the ground of its irrele-
vdncy," OF the pretext that the witness
couid not prove The whole of particular
charge. Byrecurring to "lhe ProspeGf
Before U.s. book, which with all its ce-,
iebrity, never saw till yesterday. find
this charge consists of two distinct SEN
fences. Taken separately the Respondent
asserts that they mean nothing taken To-
gether, great deal. And because ,be
respondent undertook to determine (wi,h.
out any authority as far ash can i.aro,
that col. Fay Tor could not prove the whole.
that is both sentences, he rejected his evil
dence entirely for " irfeiepasey." Might
not his testimony have been relevant To-
that of some other witness on the same.
or on another, charged 1 appeal TO the
learning and good sense Of this honorable
court, whether it is not an unheard Of
practice tun.ii the present ms, ance) in a
Criminal prosrcn,io n, TO declare testimo-
ny inadmissible b,,cause il is not exp-Sf..
ed,o goto the en- ire exculpation of the pri.
sonerf does 1t not daily occur in our
courts, that party accused, making but
part OF his defence by one witness and
establishing other facts by the evidence OF
other persons, does il not daily occur that
the testirp.bny of various Witnesses some
unes TO the same and sometimes to diff
irrens@ ~ act1, does SO reifve and support the
whole case, as to leave no doubt OF the in.
noceJ'ce or guilt of the accused, in the
minds OF the jury, who, il must never he
Forgotten. are, in such cases. the sole
Judges both Of the law and the faef. Su,,-
Prise for instance that the testimony ar
WITH esses would establish all the fsels, bnt
th".t each OF those facts are not known by
e. .ther of them. According to this doc
i.rine the evidence Of both might be de-
clared inadmissible, aud man whose in
nocence,if the testimony in his favor were
not rejected, might be clearly proved to
the satisfaction OF the jury, may thus be
subjected by verdict Of that very Jury
to an ignominious death. Shall princi-
pies SO palpaply cruel and unjust be tole-
rated III this free country. am free to
declare that the decision Of Mr.. Chase, in
rejecting col. Taylor's testimony, waz
contrary 10 toe known and established
rules of evidence, and this trust will be
sNewnby my learned associates, 70 the full.
satisfaction Of this honorable court, If in
deed they can require further satisfaction
on pint so clear and indispulable. But
this honorable court will be astnpished
when tley are told (snd the declaration
VIII be supported Wy undeniable noofl
that az thii very time neither ,he trayer-
ser, his Counsel, or the court, kn.w the
3 extent to which col. Taylor's. eyide,ce