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

lice InIl example III the OinCr. NO execute can 4
he formed for this conduct. This is the !trons- |
eft poilible evidence Of corrupt motives, of
Partially, and determined deGgn to overlap
all former rules of proceeding, TO opprefS the
unfortunate defendant, that wac arraigned at
his bar for trial. The whole ooure Of the
Judges conduct il this tranfatton goes to eta
bi,h the fame fpir;t of oppreflicn. Council are
aligned the defendant, merely for the fake OF
form, and, as it were, to mock him in his milf
fortunes. The day of trial arrives. In the
meat time the judge makes up his opinion on
the law aridng in the cafe, and, to add folem-
nifty to the act, commits it to writing. There
is no doubt, no difpute as to tine facts. The
prironcr is brought TO the bar. Not voice is
permitted to plead his caufe, until the folemn
fentence of his legal conviction is made known (;
and thereby the avenues of his defence, that
might lead to his acquittal, for ever cloied.
Here let us paufe moment, and behold the
unfortunate, and, in the language of his able
council, poor Fries, trembling before his con-
demnng Judge ftript OF the aid of council,
his only and forlorn hope the fatal fiat of his
Condemnation pronounced in the folcmn Ian
guaee of written opinion and thus friend
lefs, unprotected. and unheard, about to be
conhgned to the hand of the relentless execu-
tioner Let us view this fpectace, and then
let me ak, ifthis can be confidered an impair
tial administration of iu(tice. might here
charge the accufed with having knowingly and
wilfuly trampled on the laws of his country, &
overleaped the bounds of legal ju1ice, to OPP
prefs frendlefs individual brought before him
for trial. I might call upon this honorable
court, to vindicate the character of infuted
Juttice, and demonnrate to the American peo-
pie, that when their rights and liberties are in
vaded, even though under the facred ianGtion of
Judicial authority, this high tribunal will al
ways be found ready and willing to avenge
their wrongs and protect their interefs.
but 1t is alledged by the judge, that the Of
feniive written opinion, that had been made
known, was withdrawn, and that next day full
latitude was offered to the council to argue both
the law and the facts to the jury. This was
a failacious offer II came too late to be of fer
vice to the defendant, or execute the Judge. The
act on his part was done the offence was COM
pletc and 1t was only the fternnefs of the
Council that made him retraSt. The inpref-
non had been made on the minds of the Jury,
that could not be erafed--the fame had been
kndled by the fire-brands he had fcattered,
which could not be extinguifhed by withdraw
ing the inttruments that occafioned it. The
experiment was AS dangerous as it was novel,
and can only be afcrbed to the fame fpirit of
opprefiion and political intolerance, that will
be found to difinguifh the whole conduct of
the Judge in his judicial career, during thefe
tranfadions.
The Respondent further infifts, in his anfwer,
that he cannot be impeached, except for fome
offence for which he may be indicted at law
This petition cannot be fupportcd by any fair
contribution of the provifion in the contribution
on this tubleet. 1t has already been attempted
obe flown in the view taken of this conititu-
tional provifou, that in order to fupport an i'm
parchment, it is not necef1aryto thew thatthe Of
fence charged is anindiGable one, but onythatit
is breach & violation of official duty; & con-
ceivethat this stheonly contribution that can be
adopted TO give conliftency to the contribution {;
To the mode proceeding adopted under it in
cafes OF impeachment to reconcile with juf-
tice the nature of the Judgment that mutt be
rendered upon conviction, and to avoid the
palpabe abfurdity that would followa different
contribution, OF punifhing man twio for the
fame offence. To the expedition already given
of this provifon in the contribution, beg leave
to refer the court as controverting the petition
here relied upon by the Judge. But would
here further obferve, in fupport of this doc
trine, that according to the laws of England, a
judge Of court of record is not accountable
by Indictment, FOR any thing done in open
court; in his Judicial capacity; and that he may
plead to an action bro't againft him, for any
fuch act, that he did it, Chat is, what he was
(, charged witty as a Judge of record ; and it
would be Z good ratification. In fupport of
this doctrine the court referred to BAG. alb.
(new ed.) page 9--o Hawk. lz3-Jac. Law
Dictionary, NEW ed } verbum judges. It ap-
pears from the fame authorities, that the iudg-
es in England, are accountable in parliament
only for opinions delivered by them in court !;
and are not, for fuch opinions, to be queftion-
ed before any other tribunal. This is the great
protection and fecurity that judges of courts
of record have, that they are accountable for
their official conduct only to the Legislature !;
and are punihabe at law only for flcb
atts as would be in1i6fable offences, independ-
ent of their official character. This view OF
the fubje6t renders the judges, 70 far as regards
their Judicial conduit, independent of all tri-
bunas except the legislature and is certainly
better calculated to preierve the independence
and dignity of the judges, than that contend
ed for in the anfwer. l cannot, therefore, en-
terrain reafonable doubt, that the true intent
and meaning of the contribution will fup2ort
this doctrine and that it will be fanttioned by
the opinion of this honorable court.
Mr.. Campbell here obferved that he had clo-
fed the remarks be propofed making on the firlt
part of the fubiett, and, finding himfelf indif
pofed, expreied with that the court would
adjourn.
Whereupon, the court rofe.