The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-08-30
fs!sah!nus nS GalmecI,
ON THE
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 80.
Mr.. MARTIN, in continuation.

According to the laws of England, & 70 is the
law con'idered in Maryland, to entitc the party
TO continuance, he muft file an affidavit ihew
ing what wituefs he wants; what he expects TO
prove by them that he has uied due diligence
10 procure them, and that he has a Fashionable
expectation to procure their attendance
at lone time-Judre Chat, had lie wiihed
that Calender Ihou!d be deprived OF continu
aace OF bis cauie, would have fItfersd them TO
ME their general affidavit; but what was
his conduct Deiirous they fiouki not impre.
perry and haftily commit themfeives and lof.
advantages to which they might be entitled, he
gave them caution, and time till next day
10 profit by 1t. On the next day they did, i, is
true, file lpeeini affidavit but this fns-
cial affidavit fo drawn up, under the
caution gwen them by the Court, is not
iuch as can IN any degree, ftand the teit Of le-
gar iAve,t'gation evenunder the authority, which
one oi the honorable managers (Mr. Rodney
hath this day intr oduced, Calender did prt
IN his affidavit Rate that he expected to be able
to procure his witnefs at the next term. the
term alter or at any term He ailo fateh ,ha.
theFe were certain books necefIary for his de-
| ishce' ont lie DID not fate that lie had endea-
Voufed to procure them before or that he ex.
pec.ed 10 get them asainit he next terrn.--And
tureY If when Calender wrote that libel. he
! tohnaed any part OF his charge upon books
Which had been pub'ihed, he ought to hav-
.iad them by hin when he wrote and publirhed
ana TO nave Kept them by him for his defence
whenever tie ihonid be called upon to anrwcr
fof that publication, and could have no r;pht "a
cam 4 continuance for the prrpcf. of obtaining
iHch books. One of the honorable MANAGERS
lMr. Rodney has this morning referred ms 10
the Gin vol. Bacon's a5ridgtment, from mare
900 10 Co., upon the fubett in coBieft, the
l ~ lima .Nfr-, =. y
knoWiecsts, and As the authority enforces s.;f
there is any caafe Of .,fpcion, that drl,v is tn.
object, the Court ihouli be fatisfie,i from cir
cumtances, that ;he perion abfent is A materi.
| al witneis that the perfon applying has been
guilty OF no iaches or neglect and that he is
In reaionable expectation of being able to pro-
| cure his attendance at fome future tine
That the Court had in Caendcr's CAT, In a re,-
! fcn to believe that delay was the Co,e Gb;ea cf
the council, no perfon can doubt. NV m.
counleithemtelvcshav upon oath declared. that
delay was Their object; that they had no hone
or expectation that witne6es could be ofanyfer-
wee to them that they coniidered Callender's
cauie desperate 1.-THE Law was confi,utiou,,
and that their great obje9 was to continue tbe
! cauie 70 another Court, that it might not he
tried before my honorable client, cf whole con.
cnct IN the Gale OF Prizes they had heard, and A.
! gainit whom they had formed, il Geems. the
moft decided preiudices.
| This authority then produced By tie honor
able managers, perfectly utilities the conduct Of
| my client, in refuhngupon that affidavit. tocon.
true the caute to The next term. The Cor,
was then lifting to hear the ch7rces brouoht
| before them; 1t WAS their duty 70 have them
determined without uDnecef1ary DELAY, that ;f
| the party was innocent he ffould ~ acquitted
If guilty that he iilould be brought to fnsr'
dy Punihmcnt. The fame honorable manager
aas from the ianc authority G,ewn ''that upon
me particular circumstances of the cafe the
Court vii! make rule for putting off the trial is
made admit TIE law, and will therefore
readily admit that il an affidavit had been
| made by Calender, fating that he eyoefed n
be able to prove certain fatts, Rating what the
faets were, ny witnefes, who from their parti
cu'ar iituation, could not with any probability
oc produced Before the fecond term, after the
affidavit. and could then probably he had, the
Court might with propriety, and perhaps OUGHT
TO have continued the cauit 70 the fecond Cc,1rt
hut no fuch affidavit was made therefore not
having made out fitch cafe, they have no rea.
ION to complain tina. they bad not tb.. ben,fit Of
it. They did not even fRear that they eXnea-
ed 70 bc able TO procure the attendance Of their
witneiTes at any time Whatever.
! 4 cafe has alto been referred TO in Converts
Reports, where the defendant warning the tefi
nlCnv Ct wit-eio who lived out Of the iurfGit1i.
| Oh Of the Court, and the Court not having
power to i'iue commiii;on 20 obtain his teni.
| ncny. the Cour! declared that if the plaintiffs
would not content to have the dcpofiion OF fucb
| w;tnsf taken to be read at the trial they would
continue the caufe Indefinitely. The honorablr
manager has furtherfaid that though in England
the Court cannot ifiue commiiFion 10 examine
witneAts, yet here the Court has power 10
Ii1he commiffior for that purp0fe. This no.
i@orabe Court will recollect that the cafe Of Cal
lender was criminal profecution. ! dcub,
whether The Court has any power in a criminal
cafe TO i'iue \ conmifIlon to examine witnefes
| for agaiTit the proiecution i do not
aEow Of any law which gives theni that DO yer.
| II the honorable managers know Of Gich law,
! they will be 70 obliging as 20 refer us 20 it,
But will take mp the objection upon each view:
! fuppoie commifon might have been inued.
the Council of Calender did nat apply 20 the
Cont 10 grant a commiTion, and to cou;;rrs
the tauic until the commifioh was returned
Suppoie Il commi6on could not I've ihued, Cal
leaders Counfgl did not apply TO the Attornev
general ofthe dinritt for his content, that fhef.
witaeiies ihouh be Examined W, ere they lived.
aud their depofition be read in evidence on the
tr'ai, they did not apply TO the Court for their
detecmGasiDn, that t5e Council for this pro(e-
tuton fHopld content 20 this, & thatifhe refufed
: sif can't, nts,i1fd ~ ,,.o,rI -.