The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-05-17
RIcHNoND FRIDAY MORNING, MAY II, lsos

ted did not amount To hecrjme charged: no
defending voice had been RATED i'm behalf of the
accufrd but withou, being heard, and with
out having had any opportunity to be heard,
ms ale was as,ludeed aeaiesa him. I fay I'D
Judged Again/7 him s,i.hout tie e&anee az Leinp
beord. For iureiy the cafe was adjugeti againit
MN, when the onlypoint upon which it was de-
fenliblc was determined againft him, and that
determination publicly announced from the
bench. That this was done before the accufrd
could politely have had chance OF being heard
is placed beyond contradiction by all the tefti-
mony. And thar the judge knew the point,
which he thus prejudged, TO be the only ground
upon which the defence reited, is perfe aiyclear.
For from what his own declarations at the time
OF announcing the opinion, it appears that he
was well acquainted with all that had pailed at
the previous trial of Fries.
But, fir, we NUT look further into the pro-
greis OF this traniattiou. II was not enough,
that the poor trembling v;etim of judicial
opprefTion I,ould thus have his dearea
privileges matched from kim by "a pre-
ladication of his cafe it was enough, that
the impariality of thofe who were to CON-
pole his jury, ihoud be'converted into a pre-
poiiefiion againtt him, by the impoGng antbe
r;ty of folenn declarations from the bench
But the fnall remaining darling hope of life
waste be fmutheredbya precluiion Of his coun
iettrom arguing the law to the jury. This fact,
though iterniy denied in the anfwer of the re-
iPondent, has nevertheless been eftabfhed in
manner which muit irreiiRibly force convict
on upon the mind. MIR. Lewis ailirms it po(i-
tlvely. Mr.. Dallas afirms il I'm a manner pecu-
liarly frong. Not being himfelf prefent when
the opinion was delivered to the bar, he re-
ceired from Mr. Lewis itatement of what had
Psiicd, and in an addrefs to the court, after
wards repeated diltincly this ftatement, and
particularly that part which attributed to the
Judge declaration that If the CONNIE, had anv
thing to lay upon the law, they mutt address
themfclves to the court and not 10 the iurv.-
10 this ftatement no reply was made BY the
court, either correcting or denying it. Thus
itands the evidence in the affirmative. Oppo-
led TO this we have the negative tettimony of
Meiffs. Rawle, Tilghman and Meredith, who
have TO recoHection of any fuch declaration. |
addreis myie!f to thofe who well know the DIFF
ference betweenaftirmatiye and negative teftimo
ny. addrefs myfelf Ito thofe whowell knowtbe
efablifhed rule in theaw ofevidence, that thetef-
timony OF one affirmative witnefs counteryaiIs
that OF many NEGATIVE ones-and am fure that
] addreiS myteif TO thole who mutt feel the
complete coincidence OF this rule with the
dictates of common fcnfe. Upon this ground
alone we might fatelyref our propoition. But.
Sir, we will not ref it here. 1t appears from
the teffimony of the witneiIcs OF both Gdes.
that almott every obiervation from the council
to the court on the fecond day was predicated
upon the idea that fomehing had been faid on
the preceding day reftrlciive of their privileges
Thefe obiervations, although addre1ed tn .he
court and carrying this feature prominent in
their face, were neitht; contradicted nor cor
rected by the court. This was a ftrong tacit
admIiiion of the corectnefs of the idea rpon
which they were bottomed. But, fir, we have
not only this tacit admiiiion, bu. we have in
teitimony, this flrong and imprefiive declara.
ration from judge Chafe, that " the counfrl
might be heard in expedition TO the opinion Of
the court, at the hazard OF their characters"
But, MIR. PRECEDENT, we have the poiitiye adj
milton of the Respondent, in page of his an
f%cr, that certain obfcrvaions were made nv
him condemning the uie ofcommon law autho-
rites upon the doctrine of trcafoE, and ALTO con-
demning authorities under the ftatute of trea.
ions, but prior to the EngIilh revolution,-
There the paffage was read.) BY recurrence
to page % of the anfwer, it will be found that
the respondent admits that thefe obfervations of
his were made on the firft day yet, fir, no.
thing or all this is remembered by Melirs. RawIe.
1llghman, or Meredith. How light then, how
extremely light mutt their bare want of recol-
lection weigh againft the poGtive affirmative
teftimcny of Mr.. Lewis and MIR. Dallas.
Coniidering my petition as uncontrovertiblv
eha5fhed, / will proceeC to obferve, that the
offence with which Fries food charged wasthe
bigheft potiible offence which can he commit
ted N fate of fociety. The punifiment an.
reXed TO ITS commilIion was the higheft pofible
punllhment known to our laws. The accured
was therefore entitled TO every pofIible indul-
gence. In favor of life, not only every pofIible
ground ihoud be occupiedby counfelto the iu-
ry, but every pofible argument liRened 70 and
weighed With patience and forbearance (: and il
mould never be forgotten, that Judge Cha(e had
tuch conduct frt as an example before him.
in previous trial of the fame cafe.-Yes. fir. q
brother judge of his, who has fnce gone TO the
world OF f2irits, had fet him an example, con-
ipIcuous for the purity of its excellence, and
which thould have srrefed his career in the
commifiioD Of this cruel outrage upon all I'M.
mainly. But Judge Cbaie predetermines the
law; then prohibits council from proving to
the jury that the law was not as laid down.
This was in effect an cxtiGguinlnent AZ once
OF the whole right of Jury trial. All the priyi-
leges and all the benefits Of that inGitution
were fwept at once from an American Court of
tuiiice, and icarcely the external form prcfcrv.
ed. The law was predetermined by the Judge.
and the accuied was debarred from pleading il
TO the Jury. OF what avail is it, FIR, that the
luTy LIQUID DC made judges Of law and of fac,
when tfe law IS not permitted TO be expounded
70 them Ofwhat avail is it that the accufed
thCUIO have fript 10 me-, ,,,i,.., =.