The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-05-21
IVolumn ?.

| S>'"S ~ VIZ PcNS' W tlS IpdrlV- ny which skc1
retidue ofthe charge may be eilabiile1i We
are told by the reipoudent, that none Of The
qGe.s'ons prepounded 10 Colonel Taylor had A.
ny application to the charge, excrpt Tie Ern..
and this on,y to part of the charge: and tina.
this queiton was repealed becaufc no y,roof
was offered as to the reiidue. lanfver, fr. that
The Judge had no right to know nor were ;hpJ
council bound to oifcloie whether thers wa.
iuch teftimouy in retcrYe or not. II Is 4 nc,vJ
doctrine, fir, that tie legal admifiai,ity Of
timony is to depend upon what the party cal. J.
afterwards prove by other teR:norv. T, is(
me right OF the party to ettablh his defence al
far as he can, and if he fail in eaabnina ;,ceI
pietely, the evil Is TO himfe,f alone. And per.
NIT me here to add, FIR, that whether he flr
coed in eftablii!ing his defence or not, is o,ef
ton FOR the Jury to determine, and rot m J
Judge. Tie judge pofieiies no right 10 9.te,
'iine even after the teftiinony is finii,red, whe
! ther that teffimony has or has not eNatlifhed
tie defence till leis then can he before II ~
heard, determine that il will not make good the
defence.
We are told in the RESPONDENTS anfiver thatI
his rejection of Colonel Tayor's tefimonv car
be no proof of a determination on his parttoor7.
oppreis, Standardization migh thave teen e,ti-
tiedbythe conviction ofthe traverfcr upon the 9th
or articles. This is true, very true, UPON the
PrnciPie that the judge and not the inrv was
70 determine the quefion OF law in CRIMINAL ca
les. If the crim;naiity of the charges in Doi3t
OF law, was TO be ieit!ed by the Judge, his con-
cinllon is certainly correct. But if, as 7 an
prehend, the criminality Of the charges was to i
0e exciriiveiy determined by the jury, then IL
was not entirely certain, that the iudpe rniohf
have been frre of his obieef, notwithstanding
the tenth charge had been proved. For auqht
ne Knew, or ought to be prefnmed 10 have
known, the Jury might have beer ofthe opinion
that the other charges did not come within tbf.
'ed't,on law, and might have therefore given A
verdict ofacQuittal.
''it M PFeiident, this apart, it is novel
PROOF "f innocence to me at Leaf, that man
mould have the maeranimous boldpef 10 dire. J
gard appearances 1t is novel proof of limo.
cehce that man ihould poficfs a fpirit daring
enough to iniult the common fenfe of mankind. J
les, iir, yield to the Respondent the ful, hare
OF glory which he is de[rcus of accun,ulasinv
from this fource.
The Taft of the three articles now under eY.
animation goes on to charge the defendant with
various acts OF injafiice, Partially ard irtcnn-
perance, highly deroCatOry to his cta-aGa,- "a
aiudge. and equally Injurious to the reputation
OF the American bench. Without fatignirg he
Pa'ience ofthehon. court with an cnquiryintatbe \
rootSand annveftigation ofthe crirninali,y of sII
the particulars heEeenumerated, rter,2arctoca,l \
tnelr attention to one part of the iudee's cnn-
duct, Which appears to me 70 ftard pre.emire,,t
'or ITS open defiance of all iunice, and lis IA
grant violation of the contribution Of this cow
try. 1allude, to the ref,,fal 70 co-t;rr. -,
CAME. The reafons aligned for .ha. ~ .f.i
we're we learn, that If did not appear hy- ~
aihdavlt exhibited, and upon which The n1ot;o1
IoT continuance was founded, t;,at tbe ,,.;.,ar
KS Whoie teitmony was wanted, could -,rov~
the truth of all the charges laid in the jn,I;as
'neht. lhiS condu6t, Mr.. PRECEDENT. GrikaI
lile DIS oeiHg OF the lame family with lle rtictfi
iCr1c
VI the Indictment are in number many. Toisu
embrace numerous collection Of fafs. G,,ns
OF 'hsm ANIMATED, Others extremely variant in \
their nature; many Of them invoivin, leo,i
difficulties as to their crininali,v. Under he
pea OF not guilty, TO the indictment. if ,xas
competent to the traverfer not onv to proye
tn ne truth OF The charges in point Of faq. bur
a.!o 20 prov mat any of the charges were NOD
criminal in point ofIaw. 1t was con,petcnt G.
the defendant to prove the truth Of = na,4
inc charges, and to contend that the rrn wery
not fictitious. Both thefe grounds of 3eG.nre
were proper for the Jury, and the Jury potT;sc-
,eu the right to PATS without confront unon
nom. with what 7ropriety then could ~
JuaSe pronounce from the bench thu. In ent;,la |.
neaGcuiedto aco7tinuance, it mufarpearfbati,e /
couId prove the truth of all the charges? WHIT.
hr' was the queition Of law as 20 their crmn,,;,
~, point which the Judge here again arroas-
Tea 20 hnielt the executive right 10 detcrnin.
ah9 mat too before the traverer WIS heard
indeed 1t would appear that in this CAFE slC, ;.
N the cafe OF Fries, the law was to be wreped
nom ITS proper organ, the jury, and 70 he 90.
cluhVeIy pahed upon Ivy the Judge binC.lf
what other contraction can be qiven to his Dc
termination that the truth of all the ch,rres
mu.t be proven? There furely conII he no.
ceihty forthis, unlcis they were all rIdifiarl J
WITHIN the att of Congress. Py deterrain,oi
tnen' that all npft he proved tine, the indsS
did determine that all were f~iitiomo, yrsI
mr. i was the executive right Of the Jury TO de-
terraiHe. '''' " ue-
The contribution of this country h,c r,oa
wiieiy provided, that " the accented Mn -.
compuliory pro-ef5 for obtaining vitss,gs" i,
his favor" Of wha: avail is this ,iroyilicn r.
time be not given for their astendanccS Ge
wat avail to grant the procefs. and. 'er,ts
'he wItne'ies can by any phyfcal pnlibiatv
reach the place, force TIC sccuf.d 70 tr;si
MS cordnct, iir, is worfs .hqr rnocterv
IS an iniuit 70 the common Esnfs Of r-sr,;nI
IS high trcaion aganf the rlaiefc- of tts cora;-
tut'on OF free country. The corNjt1,ioo ~
the United States gives TO the accuC.d ,ba ,;,,tt
OF proceis to compel The attendance of hig v;,.
neflee. But fuIpp Cb,Ce r., -