The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-08-09

which he had eniipoled the FIRE, although the
lconfsgratiun was FIN extending, and confIu-
| ing every thing before it pa mott happy
| fn,ile.
But let us examine wherein the Inifc Lief was
70 irrctrieYable-the In 70 i;,expiable neither
more nor lefs, than in this, ,Aal as the written
fopmiena only contained the in, preflious on the
minds ofsthr judges, the deitruttion of that
written opinion would not prevent the fame i'm
prefiiops remaining on their minds and thofe
imprefiions would be as difficult TO remove, af-
ter the opinions were called in, as before. 1t is
all very true bur how came the judges to have
on their minds tbofeimpreflions Not from
having committed them TO paper. but from
, their correct knowledge of the law. Aud how
were thofe imprefhons to be removed? Ger
tainly by no means, une!s that correct know
ledge ofthe law conld alto be removed. To
accomplish which, (! know, of no means that
could be ufed, uulefs the judges could have
been fupplied with quantity of our India yu6-
Der, with few barrels of the waters of Lethe,
with the one to rub out and effacc from their
| minds all their legal knowledge, or by copiuus
drafts of the other, to waih it away. Bur, fir,
have not made, nor fhall make any ufe of
the proceedings of the fecond day as An execute
for any improperly of the court on the frft
only cOnlider them As inconteitible proofs. that
the court had no other obieGi in view, on either
OF thote days, than complementary TO dfcharge
their duty, by giving Fries fair and impartial
trial, that ifhe was guilty he might he punifhcd
! If innocent. acquitted. deny that thc court
was guilty on the irR day, of any nrropriety !;
take higher ground, and have coutcpded, and
| do contend, that the conduct Of the court on
the hrit day, was corre6t and proper, and dur
| ing the whole trial find nothing improper in
their conduct, except their amoft humiliatingiy
foicitiDg the coupfel of Fries to do their duty,
inttead of committing them to goal for the i'm
propriety Of their conduct, which the court
ought to have done but even in this the court
has afforded the ftrongef proof Of their foc-
. tude that Fries fhouId have every legal & con.
ftitutionai benefit of council at his trial.
Reflect, alto, that at the time when Mr.. Lew
IS thus contemptuoufy daihed from his pure
rand the concentrating opinion, he had not
read hngie word, nor received the leaf intima.
iton OF MS contents, nor did he know its con-
tents until long after; s: yet he niiantly form
ed the determination not TO appear for Fries,
and 70 advite their client not to accept the ,f.
hcnmcnt OF any other council, ihould the court
oHer 1t. Whence this conduit How did he
know the opinion was not favourable to his eli
lent I His confidence told him it was not His
own great legal knowledge confirming to him
the truth. He well knew the law he was ac-
quainted with the correct decifons which had
been before given. He well knew the great le-
gal knowledge of the judge, who on this occa.
lion prehded: he was certain my honorable
client could not but concur with his brethren.
He acknowledges they had no hope to change
the opinion of the court, and that they had not
the vanity to inppofe that the Jury would, un-
der their iiihdence, decide the law contrary TO
what the court fhould direct therefore that
they had no hopes of the acquittal of their client
by the jury on the trial, whatever feryices thew
were perniittedto render him; and therefore
as the only chance, which they had TO fave his
forfeit life, they affirmed that line of conduef
which has been difclofed in the evidence When
MIR. Lewis, in giving his tefimonv, mentioned.
I"iTdge Peters afSed us on the rext day whe.
therit the court had got into fcrape the firft
day, the council wcnld not let the court get OF
it," No. !aid Mr. Lewis, we were deter
mined not TO let them gel out oft, as the only
means to fave our clients lfe," and in the con-
cluGon of his teltimony, he repeated that thew
were Sctuated in their condud, from confider-
ing 1t the only chance they had to fave the life
OF their client, and not from any other motive.
| And Mr.. Dallas alfo obltrved in his teRimony.
that when the court, on the fecond day preiIcd
them to continue their fervices as council of
Fries they refufed, determined not to depart
from the policy they had adopted, and to with
draw, as the mott probable means of benefiting
their client.
w. h' 'o'CIuue What relateS To this article
by obiervlng, that the conduct of Fries's coun-
Tel to the court, on that trial, was fnch as no.
thing can execute. IT can onlyb be paliated by
the reelection that for his crimes he was liable TO
fuffer death. Feelings of humanity and com.
paiiion, independent of interea, might excite
in their bofoms an earnef anxiety to fave his
life: this may itrve to mitigate cenfure hut e.
ven thofe feelings, however amiabe, ought not
to be gratiiied at the expence of nation liunice.
nor by IN endeavouc TO ftamp upon Judges of
uprightncfs and integrity the diibonorable
charge of partially and opprefIion. fear, FIR,
have been tedious on IN, article; but it will
be coniidered that, whatever may be my own
ientlrents of the futility of any part Of thcfe
charges, cannot determine how far this no.
norabIe court may correfpond with me in fenti-
meni. Nor can do otherwife than treat, az
OF confequence, any charge brought forward by
the hon. houfe of repr, lsnatives OF not corlder
it as being ofimportaEce.
will now Mr.. PRECEDENT, proceed IN thoC.
articles which arife out of The trial in Virginia:
and find it Rated in the beginning of the f.
cond article, that my honorable client went
there prompted by the fame ihameful foirt of
periecution and iniunicc the truth of which
! I'm ready TO acknowledge, after having f,tis-
taciorily proved that at Philadelphia he had
not ibewn in any matter whatever ft,igit of