The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-06-21

FeaR, that more fuch was impofcd !; but Mr.
Rawle has further informed you, that il appear
edto him Throughout the buGnefs that Mr.. Lew
is had wholly mifundereood the court and ,mif
took their intention. But fbrely, ar, we are not
to he condemned becaufe we have been mifun-
deritood; Especially as the miftake feems to have
been peculiar to Mr.. Lewis and no other witnefs
fell into the fame error. i rely mot implicitly
on Mr.. Rawle's teitimony, not only from the
ftrensth and correctness Of his character, but
from the mutual pains he took to be accu-
rate in his knowledge of this tranfaetion. His
notes are copious, connected and satisfactory,
and although he has no notes of the firf days
proceeding, yet he feems to have given an UNI
common and cautious attention to every cir
cumftance to which he has teitiied. This gen.
tleman negatives every idea of any reRrietion
upon the arguments of council, and is Imported
by every wtnefs but Mr.. Lewis. Ifany doubt
can remain upon this fuhieet, / am happy to
have it in my power to refer TO written and
unchanging document-which deeroys the third
Specification, and demonstrates not only that the
council were not prohibited from addreffing the
jury both on the law and the fact, but alto that
the right of the jury to decide both the law and
the fact was NOT largely and explicitly avowed
and declared to them. beg to refer this hon.
orable court to the fccond exhibit fled with the
refPondent's anfiver. It contains this very o.
piho" III iSorned by the countei or fries, AND
from the pollution of which they fhrunk with
horror. If they had read it before it was thus
Indignantly condemned-if it had been UNDER
food before It was conGgned to contempt, and
denounced as violation of every valuable and
tasred right, how much confuiiou, how much
unnecedary difcontcnt might have been hved
ana prevented. In this opinion then, will be
found the fentiment, in thefe words: {" 1t is the
duty of the court in this and in all criminal
cafes, to Rate to the jury their opinion of the
Gseo ariing on the facts BIT tbe ju,y are TO de-
eide on toe prcient, and on all erin,in0leaks both
fbe Iaso and the tl77J, on tbeir confederation of
fbe evboe CAFE" Was there ever more ample
and explicit avowal of the rights of iuries Is
therean friend to uries 70 extravagant as to con-
tend or ak for more The acknowledgment is
as fui as any man can require or the law would
warrant. The judge, in thus admitting and con-
hrm'ng the right of the Jury to decide both the
law and the fact, admits by inevitable confe-
quence that the jury have right to hear conn
Tel both upon the law and facts. That which
they are to decide upon, they NUT have infor-
nation upon; and the court which declares the
Jury to be the tribunal to determine the qvbole
Gale, never could have Eaid in the fame breath
that they fhould hear no argument on the cafe
they were thus to determine. This monftrous
ablurdity, or which the judge can hardly be fuf-
Pecfed, brings IL to certain conclufion, that
MIR. Lewis mutt have mifaken the court and
that no iuch restriction was laid upon him or the
jury as he has apprehended.
ITO be continued.