The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-02-22

tNiccptihle ~ proof. What one Dert1n M , 1T
ccaiider IS ali9ocracy, another would couhdcr
as repub'icaniflm, and third, rs democracy.
il Indictments could be fupp0-tcd on luch
grounds the guilt OF innocence &c the party &C
cuitd, mud De meaflred not by any fixed or
known rile, but by theNopiu;ons which the ~
rors appointed 70 try him might harpen TO en-
terrain, concerning the nature Of a,l6ocrscy,
democracy or republicanifin. And, LATELY, the
suction itclf was as vague, aud as void OF pre-
c;te meaning, IS the charge oS which 1t was in
tended 70 turniih the proof. The witneis was
called npcn ~ declare whether he had heard
NJ. Adams express any and what opinions, "a.
voGrab,e 10 arifocracy or monarchy ?" How
was " TO Ne determined. whether an opinion
was favourable To sriGoc-acy o, monarchy ?
One man would think it favourable aud another
not 70, according 10 the opinions which they
might TsipeGtivciy entertain, on political fab
ie6ts- The fri que6inn, therefore, was incon-
clufve, ir,n'steriai and inadmiii'oie.
Tie feC11d, as h2 already been remarked,
was wholly AID ina6ned'y foreign from the
matter IN ii,ue. Eir. Hdofn,'S diCikc OF the
funding fyiten, it ne did ~ faci Gi,ii,e Il, had
nothin.; 10 do with his 7rifocracy or his Gath
fulncfs 70 the EritiiR iutsref. There is no Pre-
tcnce sor lsyiug, that !uch queGion ought g
have been admitted.
As IL the shird, sswhetner mir. Adams bid
not voted sgs;ut the Gtquefration OF BntiIh
property, and thc fufPenGon nj comm erc;al IN
tercour1l- with Crcat-Rrtan.'' it has already
been Glewn 90 be altogether improper; on the
ground that fuch votes, ifgigen by MIR. Adams,
were no evidence whatever of his having been
''faithftl and :trriceahle TO the Brtinl ntcrel."
II ne had been "a, provided il were, in his OPT
Mon, AZ the Same time uief,i! to the intercits OF
, his own country, which it well might be, and
/ the contrary .: whic:. is not aEedged BY this
part of the publication, taken fcparate!v, It was
no offence ossuy Kind; and to charge him with
! it was not libel. The charge was, Therefore,
immateri1l ard futile, and no evidence tor OF
aga;nA it could properly be received. And, e.
naliv, Il the charge had been material, and the
giving Of thcfe votcs had been legal evidence 10
prove Il, that fatt was on record in the journals
oF The Senate ana might have heen proved Ivy
that record, or an official copy of it. as this
evidence was :he highet of which the cafe sd
Tnitted, no inferior evidence of IT, fuch as oral
proof is We'll known to be, could be admitted.
For thcit reafans This refnondent did ccncur
with his cCllessu The faii Cyrus Cr,ftin in re-
iecting the three aforementioned qurfon~ /; but
not any other fcitjmony that the fa:G (ohu Tav-
Ior might have been able TO give. in this he IN
ifs that ne acted legally md properly, accord
ING e the bef ofhis ability. Jfhe erred, it IS
ir1pOifible. for the reafons tated hv HIN in the
beginning Of his sn(wer 10 this article. 20 fIp-
pcfcthat Geerred Hilfn!ly ;6"ce he coulG have had
nc potii5le motive for piece Of mi(coudu6t G.
fhancfri, and at the fame time 60 welt calcutta
TED 70 give offence. 81 point 20 liable 70 nl,fap-
prehcufon aud INSTRUMENTATION, and 70 likely
60 be ufed as = means Of exciting pnhM, ndj,lm
aglint him, il is far more probable, that haQ ne
been capable On bending his OPTION NJ She law
90 other motives, ne would have admitted lie.
gal te8i11ay; which, taken Ia IFS utrlcf e.
fect could have rad no tendency 70 th7vart tlofe
plans Of vengeance sganf the Traveller under
the influence of which he is fupDoi.d 10 have
acted.
1t his error was an honef ON. winch A. his col
league afo fell in5o it, uieh5 in charity he fup-
Poied; and, as there is rot fhadoy- of evil
ceuce 10 the oontrsrg, nue in law .ke prefnnl-
cd 81 cannot, for Committing L, be convict
ed q any offence, rnurh lefs a high crime and
mjfdcraeanor, Cor which ne NUT, on conviction,
be deprived "fhis Office.
aud for plea TO the faid third article OF i'm
peachmcrt, the fsid Samuel Chafe faith, that
he is nos guilty of any high crime or m;iac-
rneauor, as IN and by the faid third article is
al!edeed againit lin and this he prays may
be edquired Of by this honorable court, in
fuch manner as law and juGice lhall feem to
them 70 require
The fourth article ofimpeachment alledges,
that during Ike whole courfe of the trial of
janice fii5,f5tz5fort Calender. Aforementioned
the conduct ofthis Respondent was marked by
manifett iniuftice, Partiality and intempe-
rance 5" and five particular intances of the
iniuftice, partially and intemperance" are
adGuccd.
The frf coniiAs " in compelling the pri-
I fnneT's council to reduce to writing and fubmit
70 the iDfpe6ion cfthe court, for their adm1i-
on or rejection, all quetticns which the faid
council meant 70 PROFOUND to the abovementi-
Oned John Taylor, the witRefs."
I The respondent, in anfwer to this part of
the article now under confederation, admits
that the court, conifing of himlef ard the a.
aforementioned Cyrus Griffin, did require the
council for the trayer(er, on the trial Of lanes
Ehompfon Calender aforementioned, to re-
duceto writingthequeito whchthevintended
to put 60 the iaid Niaefs. But hede1ies that it is
more his al than the act of his colleague, who
fully conrurred in this rnea(ure. THIS rreaflre,
as he spprohcnds ard infas, was frictly legal
and proper his reai0ns for adopting It, and
he pretunes thOfe OF his colleague, he win fub-
init 90 TIL honorable court. in order TO nieyv
that ID he, in common with his colleague, com
mitted an error, it was ~ error into which the
bct and wiien men might have honeGIy fall
len.
1t viii not be denied, and cannot be doubt
cd, that according TO our laws, evidence, whe-
tner oral or written, may be rcieGed and pre-
vented from going before the jury on various
grouaas.---tR. Ycr incOnpetency where the
torrc rom which thc ey;dcrceis attempted 70
5e drawn, 10 an improper fource as If