The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-03-30

PufpOiS Ol tcfiiUg nun tndt Int uOCtrinc he Ccn-
tended for was true, that the jury had the right
To determine on the law well as the fact.
Mr.. Writ then went on TO Rate that the coniti-
tuition of the United States WIS the law f the
land. Judge Chafe interrupted him, and iad
there was no neceility for proving that point, it
was the f1breue law ofthe land. MIR. Writ
then went on TO argue that if the jury had a
right TO determine the law in this cafe, and if
the contribution was the fiipreme law, the con-
clufon was perfectly fyllogiRical, that the jury
had right to determine on the conititutionali.
ty of the law. II was at that time that Judge
Chaic addreiled him in the words that l have
mentioned. According to my beit recollection
he bowed, and with an air of derion, addrei-
ing him, faid &c a non iequitur fir" Whe-
Their Mr.. Writ faid any thing more after this in
behalf ofthe client, do not recoIetf he did
not however fay much. After Mr.. Writ Fat
down, Irofe, addreG>d myfcf to the court, &
Rated that I addrelIed myfelf to the court ex-
clu6vely. l obierved that did not with to be
heard by the jury, or by the very numerous
ailemblage that furrounded me. This OFFER
walton was intended by me as a fort of reply to
the obiervation made by the Judge that our de-
fence was intended for the people. | did not
attempt to tpeak to the jury on the queftion,
which wiihed TO argue before them. After r
had gone on for fhort time, was interrupt
VI "! tNN .luutsN, U! QuSlliOu WHICH thought
an unnecefiary one. will endeavor to fate it.
itated to the court, in terms as diftinSt AS nv
knowledge ofthe Englilh language enabled me
to uie, the ipeci6c propoiition for which I
meant to contend-which was, that the iury
had, according TO the laws of the land right
to determine every Queltion necefary to the
dec iiion of the queRion of guilty or not guilty.
Judge Chafe aiked me whether | laid down
that propoiition as true in civil as well as in
criminal cafes-becauie, if you do, faid he,
you are wrong. My reply was that believed
the propoGtion universally true but it was
fuffcent for my purpoie if it were true as ap
piled TO criminal cafes. l went on, as well as I
could, in the argument intended to urge. |
was again interrupted by the Judge. what the
circumftances were that gave rife to that inter
ruPtion, my nnaided memory will not enable
me to tell, nor do / recolled what expreffions
were uled by him. have not, Gnce yefterday,
taken the liberty of looking at the ftatement,
winch have in my pocket, of the crcumitan-
ces that took place on the trial but know
that l was interrupted more than once, and I
believe more than twice but the impreGion on
my mind was, that to get thro' the argument, 7
fhould be fubie6ted to more humiliation than
any man indicating another in court of iuf
tice was bound on any principle to en-
counter, and l declined proceeding in my argu.
ment.
When the Judge perceived from the move.
was about to retire, he ailled me to go on-I
told him ihould not go on. He faid, there
was no occahon for me to be captous-I told
him was not captious. He then faid, go on.
go on,-you will not be interrupted. |, how
ever, retired from the bar, and, I believe, from
the room where the court was held.
Mr.. RaadOlbb. Did any circumstances oc-
cur, IN relation to a witnefS brought forward
on the part Of the profecution, of an mutual
nature, were any obiervations made by the
court to that witnefs, and what were thofe OBJ
fervations.
Mr.. Hay. do not know whether the circum-
ftance am about to fate is an anfwer to the
quetion which has been put to me. But Ire
collect diftin6tly that circumftance did occur,
which thought extraordinary. A witnefs was
brought forward, to prove the publication of
the Profpect Before Us, who was the very man
employed by Calender to print the work.
Whether the publication could be proved by
any other perfon than Callcnder's agents, | do
not now recolleGt. But itatcd to the court
that this witnefS was about to do what the con-
ltitution authorized him to refufe to do, and
what he was not required to do by the eta
bliihed rules of law in criminal projections,
which was, that no man was bound to deliver
and if any thing done by him, implicated him
in the tranfaction charged againft Calender as
Tbellous, he was not bound to anfwer, nor
could he be required to anfwer by the court.
Mr.. Chafe faid that the opinion had expren.
ed was correct but the witnefs, who had come
forward to give evidence of the publication,
might reft al1ured that he lhould not be moeft-
ed for any part which he might have taken in
the publication. do not recoIlect that the
diltri6t attorney faid word on the location.
Every thing that was faid on that head was faid
by myfelf, and anfwered by the court, as have
fated. The witnefs was fworn, and gave in his
tetimony, in which he ftated that he was en-
poyed by Calender to print the work called
the Profpee Before Us.
Mr.. Randolph. The council for the accufed
feemed TO have confidcred in this cafe, as well
as in all the Others, that the proceedings would
be governed by the a6t of the fate of Virginia.
which in virtue of the act of Congrefs of 1889
was the rule of procedure. 1t appears that
procels was ihued, fuch as the laws of Virginia
did not authorize. Was there no reference
made by the council for the accufed to the a6
of Virginia, to thew that the procefs was lille.
gal, or contrary to law, to rule the party &c
trial at the fame term the Indictment wa,
found
Mr.. Hay. There was general, but not fpe
chic reference to that crcumitance. In making tn,
motion for continuance, ftated that in confornit,
to the law and ufage of Virginia, when prelent
ment was found, the ordinary proceIs was bv fun