The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-04-09
[voluMh ].

Bai1ets application to fcrve on the Jury, we fhall
prove, more fully than we have already done,
that the nature of this application has been
wholly n!ifunderitood BY the witnciics on the
part CT the profecuticn; that the Juror did not
offer an execute, apply TO be difcharged, but
merely fuggened fome fcrupes of delicacy, and
was willing TO ferve if thofe fcrupes were not
futiicient to confitu.e a legal disqualification.
We fhall fully corroborate the teitinony Which
the juror himicf has given on this head, and flall
thew CLEARLY that his fCruples were not Of fuch
nature, AS to furniih legal or proper ground
OF objection to his competence as juror.
AS to the rcfuial Of continuance, which has
been 10 much relied on as criminal violation
of the law, with intent to opprefs the party, we
fhal prove, that although no legal grounds for
a continuance were ifewn and it was therefore
not in the power OF the court to grant it, Judge
Chate did offer 20 poitpone the trial for month
or fix weeks, in order to accommodate Callen.
der and his council, and to enable them to pre-
pare; an offer which they thought proper to re-
jet. And we fall alto thew, that when this
motion for continuance was made, the law of
Virginia, by which it is now commended that the
court ought to have been governed, was not cit
ed nor even mentioned.
With refpeet to the conduct of Judge Chafc
towards Callender's council, we fhall prove that
it was free from any appearance of harlhnefs,
or desire to in;midate, abafh or oprrefs that
the irritation w hich took place proceeded from
the council themfelves. and that the conduct of
the court was far more mild and forbearinp than
from thofe irrtations could have been expected.
THAT every decifon on the law was the Joint O.
pinion of Judge Chafa and his colleague DELI
vered after confultation between them. That
every interruption of the council, arofc from
their pertinacity in prching points which had
been decided, and on which proprietv and duty
required them to he flent and that after the
Respondent had delivered the opinion of the
court on thefe points of law, he offered to afift
the council for the traverfer in framing cafe
| for the opinion of all the Judges of the fIpreme
court, and thus to give them an opportunity of
correcting any errors which he and his colleague
might have committed in thofe decifons. And
finally, we fhail produce a witnefs who having
attended the trial and taken down all the pro-
cSedings in ihort hand, will lay before this hon.
orable court an exaGt detail of all that pafled
Pafiing then to the matter of the fifth and
ixth Articles, we fhal prove, by rule Co'einn-
| " made by the fupreme court of the United
| States, that they never conhdered the fate laws
as regulating broecG, by virtue of the att of Com
prefs which is relied on in fupport Of thefe Ar
tic'es; but merely as governing the decilion OF
rights acquired under them, when fuch rights
! fhould come into qpeftion in the courts of the
United States that the practice in The courts
1
been and is comfortable to our co1itrusion, and
| not 10 that contepded for on the other fide And
as proof how little the recollection of rrer. e.
ven the mop correct, Can be relied on, in cafes
where their feelings have been nrong.y excited.
we ihal produce record, in which the learned
gentleman who. though very Young, was Affor.
ney General of Virginia in 800, and who has
delivered his teitmony with the greateft candor
and Propriety, did himfelf order carias on a
! N a NJ, ~. II n. NJ,
produce evidence to prove that the capias is the
proper procefs, in all cafes of preientrents, ex-
cept thofe of petty offences, which are tried bv
the court, without an Indictment and are MIN
ifiIable by fine only, but not imprisonment. And
to remove every pofble doubt on this head of
accuiation, we hall prove that when the pre-
feDtment againf Calender was made, and IL
became necefiary to if1ue procefs againt him,
Judge Chafe applied to the dinrie attorney for
information what was the proper procefs, who
anfwered capias and that the caoias which
actually was if1ned was drawn up by the clerk.
infpected and approved by the di1ri9 attorney,
and Gued on bis flggehion
| Respecting the tranfa6tions ar New. Cattle in
4 the fate ofDelaware, which confitute the mat
ter of the feventh article, we n,aII prove that
thofe oftnive and improper expref1ions which
| are attributed TO the Respondent. relative TO a
| fictitious temper in the fate Of Delaware, and
S'pNN'hiN w tiS county Oh INSW-( attic ard the
town OF Wilmington, never were uttered by
him that the witnefies who have denoted to
! thefe exprefiions are uuder a miitake: and that
nothing was faid or done by Judge ChaSe on that
occahon, but what he has admitted in his snf
wer; but what propriety jnfifes, and his duty
required. To this end we iliall offer the teni-
mony of perfons who were in lituation 70 re.
mark every occurrence to lifen to every ex-
prefiion on whom fnch expreffons had been
uttered, could not have failed TO make hrone
imprcf1on.
We fhall then proceed to the charge delivered
to the grand jury at Baltimore, which flrnic "a
the eighth and laf ground of accufatior and
then we fhall prove that the Respondent raid no.
thing of political nature to the Jury, except
that which he has ftated in his anfwsr, and tLich
be hopes to fatisty this honorable court that he
had right to fay, however indifcreet or rnnc.
cei1ary the exercifr of that right in this inNance
may have been. We mall produce AIN hon Of
witnef1cs 20 prove that he never uttered fucb
fentiments as are attributed to him by one wit.
| nefs, relative 10 the prefent identification. i,s
character, views and manner of obtaining its
| power; fentiments which he admits would have
been in the highef decree reprehenfble on f,jch
an occaion that the charge which was deli.
vered was read from book and that he fpoke
| nothing extemporary, rs another witnefs for the
proiecution has fuppofcd. And finally we mall