The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-05-21

II toth LaSv and jtf3. In other words, althouc
Mr.. Baiiet had formed and delivered IN t>pn
on that fuch book as ssThe Prcipee Befor
U.s." came within the Gejiicn law, vet no
having faid that Calender was the author o
PubliIler, he was f,ili a competent Juror. SUI,
pole a man indicted for murder, n csl
where there is no difpute as 20 the s,ct OF xii
ling land here there was difpu.e rs 70 III
FACT OF publiihing) but the defence tet rp wa
that he was excuiable. A juror has given hi
opinion, in reference TO the at., that fi,ch Kill
ing does amount to murder, but without fay
ing that the perion profecuted was the n,ur
derer will any man fay that this expreE
iiion would not difqualify him am bounc
to prefume not. Sir, in the caf. of Cslep.
der, although Mr.. Bafiet did not fay tia,
the perfon profecuted was guilty, vet he
did in effect fay that whoever wrote or pubiill,.
ed the book was guilty. And give me leave to
remark here that in profecutions for libels, the
queition OF law, AS 20 their criminality, is gene
rally the only quefion Of difpu.e. The fa9 of
publication is one about which there feldom &C.
ours any difficulty, and has to be proven mere
iy becauie not admitted. To have expre.!cd
An opinion then upon the queaion of law in
Inch Gales is fnbftantially to have preiudged the
whole cafe. a juror under ilch circumstances
cannot be called impartial. As well might il
be ai'edged that Judge Chafe himfelf was i'm
partial: as to the cafe OF Fries, after he had de-
livered the opinion which we have before diff
cufIed.
We are told in the anfvcr that the guilt of
the traverier was not prejudged by Bafiet, FOR
another reaton that as the charges to make
them criminal NUT have been falfe, 70 Callcr-
der might have excnlpated himctlf by proving
their truth. But, Sir, the traverfer was at H.
berty 20 ref his defence either upon iunifca-
ton or want of criminality in law or upon both
He was not bound TO dif:lofe which, norcould
the judge officially know which. Both and
each of theic groundswere proper for the Jury
10 determine under the plea. The acqnittal of
the travcrier then did not depend excufvcy
upon the proof of the truth of the charges.
Again we are told that the Juror barely cx.
prelIcd his opinion upon the book, as the con-
tents thereof had been Represented to him. The
fame may be faid OF almoft every either ca e.
Few, very fewjurcrS are fpe9ators OF MUIR
der. or All act of treafon. ANY opinion thew
may have formed and delivered of the actual
guilt of the perton charged NUT be in Fine ca
its out often, from representation. Pew, very
few of the jurors who were fummoned in the
cafe of Fries, had been fpeGators OF the aEfs
which were allcdged to have been treafonahle
probably not one Of them. Yet we learn from
the anfwer of Judge Chafe, that in that very
cafe !cveral were repealed from ferving, be-
caufe ofthe opinions which they acknowledged
| they had given. Such opinions muh in nine
cafes OFT of ten he bottomed upon reprefcnta-
| ton. There are Numerous fecret crimes, which
| from their very nature preclude the pofTibility
that IN opinion concerning them, however DO
fitive, and however Deceive of the conviction
! Of the accufed, fi1ould be founded upon any
previous knowledge of facf. And yet, SIR,
preinrne no perion vii! deny that in fuIch cafes
Juror may nevertheless 10 cEprefs an ooinioo
| as 70 difquafy himielf from ferYinc.
| But, Sir, the fcene rifes upon US. We have
now to examine 4 part of the tranraaion for
which, l had fnppoGd, human invention might
be tortured for a parliation in vain. l alude to
the rejection of MIR Taylor's tettmony. The
reaion aligned for that rejection was. that the
witneis could no: prove the truth of the hole
of0EJ one charge. Let us for moment exa-
mine the consequences of this doctrine. Ac-
cordins to the judges own decifons then. as
well as his doctrine now, each charge laid in
the indictment mutt have cnuilituted feparate
offence. For it ise3plicitIy declared both BIZ lIr.
Hay and MIR. Nicholas, that VIXEN an applica-
ton was made TO continue the cafe, bcc9uCs oe
the abience of fome material witneGcs, the an.
plication was rejected upon the ground, that !.
did not appear from the affidavit filed, that
the witneiies 70 atfent, could prove the truth
OF all the charges. That proof OF the truth of
part only, "ouid De OF no avail, and that tie
whole mutt be proved 70 ntitle the traverirr 70
an acquittal. Each charge in the indictment
then NUT have conftuted a jcberafr oGenee: for
the charges cannot be made to help each other
out. One charge, however, it fcems mirht
con6f of different facts. This was the CAFE. with
feveral in that indictment. twas particularly
the cafe with the very charge, the truth of which
Mr.. Taylor was called to prove. I" The Pref
dent was profef1ed ariftocrat. He had pro.
we'd faithful and ferviceable to the Britilb inter.
ef." Here was charge made IN of two die
tinet facts 70 ditin6 in their nature, that the
knowledge of their truth might not only ref
with different perfons, but was extremely i've
~ not TO ref with any one witnerp. Pat
the cafe ola man charged with a-y offence.
murder, theft, or any other crime yon pleafs !:
There may be firing of facts upon the proof
OF which the defence may depend; i6me within
the knowledge Of one man; fomc within that or
another. Was it ever heard Of before, that be-
caufe one witnefs could not prove the exiRencs
or all thofe facts, that therefore fich vitpefs
ihould not be examined as to what he did
know Or if fone Of the facs depend upon
written tefimony, was it ever heard of before.
that therefore witncfs fhonld not nc examined
as to thofe refting in oral teGimony ? To theft.
gueftions no man will anfwerin the affirmative.
Why then was an unhe:rd ofaud palpablv an
fard doctrine brought to bear in Calender