The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-04-02

they ought to be fatished ; he refuied to let
the indictment be read to the juror. The
clerk then called the jury and fwore them, till
he came to John Baflet, who in reply to the
previous queftion, faid, that he had never feeu
the indictment, or heard it read. But MIR. Baf-
let feemed to have comfortable fcruple at fer
wing, and faid he had formed and delivered an
opinion, that the book called the Ptofpect be-
fore us, came within the fedition law. Judge
Chafe, however, faid he was good juror, and
he was fworn and ferved as fich. The wit
nelies on the part of the profecution were cal
led and fworn, and amongf others Mr.. Rind
was examined to prove the publication of
the Profpee Before Us. MIR. Hay obferycd
that no witnefs, who was any way concerned
in the printing of the Profpect, was bound to
eliminate himfelf. Mr.. Chafe admitted this
to be correct, but declared that the witnefies
might reft afured that no perfon would be pro-
fecuted in confequence ofany evidence given in
the cafe then before the court. Under thefe
circumstances Mr.. Rind provedthath had prin-
ted part of the Profpeet for Calender, and
took out of his pocket fome of the original
fheets from which he had printed parts of the
work. Judge Chafe himfelfcomparedthefe fleets
with the work as pubflhed, and they were
found,to correfpond. After the teftimony on
the part of the proiecution was hniihed, Col.
Taylor of Caroline, was called on the part of
II,
Chafe, aikedwith apparent hate & earneRnefs of
manner, what we expected to prove by that
witnefs. We faid we expected to prove that
Mr.. Adams had avowed in the prefence of the
wtnefs fentiments favorable to monarchy or
arifocracy, and that he had voted in the Senate
againft the fequefration of Britilh debts, and
the fufpenhon of commercial intercourse with
Great Britain. Judge Chafe then faid that
we NUT reduce the queftions to writing. This
objected to, and ftated that it was thing We
ry mutual in our courts, that it had not been
required by the court of the diltriet attorney,
when he examined witnefles againft Calender,
that it involved dangerous principle, and was
calculated to fubject every queftion of fact to
the controul of the court, belides added that
1 did not know the extent to which Col. Tay-
lor's evidence would go, that wlhed him to
fate all he knew, and that very probably the
examination would point out new quefions
proper TO be afeed. I then ftated that if the
court Unified on the quefions being reduced
to writing, would comply with their diretti-
on, but that hoped it would not be coniider-
ed as precluding us from afking any additional
quetions. The queftions were then reduced
to writing, and are as follow, viz:
l. Did you ever hear MIR. Adams express a.
ny ientiments favorable to monarchy or arifto-
crazy, and what were they
9. Did you ever hear Mr.. Adams, Whit
Vice-Prefdent, exprefs his difapprobation of the
funding fyftem?
8. Do you know whether Mr.. Adams did
not IN the year 1894 vote againft the fequeftra-
ton of Britfh debts, and the fufpenfon of inter-
courfe with Creat-Britain?
Judge Chafe, after examining the queftions,
declared Col. Taylor's evidence inadmifiible
No evidence can be received, fad the Judge,
which does not go to jutify the whole charge |;
the charge is, that the Preident is profefied
arftocrat, and has proved faithful and fervice-
able to the Britiih intereft. Now, you NUT
prove both thefe points, or you prove nothing,
and as your evidence relates to one only, it can
not be received-you mutt prove all, or none.
1hete, believe, were the precife words of the
Judge. think it right here to fate that after
Mr.. Chafe had declared Col. Taylor's evidence
iDadmifiible, he faid to the diftria attorney,
that although the queftions were improper, he
wifed the attorney would content to let them
be afked of the witnefs. The attorney faid, he
could not content. The evidence of Col. Tay.
Tor being excluded, the attorney for the United
States addrefied the jury, and commented at
comfortable length the indictment. After
that, Mr.. Writ addrefed the Jury for the de-
fendant.-He premifed that the council for the
traverfer were placed in a very embarrahed itu-
alton; that the priioner during the fame term
was prefented, indicted, arrefed, arraigned,
tried; and that this precipitation precluded the
pofiibility of obtaining witne1es or making the
neceiiary preparations for arguing caufe of 70
much magnitude. Here Judge Chafe interrupt
ed Mr.. Writ, and told him, that he would not
fuffer any thing to be faid which reflected on
the court. Mr.. Writ faid he did not mean to
refett on the court, his Object was only to apo
logfe 20 the jury for the lamenefs of the defence
Mr. Chafe replied that this apology contained
the very reflection he dilclaimed, and defired
him to go on with the caufe. Mr.. Writ then
faid, that an act of Anembly had adopted the
common law of England, as a part of the laws
of Virginia, that an act of Congrefs had direct
ed the United States courts fitting in Virginia
to conform to the laws of the fate in which
fich court might happen to fit, that by the
common law the jury had right to decide on
the law as well as the fact he then faid that if
the jury upon enquiry ihould find the fedition
law UNCONVENTIONAL, they would not confider
it as law, and if they did, they would violate
their oaths. Here Mr.. Chafe faid to Mr.. Writ,
6t down fir. Mr.. Writ endeavoured TO explain,
and faid | am going on, fir, to--No fir, faid
Mr.. Chate, you are not going on, / am going
on. Judge Chafe then read from a paper,
which he held in his hand, an inftru6tion TO the
c,unfel that they ihould not addrefs the Jury
Oh the conittutonality of the act of Congrefs,
but that arguments might be addreGed to
the court to prove the right Of the jury to con-
fder the conltitutionality. Mr.. Writ then adj
drelied the court. He faid he had not confider-