The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-08-23
}etc>c,:!gs ns Cn.,nssI,
ON THE
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
FEBRUARY %.
Mr.. MARTIN, in continuation.
ON TIL f

as to the fscond queton, to wit, &c Whe-
tter Mr.. Adams while Vice PRECEDENT, had ex-
pre;1td his diC:pprobation of the funding fyf-
tern 20 The quefion could rot he in any de-
gree relevant TO the one or the other claufe in
the fentence.-IVhethcr Mr.. Adams expreiled
his INTERPRETATION while he was Vice Prefident,
of the funding fyfem, or not, could in no ref
pea go to- prove dfprove his being profef-
fed aritocrat, or his having iacri6ced the inter-
Ell of the u. States to the idteref of Great Bril-
tain. The Court, therefore, coniiderus this
es,eiiou totally irrelevant to the point in if
iue," did "a was their duty to do; they refufed
TO fuifrr Il to he put 70 the wtnefs.
So much for the two hrf queltions. We
now come to the third, refpettins the votes of
iar. ADKINS, when Vice-PreGdent, againit the
hill for the ftquefration Of Britifh debts, and
tine bill for fuipending intercourse with Great
Britain. For the conduct Of my honorable cli-
ent IN refining ~ permit this queiton TO be put
TO Col. Taylor, two reafons may be aligned I;
the FRI, that IS the fact as ftated, it could
not be proved BY Col. Taylor. The fecoDd,
that if the fat was eitabliihed, it would be to-
tally inmaterisl 10 the iiftic.-Co. Tayior's e.
videRce was not the beft which the nature of the
cafe admitted. I will not fay that the traverter,
in order to prove this vote, under the necef-
fry of procuring copy from the journal of the
Senate properly authenticated by their Clerk,
but he certainly ought at leaf to have produced
a printed copy of the votes and proceedings of
the Senate rs pub!iiiled by them. One thing at
leaf is certain that the traverier conii not con-
iiGcntlv wi,hrules os law, give parole evidence
to e!tab'ifh the vote Of MIR. Adams, and, there
fore, that Col. Taylor could not be legally cx-
arnpsa on that f,ibiect. But I will go further
in.defence of my client, and will fay, that if
they had had the beh poiiiole evidence of the
f,5t e ,hey had had an attefted copy from the
records of The Senate, the judge would have
departed from hiS Duty If he had permitted the
evidence which was wilhed to have been OBJ
il:n.d from Col. Taylor, to have been given to
tie Iiry. Oueht any evidence to be given to
Il jury which is not proper and pertinent to
prove the fact j. iiiue or to prove iome fact
from which the fact in iflue ought legally to be
observation-disclosures not relevant 10 the point be-
fore the court and jury WAS not, as to this
part of the charge, the fact in iflue, whether
MIR. Adams had fwerved from his duty by in
tcnticnally proitratng the interea and welfare
ofhis country TO the intereit and welfare OF
Great Britain e-Shoud not charge Of 70 at
rscioUs nature be proved by fome direct act
of this criminal facrifce of the interefts of the
UnteG States to the interclt of Great-Brtan,
or by the proof of fome other act from which
fich criminal ftcriice mutt and ought on prn-
ciples of law TO be clearly and necenariiy infer
red /. Aud what was the proof propofed to be
offered for this purpoie That upon the queiti-
OIL whether Brit.hdebts iiionld be fequeltered,
and whether oar intercourfe with Great Britain
L.onid bs iufpended, after full difcuiiion one
baf of the me1ibcrs of the ienatc voted in favor
Of thofe neafurls, aud one half of the Senate
againft theul -And that III this iituaton Mr. A.
dams thinking them of too hazardous nature
and fuch as might involve cur country in war,
did not choofe 10 take upon himfelf 70 great Il
reiponfbility rs TO give his eating voice in the
affirmative.
have, MIR. Prefdent, neither time nor in
clindtion to enter into a diicuifion of either
the propriety or policy of thofe meafiIres, bur
] have no heGtd;ion 10 expref5 my belief, that
enc hoBorobic members who voted for or aganit
si,ofe meafures, were equally a6tuated By the
fame purity Of motive: That thufe who voted
OIL the one ide or the other acted from
the lincersa deirs TO promote what they ref
peetveIy coniderrd the bef intereits of their
country.
Shall then, the rejection Of the evidence, that
Mr.. A. on meafures i'll tsri, on which the ienate
was equally divided, gave his eating vote with
the fenatoTs whole political fcntiments ac-
corded with the then majority; and which evil
denoe if admitted, would have proved nothing,
b. conlidered as ground of impeachment [
fay evidence, which, if admitted, would have
proved nothing: for that act of MIR. Adams GER
sainly would not nave proved that ne had cor
suptly aud wickcdly facrificed the interef and
/,
nor would il have proved any thing, from which
fnch facrifce ought legally and nccehariIy to be
Inferred. Where is the who would daFe to
fly, that tie members of the Senate who voted
Tor or againi the bill for the fequefration Of Br-
2in debts, and the iufpeniioD of our ntert ourfj.
with Great Britain, acted from corrupt motives?
i there member of this honorable court, who
believes that tie Senators, who voted againlt
Shofs ntafurea we're actuated Nv dcfre TO pro-
mote the ,ntere6 Of Great Britain at the expence
o. their own country! Or that thoie who voted
IN favor OF tbole lreaiures were actuated by a
deiire 10 promote the intercit Of France at the
Lame eXpence The heart of every member of
tis honorable court, am confident, revOits at
&. idea OGshtthen any judge 10 haze iuifer-
cal thIJ act OF Mr. Adams to have been offered O
Jlry, is evidence direGtiy to eltablilh that he
had wickedly and corrUptiy preferred Tie inter
rlt and welfare Of Great Britain to- that Of the
United State, o. - evidence from which the
jury ought, upon legal principles, neceifdrily
t. infer that ne had thus acted.
The Judge who would have permitted fuch
evidence to have been given for fuch purpofe,
In my opinion, ought much rather to be i'm
peached for mss conduct, than the judge vino