Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1805-02-27

4 =
one Of the associate y1sfices oTthe sutreni
court Of the Un;tea Stafes, to the article:
Of Impeachment exhibited agains, him !,
the said con,1, 81 ne honoruSie she hous.
Of REPRESENTATIVES ofthe United States, il
suttorr If fhsir iofasacimeat against hin.
FOR nigh criv,-s and misdrr,ean9rs, sun
POSED 10 hare tren ey hin committed.
lGisen In the Eth instsnt.1
This RESPONDENT, in his proper ncrson.
comes into the said Court. and protesting
that there is no high crime or misde ,nea
nor particularly allcdged in the said ar,i.
cles OF impeachment. 10 which ne 10. or
can be bound by law to make answer: and
SAVING to himself now and at ali times
hereafter, all benefit Of exception 30 the
insttiiclehcy OF the said articles, and each
OF them, and to the defeas, therein an
pearing in point of law, or otherwise and
protesting also, that he ought not 10 he in.
iureo IN any raanner, by any words. OF
ny any want of form in this his .snswer
ne submits the following fasls ana obscr,
va,'ons by way Of answer to the said AZ
ticles.
The FIRST article relates to his suppose,
misconduct III the trial or John Fries. u,
treason, before the circuit court or The u
nlted States, at Philadelphia, in April an
May, 1900; and a'ledges that he p,es;d
ed at that trial, and ihet unmindfu, I
The solemn duties OF his Office, and cor
trary to the scored obligation by which h
stood bound 20 discharge them. fa;sbr,,II
and ''hpartiaiiY, and without respect /
PERSONS" he did then, ain his judicial ca
pact'y, conduct himself in a nanaer hirt
~ arbitrary, oppressive, and un;as,.''
T. ihis general accusation, too vague !,
Itself Tor reply. is supported by three sDe
Chic Charges of misconduct.
isI. tnfe'iveripg an opinion ia writing
on The question Of law, on the Construct
on o. which, the defence of the accused
materially depended: which opinion. Il !,
al!edged. tended $40 prejudice the mind.
oil the jury against the case of the said
John Frees, the prisoner, before co,nssl
had been heard in his favor"
I'd. I'm restricting the counse. Tor the
SAID John Fries, from recurring to such
English authorities. as they believed ap-
posite; orirom citing certain statutes OF the
United States, which they deemed illus.
traiiye OF the positions. upon which thew
intended to rest the defence of their CT
emit"
so. IN debarring the prisoner from his
constitutional privilege of addressing the
Jury (through his counsei) on the law, as
well as on the fact, which was to deter.
mine his guilt, or innocence, 8; at the same
tims endeavoring to wrest from the iurv
thelr indisputable right to hear argument,
and determine upon the question OF law
as well as the question of fact invaded
IN the verdict which they were REQUIRED &c
give" y
| ms first article then concludes, that II
consequence of this irregular conduSa q
this respondent, "the said John Fries wa
deprived OF the right secured to him b,
the eighm article, amendatory of the con
sututIon and was condemned TO death
without havisg been heard by counsel !,
by the eighth article ameSdatorv 70 N,
IconstItntioB, this respondent suppose. |;
meant the si,cfh amendment tn the eons,;
luton OF the y. States which srcures ;,
.ne accused, in all criminal prosecutions
'oe right 10 have the assistance Of coun
sci for bis defence.
IN answer TO these three charges, III,
respondent admits that the circuit cour
OF the U. States, for the disiric Of penn
syivania, was held at Philsd,lphia, in tina
district, 10 the months Of A,ril ard MAY
~ 'ns Year ofour Lord, one thousand eight
hundred ; at which court Id,n Fries. she
person named in the said iut article, wa.
oroughtto trial, on an Indictment FOR ira
son against the y. States; and that this
respondent then held corr uission, as one
OF the associate Justices OF the supreme
SQUIRT oil the y. States; by virtue Of which