The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-08-20

4
cal principles of mir. 3siIet TO have been federal,
IT would not have fulfilled him in executing him
: ON nelrc worn nor would he have been jur
! ti'icd IN icttIng aide Juror hecaule he waa a
! republican,, unieiS there had been in each caia
ivne other legal otyGiion. There is no dif-
nntuon between the two cafes the political
principles Of a man is not h. t,ft OF his ftDefs
TO ferve as juror. If Mr. Baifet had been ex-
ernpted nom being on the jury in confequence Of
the icruplcs he fues sfed, the court muit haveex-
elnptsd all who fhouid make finiiar executes, or
they would have given juft caufe Of complaint
AZ was the duty of the court to direct tine Jurors
to he i%orh as they were called, agalntt whom
! there was no legal objection. l fatter rnyftif
have sufficiently fhewn that againtt i3atlrt there
was no ipCh objection that The Judge v,as not
loniy tree from ippropriety in directing Him TO
! be iwoin, but that his conduct would haze been
ceniurdeie had he acted otheryvif- and here.
tir, conclude ms ahisf.s;o,ts a on the fe,Sspsi
article ofinpracbment
! ] TOW come, Mr. Proficient. TO the third
article wherein my honorable client is crifni-
nally charged for the rejection o. ne evidence
propnisd to DC derived from Colonel ,ohn
! Tayior.
In this psr. of the cafe the s.ets are admitted.
Inc next queftion of law, therefore, which
pfe'snts :s'eit f0; ditcuior', is whether or MOI
Col. Taylor'S evidence ought To have been re-
ceivet., or was properly rejected Here again
. muft ooierVe that the honorable managers to
rapport taer charge, refort to principles which
are 10 INC, 70 the Taft degree, ftranee and novel
! we are told hat the court has no rieht TO order
cashions which are Deaatto be put to A wit
nets, to be reduced to writing. Nav, thar tbe
court have no right To know what evidence ;s
meant to be given by the witnels, or its Gomez
ION WIN other teitlnony, or its bearing on IN.
caaie, but to receive it drop by ;lroD. as I'll
counitl think proper TO deal it out IN aDfver
! TO thete extraordinary ideas which we h3ys had
thus introduced, mnf be permitted 20 aiT.rt.
that the court have, in my opinion, an undoubf
| ed rl?9f 10 require Of the couuf.I that ,hev
mould open their cafe, explain the nature ~
the evidence meant TO be given, and on the nro-
duttion OF a witneii, Rate what they exoet n
prove by iuch witnels. In the co,:r.e of m
p'actice 1t has been the uiual method OF pro-
ceeding for council to conduc. themfr,v,.s ia thi
minner--and on this fubject M'Nav, in nj,
rules o. evidence, page II, expressly laws il
down as rHle, st, at council ought not to call
witneis without fri opening to the court the
nature OF the evidence they intend 10 examine
70. IS has been cjlcn /1LeA,ziy 74;uy,,g
though not R'i7Ly adlerei TO in 3rq6ics.'' And
ia PAGE iec"nd he gives lis as f,F rule, th,t no
evidence oHgbt TO be admitted 70 zgy s2ia. bur
that on which the ilne is joined" g... how Is
a court to prevent, and il is only the court Which
Is
net pertinent to The point which the ilJue is
JOINED, un.efa they are iirH Informed what ev;-
ds"ce Is meani 20 be given? y IS then UPON tht.
authority OF MNally eftoiif:sd that the conrt
have the legal right To know what c0unf.l mean
10 prove by wtnetS-and having that rirht
they may eferciic 1t whenever III their dlcretion
Ithey may think it necefary.
10 determine, therefore, whether the y atfed
,coTettly in rejecting The teitnlony OF Col Tav-
- ~ -. t,,a MI
Ito ohan from him; aud for this purpoie, what
were the quettions proPoted TO be put to him.
THEY were
l't-Ie!d You ever bear John Adams eypreC.
iany feltilneEts favorable TO monarchy, or ar {
!tocracy, and what were they!
2d-Did you ever bear Mr. Adams, wli;s
wee. Frei'dent, expreis his df.pprobation Of the
funding fyttem?
9d--Do you know whether Mr.. Adams d;d
not. III Inc yea 1894, vote agliaf the foueC
tratnn OF GritIh debts, and aiE. agajuif th, lin
for fuipending interconrre with Greaf Brifaio
Col. layers tetiino0y WAS offered as bei-
relevant OILY to one ct OF words tatec. in nc
two counts oftte indictment, to wit, he (,res1..
ing the lad Preiident OF inc United Satesl ,,as
a proieIed arifocrat. He (meanng ,be Pref.
Gent OF the United Stated had proved faithful
aud irry'ceabie to the Bri:iih intereG Gnu,n.io,
1EaInt tie interet aud welfare OF the United
States"
Need attc to this honorable court, that
words, which DO MT in theinfsives, or on the
fac- OF thtm, pufpori any thing cric,inal. can.
not be mace 10, Or coDiidsred as iibcl!ous. buf
10y laying an inuerdo giving them criminal
meaning, without which they would be iapo.
cercy ,--and ALTO that the criminal meaning laid
IN The 'auendo mut be Grialy proved.
J Let us now examine .be let Of words 70 which
Coz. Gdy'or's evidence was meant 70 abnjv. th,.,
were without any nucndo, as follows 6. RI
was prof' FED arifoCfat, he had proved f,;tb.
fni and ieiyccable 20 the Briiifh intereG .
This ientcnce contHs oftwu fDarafe diaio4
ciallieS or parts the 6rt that :" he was t,r,.
ieiisd aritocrat"-'fhe iecond, tina. n. had
proved faithful and ferviceable 10 the pr;ti, -.
tereit.' AK this honorable court if either Of
theie ci"uies or parts, OF thcmfclyes, and vith-
out IN inuendo, carry with them any CHARGE ot
cr'mnllitY, or any thing iibelious! To csv fi,t
4 man IS an arIitocrat, democrat, or 4 rroub.
lican. IS not of i!lcf charging the pcrfon Win
any thing criminal, nor is il Ganderoo,s. pnlefs
incsei the charge - accompanied with IN H.
usndo' Rating that Icy the epithet 70 ufed fo,nr-
thing very bad was intended and that Govern
nent would indeed merit contempt in which >
Iperion lhould be puniihed upon flch cbaror
." aho' 10 lay that man had been faithful and