The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-05-21
laIea6.ngs of Counsel,
ON THE
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
WEDNESDAY,, FEBRUARY 90.


The fecond, third and fourth articles, exhibit
ted by the Houfe of Representatives., charge
the defendant with courfe OF conduct upon a
particular trial which affords many grounds of
accuiatIon. In this cafe il is true no unfortu
nate individual was charged with an offence
which demanded his life as an expiration yet,
iir, there were other rights involved equally ia
cred IN the laws OF free country. The liber-
ty and the property of the accuted were the
price of a conviction.
In eating our eyes over the ground upon
which the different fcenes of the traniatlion now
about to be examined are fpread, we are truck
with feature not ufual in the hiftory of human
concerns. 1t would feem that even the reftrairt
OF appearances was no longer felt. We find
the respondent fetting out With i conduct,
which ieemed to prove that thefate of the ac.
cufcd was fixed. We find him purininga fyf.
tenn of conduct throughout, which wreNcd
from the accuied fome OF his ben eilabliihed &
mott valuable privileges. We Eud him endea-
voring to heap flame and odium on thofe who
occupied the itation of advocates, became they
would not tamely yield to his unwarrantablc in
vafon of long eftablihed rights.
Mr. Prefdent, Observation-Disclosures laboured
attempts made by the defendant in his anfwer
10 exculpate himieIffrom imputation in COM
Pciing MIR. Baiet to ferve upon the Jury in the
trial OF Callender-yet, Sir, mutt be permit
ted to lay that thoie attempts appear to me to
be only the exer:ions of mind confcious ofim-
propriety, and feeking to impofe upon the un-
deritan,ling of Others. The teit adopted, by
which to try the imp artialiiy of the Jurors, in
that cafe may politely by fome be held a correct
one; but the manner of ab5iying that ten as
then practiied upon, is what believe can he
accounted for upon no other fuppohtion than
that CT determination on the part of the JUDGE
to procure the conviction of the sccufsd o
Upon what other principle can it be accounted
for, that the jurors fhouId be aG.ed 6. whether
they had formed and delivered an opinion upon
the charges laid in the Indictment, when thew
knew not and were not fuffcrcd TO know what
| thofe charges were? Why elfe could it be laid
down by the judge, that becaufe the individu-
| ais called to terye upon the jury, did not know
"hat charges were In the indictment (havng
never Teen 1t nor heard it ready that therefore
| they could not have formed and delivered an
opinion upon the fubjeGt And whv elfe did
the judge, when this monfrous logic was CON.
tradi6ted by the JaF of one of the ;urors
delivering in open court an opinion rnon the
whole iubJect of thofe charges, without having
ieen, or heard the indictment read why elfs
did The Judge, in the teeth of this dannnino faa
| order the juror fworn.
Every juror fworn, might, like Mr.. BaGet
have formed and delivered an opinion which
concluded the conviction of the accuCed. and
yet bscauie they did not know that the f,b-
lect matter of fuch opinion contituted the char
gcs IN the indictment, having neither fecn II nor
heard It read, the expreflion of fuch opinion.
creaiedno disqualification. Unworthy eyaGonI
An evalion which prevents the doctrine of diC
qualification in juror from receiving any
practical operation. An evaiion which efTeetu-
ally puts at nonght that principle of the conf
luton 10 often adVcrtedto in former part of
inc argument, that 6 he accufed flaIl enioy
the right of trial bytn impartial iury., I'm
on this point beg leave TO read two antbor;ties
Mr.. Early here cited BAG. Abr. 1855 and c.
l.. ISL.
But we are told by the Respondent in his an
liver, that the declaration made by Mr..
Ballet, did not dfquaify him, becaufe i con.
tanned no direct opinion as to the guilt of the
trartEjer. This underfand to be the amount
or all the laboured reafoning and nice diRiu0i-
ons drawn 10y the Respondent upon this po;nt
There is, fir, plain common fenfe rule 70 CO..
vern us upon this fHbiect, which in nv oninion
is as fafe in its application as it is reafon5bI- in
its principle. A juror muft be indifferent. How
NUT he be Indifferent? What kind of indiGer.
ence is this which is made neceIIarv The
manner in which judge Chafe has Rated and ex-
planned this rule IS certainly calculated TO con-
iufe and miflead.-" The juror, fays, he mnft
be indifferent between the government and the
accufed as to the lubjeGi matter"
Mu0 the juror in reality be indifferent he
tween the parties as to the fubied matter of
profecution only Will not a prejudice againt
the accufed, flowing from other cauFes. create =
disqualification | address myfclf TO thoCe
who wei know that Partially, arifng from =
variety frelationS in fociety, as well as pre;,.
dice ariing from variety of caures. dearovs
that character of indifference neceGary TO rem.
der Juror competent, and that this partialtv
or prejudice need not relate to the fubie9 mat.
ter OF profecution.
So aiio apprehend that this character of in.
diHerspeeis as efeeually defroyed bv = nre;r.
dice as TO the fubieet matter, without any Gre
JUDGE as TO the perfon. mean the prejudice
OF republication of the crrinality Of the f1b.
ject matter. We meet with the rule eyerv day..
that It IS good caufc Of challenge ~ n Juror
that ne hath expreied an opinion upon The
fublea matter of profecHtion. Wherefore then
the manner Of Eating the rule, which we find.
adopted in the anfwer! Moi evidently 70 Cn;t
the Respondents cafe. What, 81. Nun In.
ror, to- be 70 prcjudiced as to be difouaIiGed
have eXprehed an opinion not onlY that the rrb-
jest matter OF profecution was criminal in lac,.
but that the perfon prc!ecuted was the snthor
OF the crime Yes, Sir, according 80 the dec.