The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-08-06

Mr.. MARTIN, in continuation.
+ When Judge Chafe arrived at Philadelphia he
had the advantage of peruiipg the notes of Judge
Peters and the diftria attorney, relating to the
former trial; he thereby became well acqua;nt-
ed with all the points 1T that time made by the
council for Fries; and Mr.. Lewis has f,vorn,
that all the points which were intended to have
been made before judge Chafe, had been made
at the former trial. Why then lhouId the court
either with, or be obliged to hear council again
on the law? In two previous cafes the law had
been fcttled Judge Paterfon, gentleman of
the irit abilities, mild and amiable, whom no
per!on will charge with being of vindiGtive
oppreilive dipoition, and who certainly has
more fauvty of manners than my honorable
client had, after mott patient and full hearing,
where eminent council attended, decided the
law as was decided by the Respondent. Judge
lredcil, whole encomium has been mott iuftly
given us by the managers, gentleman of great
legal talents, than whom no worthier man has
lett this for better world; and who, while Ii
wing, honoured me with his friend},ip, after hav-
ing heard Meiirs. Lewis and Dallas, and after
full and patient inveitigation, gave, in the cafe
OF Fries himfelf, fmilar deciiion; in both
which opinions Judge Peters perfectly coincd-
ed. Under theie crcumftances, Judge Chafe,
who had no doubt of the proprety of thofe de-
cilions, to prevent waite of time when there was
10 much bulinefs to tranfa6t, and to facilitate
the bufinefs, thought it beit to inform the coun-
iel on each iide, that the court confdered the
law to be fettcd, and in what manner. For
which purpofe they delivered to the clerk three
copies of their opinion, one for the council on
each Tide, the third to be given TO the Jury,
when they left the bar. On this fubic1, MIR.
Lewis, in his tcitimony, faid it was to be given
tn fho inrx rbfzr fts< FL {, Al
had opened, or after he had cloled the plead
ings, but he believed the. La9. MIR. Rawle is
clear that it was to be given TO them, when the
cafe was hniihed, to take out with them.
No gentleman on behalf of the impeachment
has denied the correctness of this opinion But
the criminality of the judge, ., we are told, not
in the opinion itfelf, but IN the manner, and the
time in which it was given.
Was there any thing improper that the opini-
on ihouid be reduced to sorting? Why are
opinions given Surely TO regulate the conduct
OF thoie to whom given; for this purpofe they
ought to DC perfectly undernood, and i'm no de-
gree fubject to mifconception delivering the o.
plnIon, in zvrifing, greatly facilitates thefe OBJ
ects; It thereforei 1t was prober to give an opini-
on, 1t was msritorioWS to reduce it to writing
and judge Chafe, in 70 doing, mott GER ainy act
ed with the ftricteft propriety. And, unlefs A
court of juftice is bound to fit and hear council
on points of law, where they themtelves have no
doubts, before they give their opinion, nv no.
norable client could not be incorrect in deliver
ing 1t at the time when it was delivered IF the
OPINION was proper, how, pray, could any mir
~ be done to Fries by its being delivered The
honourab!e managers fay, it was intended to in
huence the jury. In the frft place, this ajIerti-
on is not fupported by the evidence. When the
paper was thrown on the clerks table, not one
word was laid OF its contents; nor did the court
declare any opinion Fres's cafe They on
ly determined the indictment correct in point of
form, and not liable TO be quaihed. They deter.
mined that the overt acts ftated were overt atts
OF treaion, if Fries had committed them, but
whether Fries had committed thofe acts remain.
ed for the jury to determine upon the evidence
as TO that part OF the cafe the court gave no O.
PiHion. BUT the honorable managers have told
us that Judge Chaie NUT have known what
were the facts in the cafe, becaufe thew had
been diiclofed in the former trial. And pray
you, iir, IT lie had that knowledge, could il al.
Ter tire Ia40 M fbe eaie, or render the declaration
OF what the law was, more Gnbrober? But, as
4 new trial Was granted, the Judge could nc,
know what additional evidence might be bro't
forward to vary the cafe from its former apoear
dnce.
Nor did, fr, the judges conduit, either i'm.
properly niiuence, nor vas it intended 70 to in.
huS"Ce, tHe Jury no copy OF the Opiniou
would have been taken but for .he conduit of
Mr.. Lewis, and no telmcuy has been offered
10 ih"w the ieaft probability, that one Gnrle
jurymsn ever faw the copy, or knew one word
ot us contents. Nay, hr, it is proved. that
judge Chaie took uncommon pains 10 prevent A.
ny OF The jurors from being preiudiced avaiua
Fries for, although 4 great number of crir,i-
nails indicted for fsditoa, fibn,tted TO the corr,
before Fries was put upon bis trial, the iudye
you'd not permit oge fggie zvityeG, who v,1e
tumnone.i aglnt Fries, 70 be examined ON ,be
iubmiiiions, leaf the jury, by an examination.
which would have been, as TO Prizes, ex6u,te,
might take mp prejudices againft him. This,
Nr. PRECEDENT, was An act Of the Judge that car.
RES with Il the MOT convincing proof, that he
had no SOib 10 2bbreJJ Fyirs, or 10 brryeet him
from bdVing an imbarii0i friai: aHd Jbr9y fbof
his eirea'n7aace may be dssbiy H,abreH5d nm tbe
mind Of eUery nIeWber of tbiJ boaourGbte eoyrt
But If The opinion had been publicIv rrsJ q,
known, how could it have iajqred Prizes n
vas to have ~ impariiai trial. What &c III
meaning Of thefe exprtliion 1t a trisl A..
cording 10 law and fact, IN which, If he IL rroy.
ed innocent, he ihSII De acquitted If gn;lI,
convicted. " theu The opinion was agrcrab,s
10 Jaw 1t could not prevent, It could not inter.