The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-06-07
Maye1.
lsicahll.ga pit Eo;iii6si,
oNrHE
IMPEACHMENT DE JUDGE CHASE.
THURSDAY FEBRUARY 81.
[coNFrNurD.l

Mr.. CLARk-hir. PRECEDENT, I riie only to
, make few remarks % two OF the articles, the
u IN ana hxth' that fr connfel for the refpor-
! oe'' may be pofieHri ri all TIE points we mean
| 10 MAKE. will enFeavour il few words TO
tate the practice whih we think ought to have
bSen purified in the cafe of Calender. The
praS.'ce in the federal courts is regulated by
that IN each ftate. IF Ibis pof,ion he corre6(.
we contend, that tht proper procefs in the caG.
9! Ca''cnder was !i!muons. An al of Viz
ginia. paned in the year 1902, provides that tbe.
grand Jury HAL prcfent all treaons, murders,
felonIes, or ot5T m:y,i9neauo,5 qvkat/oeve,.,
which fhall have been committed or done within
the diftrict for which they are impanrelled."
BY another at of Virginia, p1ntd in the fame
| year, it is enacted tha. supon prefrntmeut
made by the grand jury Of an offence not CAPT
tai, the conrt ihall rider the clerk 10 ffi,e fun
mons or other proper procefs againft the per-
| I'm or perfons 70 prefented, 70 appear ard an
tWer iuch prefentment al tie next court, and
| tHereupon hear and determine the fame accord.
ing 70 law"
In this laff proviion, the words cor 5tbe,
broter proceG" haze 1ireGf application TO the
previous proVifon; which enaGls that the grand
iiry .''all prefent all treafnns murders, feIonies.
cor other mifJemeanor1." For treafons, muir
ders and felonies, we admit that capias is the
1roper procefs, and when the law directs ofbe,.
5rober ProeSjJ, il had reference to cIlfs of
crimes where capias was required. 1t is in
vain aliedged, that the counfe for Calender
made no objection o the proceis inued. They
were not at that time to be conlidered as his
council; it WIS only after he was brought into
court that their duty commenced.
Further, whether the proper procef, was a
capias or luminous, the law of Virginia requires
that it ihall be returnable to the next court and
| contend that this point is eltablilbed by the
Englifh practice. To new which, I refer to
Hawkins Pleas Of the crown, where it is ftated.
hat a 7'e1ire JaeiaJ, which is in the nature of
luminous, is the proper procefs, and that il is
returnable TO the next court.
Il was furely then the duty of the iudpe 70
be acquainted with the laws of England. howe.
yer unacqnsinted he may have been witt! the
laws Of Virginia. He cannot, therefore, on this
ground, attempt ratification from Ignorance
In his ari@er he informs us that ignorance Of
the law is no execute. II il Is 10 execute in an
unlettered individual, Glall it conititute the A.
pology Of him who was expressly appointed TO
expound the law, aHI adminiiler iuRiee And
II on this ocCaiiOn he was not ACQUAINTED with
toe law, did it therefore become him to pro-
coed with iuci fatal precipitancy? No fooner
was the prelsniment made, than the MARTIAL,
before any indictment was brought in, was diC
patched after Calender. We can ONLY account
los this, by iuppUiig tiiat it was the intention
OF the Judge to act in conformity to bis previ-
ods dee laration, however iocuarly it may have
ieeined to have been made and that this was
one of the means he had determined to purfne,
in order to convict Calender, regardless Of the
dignity of his Ration, or the innocence of the
man. Having offered the(e few remarks, am
lnitructed 20 fay that the cafe is fully opened on
the part OF The prUitcu;iOn.