The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-05-17
}stean.ngs ut Counsel,
ON THE
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
WEDNESDAY,, FEBRUARY 90.
(ContinneG.)

Continued.
The teftimony having clofed on both fides,
Mr.. EARLY rofe, and adldref1ed the Senate
as follows:
Mr.. PRECEDENT, There is no attitude, in which
the government of this nation can be viewed,
more completely demonttrative of the efficacy
OF ITS principles than that in which it is now pla-
ced. We are now occupied in an act well cal
cuated to teft the praeticability of thofc prnci-
pies, and TO prove their ftnefs or unftneis for
the condition ofthat country over which they
are defined to rule. There is preiented be-
fore this great depoftory of national jultice,
highly important officer OF the government,
charged with acls vioativc of fomc ofitsleadnc
and mott e.!ential principles. An officer who
has been cloathed with the function of admins
iterlne to great and riing people the bleiiines
of freedom in their mof vital relations, is the
object asaintt whom charges of this ferrous ma
ture are exhibited. He ftands charged with vi
oiating the tacred charter of our liberties, and
with letting at nought the mott holy obligati-
ons or iociety. He fauds charged with perver-
ting the high Judicial functions of his Office for
the purpoies of individual oppreiiion, and of
flaming the pure ermine of iuftice by political
party fpirit. Theie charges are founded upon
tranfactions which have paffed in review before
an enquirng world, and which in the eRimati-
on OF the representatives of the American 90
vernment have caft afoul reproach Oh their ma
tional character. To this tribunal have thew
appealed for vndication of that character.
iiitier do they appeal for the prefervation of
the deareit principles Of their liberty, and for
the iupport of their mott facred rights. If is
here they mutt enter the complaints of the natl
on. 1t is here they mutt drag the guilty to pu-
nifhment.
The irit article, preferred by the Houfe of
Representatives in fnpport of their impeach-
ment, charges conduct upon the Respondent,
which ftrikes 1t one Of the mott vital PRINCIPLES
OF the government of this nation the right of
" trial by an imbartialiur 1T ought never TO
be forgotten that the deprivation Of this right
was one ofthe injuries for which the peoDle of
this country put to the riHs of revolution all
that was dear. Nor ought il TO be FORGOTTEN
that the fecurity of this right forms one of the
greatelt safeguards of the federal contribution.
=" In all criminal trials the accufed ihall enioy
the right TO fpeedy and public trial bv an
impartial jury of the fate and difria."
Iherelative rights Of judges and iuries have
at iome periods of judiciary hiitory been 70 III
tie underfood, and the limits of each 70 indiC
tinctiy marked, that the benefits ofthe inRitnti-
on Jury trial were left much at the mercy of
Hr6i'rHy and oz'er6ea,lng JUICES. But it was
reierved for the honor of modern times to diff
pate tins uncertalntyto baneful 70 iuftice, and
10 nix down the eftablilhment upon its only
proper foundation: that of the right to deter
mine without coDtroul, both the law and ths
tact III ell criminal eac5 zubaftoeq,er. This right
has now been 70 long praaifed ;pon in the Uni
TED States, and may be conidered as 70 well e.
taolihed, that IT is fcarcely to be expected we
mall wltnefs upon that point any difference of
opinion. Still lefs isit to be expected that we
ihall witDefs fuch difference, when we are diC.
cutting principles which apply 10 CAFES capitaI
In iuch cafes it is the glory of the laws of This
country,. that the offence OF the accuf.d 0bould
he left excufveIy to the Judgment of thoc. leaf
liable to be fwayed by the weight of accuGne
influence. 1t is no part of my intention to de-
ny the right ofjudges to cxpound the law in
charging Jures. But it may be fafely affirmed
| that fuch right is the mon delicate they ponefs.
and the exercfc Of which mould be guarded Nv
the utmoh caution and humanity.
The accufed ijall enjoy the right TO " trial
by an inParfi@ijury." We charge the refeon.
dent with deliberately violating this important
proviion OF the contribution, in wreGing fron,
John Fries The privileges of having his cafe
heard anddetcrfnincdbyan impartial iury For
thai the respondent took upon himfelf fubGan-
uaily to decide The cafe by preiudging the law
applying thereto, at the fame time accomnanv-
ing the opinion ;hus formed and thus delivered.
by certain obiervaions and declarations calcu.
lated neceilnily to create aprepoaelionarain
| the caic OF Fries. in the minds of thofe who had
oeen 'nmnoned to ierge upon The jury, thereby
| making them the reycrfe of impartial.
ihoie were the acts of man who. from, his
own declarations, appears to have well nm
deritood upon what paints the defryee eeoDld
fDrn. 1T was the att 0f a man, who il appears
had been well informed Of al that paiIcd at the
previous trial of Fries who knew tina; there
was NO diipute as 10 facts, and that the whole
OF TIE defence depended upon the difcuGIiop
dho ae'erninai'on OF thoie very principles Of
law which he bad thus preiudged. and nno,,
The application OF tbose authorities which h,
had thus excluded in Che hearing and very pre-
'epce OF thoie wbo we've 90 pats upon the lie
and death OF the sccuied. No Argument had
been heard iron council; no opportunity had