The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-07-05

[EoLurE 9.


formed council can Thew multitude of cafes
ct this kind. In the progrefs OF my argu,ncrt
1 ihall thew why this offer was not accepted.
1t docs then appear to me, that, coniiderng
the third article connected with the facts f,b
| ltantiated, the judge was perfectly correct in
point law in the decifon he made. llmue
agree in the opinion that if the teitin,ony of Col.
I. had proved Mr.. A. an ariilocrat, it could not
have fulfilled the bellous matter with which
the trayerfer was charged. If this is the fact,
and no other evidence was offered that could be
legally received, the rejection mnft have been
perfectly correct. Supporting, however, that
we are wrong on this point, there is tilI album
dant evidence to thew that Judge Chafe was
not influenced by any intention to opprefs the
accuted, or to procure his conviction, becarfe
that unavo,dably flowed from the nature of the
charges and the fate of the defence, whether
the teftimony of Col. Taylor were admitted or
not.
In the courfe ofmy whole obferva ion through
life, never heard it doubted till yetcrday, that
IN cafe of doubtful afpeta, man is to be conf
dered innocent until he is proved to be guilty i.
But we are now told that whenever an infratai-
on OF law is committed by Judge. he is TO he
preiumed guilty, unlrfs he efablifhes his inno-
cence. But this is not the cafe, the benipnity
or our law is very different. fit were 70. who.
that Poheties the ordinary frailties of humanity,
would undertake in the judicial fation TO inter
pole between man and man. The law clearly
is that Judge fhall be preiumed innocent until
he is proved guilty, even when he decides A.
sainft law and that his errors fhall he afcribed
10 the head, and not TO the heart. This notice
Is que 10 the obfervation of an honourab Bile ma
mayer, which truck me with great rnrnriG..
that Mr.. Bafet's requeft to be excufed f,o,n
iierving as juror arofe from his fentinents be.
ing known by the judge. This, however,
does not appear from the evidence. II appears,
on the contrary, that he was ftranper to
Judge Chafe, and that he did not win To he ex-
cufed. But in this profecution we are not ON
Yto near much new and extraordinary doc.
sr'ne but we are Id ewiie TO hear fta.ements Of
facts for which there is no foundation.
will now proceed to the 18th article. which
contains five diftinet fpecifcations of faffs nc
follows: "e'' %
That the conduit ofthe faid Samuel Chafe.
was marked, during the whole COURT, of ~
lad trial, by manifeft injuffice, partially and
intemperaDce, viz ''>'
81. In compelling the prifoner's connfl "a
reduce to writing, and fiIbmit TO the infection
OF the court Tor their admifiion or rejection.
PROFOUND to the above named John TAYLOR. thx
witnefs: '''N
2 In retuhng to pottpone the trial, althouoh
an affidavit was regularly filed, Rating the ab-
fence ofmaterial witncGss on behalf of The az
cilied and although it was manifef that
with the utmof diligence, the attendance of
1uch wItnefles could not have been procured at ,
that term ~
8. In the ufe of unufiial, rude and con.
temPtuous exprefiions towards the prifoner's
council; and in fafely iniinuating that thew
wlihed to excite the public fears and ind;suati-
on, and to produce that differentiation to iayv.
10 which the conduct of the Judge, did, at the
fame time manifefy tend
4. In repeated and vexatious inf termination.
of the faid council, on the part of the f,;d
judge, which, at length, induced them TO ab,n-
don their caufe and their client, who was there.
upon convicted and condemned to fine and i'm
prifonment:
5. In an indecent fol:ctude, manifefted nv
the Tad Samuel Chaie, for'the conviction ofthe
accuied, unbecoming even public profecutor.
but highly dlfgraceful TO the character of iudoe
as it was fubveriive of iuace."
The word iniuftice in the preliminary n.rt
ut the article muft refer TO Calender the nar-
TALLY charged mutt have been TO thc TT,;,nd
States prefume, and againft Calender the
term fntemberance is offuch doubtful impor..
that fcarcely know what TO underHapd hy
Vt. 1t cannot be ufed as oppoed to fobrictv. 40
no one will charge the Judge with violation
OF TINS virtue. 1t may refer to his conduct To
conniei, and perhaps to Calender. This con-
duct IS laid TO have evinced, in the fri place.
" In compelling the prifOner's counC.l n We
duce to writing, and fubmt to the infi,ee,ior -
the court for their admfion, or re;eft;on al
quefions which the fad council meant IN ,,ro'
pound to the above named John TAYLOR, the
witnefs." N''0i' ''S
(7o he continued.