The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-05-31

any thing by which i sp1ears hat &c cannot he
Indifferent or impartial, &c. .heir srs principal
cauf of Challenge; anr, therefore iuch juror
would be disqualified. Here ii is mat:iief, tha;
though declaring an opinion is good caue of
challenge TO irro,, It 1t rs not nee, narv he
.hould declare fuch c.inion in order IL diiaust-
+, him; il is fntf,cicnt that he has done !o,neA
thing, whether making up al opinion, or doing
any act whatever, 10y winch II appears he is not
indifferent, is not perfectly impartial. The OBJ
lection, therefore, made to Banet as Juror,
omght to have been fuG ained, ard lie ought TO
have been executed from ,erving on the jury,up
on two grounds. Firf, becarCe he had made
up an opinion with regard 20 tie matter of the
charge againf Calender. This is proved Ivy the
evidence of Baf,et himtclf who fays, he had feen
in hewfpaper, extracts tiated in the public att
on to have been takcn from the Prcfpect Before
Us; and he itated to the court on the trial, that
he/ al made up his opinion, that thofe extracts
were fictitious, and that the author of the book
called the Profpett Before Us, or that from
which ;heie extracts were taken, was within the
fedition act &therefore punG,ablc uuderit. 1t
was 4. the time notorious aud well known that
Calender was the author of the Profpecf Before
Us; it was equally notorious and known, that
the indictment againti him was founded on that
book and Mr.. Baliet flated, he had no rea!on
to doubt that the extracts were taken from that
hook as fated in the papers. Is it not, there
fore. clear, that forming an opinion with regard
to the extracts, was forming an opinion with re-
gard.to the matter charged rs libellous in the in
diStment. No rCafonahIe doubt can exit on
this point, and though Mr.. Baflct did not hear
the indictment read, the court IefuicC! TO per-
nit il to be read until the fury were f.yorn.
meafnre under fuch circumstances as extracrdi-
nary AS it was new; yet he knew the fnhie6f mat
fer II contained as well as if he had heard IT,
The opinion, therefore, that he had made up
his mind on this fubjeGt, clearly proves he wa.
not indifferent, was not impartial he had de-
cided the guilt of Calender, in fatl, in his own
mind, and could not be expected to flake off
the effect of iuch prejudiCation. lie was, there
fore, according to the contribution, and the law
already cited, disqualified from being Juror,
having done an act that fhewed he was not in
different, was not impartial, and ought of courfe
to have been executed from ierving on the iury
He ought alto to have been rejected as Juror
on fecond ground becaufe he had not only
made up an opinion on the matter in Guelton,
but had declared that opinion in public. Ii is
proved by the evidence of Mr. BaHet himfelf,
as well as by that of Mr. Hay and Mr.. Nicholas,
and alto by that of Mr.. Robinfon, that when he
was afked whether he had formed and delivered
an opinion upon the charge in the Indictment
indictment read, yet he had formed an opinion
that the author of the Profped Before Us, was
within the iedition ACT. This, as has been aIrea-
DIV Unified upon, was the fame as forming AN
opinion upon the charges IT. the indictment, as
he knew the indictment was founded upon that
book and this opinion, which he had formed,
he then declared in open court, in the hearing
of albye-fandors, and before he was fworn as a
juror. This was, therefore, according to the
L., IL lx,t \ Ill
declared proper 70 be aked, a complete diluua-
iMscalion Of Mr.. Bafet from ferving as Juror on
that trial. For he had formed and delivered an
opinion on the matter in queftion. And what
difference could it make, whether fuch opinion
was delivered minute or an hour before the
juror was fworn on the trial, or week or a
month before? Certainly the effect on his mind
muff be the fame, and he mutt be equally unfit
to ferve as juror in either cafe. On both of
tiefe grounds, therefore, Mr.. Banet ought GER |
tanly TO have been rejea ed from ferving as iu-
ror on the trial of Calender and this is 70 eiar |
ing an innovat on on the impartiality of trial by
jury, (tbe een,ty of our rights and great bnlzvark
of our iiberties,) that when taken in connection
with the reft of the judges conduct, it .trons!y
cvinces an overbearing difpofiion, that would
not flop at the ufe OF any means, however un-
juf and Illegal, to obtain defired object He
had told the martial, if he had on his lift of iu- /
rors any creatures called democrats, to ftrike /
them off. He, therefore, knew the political FEM
timentS of thofe who called as jurors, TO be .
favorable to his wifies, as no doubt his direction
was purified. Mr.. Baf1et had declared his
opinion, that the author of the Profped Before
Us was within the fedition law, who was notori-
ouny known TO be Calender. He therefore
knew the fentiments ofthe juror; knew he NUT /
be difpofed TO convict the defendant, and for .
this reafon he would not execute him from ferv-
ing on the trial, but would pervert the meaning
of the law to make it fubGervient to his own |
views.
(7o be continued