The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-04-02
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
TUESDAY, February IL, 1905.
Coz. JOHN TAYLOR-S,poru.

vi tSItiaHOiy dUC OtnCr ClrCumitaUCe
which have any relation to the condu6! of mdg
Chafe on the trial of Calender.
Mr.. Taylor. / was fummoned as 4 wi. nef
on that trial on the part of Calender. Iattend
ed and was !worn. On being flvorn, Judp,
Chate enquired what it was intended TO prov,
by my teitimcny? / do not recolleGt the expref
lions OF Judge Chafe nor do / recollett pre-
ciiely, the anfwer made to this enquiry; bu
Judge Chafe defired the council for the accufcc
10 reduce their queitions to writing. They did
CCol. Taylor's teftimony was here 70 iadic
tihcfiy heard, that we could not recolleG his
words.
l had come into court very near the hou,
when the court met, nor had previouny given
any intimation of the teltmony l could give ei.
Their to Calender or his council. ihould have
added that after, / think the Judge had declared
the witnets could not be examined, he applied
TO the ditrctjudge for his opinion; who repli-
ca IN 10 low voice, that could not tell what
he laid. BIT this was after he had given his
| received.
! Mr.. Randolph. You fate that neitbertbe nc.
cuted nor his council knew the extent to " hich
your teitmony would go. Would your tefti
mony, according to your belief, have had ma
terlal bearing on the charges againft Calender
Mr.. Martin objeding TO this auction. MIR.
! Randolph fad he would Withdraw it.
| Mr.. RHn3obb. Did you obferve any thing
unniuai in conducting the trial?
A!T. 1drior. One or more motions were
haue oy the council for Calender, who was
! interrupted by Judge Chafc repeatedly. The
words in which thefe Interruptions were couch
ed, cannot recolle6t, though formed an opii,i-
on or the ityie and manner Of them the efTrtf
or which was 10 produce laughter in the audi
ence at the eXpence OF the council. IfIan re-
| CURED to declare the character i'm which con-
ceived them to be made, am ready to do 70.
| There was here fhort pauic, when Judge
! Chaie roie and faid he had no objection to the
oPlmon OF the witnefS being delivered.
| mr.: Taylor. | thought the Interruptions
were IN very high degree imperative, fatyrical
and witty.
Mr.. Randolph. Did there appear to Won anv
thing unufral in the manner of tn. countel for
the accuicd towards the court
mr.. ayIoT. l neither difcovcred the leaft de-
gree or provocation given by the council nor
perceived any anger eXprehed by the court.
Judge Grrhn was flent, nor were Judg Chafe's
interruptions accompanied by the indication of
any anger as far as / could perceive.
10 an interrosatory made, MIR. Taylor faid
the interruptions of the court were extren,eIv
wen calculated to abaih and diiconcert council.
mr.. Rnndolbb. Do you recojecf any fbino
I'D relation to the objection taken by John Banef
TO ferying as ajuror?
NJ. Taylor. / by no means recollea the or
cumftances with preclion, but the innnrelI ION
on my mind is ftrong, that BafTet faid that hr
had entertained fome preponefiion againR the
book called The ProfPeet Before Us, or agaipf
SaHender' and that the Judge enqured whether
nc n"a any prepoiieiiion in regard to the char
SeS N the Indictment. He faid no: and it was
ALTO fald by him or by fomc other perfon
brought forward as juror, that he had not read
the lndictment.-JudgeC hafe ordered him tohe
fworn. ''''-' ~ u
Mr.. Randolph You were, believe, long
time practitioner of the law in the coprts nf
Virginia? '''0 u
Mr.; 7af7Or. For few years-about f.ven
practiied the law.
Mr.. RaHdolbb. l will ak you if YOU have e.
yer known capias iiiued againft perron in
dicted tor an offence not capital, or perfon.
pieiented TOR iuch an offence, tried at the fame
term the preicntment was made
Mr.. Taylor. / NUT anfwcr in the Incentive
but IT is proper to remark that, as never turn,
ca my attention 70 the practice of the criminal
ia"' no great reliance ought on this point to be
placed on my anfwer.
Mr.. RandoLbb. Has it ever been the praaice
IN the courts of Virginia for council 70 he cor,-
PEELED to reduce to writing, quefions which
they with to PROFOUND, and fubmit them previ.
Ouhy 10 the court
Mr.. Taylor. have never feen ft1cb prac-
tice IN cafe-iEe that of Calender.
Mr.. Randolph. Do you remember a oucfior
put by Mr. Chafe to the council on the part of
the United States with regard to permitting
your teitimony to be received?
Mr.. Taylor. After the decifon IF fbe copr,
do recolled Mr.. Chafe did express fome ficb
idea as that intimated in the auction. The ~
tor"ey for the difrift ntantly expref1ed his dif-
tent to what conceived to have been in very
feeble mannerrecommended by the Judge.
Mr.. RaaGoibb. This intimation was after thc
Poittive rejection by the court
Mr.. Taglor. think 70, although will not
be poftige, as l made no memorandums of
what occurred.
Mr.. Roadabb. Was you prefent when
motion for continuance was made, and do
you recoIlect the grounds of it?
Mr.. Taylor. ] only recolled that il was
founded on the affidavit Of Calender: have
no recollection of the arguments ufed.
Mr.. Neb11oR. Do you recolle6t the grounds
OF the court for rejecting your tefimony!
Mr.. Taylor. think ON the ground ba,
though it were admitted, it would not acouit
the accufed.
Mr.. Raadobb. Was ary obferyation made
pertonally TO you after the teGmony was re-
iected
Mr.. TlyIv. None, fir.