The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-04-09
PRENTIS.
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
THURSDAY, Feb. IA.
ITO Be eonf:=,uedI


Judge Chsfr here went into IN aifertion of
the right of the judiciary 20 decide on the con-
ftitutiorality of laws.
He then adverted to the proceedings of the
Legislative of Maryland. He commented on the
wfdom and patriotifn ofthofe who had framed
the contribution OF that fate. That wif'om and
patrioti!m had never conceived liberty 20 conGt
N every man pofehing equal pot;ra rshts.
To lecture property theright OF fufFrage had been
limited. The convention had not imagined. ac-
cording tothe new doctrine, that propertywould
be bef protected by thofe who had them Cslves
no property. The great rampant enablifhed in
the limitation OF fufTraee was now dernoli,hed
by the principle of uuivercal fufIrage enprafted
IN the contribution. In addition to thie, pro-
petition was wv fubmitted, whole ratification
depended upon the next Legislature, and which.
II ratified, would deftrov the independence and
reipeefablity of the judiciary, and make the adj
mlniltration of juftice dependent upon legina-
tive dfcretion. IF this Nall, in addition to that
which etabliihes univerfal fufTraee, become
part OF the contribution, nothing will remain
that will be worth protecting. Inftead of
being ruled by regular and Respectable govern
ment we fhall be governed by an ignorant.
mobocracy. When he reflected on the ruiz
nous effects of thefe meafures he could not
but bluih at the degeneracy of fons who
u.Sc.'o}eu INC IdlI Iaoric raiied by the patr1o-
tim OF their fathers.
Prsfdent. Did you hear any reflections caft
on the administration.
MIR. Smith. LIDO not rccolIe6 any other be-
lide thoie contained in the aatenlent have
read. ~
JOHN STEPHEN Etvorn.
! was at Baltimore when the charge was
delivered by Judge ChaG. My recoI-
lection OF its contents is extremely vague.
But with regard to fome parts of il, il
comedies with that of Mr.. Montgomery. Mr..
Maion, and Mr.. Smith-he fpoke of the repeal
OF the Judiciary law, and that it was injurious
to the independence of the Judges. lie alto
mentioned the general outrage law as injurious:
and iaId no man ought to be permitted to vote
un'eis he had property in, a common intereft
with, and an attachment to the community
that the bill violated this principle, and would
DC attended with very injurious consequences |;
he denied the doctrine of natural rights-and
faid that they were altogether derived from con-
vention and at the end of the charge he ex-
horted the jury to ufe their efforts to prevent the
Iuhry likely to rtiult from the temper OF the
tunes. cannot fay whether Judge Chafe con-
hned himiefto written paper or not. He
declared that the independence of the judiciary
OF the United States bad been injured by the re-
peal of the judiciary fyftem and that the bill.
then pending before the legislature or Mary.
land, If adopted, would have the fame efca
upon the judiciary OF that fate.
Mr.. MeboJon fated that all the witneHes
preient on the part of the profecution had
heen examined they would therefore proceed
to Offer certain re- 'rds-but as feveral materi-
al witnefes were shfent, he hoped they would
not be precluded from calling them, aouId
they attend, at a future Rage Of the trial.
Mr.. Randolph offered in evidence copy of
the record in the cafe of. T. Charlottesville
in the cafe of Fries.
Mr.. Randolbb then fated that the managers
mao iuom'tted all the evidence they were pre-
pared 20 acknowledging the court rofc,