Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1805-04-05
In tn. Senate fine United States,
HTT1Hc As A
H;gbCo"rt Of Impeachment,
ON THR
4M dGy ofFeb'uary, 4. D. 1905.
The United States -. Samuel Chase.
[IudKs Chase's Defence continued.1


to this witness, stood alone, and an az
hrmAtive answer to it, if it could have
proved any thing, could have proved on
ly part OF the charge; namely that
Mr.. Adams was an aristocrat. But E.
violence to prove apart emily Of an entire
and indiviSible charge, was inadnissibls
for the reasons stated above.
If on the ether hand, the phrases in
question, "that Mr.. Adams was an aris-
tocra!," that "he had proved faithful
and serViceabIe to the British interest,""
were distinct and Invisible, and cons,i.
tuted two distinct charges, which may
perhaps be the proper way of consider
ngthem, still the aforementioned ques-
tons were improper and iaadmissible, in
that point OF view.
The first charge in that case IS, that
Mr.. Adam. Was an aristcrat," Toll
al aristocrat, even If any precise and de-
finite meaning could be affixed to the
term. is not an offence either legal or
moral consequently, to charge a man
with being an aristocratis not libel and
such charge in an Indictment for libel,
is wholly immaterial. Nothing is more
clear, than that immaterial mattersin lie.
legal proceedings onght not to be prov
ed, and need not be disprsved. In the
next place, the term" arlstocrat" IS one
OF those vague indefinite terms, which
admit not Of precise meaning, and are
not susceptible ofproof. What one per-
son might consider as aris,ocracy, ano-
Their would consider as re2ublicanism,
and third as democracy. indictments
could be supported on such grounds, the
guilt or innocence of the party accused,
must be measured not by any fixed or
known rule, but by the opinion. which
the Jurors appointed to try him might
happen TO entertain, concerning the ma
tare o. arl>tocracy or repub bic anism. And
lastly the Question itself was as vague,
and as VOID Of pre- Use meaning, as the
charge ofwhich it was inteneled to furnish
the proof. The witness was called up.
on to declare whether he hadhcard MIR,
Adams express anv and what opinions.
taVouraole To arlstoCrdcy or monarchy ?
How was lite be determined, whether
an opinion was favourable to aristocracy
or monarchy: One man would think it
favourable and another not so, accord
ing to the opinions which the y might res.
PectIveiy entertain, on political subjects.
u he hrstquestion, therefore, was incon-
elusive lmmaterial and inadmissiblc.
The second, as has already been re-
marked, was wholly and manifes,ly 70.
reign from the matter in issue. Mr.. A.
dams's dislike of the funding system, if
he d'd IN fact dislike it, had nothing to
do with his aristocracy or his fai,hfulness
to the BRUSH interest. There is no pre-.
tenee fof-saying, that such a question
ought to have been admitted.
AS to the third, whether Mr.. Adams
had not voted against the sequestration
OF British property, and the suspension
OF commercial intercourse with Great
Britain" it has already been shown to be
altogether improper on the ground
TINT such votes, ifgiven by MIR. Adams,
were no evidence whatever Of his having
been" faithful and serviceabfe 70 tho
BRUSH interest" If he had been so,
Pr?''dedU were, in his opinion, at the
same time useful q the interests Of his
own country, which it well might be,
and the contrary Of which is not aIlcg-
cd BY this part of the publication, tax.
en- separately, twas no offence Of anv
kind and to charge him with it, was
not libel. The charge was, therefore,
lmmater17l and futile, and no evidence
for or az inst, could properly be receiv.
ed. Aud finally, if the charge had been
mate rial, and the giving of these votes,
had been legal evidence to pro, it, that
TACT vas on record in the journal of the
Senate, and might have been proved by
tina, record, oran~ official copy oft. As
this evidence was the highest of which
the case admitted, no inferior evidence
Of it, such as oral proof is we'll known to
be, coulI be admitted.
For the errasons this respondent did
concur with his roll a,,,. - r. 1890