The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-03-26
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
SATURDAY, February 8, 1901.
Continued.
ALEXANDER J. DALLAS, Hyoym.

(Confinued.
ALEXANDER J. DALLAS, Esvoru.
Mr.. Dallas. / will endeavor to be correS
III the flatcment which it is my duty to give ;
and am fure that l fhall be fubftantiaiy e.,
though cannot promife to place the facts pre-
cifely in the order of time, in which they occur-
red nor to recite the very words that were uf-
ed by the feveral parties, in the courfe of the
tranfaction.
When the Northern Rioters were brought TO
Philadelphia, in the fpring of 1899, fome of
their friends applied to Mr.. Ingeriol and to me
to undertake their defence. Mr.. IagerfolI was
then attorney general of Pennsylvania and on
confederation, Ihelieve, declined the talk. Mr..
Lewis, either before or after this application,
was alfo rcquefted to act as council for the pri-
toners {; and upon his acquiefcence we repaired
to the priton, TO make the nece Iary arrangements
preparatory to trial. MIR. WIN. Ewing had
been engaged by feveral of the Rioters; and
we agreed to unite in the defence, as the
fame general facts and law applied to all the
cafes.
In April term 1899, the frf trial Of Fries
took place. 1t was conducted with great pro-
priety throughout by the court, and by the
protecuting officer; and the council of the pr-
foner were permitted to addrefs the iury at
large, on the law and the facts; as well as to
cite every authority which they tn ught pro-
per. Fries was convicted but on a motion
made by Mr.. Lewis and /, the verdict WAS fet
Aide, and new trial awarded.
The iecond trial of Fries upon a new indi6-
ment (the firif having been difcontinurd BY Mr..
Rawle) occurred in May, 1900. Mr. Lewis
and L had again, at his rcqueft, been aligned bv
the court, to defend him. On the morning fix
ed for the trial, j entered the court room fome
time after the court had been opened. Fries
was Handing in the prifoner's box The iu-
rors of the general PANEL appeared to be in the
Jury boxes And the hall was crouded with
citizens. On my entrance, perceived Mr..
Lewis and Mr.. E. T'ighman engaged eagerly
in conversation, and the gentlemen of the bar
generally feemed to be much agitated. Asfoon
as Mr.. Lewis faw me, he haftened towards me,
on the outiide of the bar; and told me in cf-
feet, that a very extraordinary incident had
occurred that Mr.. Chafe, after fpeakinc in
terms of great difapprobation OF the defence,
at the former trial, declared that the court, on
mature confederation, had formed, and reduced
to writing, an opinion on the law of treafon,
involved in the cafe; and that he fhoud direct
one copy to be delivered to the attorney of the
diitrid, another to the prifonel's council, and
third after the opening of the profecution |
to the jury to take out with them.''
Here Mr.. HARPER rofe, and faid Mr.. Pre-
fident-furely If is improper that the wtnefs
| fhouid repeat what Mr.. Lewis told him, not in
| court, nor when the Judge was prefent.
Mr.. Dallas, turning to MIR. Harper, obferv.
ed "Slr, i know the rules of evidence, and
mean TO conform to them" Then turning to
the Vice-Preiident he continued IF Mr..
Preiident, the counfeps patience had LATED for
minute, he would have heard, that repeat
ed Mr.. Lewis's communication to the court,
and that it was not contradicted. What have
faid was necelfary to introduce that fact ;
and, furely, it is rictly within the rules of evil
dence.
MIR. Lewis and exchanged an opinion on
the improperly of the conduct of the court ;
we determined as thought when frR recur-
ring to my memory for the facts and as | fill
think, though win not to fpeak pofiti, civ I
to withdraw from the defence aud we went
into the bar together. When there, fomething
occurred, which called for attention on our
part and MIR. Lewis informed the court in eff
feet {" that there was little difpute about the
faces in the caufe and that as the court had
deliberately prejudged the law, he could not
hope to change their opinion, nor to ferve his
client while fubrciflion TO fuch proceeding
would be degrading to the profef1ion." 1t
was, then, think, that / itated to the court
the information, which I had received from
MIR. Lewis but certainly it was either then.
or, as it has been fuggeffed to me, by ref
pectable gentleman of the bar, at the opening
of the court on the next day and / paufed, TO
give an opportunity for contradiction, or expla-
nation. For, although had no doubt of Mr..
Lewis's intention to deliver correct rspre-
fentation of what had pafed, it was pofIible
that might myfelf have mifaken the import
Of his communication. cannot now fate all
that MIR. Lewis told me but, am confident,
that then repeated it all to the court. No re-
mark being made, in confequence of the paufe,
proceeded to fate few comparative obferva-
tons on the province and rights of the Judge,
and the province and rights Of the advocate |;
and concluded with declining to act any longer
as council for the prifoner. The court was
foon afterwards djourned.-Thefe are all the
material occurrences the fra day, which 7
recolIect; except, perhaps, that foon after I
came into court, heard Mr.. Peters remark
to Mr.. Chafe : told you what would he
the confequence. knewt they would take the
hud."
On the next day, the court was opened, Fries
was placed in the prifoncr's box, the Jury at
tended, and the number of spectators were in
created. Silence being proclaimed, Mr.. Chafe
aked, elf the prifoner's council were ready to
proceed on the trial :" and Mr.. Lewis and 7
fucceffvely declared, that we no longer conf
dered ourfelves as the council Of Fries. Mr..
Peters then, AS well as at other times, expren-
ed great dehre that we fhould overlook what