The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-04-09

MIR. E7virg-I made it oft from the opinion Of the
court which was thrown down by Judge Peters or
Chaie, and within about half an hour after it was
thrown down from the BENCH took the copy home
with me, TO Mr.. Lews's Office, where was that
time itudent. In the afternoon of the fam day,
MIR. CALDWELL the clerk of the court, called ou me,
and at the deire of Judge Chaie and Judge Peters,
quefted that it might be returned and gave it
Mr. CALDWELL made out only copy, and this
is it.
Mr.. Repti4isn-The paper being proved, I will
read it in evidence.
Mr.. Rodney obierved that the original paper wa.
the bet' evidence. aud as of the copies thrown
down from the. beuch already before the court,
he prefumed that ought to be conGd.ied os the beh
evidence.
MIR. Hothnjon faid he was deiirou. to read it
merely to thew that it corre onded with the copy iii
the pofleiiion OF the Attorney Of the ditrict.
Mr.. Hoptiaj5n then read I'll. copy in the hand wri-
ting OF MIR Ewing Containing the or ion of the
court in the cafe of Frie) which appeared corref
pond preciiely with the copy adduced by Mr.. Rawle.
Mr. Hc1imjSn-Pleafe to flte whether you were
in the court the day fubfeeuent that on which the
opinion delivered by the COURT and what you re-
collect occurred at that time.
MIR. Evcinc-T attended at the court the day fuc-
ceeding, and remember thar Judges Chale and Pc
tiers, addreiling Mers. Lewis and Dallas. faid they
were not to coniider any thing which took place the
day before refriction the courfe they wiihcd
to purdue Judge Peters faid that every thing done
yeferday withdrawn. Judge Chafe afl<ed then,
If they would go on in the caufe fore conversation
eniued, which ended in the determination of NIeiIrs
Lewis and Dallas not to proceed in the defence of
Fries Judge Chafe then made this obfcrvation-that
IT. after the court had xpreiled their opinion on the
law, they perfifted in Eating to the Jury their
fentments on the law, they mutt do it at the ha-
zard OF their legal regulations. did not un-
deritand this as menace, but as a declaration
COlnfpl hpv mn 4 th.s.,n .p,
Ing at the bar, and from regard to their repu-
tations. If fate any thing further. it will be
only recapitulation of the teftimony already
given.
EDWARD I. COALE f.vorn.
Mr.. Hobkinf9n. Will you examine that pa
per, and fay what you know refpeetingi it.
Mr.. Coaie. 1t is copy of the paper handed
down by Judge Chafe on the trial of Fries, made
ut the infance of Judge Chafe, from paper in
his hand writing; there were fome words in the
original which 1 could not afcertan; left
blanks for them, and they were filed up by
Judge Chaie--the other parts are written by me.
1t was made out before the trial of Fries When
IN the office of judge Chafe was frequently in
'the habit of tranfcribing papers from his hand
writing. After Ileft him went to Philadelphia,
and lived there when Fries was tried. The fudge
occahonally, during my reGdcnce there fent for
me to trantcr1be mis- opinions and on that oc-
Gallon he called on me to trancribe this paper
from the original hand writing of himfeif
DIR. H2pkig/on. Was there conversation be-
tween you and Judge Cbafe, in which he aflign-
ed his reaions, and what were they, for making
Out this opinions
Dir. NicboJion objected to the putting of this
quefion.
TIE Proficient defired Mr. Hopknlonto reduce
il TO writing.
Mr.. NieboiIon faid he would withdraw his OBJ
lection rather than occafion delay. Some OBJ
lcet'on, however, arifing, on the part of the !
court,
Mr.. Hobkin,5n fubmitted, in writing, the fol-
lowing que zion:
AT the time JUICE Chafs deired you TO make
the copy in your hand writing, did he or did he
not, explain TO you his reafons for drawing up
that paper, and ifte did what were they?
Mr.. Ho3.hiaIou faid he thought fuch qneRions
perfectly legal, when they went to thew the in
tention ofthe accuied. We have heard, fad he, |
much ofthe qno amino; and il is perfectly clear,
that the intention contributes the guilt Of the of
fence.
mr.. NieboJan. Tie ono amin, is to he col
lefted from the acts ofthe party. The evidence
OF his declaration may be ihcwn to prove the
qao amino. But do not con6der it to be cor
reGt that Judge Chafe ihaIl he permitted to give
in evidence declarations made At any other time
than at that when we have ftated he made them
otherwie il will always lay in the difcretion of
the party accuied to Gate declarations made at
anothertime by him for the pnpofe Of juNifying
any aes he NAV have committed.
Mr.. Martin faid I've had ever ronfideret! the
declaration of the party at the time he was
charged with committing criminal act as COM
petcnt evidence to Grew his innocence
Mr.. Mieboljon faid there was no doubt of il
but that he was not charged with drawing ont
the paper rs criminal act. Any declaration
made by Judge Chaie at the time he delivered
the opinion of the court, may be given in evil
deDce but any other declarations have nothing
To do with the cafe.
Tire Prcfdcnt. Where was the conversation
tetween the Judge and yourielf?
Mr.. Coaie. AT the Judges lodgings.
The quefioo was then taken on permitting
the quei1ion to I've put. and palIed in the mega
tive-Yeas e--Nays 25.
Mr.. Hopkinfog next offered certificate of the
clerk of the circuit court Of Pennsylvania to
few that at the trial of Fries in 1919, there were
Sc civil luits depending.
ALTO copy Of the indictmen: on the frft trial
of Fries.
Alto a part of charge delivered by Judge
Iredell at the term when Fries was tried, taken
from Carpenters report of that trial, page ID.
Mr.. CampbeNintmatin fome objection to re-
ceiving this paper in evidence.
Tire Pyejf,lent faid it might be read as re-
port of the cafe but what credit it would de-