Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1805-02-27

pointed 10 be had, on Tuesday the AID
day of The last 1Newtiohed month OF Apfii.
Alter this indictment was found by the
grand jury, this rSspnadest considered 1
with great care and te,iberat,on, and Sod
ing, IRON three over, acts of treason
which ii charged, that the question of law
arising upon II, WAS the same question
which had already be.n decided twice m
the same court, on solemn argument, aud
Acknowledgement once IN tina, ye,y case, be
considered the law as settled by those de-
cisiuns. with the correctness of Nh'ch on
full consitlcia alton he was entirety ssyistied;
and by the authority OF which he should
(, have deemed himself bound even had be
regarded the question as doubtful IN itse!i
They are moreover in perfect conformity
with the uniform tenor Of ciecis ons ia the
courts of England and Great Rti'sp, from
the revolution In 1855 10 the presentiime'
which in his opinion, added greatly 10
their weight and authority.
And surely he need not atgue.,o this no,
fiora5ie court, The correctness, the import
a,ice aud the absolute necessity OF adher-
ing TO principles OF law once established
and of considering the law as finally set
, lied, after repeated and solemn DECISIONS
By courts of competent jurisdiction. A
contrary principle would urSctue the tasis
,of, our whole system OF iaslspruderce hi
ther,o our safeguard and our boast; ~nuid
reduce the law Of The land, and subject the
RIGHTS OF the citizen, TO the aebl rary will
the passions. or the caprice oI the Judge
in each particular case; and would suSs,i
tute the varying opinions OF various men,
ll.r. Gv.l -,
which the very essence ofthe law consists.
lfShis respondent erred in regarding thi.
poin, as settled, by the reseated and so
Tenn adipdicalipns Of hos predecessors, 10
The same court and in The same case; Il
he erred in supposing, tina, u principle es-
tdbiished by two solemn decisions, was
obligatory upon him, sitting IN the same
court where those decisions had bees
made; If he erred in believing thar il
would be the highest presumption in him,
To set up his opinion and Judgment over
that ofhis colleague, who had iwsce. dc
cided the same question and of two OF bis
predecessors, who instly rank among the
si,ies, Judges that have ever adorned a
court; is ia all this he erred is an error
of which he cannot BE ashamed, and which
ne trusts will NOT he deensed criminal iu
the eyes OF this honorable Court, Of ms
country, or Of thai poslerity by which he,
his accusers, and his Judges, mostone day.
bs judged.
Under the influence Of these considers
tons, this respondent drew up an opinion
on the law, arising from the overt aeis
stated in the SAID indictments which was
consoru,ahle 10 the decisioas before given
eni><
his colleague the said Richard Peters, Tor
his consideration. That gentleman re-
turned il To this respondent, with sonle
amendments affecting the form only, BIN
not IN any manner touching the substance.
The opinion thus agreed TO. this respop-
dent thought it proper "a communicate 10
the prisonsr's counsei--seyersi reasons
coneurred in favor Of this communicated.
In the Srst place, this respondent con.
sie,ered himself and the court, as bound by
the authority of the former decisions es-
pecialiy The last OF hen, which va, or
the same case. He considered the Law as
settled, and had every rsason 10 believe
tbas his colleague viewed it in the same
light. twas not suggested or Understood
that any new cadence sas 10 be offered !;
and he knew that if any should be offered,
which could vary the case, il would rem
der wholly napplica5le both the opinion
and the former decisions OH ehicb il was
founded. And he could not and did net
suppose, that tI,e prisoners counsel would
be DESTROYS of wasting very rf.c'ous time,
in undressing 10 The court an useless mr.
gumen;, on a pcip, which that court held
itself precluaed from deciding in their
favor. He therefore conceived that il
would be rendering the counsel a service
aud favor, to apptise theur beforehand
Of the view which the court bad taken III
the subject so as TO let chem see in time,
thu necessity OF endvsvoring to proddce
new testimony, which mig vary The case.
and take il out of the authority Of former
decisions-
Secondly, There were more than one
hundred civil causes then depending in
the said court, rs appears by the exhibit
marked No /. which this respondent prsys
may he taken as part OF this, his ans~et.
Many OF those causes had already been
snbieSled TO great DELAY, and it vas the pc
.uiiar duty or this respondent. a. presld-
ne Judge, to take care, that ssfittle time as