The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-06-14

~
is its iniuaice or c,iminality? There we've MA.
! ny other novelties in that Trial. 1t Was move
ty that man named John Fries ihouli cumm'i
treaton, and be tried and convicted Cor 1t.
never heard o. preciiciy the fame thing I've ore.
II was novelty that council fhonJ ,ieirrt thel,
caate III the abrupt manner in which it WAS then
done. Bat prefumc it will not be pretended
that theis things were wrong merely becaufe
they were Dove.; much LET'S that nudge is To-
be convicted OF nigh crimes and To be removed
from otlicettor iiarmcls novelty--The articles
charge not the Judge with innovations and no.
| velties in ega, forms, but with depryng John
Fries and bis council OF their constitutional
right and il he has not done this, the ref is Of
noimpor:ancc now. But what is the frange
novelty that eXcites 10 much intereit and alarm
is 1t that law Judge had law opinion and was
capable of making il up for hm!ef without the
aiTitance of learned council? / hope not.
ihould he forty TO fuppofc this is a novelty in
the United States. Was it then the reducing
this opinion to writing, putting it on paper with
pen and ink that makes the dangerous novelty
To have the opinion rs nothing; but TO write it
contributes the crime. And yet, fir, where is
! the difference TO the pritorcr; except that in
the latter cafe there is more certainty; lefs
chance Of mifapprehen:ion and n,iRake ON the
part OF the i,Iry, than when II is delivered to
them verbally. II ihould be recolieSted, fir,
and am fure It is too important to be forgot
ten by this honorable court, this written OPT
MON contained all the Limitations and difcri,ni-
Eations on the law OF treaIon which could ferye
the pfifoner, as well as thoie which might ope-
rate agarnit him. But, fr, T. deny that there
was 10 much novelty either in forming this opi-
Mon or IN reducing it to writing, AS is pretend
ed. Is IT uncommon for judges to late their
opinions on particular points of law to council,
even before arCyiDnPp.. />E &L,,.
obiervations! And was it ever before coniider-
ed aprejudication of the cafe or an encroach-
ment upon the rights of the bar? In criminal
courts the practice is contant and universal.
Previous to the trial OF the cafes of treaon after
the reitoration of Charles ii. the Judges of Eng
land met together, and did form and reduce to
writing opinions, not only upon the mode of
proceeding upon the trials, but ALTO on all thofe
queftions or points of law, which they fuppo-
fed would arite and require their decifon in the
courfe of the trials. See Kelynge's reports, IA.
l, 2, etc.-l1. Here the judges met in conful-
tation expressly for the purpofes now deemed
70 criminal in judge Chafe, and took to their aid
the kings council. Our judge did not take to
his ailiitance the attorney of the United States
IN forming hrs opinion; nor did the Judges in
England deliver to the council of the accgfed.
the refult of their deliberations, but doubtlefs il
would have been received as a favour if they
had. In the only two points of difference,
therefore, between the two cafes, we have mott
decidedly the advantage.
But, fir, how can the proceeding of Judge
Chafe, in principle and efeF, be diffngHifled
from the common and universal practice of
charging grand juries, on the legal nature and
Description of the crimes TO come under their
notice? When judge is about to hold crimi.
nal nourt, he is particular to introduce into his
charge thofe very offences, and his opinions up
on them, which by information or otherwife, he
fuppofes will be brought before the court The
opinion of the judge in fnch cafes is formed, is
reduced to writing, and is publicly delivered in
the prefence OF all the jurors, both grand and
petit, but never was before conceived to be OBJ
jectionable. Nor was it ever before fuppofed
to be a prejudication of any mans cafe, who
might afterwards be tried for an offence thus
defined. Judge chafe fated what acts in his
opinion, would, in contribution of law, amount
to treafon in levying war, but whether thefe
acts and the neceflary intention which mutt ac-
company them, would be proved upon John
Fries or any body elfe, WAS left quite at large to
be decided by the jury on the evidence.
(7o be eontinaed.J