The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-03-26

mitted, why may it not be redrelied? The pa
per has been withdrawn-and think both the
Judges concurred in expreiiing the ientiment
that matters were to be con6dered as if the pa
per had never been thrown on the table. When
Judge Peters mentioned that the paper had
been withdrawn, MIR. Lewis aniwered, the pa
per, it is true, is withdrawn, but how can the
court erafe from their minds an opinion formed
without hearing council. A good deal more
paiied which do not recollect, having taken
no notes. MIR. Dallas addrelfed the court, but
l have no recollection of what he faid. The
council CONTINUED firm in their determination
TO abandon the prifoner the court took great
pains to induce them to act as council for the
priioner, and before Fries was remanoed to Jail,
expreiied their hope that the council would
think better of it, and appear in his defence.
| recolleet nothing more of what happened on
the fecond day. Should any queftons he put
to me, they may awaken recollection of what
does not now occur to me.
On the third day when the prifoner was
brought to the bar, he aked whether he
had any council I think on the fecond day,
the court had mentioned to him that he might
have other council he faid no, he would de-
pend on the court 70 be his council Judee
Chafe faid, the court will be your council, and
by the bleiling of God, will erve you as effeGtu-
ally as your council could have done. The tri-
al proceeded, and after the tefimony was Civ
en- and a fhort fatemeut of the cafe made by
the diltrict attorney, the Judge charged the iu-
ry, he told them they were Judges of the law
as well as the fact. He ftated to them that ca
les determined in England, before their rcvo-
luton, fhould not be received by the court. |
have my notes of the charge he ttated the law
very much IN the manner as it was tated by
Judge Pater!on in the trial of Mitchell, for
whom was council. cannot undertake to
recolee any thing further than have already
fated.
Mr.. Randolph. I underfood you to have
ftated that the written paper thrown or handed
down by Judge Chafe on the table produced
a comfortable degree of agitation at the bar.
From what do you conceive that agitation A.
rofe ?
Mr.. Harper faid he would take the opinion
of the court, at fome fage of the buiinefs, as TO
what was proper teitimony. On Saturday there
had been opinion and argument interviewer in
the teitrmony given. He paid great Difference
to the opinion ofthe witnefs, but he fubmitted
1T to the deciion of the court whether it was
proper to reQuireit.
The Proficient. The gentleman may vary
the queition, 70 as to attain his object, by en-
curing AS TO the facts that took place.
Mr.. Randoibb then iaid, aiS with the per-
milton of the court, whether in the courfe of
long and exteniive, you have ever witnefIed
Gmilar proceeding.
Mr.. Key. ihall object to that quetion. l
prav the opinion of the court whetherin order
to abridge fine
The Prrfdent detired that the queftion might
be in the frf nftance reduce to writing.
1t was accordingly reduced to writing as fol-
lows:
Queftion 1T. You fay that when the writ
ten opinion of the court was thrown on the ia
bic, it produced comfortable agitation among
the gentlemen of the bar. What did you con-
ceive to be the caufe of that agitation p
which being read by the fecretary,
Mr. Bayard moved that the Senate fhould
withdraw-the motion was loft on divfi-
on.
The queftion was then taken on receiving the
propofed queition, and pafIed in the negative
by an unanimous vote.
Mr.. Randolph then flbmitted in writing.
Oueftion end. In the courfe of your practice,
which is underltood to have been long and ex-
tenive, did you ever witnefs limilar proceed
ing on the part of the court?
To the putting of this queifion MIR. Mar
tin withdrew the objection which had previ-
ouily been made.
Mr.. Tigbman anfwered. I have been in
the practice of the law for thirty-one years,
and have no recollection of a limilar proceed
ing.
Mr.. Randoipb. When Mr.. Chafe, after
throwing or handing down the papers, went on
to fay that council would be heard, did he go
on to fay, or not, that council, when heard,
mutt addrels themfelves to the court and not to
the jury.
Mr.. Tilgbmau. am confident that at that
time he faid nothing of the fort, nor do re-
collect that he faid any fuch thing at any other
time. Ifhe did, it efcaped my recollection,
which is very ftrong, as to what was faid by
the Judge when he threw down the paper or pa
pers.
Mr.. Harper. You have faid that you are
perfectly clear, that when the paper was de-
livered or thrown down, the court did not fay
the council muft addrefs themfelves to the court
and not the jury, and underfand you ALTO to
fay, that you have no recollection that they faid
any fuch thing at any other time.
MIR. Tilgbman. have no recollection that
they did.
Mr.. Harper. Have you any recollection
that the court at that time prevented the coun-
lel from proceeding?
Mr.. Tiigbman. j have not.
MIR. Harper. Did the court forbid them du.
ring the proceedings, or on the trial, to cite ca
fes?
Mr.. 7iigbman. There were no council at
the trial.
Mr.. Harper. Did Judge Chafe at any time
fay that they would prohibit their reading the
acts of Congrefs to the jury?
Il Il A. 4