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

the course that was purified. The jury would
naturally take the law from the court, and II
therefore, the judge had intended to have op-
pr-i1ed John Fries, he would have fucceeded
better by refersing his opinion, concea'ing it
from the council, permitting them to founder
on in the dark, and then IN his charge TO the jul
ry, dictate the law to fut his partial and oppref-
five purPofr. Would any gentleman of the law,
about to argue cafe before court, think him
9 ielf &egfieved, If the judge were previoufly to
, inform him of the ideas he entertained of the
cafe, with full liberty to controvert them! 1t
would be efteemed favour.
You will be p!cafed to bear in mind, fir, Chat
this paper containing the opinion of the court,
was not read, nor was there any declaration
whatever of its contents or iubitance. 1t was
known to none, it was intended to DC made
known to none but the council for whole utt it
was deigned. How then could it produce any
prejudice to John Fries! No attempt was made,
no intention was manifeied TO read Il. 1t was
privately handed to MIR. Lewis. How then did
! ii become public, in what manner were copies
attributed to various hands? Not, fir, by the
court, but by the council of John Fries. Mr.
Lewis, in a moment of real or affected indigna-
ton, threw the papers from him, declared his
hand thoula not be polluted by it, and cait 1t
upon the table of The court, and It does not aP-
pear that 10 this hour he knows the contcnto OF
the paper he 70 halily condemned. Several gen
flemen Of the bar by this means cot hold Of it
and fome copies were taken. But for this con-
duct on the part of Mr.. Lewis, nobody ever
could have known the contents OF the paper or
the opinion OF the court. Il was this that gave
publicity to the opinion, and extended know
ledge of its contents, not Oily without the de-
hgn and concurrence of the court, but decid-
eddy againit them. The act OF the court was
thus thrown into different courie and direction
c->,,, xvh,A intended ny tortep1Tol1fed by
them.
What then, Or, is tue whole amount of the
crime of the Judge on this location? That he,
a. law Judge, had been bold enough to form an
! opinion-not on John Fries's cafe, or the facts
4 or circumstances of it, for he knew them not !;
but on certain abfrad points of law, without
!, fri committing and hearing Mef.rS. Lewis and
Dallas. And further, he had not only formed
fich opinions, but he had the audacity to put
them into the hands of thefe gentlemen, which,
In the article of impeachment, is called "del-
!. yering the opinion" The judge then, on ma
ture deliberation, from full confederation both
of Englifh and American precedents and deciG-
(, ons, had really made up his mind upon what
overt aSts would conftitute tie treafon of levy
3 ing war; and to brepeni miRake, he had reduced
this opinion 10 writing, and for the information
OF the couEfe on 6otb GdeJ (no partial fclection)
! he gave copy of this opinion to each of them i;
out Qvits them. The jury fhould have this OPT
Mon where they could not miRake il, infead of
their memories where it might be n,ifunder-
food. is not this, (ir, fair and juft eptome OF
\ the fs6is given in evidence Is it not the full
neafure and amount of the judges crime and
corruption? If the judge had right to have
any opinion of his own on the cafe, and if the
opinion he formed was correct one, and II is
v~admitted or at leaR not denied to be 70, where
John Fries or his council? The opinion is fnp-
ported by Engliih authority, and by the highly
respectable names of judges Paterfon and Ire
dell. And this opinion judge Chafe had an I'M
t~cabted right TO give to the jury. He never in
tended to give it until the argument was cloied,
and then he defigned to vary from the ufual
mode of charging jurors, only in this, that to
5revent najfake and for more certainty, he would
deliver in writing intead of verbally. Yet the
Rrticle charges that in confequence of the form
hng & delivering this opinion in this illegal man
ner, John Fries was convicted and fsntenced to
Ideath. The undifpnted correctness OF this OPT
MON wipes away every idea of an intention to
injure or opprefs John Fries. No injuGice
could refult to him from legal and correct o.
pnion, which mutt finally have ruled the cafe,
delivered at any time and in any manner.
lf1'here might be fome nattention to uflal forms,
but there could be no flbfantial injury. An
ccH tni.S anticipated, TX iaiifSitiJ uiiiOtifiit
and erroneous, and againft the prifoner, might
carry fone fufpicion of unjuft prejudice, but
how corrupt intentions are TO be proved, mani
fefed or executed BY correct opinions, is to me
. inexplicable. The judge had taken much la
bcur and particular pains to inform himfelf on
the law of the cafe. He would not truit him
felf on haity opinions made up at the moment
, when the life of a fellow citizen was at flake,
and might be the forfeit of an error; and he
therefore carefully examined the law and deli
berately took an opinion. For this mutual at
iention, re deferves thanks and not impeach-
rnent. IF knowledge of the law be crime in
Judge, ignorance is his beft recommendation {;
and that judge is mott worthy and bef qualifi-
ed for his office, who poGsi1es no opinions of his
own on any legal frhject, but prefents himfelf
as fcholar to be taught by the council, and
has no impr.aions but fucb as they are pleafed
70 give him. mean not to pats fehtence of
condemnation on the views or conduit of the
ounfel of Fries. Their fole object and anxiety
ere 20 fave The life of their client and if they
believed they could better effect this end by TAX
iis FIRE at the conduit Of the court, by exciting
itrong feeling aud prejudice againh the mode
of proceeding, and by involving the court in
Rnbarfafment ard difficulty, 1t was for them
Eo Judge now far they might purfue this object
nv Tlch means, and to their own Judgment