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

Judges, went On WhcNl came into court,
faw Judge Chafe holding paper in his hand,
ard he faid that the court had with great de-
liberation con.idered the overt acts in the in
dittment againH Fries, that they had made up
their minds on the extent of the constitutional
definition OF treaion !; and that to prevent their
being mifunderttood, they had committed their
opinion to writing, one copy of which was in
tended to be given to the ditritt attorney, ano-
Their to the council for the prifoner, and a third
to be given to the jury; perhaps fomethng
efe might have been faid, but DO not recolled
1t. The paper was then thrown down by him
to the bar, and fentiment of this kind was ex-
prefled by Judge Chafe-that this opinion was
not intended by the court to prevent the coun-
lel from proceeding in the uiual manner. |
felt deiire to take copy of the paper--I Go
not recollect whether more than one was thrown
down. had not, however an opportunity of
doing it. The paper was 70 fully occupied till
the Adjournment of the court, that although I
made two or three attempts to Obtain It, /
could not fIcceed. The court adjourned a
thort time afterwards. After I went home,
recolieGt that IN application was made to me
by the clerk of the court to return the copy,
which he underftood had taken. / informed
him had not taken copy. On the following
day / was in the court room at the opening of
the court. Fries was put TO the bar, and the
Judge then enquired whether the council were
ready to proceed on the trial. I remember
Mr.. Lewis addreiIing himfef to the court, and
Directing TO proceed in the defence, becaule the
council had been reftrained by the court from
proceeding in the manner which they deemed
mott beneficial to their client. / remember al
70 that Judge Chafe told him that he ought not
to refer to the opinion which had been delivered
on the preceding day that the council were
not to be bound by that opinion, as it had been
withdrawn. MIR. Lewis referring to that OPT
MON, however, confdered it rs the formed and
decided opinion of the court, and that although
the court had withdrawn it, it Till would have
an operation upon their mind that while the
court was under it's influence, they could not
expect to be heard in any of their arguments to
effect. Judge Peters replied that the opinion
was withdrawn, and / think Judge Chafc re-
peated the opinion before expre1ed, that the
council were not to be bound by that opinion,
might enter fully into the cafe, & argue as well
on the law as on the fact before the jury. l re-
collect MIR. Lewis Eating TO the court his OPT
Mon of the appcitenefs of cafes decided at COM
mon law in England remember Judge
Chate's expecting his opinion and belief that
they were perfectly inapplicabe; and after
wards remarking, that if however the council
would go on, it was not the intention of the
court to circumicribe them, or to take from the
jury the decilion of the law as well as the fact.
He further added, that the council might ma
mage the defence in fuch way as they thought
proper, having regard to their own characters.
am the more particular and pofitive of thefe
expeditions, becaufe very fhortly after the tri-
al made fummary of the proceedings. /
lind it Hated as coming from the mouth of
Judge Chaie, and that he repeated that the
council for the prifoner might go on in their
own way, having a regard to their own cha
raciers. Judge Peters made a remark which
thought was calculated to put the council into
good humour-but they periifted in their refu-
tal to proceed. Tins far the court manifefed
III my opinion, deiire that the caufe might
progrefS, and perfualive and conciliatory fem.
per but MIR. Lewis having again decidedly
faid that he would not proceed, Judge Chafe
faid, if you fuppofe by conduct like this, to
put the court into difficulty, you are mifa-
fed himfelf to the prifoner, and afked him, if he
was ready to proceed on his trial, or whether
he would have other council aligned to him.
Fries replied he did not know what was beft
for him to do, but he would leave his cafe to
the court. MIR. Rawle ftated that from the pc
cuiarity Of the circumstances of the cafe, and
the prloner being left without the afliftance
of council, his with was that the trial might be
poitpoued for a day, and the pofponement
tool. place by order Of the court. The follow
ing morning when the court was Attended,
Fries was again put to the bar, and Judge Chafe
enqured of him whether he wifhed the court
to aiiign him council? His reply was, that he
would trua l1nfelf TO the court and Jury.
Judge Chaic replied, then by the befiing of
God, the court will be your council, and will
do you as much juftice as could be done by the
council that were aligned you, or nearly in
thofe words. The trial proceeded, but was
not prefent during the whole it.
Mr.. Hepkinj0n. Do you recollea whether
judge Chafe guarded the priioner againft put
ting any improper quefions to the witnefes,
&c
Mr.. Meredith. Judge Chafe feemed to me
TO perform his promife. He told him he had a
right to put any quefions he pleafed, and
guarded him againit putting improper ones.
Mr.. Harper faid he would next proceed to the
cafe of Calender.
LUTHER MARTIN fworn.
Mr.. HARPER. Did you furnifh Judge Chafe
with copy of the book, entitled the Profpe61
Before Us. and at what time did you furnifl him
with it?
Mr.. Martin. 1t is not peafng thing for
me to be witnefs on this point, as may be
confdered as party concerned, and Especially
from being one of the council for Judge Chafe
Yet, as it is required from me, WI proceed to
fate what know. When was in New-York,
obferved in newspaper which / took up at
a BARRIERS ihop an advertisement for the fale of
the Profpect Before Us. mentioned it to
JUDGE WafhDotOD and he fspt h;e C,ry,nt +<