The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-06-14
[NoLuME 2.

other ~itrelies, lis cotrolexion becomes much
more mild and unexce piionabc. The il.ey.Gf.
on, that Tins opinion made M by tie ccurs;
| and handed to the couufe!. was declared to he
fina and Concmiye upon them, aud that no ar
guinent III oppohtion TO it was to b. permitted
or heard, refs Wholly and fole!. on the rcccl-
'et.ion of Mr.. LeS.s. N-r. Dallas WAS not in
Comt at the time it is fuppoied 10 have happens
cd; no other witnSfs OF al! that were prsisnc
have any remembrance Of any fuch declaration,
and two witneiles cXrreis,y d,ipr0ye it. Fir.
edward Tighmau oates that Judge Chafc de.
|clared that the court had ma;ure!y coniecred
ihe law aning upci the Overt ATS charged in
the indictment aeanf John Fries. That they
had reduced their opinions to writing that he
undeffood great deal OF time had been con-
iun.d upon the former trial, and that IL, order
to f0Se time, copy of the opinion of the court
would be given TO the attorney of tie diaritt;
another TO the council OF the ptiiane-, ard tbs.
the jury thond have third to fA:e o2. sci.b
fAet1. Mr.. I !ghman further ta.es that prey-
Gully to the throwing of the papers on the Ia
BILE, and al the moment It was dorc, the iudEe
exp'efca himielf in thcfe words, a. Nevertheless
or notwithstanding ccunit will be heard" Mr.
Rawie, witncis examined, as yYe.las Mr.. Tflrh-
man on The part OF The managers, gives the fame
account OF he declared motive cf the iudlrA II,
preparing this option, TO fave TING, as tfiuc:,
nad been lott at the former trial audtates that
the Judge laid the court had determined TO cx-
pre'* their opinion in writing on law, tint tbsy
'nigbt not be miji1uderRool. Here VIC find tl.
reaion not only for forming the opinion, but for
reducing II to writing alto. The court, conf.
Tues Mr. Rawlc, Chfcrvcd, they had therefore
committed their opinion to writ;ng-that the
clerk had E;ade three copies, one Of which
"ould be given 10 the diftrct ali orney; one 10 S
ire coanicl tor the priioner. AMI Gle he fury
/SoHld take out Soif6 f5sm. To put tits part
the trantae tion beyond doubt, an,, Srengthen, II
poi'Io.e, the character il now bears, beg This
hohour3o!e court to advert for d moment To
NJ. Meredi;h's teGin'onv. He too Gates ti.at
he 'udge declared the court on great ,,elbe.a-.
ton had formed an opinion on the law on lie
overt acts III forth in the indittnent-ausi that
70 /@fe fi'1e and prez'ent naigakes, this opirion
was reduced to wrtine-the comics 10 be Diff
nu,ed as mentioned hy the other witneffts S. lie
further expressly AYERS that the ;,ItIee when lie =
threw down the papers declared hat the giving
OF this opinion was moi INTENDED 10 preclude the
council from being heard, from cxprefing
any objections 10 its correctness. after tiis
mas "f concurrng tettimony can the motive or
ihe judge in forming and delivering this opin:-
on he mtreprefented or mifnnderfood and can
II now ue believed ortpretended that il Mss
done, as the article CHARGES, to prejudice tlls
mind of the jury agairlt John Fries before colns
iel had been heard in his defence? In oi,lerto
bear up this charge againft this weight uf eyf
dence and iunport Mr.. Lewis's tefimony in dit-
credit of that delivered by the other witnefIcs,
tie managers who have fpoken TO this pSo, 81
the cafe pretend that MIR. Lewis ft.ould be mon
lrefed upon, hecauie moi intere&ed in the tranf-
action. This intereh, fir, may have given fsif
colounng and appearance TO the conGutt of the
Judge, and his anxious zeal for his client may
have rePrcfented the conduit Of the court TO his
mind in hariher views than it deferved. ma
always underfood that thofe witnefcs wer
mott to be relied upon who were mott cool ane
eat in.eretted in the trahfaciion to which they
teRify. But the ingenious gentlemen invert tGis
rule. But, fir, have no intention of making a
companion between the cret!ibiiity of tbefe Wit
neiles, they are all Respectable above fuipicion.
IT lSa queftlon of memory and not ofchlrsHer
between them, and we muR Judge from various
combinations of circumstances in aicertainirg
the respective correctness Of memory. FIR.
Lewis hmfef mott csndidly declared his me-
merry to be very uncertain and imperfect of d:!.
tant events. Belides MIR. Tilghman and Nj.
Meredith poftive!y aver that the Judge fsid.
council would he heard on the correctnefs Of
that opinion. Now Mr.. Lewis does not ard
cannot Fay, that the Judge did not fay 70, brt
bis evidence is no more than this, either that lie
did not hear it at the time, or that Ls does rott
rememberit now. | refer the honorable ma
nagers to their own rule about affirmative and
negative teNlmOnv. In the Baltimore cafe, a
Jingle, folitary, nnfuppored witnefs Mr.. Mont
eomcry) fwears to declaration of the indge,
which fome fourteen or fifteen respectable wiz
relies both for & againf this Protection, with
equal and better opportunities of hearing all
the judge flid at that time, declare was not, to
the beh of their knowledge, uttered by the
judge, nor any thing ike Il. Now f,y the ma
nagers, this Jingle affirmative Mr.. MONTGOMERY
is more to be depended upon than all the othc,
witnefies put together. And if any body d,
think 70, let it be TO- But in Fries's cafe, ,,t.
produce two affirmative wtnenes aeanA one
negative witnefs, who fifies himf, If 10 the inn
perfection OF his memory.
Iprefumc, fr, have moi firmly eaab,;H,ey
The point tina; The judge, in making up this ,t;e
Mon, had really and truly no other ob;.e or
motive than TO prevent burthenfome and uE..
leis waite oftime. And ftIre am, that wbocver
attended the 6rh trial of Fries, would lee the
nceeAitY Of foa,e regulation f., this purnofe
How then did the judge carry this intention ip
to execution? The opinion Of the court ON IN,
points likely TO ariic in the cafe, was Put into
writing and delivered 10 the couEfe.. trasflis
any disadvantage 70 them Was il not rather
= friendly guide 20 them, b. which thew might
thaPe their argument 70 as bef TO meet lie
points Ut difficulty, ard feryc their client; 'Tbs