The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-08-23

nor was tact from wkich the Jury princI
pies or law ought TO a.,se Inferred II and ar
fore no pcrion viii attempt 10 fippor; the con
trry, therefore thai. 4, honorable client initeac
afbeing iCnpeachable for rejecting fuch evidence
would AYE expoled hi..teis 10 csnfi,re, had h,
admitted it.
MORGAN Iioubt but Mat the rcTocaa bic coun.
Eel who We're concsasd for Calender, would
have checrfully acguiesced in and approved oi
my honorable clients conduit in this reflect
/ had 1t not been for caufe, which they homer.
~ acknowledged, their cxtre,ne ignorance OF
the law which, relates TO the doctrine OF libeis--
ana winch had induced them to ufe every exer-
: ton to obtain continuance OF the cauie to a
future term, that IN the mean time either in their
own Offices, or under the nitruction of fome e.
gl! character, they might acquire more accu-
T, rate knowledge OF that branch OF the law. An
indulgence that j; feerns they could not prevail
upon thecourt to gve.7--for tke retui.,i of which,
| however, hope MY honorable client will no,
6e thought impeachabe.
! have now, iir, hni:Eed ny obferyatons on
the third articles, and am under the direction OF
tins honorable court whether / ihaii proceed to
the fourth, or wait till they take fone refrelh.
Inent Qt was now three O'Clock, and the court
, adjourned for half an hour.)
TIE COAT ha0;ns again met, Lgr. MARTIN
| continued.
fhal now, fir, proceed TO the four,l, article
"hich Charges the RESPONDENTS Condu & TO have
osen marked during the whole cour.e of the tri-
al by mat,ii IN uiticc, partiaity and temper
arlce.
| From the evidence it certainly appears that
| Judge Chaie prevented the couuir fio N arguing
to the jury, that the !edition law was unconiti-
| tutional; and this feems 10 have given rife to a
great portion of the alteration aud III humor
between the court and the bench.
admit thai the Conltitption gives to a GRIM
'nai the right of having coGnicl bur tine conGi-
tuition has not defined the rights or duties of
council, or to whar extent they are To sxercife
them. One thing, howe'er, is certain, that
they have no constitutional right 10 i;npofe up
OH the court or to miIcad the Jury.
When Cailender'S council contended that If
the jury have right 10 decide oueltons OF law.
then the contribution being the fupreme law of
the iand, the jury mutt of eourie have the pow
er or deciding on the ton9iiasou4Hty of
law the judge might well fay IT was a non fe-
quitur.
What has been allowed TO the Jurors as their
Incidental right on the general tiuc Not to
decide whether there is aneXilting Inv, or whe
ther law is in force, but 20 declare the true
continuation cfan exiting law, and whether
the cafe IN iiiue comes within tbs true contruc-
ton OF fuch law.
10 determine the cona,tutonaty of law, in
M no. for the power of the jury TO decide. it's
true contradiction aud whether the prifoner's
Gale comes within 1t, but to decide whether
what rs produced asa law is not void, mere
nui!ity, dead letter OF i'll other words whe-
Their iuch lay is in e:jfcncc. The maddet
entnuii1itS or the rights CT iurors--their mott
jealous advocates never commended for fuch
right before the cafes of Fries and Calender.
uO.rfN law r.
enacted; whether a law has been repealed
whether law has become obiolste or is in force?
the deciiion of thefe quefons hath always
been allowed the executive right OF the court.
he power OF the court 10 decide excluvely
upon thcie qneltions hath never been before con-
troverted Nay the very RICH: claimed on be-
matt OF the jurors, that they may determine what
IS the true contribution Of the law, and whe-
ther the Gale Is within its provi6ons, of tielf ne
cehdriiy Prefuppofes, and is predicated upon
the efyfenee Of a lazy, TIRE true coz,4ywgfion Of
7vbieb they are TO determine. 1t has indeed
been ierlouiiy que'tioned, ana that by gentle
men OF great abilities, whether even the iudici-
airy have right to declare law pai1ed by the
legiiiature, to be contrary to the contribution
aud therefore void / ihall not enter into an
examination OF that quefon, but have no he
iitation IN laying that jury have no fiIch right
thai 1t never was intended they ffIoud have
iuch Tignt, and that if they had the right, we
might as well be without contribution.
The firt ipecific inaance of my clients I'M
Juit, partial and incorporate conduct, which is
itated in this fourth article is, that he compel
led the trlver!eT's Council to reduce to writing
the quefons which they meant to proponud
to Coz. /. The correGtnel5 ofthisp procedure will
depend OH the quefion whethcrthc court hadby
, la% iuch power, for if fuch power was pof.
ielied by them, 1t is To he proclaimed that they,
on that location, exereifed 1t according to their
belt diicretion, nor can it be inferred hat their
conduct was criminal, becauie the procedure
was HOUei in Virginia There are cafes in which
Toe practice OF a court may be cunlidered the
idw OF the court but thefe are not in any man.
ner analogous to the cafe in queition nor dc
tind that the pSd9iee of the fate courts is obi
Sltory many cafe os this kind ON the courts
OF the United States" NV honorable client
did not confder what was tfual in virginia
but what WAS correct and proper: be kaevg tha;
the law authorized him to make this demand.
In Maryland where he i'n5ib.d his legal know
ledge, aud where at the bar aud ON the bench
he had carried Into practice, nothing was more
common than for qutftions to be reduced TO
writing At the requeit Of council, or at the re-
quet of the court. If council doubt Of the
propusty OF the evidence meant TO be drawn
irnIn he. ts.if