The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-07-26


Let this be admitted, and what does It avail I! |
The practice that has been mentioned applies
only TO 1e.ly miidepsanore, and the law has al |
ways dilinguiti,ed between petty mifdemeanors
and thofe OF greater malignity. The practice
does not apply to what are termed cyTnrina ma
fora. Can it be iaid that fuch a rule of practice
applies to the cafe Of Calender. Was he in
oitted for petty nidemeanor: Nc, iir, ne
was not. have long learned to abhor the de-
teilable crime of calunny. A calumniator is
the grsatef of criminals, and Calender has been
the grea,eit of cauriniators. All have agreed
in reprobating the vickednefs of his caumnies
and ought the hon. judge who is now aniwering
before you to have applied the rule of Englth
and Virginia practice concerning petty mitie-
meanors TO fuch cafe as that of Calender
Certainly not.
To place this matter Nil! more clear of Doubt,
with the hon. court to turn their attention 20
the contribution, and to few caufes of the laws
of the u. States. The Hxth amendment to the
contribution provides, "that in all criminal pro-
iecrtions the accufed fhall enjoy the right TO
fpeedy and public trial by an impartial jury OF
the nate and difritt wherein the crime fl,all
have been committed" In the fame fpirit OF
fpeedy iuitice, clauie in the SD fettiou of the
fta.ute directs, that scopies of the proceis iall
be returned as fpeedily may be into the clerks
office OF fu4h court, together With the reccgn-
fteiify in the cafe, which recognizances the ma
eittlate before whom the examination ffai be,
may require pain of imprisonment; and if
iuch commitment of the offender or the wit
,s lles ihall he in dffriet other than that in
which the oiieuce is to be tried. it fhall be the
duty of the Judge of that diitriSt where the de-
nqnent is imprifoned feafonabIy to t,ue, and
of the marihsi of the fame diftrit to execute a
warrant for the removal of the offender and the
witneiies, or either of them, as the cafe may be,
TO the ditritt in which the trial is o I've had -
Aud upon all arrcfs in criminal cafes, bail
fhali be admitted, except where the puniihme mt
may be DEATH" &c.
With the fame view to fpeedy trial, the eth
fiction of the ftarute Of I'd March, 1898, euaGts,
&c that it ihal be lawful for the ievera courts of
the y. States, from time SC tiH,e, rs occa!it;'s
may require, TO make rules and orders for their
REFLECTIVE courts, directing the returning of writs
and procetles, &c. and otherwite in a manner
not repugnant to the laws of the United States
to regulate the practice of the faid courts re-
ipeaiyely, as fhall he fit and necefiary for the
advancement of jutice, and Especially 10 that
end to prevent delays in proceedings" Hence
it is evident, that in bringing Calender to trial
at the fame term at which he was indicted and
At which he pleaded, the court obeyed the in
Junction of the contribution, and il oheyed the
injunction Of the laws of the United States.
IN Gales EHSlG odH Is 10 tuS
trial may be ufed to the opprefon of the ac-
| cuftd. Il is therefore enjoined By the confitu-
tion and by the laws, that there fall be no de-
| lay. If the honorable Judge who ttauds accnfed
of trying Calender too foon, had deferred the
trial TO another term, that is to fay, fix months,
and the traverfer could not have given bail, he
would have been imprifoned fix months without
trial. After he was convicted, the fenteuce
of imprisonment pronounced by the fame judge
! wasonly an imprisonment of about nine months.
He acted therefore not only according to law,
but with humanity in bringing the traverttr to
| IF the trial had been poApsned 70 another term,
| and Calender in the mean time had been impri-
| Toned, iuch conduct in the court would have
given cauie of complaint againit the judge, who
would then have been accufed of poitponing the
trial of an limo emf man, for the purpofe of op-
prefion. What in fnch cafe ought the Judge
to have done Exactly what he did. Obeying
the contribution and the laws of the United
States, lie brought the traverfer to a a fpeedy
and public trial.
1t is, may il peafe the honorable court, upon
thete grounds that the Respondent fands
fulfilled in his conduit in relation TO tie
charge contained IN the 9th article Of impeach-
ment.
In the diltribution of the articles of irpeach-
ment among the council of the Respondent he ac
hgned TO me the 9Th and 9th, and hurrbly in
dulge the hope that The defence which has been
made, will be deemed satisfactory. But before
conclude, hope ! may be allowed fi,ortly TO
advert to tome Of the remarks which have fallen
from the hon. managers in refPett to this part of
the accufation.
The honorable managers have attempted 70
new difference between prefentnent and an
indictment, and that until the indictment was
found, capias ought not to have been iifued,
even fit were lawful to ifIue it upon an india
ment. That there is no fuch diftin6tion, ] ap-
peal to thofe paGiges of the acts of Congrefs TO
which reference has been already made ao-
peal to the reafon of the thing and to the ma
ture of prefentment. 1t fDeces of inditl
mont, an Informal Indictment, it is an accufati-
or GA grand jury. There are cafes where it
would be improper in court to wait until 4
prefentment fhall be put in the form of an in
dictment Crcumfances may he fnch, that
the offender would efcape il procefs was not if-
fued upon the preGtutnent.
One Of the honorable managers charged the
Respondent with Precipitancyin awarding the ca
pas. If this gentleman had recolet1ed the teE
timony, he world not have made that remark
1t was undeniabIy proved that the Respondent
enquired Of the clerk of the court and of the
diftritt attorney, what was the proper procefs.
Thefe officers anf~ered, that a capias was the
proper procefs.-Upon fuch fubie6s tits ufual
to- enquire Of fuch officers, and their an