The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-06-18
[VoLuME Q.

the cafe, for If corhined with general view to
oofrues the execution of the act, the offence
mutt be deemed treaf,n."
Judge lrede'', therefore, fo far from conceiy-
ing 1t to bea crime TO have an opinion upon the
law OF treafon in levyins war and the overt acts
which would conftute II, to reduce that opi-
mon to writing and to deliver both TO council
| ana jury, ieens tn have con6dered il, as Chief
JuitIce Eyre had done before him, to be his duty
| to do 70. The opinion delivered bv this rei-
peetable judge comedies entirely with that of
iJuoSe Chafe, and the manner of delivering
was, on our opponents principles, vaillv more
excePt'onaolc. The novelty OF this proceeding.
| ieems to have vaniihed on invefigation. There
IS indeed one Rriking difference in the two OPT
| nions-Ihat Judge Chafe goes more fully and
Clearly into the definition of the offence. and is
more particularly careful 70 fate thoC. ,,;Cinai.
ons and determinations which nuht ferve the
accuied, and reduce his tranfgreiIion to fnne
, inaiIer offence. provided thew could Appear in
MS CAFE. lie tets out not onv the deftription5
and character of thoie overt acts which conAi-
'u'e treaion, but enumerates alto with equal
care inch as will not amoun: to that offence.
III theie favourable determinations might in any
way have been uiefnl to the accufed. tbey were.
the Jury.
nc gentleman who opened the profecution,
MIR. Randoiph) took occaiion to fpeak in yerv
handiome, and doubt not very t'eferved terms
ofaPplauie, of diltinguiiheol Judge in Virginia.
Ihis lame Judge has publifl,ed an edition Of
n'acSttone Commentaries, into which he has
introduced variety of his own opin;ons on The
contribution and laws of the United States. IF
hereafter Perfon fhould be accufed under the
operation e. fome of thofe fatutes, on the cen
itruG'on OF which Judge Tucker has publ;0;ed
his comments and opinions, would it be anv i'm
Parchment of tie Juice and impartiaity of
TINS Judge 20 fay, he had made up his opinior.
ne Aad reduced it TO writing. he had delivered
u. ~ 20 l.e weird and therefore he had preiudged.
TIE cafe. no, this would he fort of rcafoninq
even more abfdrd than the Richmond non ram,
!W. The hon. manager (Mr. Randolph) 70 en-
'orce and exempiify his doctrines on this flbieel
put an analogous cafe. He fta:ed that Judge
ho'aiHg criminal court might properly give
thc legal defcrption of murder and the cir.
cu'nuances and ingredients that in point Of
law would eonfttute this offence. But fays he,
ne may not go on TO apply this definition TO the
overt acts laid in the indictment. This CON
'eis Is novelty 70 me. never before heard of
overt acts in an Indictment for murder. The
general charge of the offence is laid in LEGAL and
general terms, but there is no f5eciGo alton of
the particular facts and circumstances by which
me charge istob be Imported. But fiuppofe
iuqee, knowing that a man was coming before
him for trial, accufcd of eoiny into the nrrct
with declared refolution to kill lie frf nerfon
ne ihouid meet; and this judge were to fay TO
any Perion or IN any place, verbally or in writ
ing that killing under fnch circumstances was
murder. and full manifestation of malice in L.,
eai conjunction, would this be called preiudi.
cstlon or the cafe Is it not mere declaration
" 'he law exiting and eftablilhed long before
,he Gale, which 1t was the duty of the JUDGE "a
know, to obey and TO decIares IF The f,as
proved before the jury, brought the accented
within the law. the confequence of conviction
loIoNed, not by the will of the Judge. brt TX,
tile iehtence OF The law; and while this oueni-
on was lett open, the cafe was in no wife ore.
ludged- To explain this point fill further.
WIN put the cafe of thrilling. This offence, Ike
tnat OF treaion, confifs of two parts the act
~: i"a me intent Wonld-it be criminal in
luoge, Knowing that fuch a cafe was TO come
before hIsn, TO inform hmfelf, if necefary, OF
INC law or fbeis, to make up his mind upon the
commitment parts of the offence, and TO declare
tnrm 10 the grand jury, the council or any body
ehe Might he not be of opinion, and wrnc
ana iay' that a libel is Il malicious defamation
OF any Per,o3 in writing, in order or intending
10 eAcite their wrath, or to expoe them to pub.
nc hatred or coutemDts Here the f,6} of OH
lication mpA be proved, and the malicious in
tent. And might not Judge ftate what in con-
temptation OF law is malicious md defanatorv
writing, and that if fich an one is nubfhed
with intent to injure and defame, if is in law =
noei! Apply this doctrine to the cafe of Fries
May not judge have an opinion and declare,
that an infnrre6iion of DO ~ith intent or ~
order to redh the execution any law of tb,
United States, and the CARRYING that intent into
execution by actual forCe and violence. istreacon
againtt the United States by levyine war,
mere IS no prejudication in either cafe. tbe
facts and the intent which conflitute the crime.
and on which the guilt or innocence of the A.,
cuied depends, are left wholly untouched. and
come without prejudice or bias TO the inv.
nave heard the phrafe prejudginc the lsw', re-.
peated over and over again. Judge Chat ...-
iadGed TIE haSO againft Fries we are told-I con.
tets the pirate Is a very fingular one to me.
Know Hot preciely how to lnderhand il 7 CON
comprehend what is meant when hear nc me-
Judging mans cafe-in prejudeing The f1efs
OF any cafe But as to the law, ] prefnme il 10
always Preudgcd; always Gettled, certain ana
afccriHineA. II is never queftion in a caf. rs
raurder, whether killing with malice nrensnf.
IS or IS not murder. The law has r,re;,,d,eJ
that and 70 in all other cafes the oneaion -
whether the facts proved bring the cafe w;,bin
the law. And 70 it was in Fries's CAFE. and ',,
on that point judge Cbafe neither gave nor IN
tHna'ed nor bad an opinion for as The evidenc,
DAD NOT been he1rJ h.