The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-09-03


inr 70 excite the irdfcbhty of I'll. audience a.
cainH him. Hence The mrth, the hnn,or, the
facetioufpefs, by which his conduct was mark
ed during the trial ; aUS which, nofi fortunate-
ly, was attended with the happy coufeqneBce
Re hoped trcl, il, for it is Admitted that he kept
the by-ttanders in great good humour, ard eX
citsd pea's of laughter at the expence Of the
council, as the wtneis very juftly concludes, for
he iays, the oopnftl did not appear 70 join IN;
the laugh" Aud this, fir, mott fatsfsdoilyl
! accounts for the more than ufal exertion of his
facetious talents On the trial of Calender; and
+. doubt not was the real caafs of that excrt;on.
! Among the different charges made againa
! Judge Chafe of rudcueis, and uuufhal language
/ ny him uted towards the couafel OF Calender,
We hnd it ftatcd, that vixen the Judge had re-
peatGdsy declared, the coanfel could not he per-
rttcd 10 areue to the Jury The cobtiitu.;onalty
of the law, and one of the council, who appears
to have felt particularly fore on the occalior,
hiil urging that gurftion to the Jury, the JUDGE
/. interrupted him, and declared thar the council
ot Calender bad non, The rt r,I;ftdkcr, the law
! and that they had per6Aedin ffriiing their milf
takes ON the court Never was there a more,
proper or correct espreGion MED by a Judge.
Never, believe. did the conduct of lawyers
more fully jpaiiy fuch a charge And, if the
abilities of the ccunfel are 70 great as they are
I repretented sc be, il is alH,ah impcGih!e not to
the exprets view 70 rmharrars the cout. III tie
hyit place, they nf.fed that the Jury, not the
| Court, WAS on the Indictment of Calender, to
a.icfs TIE .f'if, which ihould be impofd upon
him, if found guilty. This was one OF their err
rors, and mott etreeous error it was. and
yet my hcnorable client has been CHARGED with
| raasrGJ for calling IL as one wi.ncts ft:tes, ga
wild notion."-Or as Mr.. Robeftfon las it in
his tort land, ga u1iGaken notion.'' Either of
tthcie exprei;ions was in my opinion extremely
mild. FIR, Aiouid not have heiiated III calling
lta @i0d notion.
The idea that the array was TO be quafhed be-
cauie there was returned anindydual Juror, who
was fuppofed 10 be liable to be challenged, was
another mittaSe; a n1i!take that even lchool
BOY IN law could fcgrcely be expected to have
made. The affidavit 70 incorrectly drawn, and
their inhiliUg on continuance Of their caufc IA
Iconiequence Of that incorrect affidavit, was ano-
tscr mttake.
An additional miltaks, was their idea that the
court bad no right to know what tenimonv they
meant ihould be given by the witnefs produced,
and that It was improper to require that the
Gneftions meant 70 he propounded to col. Tay-
! lor, ihoud be reduced to writing. Aud the at
tempt to obtain from the jury a decilion that
the iedition law was Unconstitutional, in which
they 10 pertinaciouliy Periifed, was alfo an e.
ror. ak then whether, when the council had
been gn'Ity of all thefe mtakes, il did rot per-
fcttly jutfy nay honorable client in the c;l,,raf-
tions he ufed, that they had been from the frf
miitaken, and that they had continued through
! cut prehing their INTAKES upon the cour,9 Nav,
Gid 1t not !juftify the otfervatiCns ufed by hin,
| which has been Urged as mott eXccp,ionabe
" that they muf know better; and that their
conduit was intended to influence the by-aas-
dcrs :"-That the councils great Object was 20
give al in1Prefion to the people has been ac-
Enowlcdged on cath and Tie court mua have
had very moderate idea indeed of the legal a.
oiiities of Callender's council, if they could
have tup7o!ed iuch fuccei.ian of errcrs to have
aTiien from ignorance.
But the Judge is alio charged with great rude
nefs in the manner in which he replied in one
part Of the argument to Mr. Writ, iuft at time
when that gentleman had finiihed fyloeiiin !;
by replying that it was non EqGtw.-I viii
itate the tranfaction. Mr.. Writ having, as he
| fuppoed, eitabliihed the poiition that the Jury
had right to decide the law as well as the fact
he proceeded to Gate that the conaitution was
the fupreme law of the land, and therefore that
iince the jury had right to decide the law, and
the conltitution was alto the law, the Jury mult
certainly have a ight TO decide the contribution
| atty of a law made under it {; and this conclu-
Bon was. as he declared, perfectly fyIlogihic.
! AS Mr.. Writ had aflumed the character of To-
gfe!GH IN MS argument, nothing could be more
/ natural than for the Judge in his anfwer, to az
fnme the Ean,s ckaraffr'' be therefore replied
like logrcisn, a nan fqpifm, liz > The cor
rect 9nfwer TO fyIlogifD,. whiciis rather lame
in it9 coucnfion. But it Teens this anfwer was
acc ompanied by certain bow. rs bows, FIR,
according TO the manner they are made, may
like words, according to the manner they are "
tered, convey very different meanings; and as
it is as difficult 70 determine the merit or deme-
rt Of bow without having feen it, az it is the
expreifion ofWordS without having beard them ;
to dhcoyer, therefore, whether there was anv
thing ude or improper inthis bow, + could have
wi(hed thai the witnefs, WHO complained 70
much Of its Effect, had given rs fac frne Of
Il. FAC we recn favored not only with the an
tFyer, but alto with complete fac fmilc of the
bow, VIC might have been better enabled to have
Judged of the propriety of my honorable clients
conduti in this inttance. But it items this bow
together with the noaJeqnifar," entirely dif
coInhted poor MIR. Writ, and down he fat " and
never word fpake more III 70, it was iav-
ing OF time. But we have no proof that Mr.
Writ meant 20 have proceeded any further in
the argument, even had he not been encounter
ed with this formidable bow and ron fequitur
! And the presumption is, that having condenfrd
the whole force Of his argument into fyIogiftic
> 4 r