Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1805-03-22


able court, will more fully appear.
k,the meeting Of. The last aboveEnen-
toned cIrcui, court, this respondent, as
required BY the duties of his ofh>c, de-
livsred charge to ting grad jury in
which, according 10 his constant rrac.
tice, ana, 70 hi. duty rs n Judge, he gave
in charge 70 them, several acts Of Goa
sress Tor the punishment Of offences, and
among them, the aforementioned at,
called the ssJitiOu law and directed The
SAID jury to make particular inquiry,
concerning any breaches OF these sta
tutrs or any oil then, within tie district
Of Virginia. On the Gath day of May,
1900, the said jury found an .ndictne nj
against one James Thompson. c Calender,
for printing and publishing, against the
iorm Of the said actof Congress, false,
.eandalous, and malicious libel, called
" The Prospect Before Vs." against
!ohn Adams, then President Of the u
nitcd States, in his official character a.
.t'rrsid.nt; asar1rar. by an official copy
Il The said indictment, marked exhibit
No, !, which this res pondent begs leave
TO make part of this his answer.
On WetIne sdNv, the 2s,h day Of the
same month, MAY. 1900, Philip Nor
bonnie Nicholas, Esq. now attorney &C.
neral OF the state Of Virginia, and George
HAY, Esq. now district attorney of the
United States, for the district OF Nirgi-
ni., appeared in the said circuit court a.
counsel for the said CallcnG>r; anI-on
Tuesday the Sd of June following, his
uial coHmenccd> before this e.pondenI,
and the said Cyrus Grim, who then sat
as aS'istar,jnAse. The petit jurors be-
n.g called over, eight Of them appeared,
namely, Robert Gamble, Bernard Mack
ham, john BArrel4, William Aus,in,
William Richardson, Thomas 1inAi.v,
MAtthe W Harvey aud John B-"c:; who
as they came to the book to &c swCrn,
were severalv asked on oath, bv Girec-
tion OF the court, ">whether they had <
yer formed and dcl,> cred ANY npiajou
respe citing the suit jet matter then To be
tried, or concerning The charges lortAin-
ed in Ihe indictmr at" Thr> all ans ger
ed IN the negative, and were sworn 10
ehiet TO try the issue. The co1nsl for
the said Gale nder declaring, tax it as
unnecessary to put this questlnA 10 tie.
other tour jnrVmen, William t":-v",
James hawrs, Henry S. Shore a=u John
PIior, they also were immedlatel, sworn
in chirf. No challenge was made ~
the said CAHendlr or his counsel, 10 snv
OF these j"ror1 but the SAID ceul.s1, "a
clarrd, tina, thev would RELY On the an
swsr that should bs given by the .uil ia
rors, to the question thus put By order
OF the cou,t.
After the aforementioned John Eas-
set, whom TIN. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and
sdmItH to be the person menlioAr4 in the
article OF Impeachment now under con-
alteration, had thus answered in tbs ne.
gative, to the question put TO him by
order Of The court. as aforementioned.
~hi>h Iris respondent states TO be the le-
&: = roper question, 10 be put to ju-
t"rs "H snrh occasions, he expressed TO
,tse court his wish to be excused from
serv,rk On the said trial, because he had
MADE up his mind, or had formed his O.
pinion, - that the publication, called
) The Prospect Before U.s. from which
the words charged in the Indictment as
hItl!ous, were laid to be extracted, but
which he had never seen, was, accor.
ding to tht representation oft which he
had received, within the sedition law"
Bat the court did not consider this decla,
ration by IN. sAid John Basset, a. su(-
6cient reason for Withdrawing him irom
tho jury, and accordingly directed him
to be sworn in chief.
In thi, opinion and decision, as in all
the others delivered during The trial in
question. this respOnd.u, concurrsd with
his colleague, the afore- mentioned Cv-
ru. Griffin, in whom none OF these opin
ions have been considered As criminal.
He contends that the opinion itself was
lrgh and correct; and he denies that
he ConCurred in il, under the influence