Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1805-04-19

7 practice Of Virgins, into which he has
made all the inquiries which eireumstan-
Gee and the shortness Of time allowed
! him for preparing his answer, would
permit, that all the cases in which sum.
| moss 10 considered As the only proper
process, are cases Of petty offences, which
on the presensmsnt Of grand jury, arc
to be tried BY the court in summary
way, without the Intervention Of petit
jury.-ThsrefOre these provisions had
no application to the case OF Calender.
which could b no otherwise proceeded
on than by indictment, and trial ON the
indietmentby petit jury.
1t mus, berecolleeted that the act of
conSres. Of Sept. oath, 1889, enast', sec
ton -, " that the eourts Of the United
States shall have power to issue writs OF
scire facias, habeas corpus, and all o.
Their writs not specially provided for by
statute, which NAV be necessary for the
exercise oftheir respective Jurisdictions,
and agreeable to the principles and usAg-
e. oflaw.." Consequently, the circuit
court, where the proceedings in qut'u-
! on took place, had power to issue ca
| pias against the traverser, on the pre-
j sentiment. unless the state law above.
mentioned governed the case, and con-
A.; tanned something to restrain the issuing
OF that writ in such a case. ThiTrespon-
den. contends, for the reasons above
rated, that this state Law neither appli.
ed to the case, nOr contained any thing
toprsvent the issuing Of a eapias, it it
had applied.
/ Thu. it apesrs that this respondent,
in ordering eapias to issue against CAL
lender, decided correctly, as it certain
Nv wa. his intention to do. But he
claims no other merit than that ofupriEhs
inteAtion in this decision: for when he
made the decision, he was utterly igno-
rant that such law existed in Virginia ::
AID declares that he never heard Of it,
till this article was reported BY a commit
tee OF the House Of Representatives, dur
ing the pre.en, session of Congress.
This law was not mentioned on the tri-
al either by the counsel of the traverser
or BY judge Griffin, who certainly had
much better opportunities Of knowing
it than this respondent, and who, no
doubt, would have cited it had they
known it and considered it As applicable
TO the ease. ThisrespoHdent we'll knows
that in criminal view, ignoraHse ct the
law excuses no man in offending against
it: but this maxim applies not to the de-
| eSa IS .,,lSa hu ~
the law in general would certainly be 4
disqualification for this Office, though not
= crime but ignorance of a particular
act Of asse mbly, of state where he was
an utter stranger, must be considered Rs
a very pardonable~ errour especially as
the counsel for the prisoner to whose case
that law is supposed to have applied, for
bore or omitted to eito il; and as ajudg.
Of the state, always resident in il, and
long conversant with it's local laws. ei.
Their forgot this Law. or considered IT a.
inaPPlicAHle.
Such is the answer, which this res.
pondent makes to the fifth article Of i'm.
parchment. 1.-The erred in this case, it
was throughignoranee otthe law, & sure
~ ignorance, under such cireums1nees,
Cannot be crime, muchIes high crime
and misdemcanor, for which he ougE
to be removed from his ofice. fla Judge.
were improbable for acting against law
from Ignorance ONLY, it would follow,
that he would be punished in the same
manner for deciding asAin.. Law wtlful.
ly, and for deciding >asains, it through
mistake. In ether words, there would
be no distinction between ignorance aad
design, between errour and corruption.
And the said respondent, for plea to
the said fifth article OF impeachment,
saith, that he is not guilty, Of any high
crime and nisdeneanor,- as In and by the
said hfth article is alleged against him +;
and this he prays, may be inquired of,
by this honorable COURT in such man.
Her, salaw and justice shall seem to them
- require. .-',