Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1805-02-20

pSdCiidolC lot dSAiHS SSaias< law. ,AlohA II
nor ance only, 1t would, follow thar hs
would be punished in the same manner
for deciding against law wilfullY, and fsl
deciding az ainst it through mistake. In Q.
Their words there would be. no distinction
between ignorance and design between
error and corruption.
And the said respondent, for plea to the
said fifth article of Impeachment, saith, that
he is nc, guilty of any high crime sad ms.
demeanor, as in and by the said fifth arri-
Gle of Impeachment is alleged ag,iast him
land this he Prays may be snqaired OF
by this honor able court. in such manner
as law and justice shall seem to .hea, to
reqaire, ~
The sixth article Of irnpeachnsn, all
lodges, that this respondent, /, with iateat
to Cypress and procure the conviction of
the said James Thompson Calender, did
at the court aforesaid ruie and al Judge
the said Calender to trial, during The term
at which he the said Calender, was pre-
sentcJ and indicted, contrary to the law in
that case made and provided
. This charge also is founded, is. or TIE
&C, Of congress CT Seprv2+, 1898, above
mentioned, which enacss section 81, that
the laws otthe several states, except where
the constitution, treaties, or statutes OF the
United States shall otherwise provide.
shalbc regarded IS the rules of desison,
in trials at comw2n h5v, in the courts of
the United States, IN cases where they app
Ply and secondly on law of the state of
Virginia, which is supposed TO provide,
that in cases ne capital, the, offender
shall not be 'hcitto answer any present
ment of grand jury, until the court next
proceeding that, during which such pre-
sentiment shall have been made This
law it is commended, is made the rule of de.
cision by the aforementioned act Of con-
grsss, and was violated by the refusal to
continue the sass Of Calender till the next
term.
In answer to this charge this respondent
declares, that he was at the time of max.
ing The aforementioned decision, wholly
ignorant OF any such law of Virginia as
that IN question:, thar no such law was adj
duced or msn,lpned by the counsel Of Cal.
leader, in support Of their nosion for a
continuance; neither when they first made
it, before this respondent sitting alone
nor when they renewed 1t, after Judge
Griffin had taken his seat in court; that
no such law was mentioned by Judge Crit.
i'm who concu'red in overriding the mo.
tioh for continuance and ordering on the
trial which he couldhot have done had he
known tia. such law existed, or consi.
dere d il as applicable to the case and that
TINS respondent never heard of any such
law. until the articles of impeachment now
under consideration were reported, in the
course OF the preseu; session Of Congress,
by commit,ee OF the House of Represcn.
,a;ives.
A Judge is certainly bound to use all
proper and rea onable means OF obtaining
a knowicGge Of ;he laws which he is ap.
pointed to administer; but after the use
O such m eaos, 70 overlook. m sunders,and
or remain tsaoran. Of some particular law.
is at all times a very yardonable error. IL
is much more so in the case Of Judge Of
thu supreme court OF the UDited STATES,
holding circuit cours.in particular STATE,
win which he is stranger, and with the.
local laws of which he can have enioved,
bntvery imperfect opportunities Of bsc1m
ing acqIa ored. 1t vas toreseen by. Con-
gross, in establishing he uiscour;s Of
the United Sites thatl liza ul.irs and IT,
copveniences s,rs; frequently arise IRON
this source, I'D to ob,A, s,such difficulties
it was prus!!es, thai .hr districs Judge Of
each state, whp having been resident OF
sh- sta:e and Practitioner in its courts,
had al! the necessary means Of beconing
acquainted with lis local lays, should forra
part ofthe circuit court n his own state.
The Judge OF the so2reme cour: is expect
ed, with reason, to be well versed In the I.
general laws; but he local laws Of the
STATE form the peculiar province of the dis.
trict Judge, who NAV BE- Justly con,ldered
as particularly responsible for their due ob-
saryanee. It in the case in question,
this respondent overlooked or miscon-
s;rued any local law Of the state Of Viz