The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-06-21

Relieved that thefe hatutes of the United States
HAD no fort Of application to the cafe before
him, and we contend that he would have zen
wholly juftifabe in excluding them from the
difcutiion, yet we deny mott explicitly that he
did 70. The Respondent never declared that
thsfe laws l,oud not be read or referred to on
that location. The proof ofthe faa refsentre-
Ny on the recollection Of Mr.. Lewis. Among
the numerous fpeefators of this tranfaeton not
q man but Mr.. Lewis has been produced to fuf-
tain this charge NOV deemed 70 important. MIR.
Lewis has douhtefs declared the fact as he be-
f]icves it-but, fir, when we recollett the agita-
/ tion of this gentleman as defcribed by himfe!f-
the ftrong ftate of feeling or PATTON into which
/ he was excited, the length of time and the ac-
knowledged frailty of his memory-and when
/ to this Ne add that fomething was probably faid
about the irreevancy of thefe ftatutes. we fhall
find fufficient reafon to believe that Mr.. Lewis
4 has in this refpea, fallen into mitake-op-
pofed to this imperfect recollection we have
Me(1rs. Rawle, TiIghman, Meredith, Bddle,
and Ewing, all ponefIing an equal opportunity
with Mr.. Lewis to hear and to underitand what
4 pafied from the court; and from their cool and
cihnterefed ituations lefs likely to receive I'M
founded or difcolcured impreffions. ! cannot
and Mr.. Rawe are win n; {st fam INN ep and
examined on the part of the United States, and
although the honorable managers have thought
las, and to treat the other gentlemen as witnefI-
es FOR the Respondent, they are nevertheless en-,
titled to the full regard and refpett, whatever
It may be, attached to the witneffes for the ma
Jeity of the people. The FIVE gentlemen have
named, were all of them in court during the tri.
al OF John Fries, and at the time Mr.. Lewis flp-
poles this refrietion to have been laid upon him,
AND yet not one has any recollection of any
\ tuch Prohbition-I believe they or fome of them
ferrn fhaf T,~k
Emade. If this companion of the recollection of
ZAhve witnefies againft one, who himfelf teRifies
to the imperfection of his memory, leaves any
I doubt about the truth oftbe fact, can refer
rms honorable court TO written document
drawn up by MIR. Lewis, in conjunction with
Mr.. Dallas, which mutt put the queftion to
ret. When there is fuch contradiction in the
tetImony of fuch Respectable witneffes, it is a
ngreat relief to my mind to have fome permanent
Ssycncher to refer to, to decide the difference.
ai'ude, tr, TO the letter addref1ed by Mef1rs
Lewis and Dallas TO Mr.. Lee, then attorney
general ofthe United States.-This letter was
written IN May, 1900, foon after the trial of
Fries, and when every Circumstance was frefh
IN the memory of Mr. Lewis. This letter was
written in confequence of communication
from Mr. Lee, ftating that the cafe of Fries
was before the PreGdent-that all the Informal
fion was wihed, which could anift in making
proper deciion upon claim for mercy and
Z pardon for which purpofe Mr.. Lee delired to
know the grounds on which the council intend
ed to have enforced the defence" In confe.
qsence OF this folemn and important call from
fuch high authority, and for flch an interef
Tfi'g purpofe, MIR. Lewis writes to Mr.. Dallas
-itates that in juftice to "poor Fries" as well
as to themfelves, they ought to make the delir-
ed commuhication-that they fllould fate their
intended arguments, &c. and that they fhouId
nj
l,o1s for defining any infe.Isrente in tAe
trial ----he then requeted from MIR.
Dallas " e1e,y communication likely to
'render iervicc to poor Fries" Turn then, fir,
to the letter addicted to Mr.. Lee, with all thefe
friendly difpoftions on the part of Mr.. Lewis,
with all the anxious defre he had TO ferve poor
Fries, and with all the aid of Mr.. Dallas in ma
king the ftatement, which was to contain all
their information on the fubjeef, and all their
reaions for declining to interfere in the trial.
We find, fir, IN this important letter. that they
informed the Prefident that the caufe was pre-
judged" by an opinion they were wholly unac-
Equalnted with-by paper they had never read
fand knew not the contents of-and the Jury were
salio preiNdsed by this opinion, although they
knew not what it was. But, fir, we do not |
lind any complaint wbatever-nay, not the
nghtef fuggefton that the court prevented or
forbade the reading of thefe tatutes of the Unit
ed States, or refrieted the council from making !
any ufe of them they thought proper. With
the manifeR difpofition of thefc gentlemen, in |
writing this letter, with the Object before them |
for which it was required, and the ufes they in
tended hould be made of it, ufes which they an |
ticipated at the moment they abandoned the |
caufe, vs. il probable 70 important circumfance
wonld have been omitted if it had really occur |
red. refer you and this honorable court, fir,
70 the following pages of the evidence printed
at the at fei1ion of Congrefs for the ufe of the
'Houfe of RePrefentatives-page 81, 81, IS, &c,
10 80.
May not now flatter myfelf, fir, that Az the
criminality charged upon the Respondent, in the
fecond Specification of the firft article of i'm
parchment is wafhed away from the minds of
this honorable court. Under this hope and inn
preilion, will proceed to confider as briefly as
poiiihle the third and la( Specification. In this
the judge Us charged with "debarrng the prifun-
or from his constitutional privilege of addrefIng
the jury (through his counfel) on the law as well
as on the fact, which was to determine his guilt
orinnocence, and at the fame time endeavour
ing to wref from the jury their indifputable
right TO hear argument; and determine upon the
queltion of law, as well as the auction oe faef,
involved in the verdict which they were required
to give" This charge is absolutely unfonnded
and untrue, and is, in all its parts, mott COM
petely difproved by the evidence. As to debar-