The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-06-14

HIGHT, ana uetefiniiic upon the qucition CT Jaw
as well as the quecion of fact, involvee. in the
verdict which they were required to give
In the whole of tEeie Notifications am a.
Ole to diicover but enc truth the ref is Which,
| ~ co3eradictcd and diiproved Ivy the evidence.
1t is true, thdt judge Chafe did form and re-
ouce to writing, and, in limited manner, de-
| Ever an opinion upon the queGion of law, on
the contribution OF which the defence of The ac-
cu:ed materially depcnded-but when the arti-
Gle goes on TO charge that this opinion tended
TO pre- udce the minds of the Jury asainN the
cafe of John Fries the prifoner, before council
had been heard in his defence, it is utterly un-
founded and untrue. To whom was this opini-
on delivered! To the council for Fries and
to the attorney for the United States; and TO
no other pcrfon. The third copy, and but
three were made, never was delivered, to the
jury or to any other perion, and never could
produce any prejudice or injury to John Fries.
Nor indeed was itever intended to come
| to the knowledge of the jury, unit, they had
! completely heard the dilru.,ion of the cafe b.
council, when they were to have taksR ON
with them this opinion ofti.e judge upon the
| law OF the cafe iu6mit:sd 10 them. st that Pc
| rod OF ihe trial when 1t was not only the right
out the duty OF the court 10 fate TO the jury
their opinion OF the law ariGng on the facts,
| then and not until then was it the intention of
the judge 10 communicate to them this ,.ebe-
rate opinion. Could this be done with any in
tention to injure or opprefs the prifoner? if
iuch was the intention of the act, then and not
| otherwife, 1t was criminal. In inquiring into
the nature of this act, confine nyfelf now to
the forming and delivery of this opinion, and 10
decide its innocence or criminality, we i1culd
| conhder 1t Ill relation to its ,asaves, lis time
aid manner and its eo1jiqataces. II nothing
partial, opprefive or corrupt is to be found
IN any of thefe, know not in what OF V hence
the criminality Is 10 be efabliEed. In deci-
ding, hr, upon the motiUe which prompted the
Judge TO this ACT, we E,u!t look for materials i'll
the teitimony by this we NUT tie governed,
and not by the imputations, furnlifes and con-
| itructions OF our opponents, however eloquent
and ingenious. The judge and his motives are
! not only ftronely denounced in the article, bu.
have alto had The fame fate from the mouths of
| the managers | take the evidence for NY
guide, and know it will be the guide of this
honorable court
What then, fir, did Judge Chaie declare him
felt to be the reafons which induced him 10
| form this opinion. to reduce it to writing, and
! to hand it to the council And permit me here,
iir, to fate that in all criminal profecutIons for
an act equivocal in itfelf, and Whole cha
| racter ofgult or innocence depends upon the
| intention with which it was done, the dccla-
| rations of the party, made at the time, are al
ways received in evidence TO afcertain and FIX
the true character of the act and the fair and
legal explanation of the act is taken and derived
from fuch declarations of the party, if not diff
proved by other evidence. What then did
judge c. himfelf fay ofhis intention & motiv. s
IN relation to this opinion Mr.. Lewis ftates
| that on this occalion Judge Chafe fad, that he
had underitood that ut the former trial there
FAD been e great qvHRe oftime on topics which
| had nothing to do with the bulinefs or cafe,
and IN reading common law deci6ons on the
doctrine of treafon, as well as under the ftatute
OF Edw. Sd before the revolution {; and alto rela-
ting to certain acts of Congrefs for crimes lefs
than treafon. That TO preVent tits in future. he
or they had confdcrcd The law, made up their
| minds and reduced it TO writing. And in order
| that the council might govern themfeives ac-
cordiDgly, had ordered three copies to be made
out, &c. &c. Here then the judge, at the time
| OF the act now charged to proceed from a cor
| rupt and partiaintention, declares in unequ-
vocal language what were his true motives.
His object was to prevent an unnecelIary waite
OF time IN court, where van deal of criminal
and civil buineis was then depending and wait :
| ing for trial. This was tie motive, and the
only motive declared and avowed by the Judge,
at the time he delivered this offcDGve paper,
and unIefs it be difproved by the evidence or
the circumstances of the cafe, it mutt he taken
to be the true one. IL is not a flbiect OF encli-
|
proceeding be good or bat one it is enough
to our purpofe that it mot certainly is neither
partial or corrupt. As the motives was not par
| tial, 70 neither was or could he the act opDreE
| five TO the prifoner, unIefS the Judge in execu-
| ting his dcfgn of preventing the waite of time,
purified It TO an UNREASONABLE extent. IF he
| contributed only the Introduction Of irrelevant
matter, and did not exclude any thing that
could and ought to have benefited the prifoner,
he was guilty Of no injuftice or improprety
ii the proper and legal rights of the council of
the prifoncr were curtailtd to his injury, there
was certainly injufice done but if nothing
| more than wholefome and Reasonable reflriaions
were impofed, to the manfelt advantage of the
general bufuefs of the curt and of other fnit-
! ors there, without any unjuf detriment to John
Fries, then not only the motive was corre6f,
but the act was highly Iaudable. And fuch
was undoubtedly the cafe. IF we 20 no further
than Mr.. Lewis's tefimony on this fubiett, G.
very idea Of an intention on the part of Che
judge TO iniure or opprefs John Fries is done a.
way. As far as the Judge declared himfef, his
intention was pure and correct, and we cannot
Fay that in the execution Of this correct inten.
ton, he would have carried It to fuch excefs
as to produce oppreiion aud injuRice. The de-
lign was crufhed in embryo; as far az VIC are
acquainted with it, it is fair and clear of op.
preiiiOn, and we are not authorized TO r,ref1n,e