The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-07-12

of crime. and the fame principles OF deciiiop
which are obferved in the ordinary tribunals OF
criminal iurifdittion. The articles themielves
feem to have been drawn in conformity To this
opinion, for they all, except the fifth, charge
! in .exprefs terms fo're criminal Intention upon
the Respondent. This doeitine relative to inn
parchment is laid down in q Black. ESQ, and in
g WoodefoD, Oil. {" AS to the trial itfelf it
mna of courfe vary in external ceremony, but
differs not in eiIen:ials from criminal profecus-
ons before inferior courts. The fame rules of
evidence, the fame LEGAL notions Of crimes aud
punihmcnts prevail. For impeachmehts are
not framed to alter tie law, but to carry il into
more effectual execution, where it might be
ob0ruaed by the influence of two powerful de-
linquents, ornot eaIily difcerned in the orlina-
nv courfe ofiuriidittion, by reaFon ofthe necu-
lar quality of the ailedged crimes. The judge
ment therefore, is to be fuch as is warranted
by legal PRINCIPLES and precedents.' The con-
contribution ofthe United State appears to con-
f;der III. fuhie6t in the fame light. Bythe third
fiction of the third article, g the tiial of all
crimes, except in cafes of impeachment fhall
he bv Jury" and by the fourth fiction of the fe-
cond article, the nature and extent of pun;ih-
| ment in cafes of impeachment is defined. Hence
u may he inferred thar per(on is only impeach-
able for fome criminal offence. With this view,
have examined and re-examined the fifth arti-
Gle of impeachment to know apanft what the
def'nce ih"ud be made. Looking at it with
legal eye, / find no offence charged to have
been committed, and although it NAV feem
arauee, it is not the efs true this circumftance
has produced she Grea:ea difficulty and eF,,l,ar
raiiment iii what manner the defence ihould be
made.
nat this hon. ccnrt NAV perceive that ! have
not nlifapprehendedt the artiul., i will pray eave
Go read If. ''Aud whereas il is provided by the
ACT of Congrefs, paftd on the twenty fourth day
OF September, one thonfand fven hundred and
eighty rinc, untitled s. An act to ,;fabliil1 the
tiicia courts of the United Sta.es," that for any
crime or offence aganf the Uaited States, the
offender may be arrefed, impr;foEed, or hailed
agreeably to the uii,al mode OF proccfs in the
Rate where iuch offender may be found and
whereas tits provided by the laws of Virginia,
that upon preientment by any grand jury Of a,
offence not Capital, the CONT fhal order the
clerk TO liiue luminous apaiEf the perfon or
Perfons offending, to appear and anfwer fnch
preientment at the next court yet the iaid
Samuel Chaie did at the court aforeiaid, award
| capias aSainft the BODY Of The faid lanes #.
CalIender, indicted FOR an offence not caoital.
whereIpon the iaid Calender was arrcfted and
committed to ciofe euliody, contrary to law in
that cafe made and provided
This article changes no evil intention, no of
fence, no crime, yet the refpondent is requir-
ed TO make a defence, and is TO addrefs his
defence 10 this court a; one of criminal iurifdic-
tion. -.s-
! do not mean to produce authorities to this
high and learned tribunal, to flew that fudge
cannot hs impeached for mere error of Judge
rnent in any inttance of his judicial conduit.
with for none better than thofe produced bv
Que of the hon. managers Of the iprofscutiou
Mr.. Ciark) to prove this petition Bacon, g Z,
e In iii r Eel. It'll
ELEGANT advocate iuR lat down, (Mr Kew has
fully elabliihed the fame doctrine. If then
this be admitted, where or what is the crime
charged in the fifth article. The whole charge
is, that, by authority of the Judge procefs CAL
leda cafias was awarded aeainit Calender,
when tha, procefs ought to have been fun
| mo3s. 1t is not ai!edsed that the capias was a.
warded with any corr"pt or evil intention Of a.
ny kind. II then the article contains no charge
OF crime, there mutt he an acquittal. Upon
this point IhopeI maybe permitted toremindthc
court OF all obterVati0n Of another of the hon.
managers, who opened the comments upon
the evidence for the pr0fecution (Mr. Early )
! re ftated, and he 0ated truly as a general rule
OF Jurisprudence, that ifthere be 10 evil intenti-
on iet forth N the charge and proved, the par
ty accufed muf be acquitted. With theft re-
marks, ifthis was an ordinary cafe before an
| ordinary tribunal, might difinifs this part of
the accufat'on, and 1t may feem fcarcely pro-
perto occupy the precions time of this hon.
court, 70 near the clofe offs FELTON,, in defend
ing the Respondent any further againft fuch a
charge, bat feel too much refpea for the
Houfe of Representatives. who have preferred
this article, and the honorable MANAGERS
who fupPort it, not to give il fuller in,eaiga-
! lion.
The article may perhaps be underflood to
| produce all important enquiry; the enquiry how
far fke power of impea chmsnt poaenedby the
| houfr ofTcprclcntatives nlal extend .Atho' the
contribution declares that the houle Of repreIen-
;atves fhaIl have the foIe power Of impeach-
newt" yet ] truh thee is fomc limit To- this
power, and That Judge cannot he impeachct
| for mere legal error iuhis judicial condutt
when no crime isimputed to him. An impeacf-
meut is an accufi;on of moi ferrous nature.
and the people of the United States have moi
! vehed the power of Impeachment exclnlively in
the Houfe of Representatives in Congrefs, but
/ IN their Rate governments they have eltablifi,ed
tribunals who sre TO poGefs the power of in,-
parchment. 1 hold IN my hand a little book
| which contains the mot valuable matter il
contansthe cJntitutions Of the fevcral nates
! By referring to them we find, in a!noh every
! nhance, that power of impeachment NAV be
7, exercifed under the fate authority. When
therefore the doctrine of Impeachment is abou,
to be fixed in regard to the limits Of the power
ofimPeachment by Judgment Of. this high and
1 Ii. q = =