The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-03-28

| The contents became known to any Of the iu-
rors
n. Icaunot.
Mr. Harper. obftrve the paper contains
notes and references toauthorities were they
taken from the paper handed down by the.
court, or were they made by yourielf?
n. | cannot fay as 70 thofc at the bottom A:
thofe at the end were all my own.
Mr.. Martin. Do you know whether the
judges orthe dittritt attorney knew you had
copy
Il. do not.
VIM. RAWLE affirmed.
The circuit court of the United States fat in
Philadelphia in April 1900. As the former pro-
ceedlngs in relation to the prifoners indicted
tor treaton were coniidered at an end. except
nom the intervention ofan act of Conyrefs, il
appeared 70 me mott regular to quafi all the
previous proceedings. made a motion 20 this
effect, which was granted. On the fame tav
the court charged the grand jury, and / ftnt
to them bills aganit John Fries, and ether per-
iOns charged with treatCn and other offences.
The bill agairG John Fries was returned ON the
10th true bill and he was immediately hrot'
up, arraigned and pleaded not guilty. MeRrs.
Lewis and Dallas appeared as council for Fries
Copies of the indictment and lifts of the Jurors
and witnel1es were furniilled TO Fries as direct
ed by law. The bringing on The tria! was pea
poned on account of the abienCe OF George
Mitchell, whom deemed TO be a material wit
NETS. According tony belt recollection il was
n t INTENDED that John Fries ihould be tried
on the 22d, the frf day alluded to. cannot
FAY that John Fries was arraigned at the bar
That circumstance does not appear on the
minutes OF the Clerk ofthe court. Ii was Ger
tdinly not my intention that he lhould I've brot'
up, but he may poGibly have been brought
through mittake. Shortly after the court met,
Judge Chaie ohftrved, that rs much time had
been loft or the former trial or trials the court
had determined 10 eXpycfs their opinion in vri-
ting, on the point Of law, thai they might not
be miiunderlood tha. they had therefore COM
mitttd that opinion TO writing, and that the
Clerk had made copies of it, one of which
ihould he given TO the didyiGt attorney, one TO
the counltl for the pyifoner, and one the iury
iEon'd take out with them; as thvfe words Were
Pronounced, tcveTal papers. think three, were
handed down or thrown dowr, rs il were, nv
hack was TO the court, and whether this was
done by Judge Ctaie or the clerk, know not
Immediately took up the one intended for me
and began TO read it, bur eating my ewes 70
the oppof:e Eide of the table, iaw Mr. Lewis
with another copy before him, looking at It, 10,
parentiy, with great Indignation, and then
throwing II on the table. / am pretty clea,
that nothing Pahed between the court and the
council in the c0urie ofthat morning. J Offer |
we'd much agitation among the gertlenen ofthe |
bar who were converting with each other with !
app7'Te'tt y''z-"sii' hus having at that time y
very great burthcn OF cinna! pTclecut.onS on ;
me, ny attention waa much engaged, and I |
did not hear djitin6t,y what was iaid nor did |
/ know, until the court rofe that there was 2 |
probability of the counf.l for John Fries decli.
n'ng 10 act. think that twerty-one perfons
were that day brought before the court. char |
ged with fictitious combinations, and who fiIb |
mitted to the court. The court rofe pretty ear |
ly in the morning, and intimatcd that houll
not call any witnefcs in relation 70 the fuhnnir |
lions until the trial for trca(on were over. |
When The court rofe learnt from fevsral gen |
tlemen, that MIR. Lewis and M. Dallas were
dliguted with the conduit of the court. nd
meant TO decline acting as coprfel for Fries. |
and have an ind;lnGl recollection that board |
fomething Of this kind drop from Mr.. Dallas |
himielf went home, and had been there BIN.
a few minutes, when Jude Chafe and Jude |
Peters came in. We went into another room
and Judge Peters began by cxprenine 2 good
deal Of uneafnefs, from an apprehension that
the gentlemen aligned as counf-l for Tohn Friee
would not ~ on. judge Chafc faid that he
could not fuppole that that would be the con-
ttquence. ! fupported the idea which Judge
Peters had eXprcfTed ; told him the gentlemen
ofthe Philadelphia bar were men of much in
tkOtp |
papers were withdrawn, and the bulinefs con-
Quoted rs ufual at orr bar, they probably
would dcliG from conducting the defence. Nv
recollection at this difance Of time cannot he
very diair6t, but am pretty well fatisfied that
Judge Chafe eXprcGed his regret that the con-
duct of the court ihoud be 70 taken, and faid.
that he did not mean, that any thing which he
had done ihoud preclude the council from ma
king defence in the ufnal manner. Judge
Peters atkcd if would content to go OFT, and
undertake TO recover the papers. faid had
no objection, and both the Judges concurred in
me 20 do 70. / recofle6ted feeling
Mr. Edward Tiighman and Mr. Thomas r f.
engaged IN making copies--I did not recollea
to have ieen any Others 70 engaged. I went 30
their houies and aGked for the copies, whirh
were readily given, AMI took them to Mr.. Cald
well clerk of the court. J afkcd him if he had
noticed any others TO have been taken? Re
iaid, he thought copy had been taken by Mr.
William Meredith. Idelired him to 20 to him
and endcavor to recall it. did NOT know chat
Mr.. Blddle, who was then A Rudent in nv Of L
hce, had taken copy in part, or J rbould have
deiired him to give it mp. From fome crcun
frances which | do not recolle6}, I find that
did rot hand my own COPY to Mr.. Caldwell.
now have 1t in my poGefioD. The paper was
not read, Think, by any but thofc who tranf
riIbed II, and entertained an anxious hope, /
N.s.N 1. 81