The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-06-25

'nS gus vi t'ie couEiel and jury, the Who,
of the proceeding ll,ouid be brought into view
before we decide upon the character of an,
! part OF 1t. An attention, fir, to what paiie,
on the fecond day, as it is called, of Fries
trial. VIII mct abpndantly prove that iudC,
Chate never bad intended any partially or Oh
| Pre'iion againtt him and certainly that if hs
mad any tuch intention, he never carried it inr,
execution or effect. And truit am fate il
laying that the mere intention to commit Z
! crime however erois or outrageous, unlefs car
| Rcd into lone fort OF action or effect, coniii.
'utes no crime. A man may intend to commit
| a Larceny, aliault and battery, or any other of
| fence, but while he abftains from the act, the
mere intention cannot fubied him 10 trial or
Punihment. The Respondent then, dicoyer-
ing from the conduct of Fries's council, and the
indignant hoiti!ity they affirmed, that he was
greatly miuDderitood /; that al arrangement he.
had adopted for the convenience of public iuf
tice, the reaioBable expedition Of the approach
ing trIal, and the real accommodation of the
curt, the counfel and the jury, was confirmed
and received as an opprcfiion upon the prifon-
er' an encroachmens upon the privileges OF
council and a violation ofthe fights of the iu
ry, IN !hort as corrupt and polluted preiudi.
cauon or the cauie to be tried, and that the
ialr and upright intentions of the court were
Hihnterpreted by real or pretended r,Gake
into the vIleH purpofes of Partially, retolyed
to deitroy the formidable engine they faw =
rec.ine agdinft the court and 10 remove at onr4.
all pretence for Glamour or irritation. Grant.
ing the Judge al been ~ error On the In Il ,,v
what more could he or any man do, than TO
rcctify the error as foon as il wss s,if,ov.,el
aho haten to the right path befote any injury
could have refulttd from his moncnts.y diva.
ton. But the honorable manager has told.
you he had iinned beyond tie grace of repen.
."AES, and that no cdiitrition, however fince,e.
could wipe away the offence. When I fufrr
'1ch words as repentance and contrition to r,,r
my Ups, 1t is in quoting precifsly the words of
the manager. For my part I diC.laim then,
ihe respondent has done nothing thal REQUIRED
tne Illumination OF repentance, or for which he
now AXIS to be forgiven. Let him fand on his
JHit,heation or Rand not at all. But, Fir, part
o, 'l'' qualification is that the corrupt intent
charged upon him is difprove,l by his enr;re
Willingness to PENN, the council to manset
lne'r canie IN their own way if they diran-
proved OF has, and by his full and candid re-
.idctioh or the error, if any error had Lern
committed. BY adyerting to the teft;monv of
Mr. nir. kawie, this honourabie conrt will Zee
now greatly judge Chaie was frrnriicd 70 end
nom converting with this witnels and ;,dge
refers, that his conduct was viewed in 70 (}r,noe
d neht ny Meilrs. Lewis and Dallas. On
is n, TINS ahcoVery, although ftill convinced
", ,ne PropHety OF the proceeding, he does not
ootihately adhere toit, but refolves to- ren,ors
ali poiiiole caufe of complaint, by witbdrau,;n,-
al me papers which had given rif,. 70 tb;s s{'
tSi'i.iInS Irritation cIarrorr. ~ MS d.
were accordingly rrfumed, every COPY COL
iected, and the council, the prifoner and the III
W were placed in the fame precife iituation as
II the,e papers had never been distributed, with
inc mott ample acknowledgement of all their
rights, and the moi urgent Fluctuations TO them
to proceed in the enjoyment & exercife of them.
But no, the council had taken their ground, and
nothing could move them. John Fries had re.
celved their initruetions, and with equal perfe
Verance declined the ael Of their council offere,
10 MN ny the court repeatedly. Now, fir, let
me ak you and this honorable court, on vour
conferences, not 20 be blinded by the MANAGE.
ment and hneGe ofingenious council. what was
the Tit aiming of all this What was the obiee of II
t',o me couniei now believe they would not be
idiy heard m defence OF their client both on law
and ,faet Did they now fupDole themf.lves or
the jury refr6ted in their rights, or that a ;,,ff
and impartial trial would not be had /? Moft eer-
tainly rot. But, in the language of MIR. Lewis,
they thought tiey had got the court into an err
for or fcrape, and they were determined To
Keep them there. What fays Judge Peters. If
we have done wrong will you not {iIfTer us tn re-
par that~rong by doing what is right, bv do.
ing all That you have required No, no. was th.
afiWef. MT. Lewis has declared to you i'm the
mott ample and explicit terms, that thew aban-
doned John Fries bccaufethey thought they took
better chance of faving him by this means.
than they could have by any trial; and to uGe
his own words in another part of this teGimonv.
6 we withdraw" fays he, " from the defence Of
John Fries becaufe we thought it would bea
ierve him, and we were rot Influenced by anv q.
Their motive whatever" They had already, be.
fore judge lredell, tried the efficacy Of the FIJI
and unconfned exertion of their talents In His
defence, and found how vain the attempt was.
They were well fatisfed no hone of fncceG.
could be entertained on fair trial of the ne,its
OF their cafe both in law and fact, and thew ca
gerry graiped any occurrence, that, by operat.
ing on the pafions, the humanity or the preiudi-
css of mankind, might give to their client
chance for efcape, which he could not look for
III the merit of his own conduct. With this
view, they mot folcmnly imprefcd upon fine
mind OF John Fries the neceffity of his maintain-
INC the ground they had taken for him. and 70
iunnS the aihitdnce of any other counf.l So
well did thefe gentlemen know the court rad no
intention OF opprelbng John Fries, that in their
communications to him, they anticipated the
oher OF other couniel to fupply their deftrtion.
But, Cir, there is one circumfance in This r..
conc days proceeding, which has been intro
duccd to thew, that The refncudenf con,;n,, 4