The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-07-26
lo!cah,ngs of COUNSEL,
ON THE
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
FRIDAY. FEBRUARY %.
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY %.


Mr. Lees 6pseeb eoneiuled.J
I will now proceed To make fore obfervati-
cns upon the 9Th article of Impeachment
+" And whereas il is provided 10y the cath ieeti-
on of the aforeiad act, intitutd can aet to si-
tah!ih the Judicial courts OF the United States"
that the ldws of the teveral Rates, except where
the contribution, treaties, itatu,es of the Uni
ted States iball otherwife requne or provide,
fall tx regarded as the rules of deci6on in tri-
ais az common law in the courts CT the United
States, in cafes where they apply; and whereas
~ the laws of Virginia it is provided, that in
ccfes not capital, the offender fhall not be held
10 aafwer any pretentmt mt of grand jury mn
til the court text fnccceding that during which
fuch rre:en;ment !hail be made; yet the tad
Samuel Chaic, with intent to oppreis and pro-
cure the conviction Of the faid James Il. Callen-
der did at the court aforeiaid, rule and adjudge
the fild Calender to trial, during he term AT
which he the faid Calender, was preiented and
indicted. contrary to law Ill that cafe matte and
provided"
The charge in this article aganf the retpon-
dent, is in fnbtance that he, with intent to- OPP
prefs and procure the conviction oi Calender,
ruled him to trial during the term at which he
was pr.fented and iudiGted, contrary to the laws
of Virginia, which II is aiiedged have provided
that in cafes rot capital the offender ihall not be
held to zpfwer any prefenimept OF grand jury
until TIE next fucceetling court.
This article il is admitted does contain an ac-
cufaton of crime; but hope HALL b. abis to
fatisfy this honourabe court, that in this ia
ftance no crime or offence was committed.
flall undertake to flew that no error in law was
committed, and that if the judge had done o.
therw;fe, he would have been more liable to
ceniure than he now is. If this be made to ap-
pear, as fuppofed iegaiity of his conduct is
the foundation of the charge, there will remain
nothing to fupPort the charge.
The accented Judge had fwon to fupport the
conttution of the United States, and to adrii-
iNsr iufiice without refpect to perfons, and to
perform all The duties of his Office according to
the laws of the United States. II in ruling Cal
lender 70 trial IT the fame term ~ which he was
indicted, he a6ted according TO law, the Judge
performed his duty and ought not to be charc-
cd with oppre!lion.
The article may be underfood as affirming,
tat there exits fone law of Virginia which DO
ftiveiv prohibits the trial of mifdemeauor at
the fame term at which the indictment is found
To fuch law has been produced, and NUT be
allowed TO deny that any ino h law of Virginia
exits. The act of afienbly of 1888, which
provides that "upor preientment by anv grand
Jury OF an offence not capital, the court O,au
order the clerk to illuc luminous or Other
proper proceis acainft the perfon or perfons of
Tending, 70 appear and anfwer fuch prefentinent
TO the dcathat an offender may not be Tried for
a mif;iernranor at the fame term he is indicted.
II bowever doesnot warrant the petition. When
the party appears and anfwers the prefentment,
the trial may Immediately take place. When
the party appears and anfwers an indictment.
the trial may Immediately take place, iffo rul-
nnfettereu nv any t'9nrfve nattre: me tlefence
OF this article may therefore he placed on two
grounds, either of which will be fut.icient. Eirf
. ,.~f
tria, Of 4 miidemeanor at the fame term tbe in
di6tment is found and fecondly, if There he
fuch law, the tame is not binding on the courts
OF the United States, in refpett to offences :,
gainh the United States.
With refpect TO the frf ground in addition
10 what was faid it may be ohferved, that fon,e
inttances have been proven before this honour
able court, Of trials in the fate courts Of indict
inents For miidemeanors, at the fame term they
were found. Mr.. Robertfcn fiated two fnrci6c
cafes where the punilhmcnt might be imprifon-
nlent. Theft infances Thew there can have
been no tnch pofitive prohibition by the laws Of
Virginia, as the article Of impeachment has al
lodged; howtNver that may he, fuch law. and
that 10 the general practice of that fate tbere
are iome exceptions, or fuch general practice
would not be obligatory on the courts of the II.
States, which rs the iecond ground of defence A.
gainit this cEargc.
~ S'Sdt GCdi WHICH l'5S OCen t3ii III relation
10 the 5th article, applies with equal force to
the article now under diicuilior.
When the tuprene court By their rule of
court deliberately formed, declared that the
practice Of the kings bench fbonld form out
lines for the practice in their court fubieG to the
alterations they might make, it was reafouable
and natural for The circuit court, competed of
juiticcs of the tupreme court, to conduit it's bu
iinefs upon the ike principle. L. the kings
bench, process may be returnable immediately.
Gilbert's origin ofking's bench, p. 8I3, Hawk.
oh. 8, fec. u. 4 Black. $40, and fuch is the
practice if the offence is committed in the coun
~ where the court fits; but if the offence is
committed in another county, the procefs NAV
be returned to any day the court will appoint.
The Object of the court in ufng its d:lcre,ion
will be to infUre the fervice of the procef7, and
its due return by allowing efficient time accord
ing TO circumstances for that purpofe. l. is not
denied that centre facia5 is a ,,rober procefs in
cafes moi capital, but il is pot fbe only rrocefs
that may be iGued.--Judge BIa Krone who
wrote lince HiWiiins in the pafiage cited, de-
cllres hat a capias IS ufual procefi from the
kings bench, and may be retur1able at the plea
fnrc Of the court, but that in frictnefs there
ought TO Re z,e1iyr f1ciaJ where il is intended
- proceed 70 outlawry. in the United States
under the Il ltutes Of Congiefs, there can he mn