The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-07-05

does not therefore depend on the frai,tv of his
| memory.
Mr.. Robertfon fays, The attorney for the
/! United States having concluded, the council
tor the traverfer introduced Col. Taylor as a
| witncfs, and he was fworn but at the mo-
ment the oath was administered, the Judge cal
led on them, and defired to know what they
intended to prove by the witnefs. They an
iwered that they intended TO examine Col. Tay-
| Tor, to prove that MIR. Adams had avowed
principles in his prefence which iuftificd Mr..
Callender In laying that the PRECEDENT was an a.
riftocrat-that he had voted againft the feoueE
tration law, and the refolutions concerning the
liuipenfon of commercial intercourfc with great
| Britain" This was then the object and view
with which Col. Taylor was called on. What
Is the charge in the articles of Impeachment !.
That the teftimony of Col. Taylor was rejected
on pretence that the faid witnefs could not
prove the truth of the whole of one ofthe char
ges, contained In the indictment, although the
lad charge embraced more than one faG"-
The Charge in the Indictment is that the pref
dent "was profefed ariftocrat that he pro-
we'd faithful and ferviceable to the Britih inter
cit :: and Col. Taylor was called to prove that
Mr.. Adams had voted againf the fequeltration
law, and the refolutions concerning the fufpen-
non OF commercial intercourse with Great Bri-
tam. Was IT competent to Col. TAYLOR to give
nature of the cafe will admit mutt be adduced.
Col. Taylor then was clearly an incompetent
witneis on this point: as there was better evil
dence, the Journals of this hon. BODY, within
the reach OF the traverfer. 1t only then remain
ed FOR Col. Taylor to prove that the prelident
had avowed principles which fhewed him to
be an arTitocrat ; which, ifproved, would have
oeen altogether Immaterial. To prove no other
facts was he called upon. Are then council to
oe INDUCED IN continuing the time of courts in
the examination ofwitnefIes, who have NOTHING
relevant to offer? Let us f4miliarife this to
common cafe. SuppoGea man is indicted for
1eaing horie. One witnefs depofes that he
law him go into the fable where the horfe was:
another law man coming from the Fable lead
| ing hor1e and another faw, an hour after. the
| man, with the horfe, five miles off, telling him
as his own property. This teftimony will be
admitted But fate the cafe the other wav
that witnefs was brought forward foIely to
prove the frff fact is there a court on earth
that would fay fuch teltimonv fhould be admit
TED And this was the cafe here. Col. Tay-
ior was called upon to prove what is altogether
hnmportant, part only of one charge or tina.
which, if true, could be proved by better evil
dence. Are not, alto, the court the executive
Judges OF the competency ofthe teitimony that
ihall go to the jury & does not every davis ey-
lperIence thew us that evidence that is Offered
but which does not go to the whole of the
cafe, is refufed? This is done by all courts
at all times. But fay gentlemen, was it poffible
TOR the court to know whether the ouehions Of
tered to be put might not have led to other en-
qu'r'es, and produced information of conE.-
quence! True, but on this;ground no teftimo-
ny ever could be rejected, becaufe bv pof1;b;l;tv
1t may lead to what is important.
But, admitting the Judge to have been yron,
| again ak does an error of judgment in itfrIf
imply corruption? Mott furely not. Tn The
nature OF things can it be 70 To give credit
to my honourabe client but for moetv 9TH
talent allowed him, he mutt have feen that ..
ven had he admitted the teftimonv of Col
aylor, and admitting that it had fulfilled the
whole OF the twelfth charge, there remained
n'le'een other charges, on which Calender
'i'ui, nave been convicted. And whence this
conduct towards Col. Taylor? Did NOT the
Judge know that Col. Taylor food high in tbe
eheem OF large portion of the community ::
ana that urnbrage Offered to him would natu,
traiiy excite the Indignation of his friends , The
oeciion gwen could not then flow from \ cor
rupt motive. No. 1t was given in the fternnef
| OF his integrity. Had his motives been imn,re
had he viewed his conduct as wrong, ipffead of
actng IN this manly way, he would have mt /,
giois on ms actions, he would have courted the
reputation or torbearasce by admitting the teC
| vi NCi' 1dyiOf, and would fiI
have fatiated his vengeful feelings, If he
| had them, with conviction on the remaining
charges.
Let as examine another fact in this cafe
Judge Chafc as appears by the ftatement of Mr..
kobertion, requefed the attorney of the Uni.
Tea states to permit the queNions to be put
&c the witnefs; but Mr.. Melton declared that
he did not feel himfeIf at liberty to content 70
iucha departure from legal principles" IF
then, III this act, there was error, that error did
not depend on him. The profecutor for the II
nited States objected to the indulgence which
he propoied. / do for myfcIf believe. tb,,
where no evidence is offered TO prove the Who'll.
OF one entire fact, it is within the found dCcrr.
ton OF the court to refufe the teGimony of mart
But, notwithstanding this, the Judge was vii.
ling to relax the feverity of the law.
Is there nothing elfe that goes to fhew tha.
there wasno intention on the part of the Judge
TO oppreiS the traverfer t? As / have already oh
ieryed, fhe had poIlefIed but halfth talent az
crlbed to him, he would with fuch intention.
have gllded the pill. But he did not do f.
Further the fubfequont act of the Judge in i'm.
pohng 10 light fine, and 70 ihort period of
imprisonment, for 70 atrocious an offence.
when he had power TO impofe fine of 9. 600
dolls and an imprisonment for two wears. is in.
dhputabee evidence ofhisfreedom from al1G,cb;r-