The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-05-28
[VoLUmE ,.

; that this petition has been eYrrelsly rccoenizeJ
: by law writers, and legal deciions for ares. I
) VIII refer the court TO End Bac. ab. (uev ed.
tion) page % where it is declared that iagyes
are 10 determine according 10 TIE knocvn iaq, and
ancient cmt?omS Of fbe realm +: and to 4 Cam.
Dig. 4i8, where 1t is itated hat jmiees QUIT. n,
af eonformabip TO Lazv ard nor accorIihp n,
hdVfrcfioa. Theie authorities, when We CONT
der the country from which they come, AMI
the tines in which they were written, ftrnuriv
mark the limits that ought to circunfcrihe thS.
conduct Of tie Judge. And !hail tie Judges
IN our country afiime greater latitude in their
proceedings than thofe OF Eng. and depart IL
pieature from what are known 70 be tle cuf.
.oms OF the country? I ihoud preiIre not
But the judge ttateS in his anfver, that decili-
ons at common law, and before the revolution
IN England, could throw no light on the dog
trine OF treaion here, but might rnilead the III.
| ry; and therefore ought not TO be admitted to
| oe read, not being law; ard he wadrs into the
! dark ages ofrhc hifory Of England, when III.
Judges were corrupt aud under the influence OF
| the crown. The reSforins of the Judge is evi.
IDENTITY an evaton Of the pont in queeion Th.
object ofthe council for Fries, il wiaing to cite
th"ie authorities. both at common law and I'M
der the fatnte of Edward the third, was not r.,
| Thew by them what the contribution of the
words OF our contribution with regard To reafon
ought to be; but to new frft, the abfnrc and
ridiculous lengths TO which tho.e dec;lions had
gone, in determining what aess amounted 70
treaion there, and then 70 prove that Gnce the
Engh'h revolution, the Judges in England conf
dered themfelves bound by cafes decided, before
the revolution, and that AS the'deciGons On tres
ION in England, Gnce their revolution, were bot
| TONED upon thoie cafes before the revolution,
they ought not tocovern the courts in this coun-
try 'n giving contribution TO the words of our
contribution, in order 70 determine what aS}s
amounted to treafon. This was evider.iy the
object ofthe council, and it is proved, to Rave
been II ftated by them, hv the evidence of MIR.
Lewis, MIR. Dallas and Mr.. R9wle There was.
therefore, M ground for the pretence the Judge
makes for refniing thefe authorities to be intro
duccd.
1t is admitted BY the anfvcr. that the iury
nave inc r'Gnt 70 decide upon the law as vel
rs upon the Iad; and lift were denied. II cont!
be ihewn by clear and undouhted ,uthori,;ao
OF ancient and nodern times. From wbat mo.
t'veS, therefore, ard under what p!auiibIe nrc.
tence' could the judge rcfuf- TO permit the law
TO he argued before the jury? How could thev
decide upon it properly, without hcaripo # az.
Quilted And with what color of rcafnainp can
the Judge fay that the jury have the RIGHT to de.
c!de the law, and yet that they have not the
rIght 70 near 1t argued and explained Nv coI,i.>
lei Does not this flew the greatef abfi,reity.
|
object in view, that he did not cbufe to avn,r.
ana mat would not bear examination In this
cafe there was no dipute about the facts tb,.
aniwer itates, that they were admitted on both
ldes. The Judge makes up his opinion ,;non
the law, commits it to writing, aud makes il
known as the opinion of the court before I'M.
Jury are impanne!Ied in the cafe. For WHAT
nnrpoie was council aligned to the defendant ?
What remained for the council To exap,;,,s ~.
he fa.Ci
law decided by the court? Would NOT tb.. ~.
hFance or council, under flch circumstances.
ot 70 the defendant mere phantom. name
without iubitance Was not the aIirDment ,,f
countcl, in this cafe, and with fuch views astb,e
Judge NUT have had, an ufeiefs ceren,on, a.,
Empty compliance with form, A mere mol. IS,
lu'tice The clear inference from the whole
"amdcuon mum be, that the judge was defer.
ii''"eo rye defendant ihonld derive no benefth
rom me a'iIhance OF counfrI, and only Effected
:" Ptrn! theIn IN argue the facts TO the inry
becauie he knew they were not difnu4.d o
nv the defendant hiynfrlf II nun, tberef,Fe
| We 4 fair Inference, that the defendant v,,e
pr'ved OF the aiiiftance of council. bv the -,
warranfa'ie, Illegal, and unauthorized rrfrifs-
ons imPoied upon them in the perf3rmanr,. rs
their Proteiiional duties by the judge.
1t remains, on this part of the ful;ea :,
new that this conduct of the Judge va al,
Migrant violation of his duty, as could onlv
ipring from corrupt motives, aud a d,f,of,i
on to oPprefs thofe who became the ohs,9sns
his recruitment lay it down as 4 C.ttied r,J.
| OF deciIon, that when a man violates lao. ~
commits manifeh breach of his dn.y ~ ,,.,
intent, or corrupt motive nun be nrsG,ro..,
10 nave attuated his conduit as every man IL
prcinmed to know the law, and every ofT;csr
or Judge to underftand his duty ard if r., :.
ty will undertake 70 EXECUTE himf r. f,r pr
conduit, on the frore of pure motives .nd ,'
Intentional error, If is incumbent ON Nm 80
MAKE me iome appear by fltisfactory and in,
cohtetIole evidence. liz fone inhances. srrc-
neons conduct may be explained. exc,G.d -.
pal1ated, by the weakness or iororanrs cc. ~
delinquent, and the oircumfances tbst s,+,nd
me cafe. But in this whole tranC,6tion ,,bst
marks OF Innocence, or pure motives are =, 10
uncovered What execute TO be oGers,l S., az.
conduct OF the accufed Ignorance oftbe Ia~,
cannot be relied upon as forming grind ~
cxcn'e' The legal talents, onv ex,-Ti.,,,... -
d''t'nsuiIhed abilities of the Judge. are ,,,, -
known TO admit offuch plea. II wasno ~,
and dit1cult cafe, wherein he nn;ght h. e,-
m'ta''en. There were no former n,., ~,
20 'ead him aitr7y. The proceeding vac
t're!y new, and Of his own uventi,'n. to
deviation from all former practice. and,
niiSlC innovation mon he .C. .L4.d