The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-07-09
RICHMOND, TUESDAY MORNING JULY o. 1907

F, on their ron-appca.I,cc. TIL. Iudts intinrat-
(, ed that it might isIiie; tn, the council waved
accepting 1t. From, what canfr Becaufe they
we'll knew that the ;eitimony of thefe witneiies
would be of no avail.
! An authority has seen cited fro.-7 the Engi,i,
books EATERS reportsJ 70 Few that at fpe-
eta. court, time was granted for obtaining Wit
neaes alleged to be material; although. as it has
/ been remarked, the court was confined TO one
4 term but | cannot perceive the force of this
observation, rs it had the power of ad;ournng
frog, time. 20 sine until the hulinefs before il
hniihed. The court met, Jaw the extent OF the
huiinefs to be attrndedt 70, and allowed time for
the obtention of;witnefIes.
| Mr.. Key here cited the cafe from EATERS
crown law.
! In this cafe the prifoner was tried at great
tdi,tancc from his witnef1as, and the place where
1.-THE crime had been committed. Some of his
witneles relided in England, and Others in Scot
land. Fie was allowed eleven days for Obtain
1 ing his witnefIes in England, and Twenty nine
days for obtaining thoft in Scotland.
! Compare this cafe with that of Calender. n
,the latter cafe motion was made for conti1-
uance. eiudge declared they couIdnot poe-
| Pone the trial TO the next term but offered
poaponcmsnt for 4 month, or FIX weeks nay,
he offered to go TO Delaware hold a court there,
and return to Richmond. With fich difpofi-
t,on manieeited by the court, is there any reafon
to doubt. that, if aiked, three months, or am
| reatonabe time would have been allowed. AK,
why did they not al, for LONGER time. if thew
deemed Il Important The anfmer is obvious :;
Judge Chafe was Till to prefide.
| Doubts have been ltarted of the power of the
courts of the United States to adjourn exccr.
tromda TO day; a-cower which never before
have heard queflioned; and which ia eiIentisy
neceiiayy ~ the impartial administration Of iui.
tice. We have proved tia. this is the Practice
n fl-r
that Ut has been done in Richmond and be-
lieve we may fafely add that it is, and muf be,
me Practice throughcutthe United States, when
circumstances demand Il.
| have fated it as an acknowledged pr;rcinIc
o. .af', that he who edits libel!ous matter ought
TO be prepared with his vouchers 10 fnpport il.
What is there valuable among men what is
there ehmabe in private or public life, that has
not in this country been bsfeiy illuminated hy
the l,centioufnefs the prefs All charlaers in
all administrations have been mott wanto1iy a.
failed By its fcurrity. He then who takes this
BOLD and daring ground. ought TO have hi.
vouchers al hand, or 70 have them within accer-
hble reach. In the Euation in which lihel!er
wantoniy fands, he is entitled to nothing bit
law, flecr law.
On the third specification which charges thc
Respondent with "the uie of unufuai, rnle, ar;l
lcontcnptuous cxpreflions towards the priGoner's
diti IdiIe1V Illuminating that they
wiihed to excite the public fears and indignation
and to produce that characterization to law, 70
which the conduct of the Judge did, at :he fame
time, nianifehly tend - have Iut Il few Oh
terv1ticns to make. .liouid Indeed have foar-
Cd many Of The remarks I have made, were il
not for an ignorance oft.ie particular ground CT
which the honorable managers mean to rely in
their rcPiy-and were it not for the fear that an
omIiiIon TO notice any Of the charges preferred.
nIrvhf In Il i -
defence 70 far as rclatedto them.
i have no where diCcovcred in The cridence
any thing that fupporis in point of fact the
charge aeaint judge Chale, offalftiy ntinuating
that the prifoner's council wilhed TO excite the
pubic fears and indignation and 10 produce in
tubordinstion to law. The Judge did fay that
the council uted popular argument, caIculat-
Ell to miflead and deceive the poDulace and
this is the extent and head of his Offending, hut
there is wide difference between this ard the
charge laid to his door. He told the counfe!
and told them truly that they were ava:l:nr
themielves of popular Argument calculated to
mii'ead and deceive the people. Attend, pray
you, to the tefimony of Mr.. Hav Did not the
council for the prifoner fay they had no hope of
exculpating him on the facts Did they no. fly
they did not argue for Calender That it was
the canie, and not the nan, they defended.
lhat they did not expef to convince Judge
N''"'t, VI my pthcr IeueTdl lN0gS OF rne nrCOT,-
itttutionaiitv of the fedition ACT Were they
not then laboring with their whole talents 10
c1tch the popular ear' Did they not expressly
declare that they had little hopes Of the Jury,
and that their object was to make IN inprefIion
on the public mind And when the Judge de-
ciared that tho conftitutionalty of the atf could
not be diicufed before the jury, did they not
falling in their Object, abandon the defence ?
The ground which they meant to hive taken
was withdrawn, aud they Withdrew with it.
AS to the ufe of unuft7l, rude, and contemp-
tuous expreilions towards the prifoncr's coun-
te, no particular facts appear to 70 be relied on
/ The term eaptio05 may be unufual tho
pirate yoto1S gentlemen, which in ching the
honorable manager metamorphofei;n.o }ors. but
which laG word does not by tIc teRimony ap-
pear to have been ufcd, may have been obuox-
Ious to the ears ofthofe 10 whom it was applied
There may not have been menfen ed in this Ian,
Sn7Ee the moa felineti tircOrum but let Us re-
colletl that Our honourlb!s client is not row on
his trial for violation ofthe decorums Of focie-
ty. Pohefed Of great ardonr of mind and
quicSnefs FLEEING, he conceives with raoidi-
ty and exprehes with energy his ideas. This
may bea weakness bit it Is weakneis of ma
ture. Had he colder heart, and weaker