The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-05-31

| 4 nc court was Opened at 10 Il. Nj.
| .Preient the managers attended by toe houfc
and
The council ofjudge Chafe.
| Ms. CAMPBELL; in continuation.
! viii now proceed as we'll as my indifoo-
'ltion Will permit, TO examine in brief man.
ner re iecond part of the fubiett, containing
: me ,eVer'' charges founded on the trial of Cal
lender az Richmond, as fated in .he fecond.
th'rd and fourth articles of the irnpeac hmcpt
will cophder 'hefe feveral articles in the or.
der in which the tranfatlions ON which they
are founded took place in court. In order TO
a'certain the motives that aStuated the iudpe.
N Tins who'e. tranfaction, it will only I've ne
cebary 10 view his conduit as proved, 70 far as
the lame relates TO this fnbject, previous to the
tnai. The hris account we. have of the inten
nfd proiecutien, or might Fay perfecution, of
C'uie"dcr, Is at Annapolis. Here the Judge re-
ceived the famous book, called the Proinect
Before Us, upon which tic profecution was
founded /; and here the determination was
formed to convict ard puni!h Calender. The
respondent laid he would take the book with
hlmto Richmond I; that the libellous parts had
| Seen marked by Mr.. Martin, and that Leeor..
ne returned he would teao h the LAWYERS Of Vir-
gina 70 Know rhe difference between the libfr-
~ and icentiouineiS ofthe prefs /; and TINT if
the commonwealth Of Virginia was not to,al,v
aePraved' IT there was jury of huneft men to
DC found IN the ilate, he would puniih Cal!en-
der before he returned from Richmond rCb;e
IS the evidence of Mr.. Mafon, nearly in HE
own words and no perion will pretend 70
doubt It's correetnefs. What language. copld he
uied, that would more clearly fley 1be narf;,I
NY and predetermlnation of the Judge TO t,unifb
Calender, and the fpirit of perlecution NV
which he was a6tuated. Again, on his wav to
K'chmond, according to the evidence of Mr..
Ir'piett, the Judge reviles the object of his in
'ehoea vengeance; ftateS his flrprife and re-
sret, ,hat ne mad not been hanged in Virginia
remarks that the United States had nv ,oo
much lenty to fuch renegadoes and after ar.
irving at Richmond informs the dopon.nt h.
was AFRAID they would not be able to get the
Damn ratcal that court. Thus evincinp in p
very tage OF this bulinefs that intolerant f,rit
o. oppreliion and vengeance, that feems 70 have
gwen fpring to all his actions. After the in
dIetment is found againf Calender, the nan
mel OF the petit jury is prefented to the iudge.
ne inquiries Ii he had any ofthe creatures cal.
,,H democrats, on that panel, directs the mar
maj TO examine II, and if there were anv finch
1T, to ftrike them OF. This is the .y;d.nc.
or Mr.. Heath, whole, character and ft,nd;nc
IN ioclety are known 10 many of the u,er,thers
or TINS honorable court. And tbouob bis e;
dence is oppofed by the negative declaration ne
Mr. Randolph, who atfirms, that he did mot
Pre'ent the pannel of the jury to the nudge. or
receive iuch directions; yet conceive the court
VIII give more weight 20 The affirmative decIara
mons or MT. Heath, with regard to thele facts.
than to the negative a.Iertions of Mr. RardoI-,b
who may have forgotten the tranG Sion Tth;o
point refs upon the integrity and yerac;tv of
Mr.. Heath. He could not receive thc imnrcfi;-
on or theic facts, unlefs the tranfsftion had IA
ken place he could not reafcnab!y be rn;f,
ken the affair was new and extraordinary and
mutt have arrefed his attention. and IN tI;s
Gale there is no ground to make allowance Gov
treacherons memory; for it is not pretended
that the witnefs, Mr.. Heath, has FORGOT IN.
'acts' out that they never exited IF YOU do
NOT therefore, believe the Gatement he makes.
1t mutt follow that you admit the witners has
wIlfully and corruptly fated falrehood tbis
preiume VIII not be admitted but on the ~
ther hand, MIR. Randolph may have forgotten
| me traniaction, in the buife of buiners .pd
| thIs will account for the difference in tbe e,,;
dence of the witneiIes without irnpeach;no Tie
vcracity OF either; this mode of reconciiino tI.
evidence is agreeable TO the rules of law.
taSe the facts, therefore as hated by MIR. Heath
10 be correct, and they afford an nfance of in.
ile'ai oepravity hitherto unequalIed and nm
Known IN our country; direct ATTEMPT to
pack jury of the fame political C,nfir,ants
with the judge, to try the defendant. 1'bis is a
faint representation of the previous condpt4 If
the Judge, relative to this finbie6t, before whom
the defendant was about to be tried. or ratb"r
before whom he was to be called for cert,;r
conviction and puniibment forit ou.bt NOT g.,
be dienifed with the name of 4 trial. VIII
this view, therefore, of the temper and difnoG.
ton oil The Judge, and of his prcyjous condnlt
OF This location, we will examine the fri im-
portant hep taken in the trial, in which tb, de-
hgns fine judge begin more clearly TO nyroid
themfelses, viz. his refuf,l to poGDone or row.
tlnue the trial until the next term, on a7 ,ei1,-
VII regularly fled, Eating the abr ~ 80 49,.
terlal witneiIes and the places of m II rrG.
dence' being the fecond charge in the fonrtb
Tits admitted by the refpondent. in hi. m
i|er that IN affidavit was filed, which be sv-
hibts To- the court, and a motion made tb,rs-
upon by the couuiel of Calender to continne
MS cauie tor trial until the next term sndi,
proved by the evidence Of Mr.. Hsv and Mr.,
Nicholas, that as council for Calender. fhev
'ntifed for continuation Of the caC,. on a..
grounds ftated in the affidavit, and ALI, nm 9th
or grounds that they were not pre,,,r,d r., ,,.-
que the sw srifirH in the cafe, for wan. ofti,n.
70 examine che iuIjc6l, and that the defendant
was not, by the laws of Virginia. bau,d 90
come 10 trial that term. Here If ms, - - }