The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-04-02
[VoLUME ].
pHtLlpN. NICHOLAS 1..a.-.

| mohd. Or tins court Mr.. Chlic and Mr. Grif-
I'm were the Judges. believe Mr. Chafr fat
alone for iome time, for how long do not re-
collect. MIR. Griffin did not, I believe. trLe
his feat until the motion to continue the caufs
wasrenewed. On the firf day o. the conf
Judge Chaie delivered charge TO the gland ia
, ry, and called their attention in particular.
manner to intraSionS of the fedition law. .Thc
grand jury returned with preientment aeainft
James Thompfon Calender for libel againr
the Preiidcnt by the publication of Il work en-
titled "Tbc Profpe6t Before U.s." On this pre-
ientment the attorney for the ditri6l Ged an
Indictment, which the grand jury found true
bill.
Procei6 was Immediately iGued on the ~
dietment. My imprefiion at the time and until
very lately was that the proceis i1ued was
bench warrant. | have lately heard that II WAS
a capias. For feveral DAYS it was believed that
Calender who refded at Peteriburgh, could
not be found, but the MARTIAL at length arrsf-
| ed him and brought him into court Mr.. Esv
and myielf undertook his defence. MY motive
was that believed the fedtion law unconRitu.
tional, and of coure oppreiive to anv perfon
profecuted under it.
| MIR. Hay and myielf had an interview with
Calender, in order TO afcertain the grounds on
which lie expected 10 make his defence. Cal
lender Informed us that his witneifes were crn-
iiderably difperfed, and that there were many
documents which it would be necehary for him
to obtain before he could be prepared for his
trla!. An affidavit was drawn, Eating the ali
fence of Calendars witneffts, the want of +b,.
documents, and that the council could not he
prepared during that term. On this affidavit
was founded the motion to continue the cauC..
j ms motion was urged with great earneOper;
and zeal, as we were convinced that iuGi-e
could not be done, If the cafe was tried duri,,,r
that term. Tie arguments principally urged
10y US were, that the defendant had confi.
tutonai right to compulsory procefs for Ills
witneiies, and to council, but that thefe priyi-
eees would be nugatory, if the court would
not allow time to fummon the witneTts. &, fo,.
council to prepare for the defence.
When the motion was lirtt made, Mr.. Chat
LAT alone he did not abfolutely reject the mo.
non for continuance, but he intimated i,
pretty itrong terms his opinion that the air,Ia.
vit did not afford fufficient ground 10 conf
uue the caufe. Mr.. Chafc obfsrved that fine
evidence of Mr.. Giles, as ftatcd in the alta
VT, was OF aierious nature, that he would let
the caufe lay over till Monday, and in the mean
time we might fummon fuch of our VII
netieS as were accefiible to US. On Monday
MIR. Giles did not attend. Mr.. Hay fafed ~
the counte. that the badnefs of the weather DIN
ring the preceding day had probably prevented
Mr. Giles attendance, and ailed that the cau{;.
might lie over a few hours. The Judge faid
we might either let it lie few hours, or until
next day ar our option the latter was prefer
RED. On 1uetday the motion was renewed 10
continue the Caufe. Amongst other arcur,cnts
nfed in iupport of this motion, Mr.. EIav oh.
ieryed that by the laws ofVrginia a perf5n in
clcted tor mltdemeanor was never tried n
the term TT which the indictment was found
but that luminous ihucd againft him retur,1a,
bic to the next term.
MIR. Hey further Rated, that as the Gedition
law gave the party accufed thl right to give
the truth OF the matter charged as iibel,ous in
evidence, 1t reiulted that the law meant only to
include the cafe of facts falfcly rec;ted. AMI
not the cafe of abufe or erroneous opinions
becaufe they are not fufeptible of proof, and
their verify or falfehood would depend on The
particular COurfe of thinking of tbofe v,lr
were tojudge in the cafe. Mr.. Hay fad he
wihed time to deliberate matureIy on this ,,;,,.
of the iedtion law, and faid that If his con0r,,r-
ton was correct, the jury in aGehine the 6r.a
ought not to regard fach parts Of the indie
ment AS related to mere matters of opinion.
Here Judge Chafe interrupted Mr.. Hay. ana
told him he was miRaken in fIppofrp he ;,,rt,
were to afiefs the fine this may be the cafe.
iad be, by your local fate laws, but % anrIi,,
Ell to the courts of the United States. if &c
wild notion. MIR. Chafe faid the canGe nug
come on, that the traverftrhad not flated in HE
affidavit that he could prove all the charges in
the indictment TO be true, that it was neceGar,,
tor him to prove the truth of all to Obtain his
acquittal, and that as the abfent witnefts wer-.
to give evidence as to part Of the charges orIv.
Their abience afforded no good reafoa for a co1.
tinuance. The motion to continue the cafe
was over-rulcd, and Judge Chafe directed lie
jury to be called When the Jury came TO tle
BOOK, itated to the court that Believed the~p
was ground of challenge to the PANEL, in con-
fcquence of one ofthc jurors who were reiprn.
ed having exprefed opinions very hottie to the
traverier Mr. Chafe, after looking into an an
thorlty which ] 'qHoted, and alto into Cox.
Idttleton, laid the law was clear, that OH, OH
leetion did not apply to the panel, but to the
individual juror re further faid we nun PRO.
coed regularly, that we rjght either introduce
teitimony to prove that particular Juror had
eXpreiied an opinion on the CAFE, or we rniglf
examine the jurors as they came TO the boot
We preferred The latter moJe ard Mr.. H4v
aiked II he might ak queftion Of the fra Juror
who was fworn. MIR. Chat. fgid fh3f Mr..
Hay mutt fubmit the quelon 20 his previons
INFECTION, and that ifhe thought il a prorer
queition II might be afked Mr. Bqv fofed
that the queitioa, which he wihed TO m, was.
nave you ever formed an opinion on tLe wrrL'
entitled The Pro(ped Before Us" from
which the charges in the indictment were ex-
tra6tcd. Judge Chaft faid that the coun(rl
not AZ f1t.e