The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-04-09
FRIDAY, March Is, 1905.

proiecufion, Mr.. HARPER, of council for the
Respondent, addreiIed the court 10 this eft q.
Mg. Preident-We feel 70 ftrong reliance
on the juftice, impartiaity and difcernment of
this honorable court, that nothing but an an
xious regard for the character and feelings of
the honorable gentleman who is the object of
the profecntion, and folicitude to remove E.
ven the llightef imputation of improperly or
incoreetnefs that may ref on his condu6, could
induce us to occupy any portion of that time
which we know to be 70 precious, by the in
PRODUCTION of teftimony on his part. We be-
lieve the charges TO be utterly unfupported,
by the teitimony adduced on the part of the
profecution and had we no other Object than
mere legal acquittal, we fhoud cheerfully
ref the cafe on that teftimony. But we are a.
ware that fome parts Of the honorable Judges
conduct, though not criminal nor punifliable
by impeachment, may, if left without expla-
NATION, appear in an nnfavorabe light. We
are prepared with teftimony TO give this expla-
nation TO flew that through all the tranfatti-
ons which form the matter of this profecution,
he has been governed by the puref motives, &
that whatever errors he may have committed,
are trivial in themleives, are imputabe TO hui
man infrmity alone, and were inftantly correct
ed by himftf. This teitimo8y we requelt the
permilion of this honorable court to produce.
But confcioufnefs of the frong ground on
which we fand, and recollection of the very
, important public bufnefs which now prei1es on
the attention of this honorable court, in its le-
gillative capacity, have determined US TO wave
our right to general opening of our cafe /; and
to confne ourfelves, in this fage of the caufe'
| to brief ftatement of the points to which our
teftmony will he directed.
On the firlt article, which relates TO the con-
duo Of Judge Chaf- in the trial of John Fries
for treaton, we fhall produce teftimony to fhew,
that the opinion contained in the paper which
the judge delivered TO the prifoner's council
was not only legal, but had been twice expref.
ly decided, and once admitted in the fame
court, & had before that trial been laid down
general principle of law, in a charge deli
vered to grand jury in the fame court, by one
ofiudge Chafe's predecenors.
! Here Mr.. Harper Fat down, while the COM
mittee of the whole were entering and taking
their feats.
| Mr.. Harper then rofe and proceeded. He
/ hated that the council for the Respondent had
begun to open their defence, & were ftatins
theground which they fbculd take in oppofiti-
on to the irf article of impeachment. We
ihall ihow, fad he, by the MOT indifputabe tef-
timony, that the point of law refpeGiing treafon
in levyng againft the United States, which
was ftatsd in the paper delivered to the council
of Fries, has been once informally decided by
the fame court, in prior cafe, and twice after
J dT1uWeilt, ana luii unCumOn, and that
4 one at thoie decifous was made in the cafe OF
John Fries himfef, on an indictment for the
faTe offence. We fialI BIev that indoq
Chafes's prediction had, before counfei were
heard, ard before an indictment was found. de.
livered the fame opinion in charge to the
grand jury. We ihall proceed to prove in a
more particular manner the contents of the pa
per, thus delivered to the counfel We 1hall
produce the original paper itfelf and hail prove
al Heiiv fI,t I'll
true copy of it and we fllalI conclude by flew.
ing that when the council of Fries had refuEed
to proceed in his defence, and were informed
by the judge that they might 90 on, and con-
duet the cafe as theythought proper, he emplov.
ed no menacing expreffion, aid uttered no
fuch words as proceed at the hazard of vour
characters :" but merely informed them that
they ihould be under no other reRrietion, but
that which regard to their profeffional cha
RACER would impoie. That far from threaten
/ ing, he did all in his power TO Tooth; and in
ftead of reftricting, gave the utmoft latitude of
indulgence.
| Proceeding then TO the fecond general head
: of accuiation, the conduct of the Respondent re :
! latve to the trial of Calender, which furnifhes
/ the matter of the fccond article, and embraces
/ in the whole five articles, we fhaIl thew that the
copy of the " Profpes Before U.s." which the
Respondent carried with him to Richmond, was
marked not by him, but by another perfon,
without any view to profecntion of the au-
thor, and was given to him by that perfon with
ont any requef on his part, as performance
which might amufe him on the road.
AS to the private conversation at Annapolis,
we fhall prove that it was a mere ieR between
the Respondent and the gentleman, who, after
treafuring it up for FIVE years, has this day
brought il forward to fupport an impeachment
and Whole recollection of it we nla fhew to be
far lefs accurate than ought to be required of
man, who after 70 great lapfe of time addu-
ces private, confidential and jocuIar converfa-
ton, to aid criminal profecution.
We fhall then follow Judge Chafe to Rich
mond, where we fhall fhow, that far from hav-
ing formed a corrupt determination to opprefs
Calender, be felt foIicitous for the efcape of
that unfortunate wretch that far from entering
into combination with the MARTIAL to pack a
jury for the conviction of Calender, Judge ChaCe
exprehed win that he might be tried by men
of that political party, whole caufe his book
was intended to fupport. We ihall prove, by
teftmony not to be doubted, that nc converfa-
ton whatever took place between the Judge and
the MARTIAL, relative to ftriking any perfons from
the PANEL, much lefs fuch conversation as
has been fworu to by one witnefs for the pro.
! fecution. We fhall fhow that no pannel of the
Jury actually fummoned was formed, until the
opening of the court on the day when the trial