Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1805-02-20

Il -
after the most daigsnt and the mos. es,
tensive enquiry which the time allowci
for preparing this answer you'd permit,
he can End 40 law OF Virginia which ex.
prsssiy enacts, that Sin cases not capital,
the loffs ndsr .t,all not be held TO answer
any psessniment OF grand jary, until the
court, next succeeding that durlng which
such-pressataen shall have been made"
This principle he supposes to be aa in.
, ference drawn by tbs authors OF the ar.
ticles ofin,peachment. from the law OF
Virginia me a.ioaed in sths answer, to III:
preceding article, the law of Novem5cr
18th, 1892, which provides that upon
preseupnent made by the grand jury OF 81
offence nor capital, the canrt shall order
the clerk to lssus a summons or ether pro.
per process, against the person or persons
SO presented TO appear and answer such
presentm-ns at the next court" This
law he conceives does not warrant the IN.
ference SO drawn from it, because i, speaks
of prese1t,nents ard not of indictments,
which are very different things; and is as
he is informed, confined byapractice and
construction in the state Of Virginia, to
cases OF SINAI! offences, which are to BIZ tr-
ed by the court itselfupeH the presentmenr
without AZ. indictment or. the Intervention
of petit Jury. Bat for cases like that OF
Calender, where an Indictment must fol-
low the presen.1ent, this law made no
provision. Ft:,r,her, the state laws arc dl.
rected BY the aforementioned act of Con.
gress, TO be the rule of decision in the
courts Of the Uni,ed States, euly rin ca.
ses where they apply Whsther they ap.
ply or rot to apaLlioular case, is Iaeston
OF law, TO be decidedly the court where
such case is pending, and an error 10 max.
ing the decision is not a Crime, not even IA
offence, unless it San De she IN to have pro.
ceeded from improper Rotiv@s This re-
spondestis opinion, that Inc law in
question did no. Apply 70 the Case Of Cal
lender, for the rcaoJas stated alb I'VE :. AMI
therefore that itwou!d have been his duty
TO disregard. it, even aaI II bsen made
known &c aim by the counsel for the IRA.
verser. a.-,...atj -,.-1
And in the LAST place he contends that
the law OF Virginia IN Question, is MT q.
dopted BY the above m=nsl ,acd act ofcen-
gross as he rule of decisisn, in SUCH cases
as that now under consideration. That
act does indeed provide. "t that the laws of
the several states, except whers the consti-
tu,ion n aties,. or statutes OF The United
States shall a.herwise provide, ST. I'll DC re-
garded as rules OF decsloa in.trials a. com.
nun law. in the courts Of the u States,
in Cases where they apply" But this pro-
vision in his opinion can relate only TO
rights acquire under the state laws, which
came into question on The trial; and not
to forms Of process or modes OF proceed.
ings, !anter;cr or preparatory 10 the trial.
Nor can it, as this respopdens apprehends,
have any application TO indie, nents for of.
fences against the statutes CT The y. States,
which c.anot with sny propre,y be called
"lrlg.ls At common law IL rciates me G.
ly, il his op!oio... 20 civil NIGHTS acquired
uuder the state laws whl~h BY virtue OF
his provision are, when ,Sly e2me 10 ques-
ton H. the courts OF ia. United STATES, 10
DC governed BY the laws Under wl.ch tney
accrued. So.
II in these opinions this responded, be
incorrect, il is an honest error: and hs
contends M: :lel,.,e, s.,..! 10 error in tae
cons!vu elIon or law, nor ais ignorance ct
a local state law which re had 40 oppor'u-
n,,y of knowing, And Of w0ch the counsel
for the party whose case it is Supposed 10
have Affected were equdly ignorant, can
be considered as Al OF ace liabie - in.
parchment, or 70 any so!s Of punishment
or blame. .
And for pleato the said sixth article of
impeachaleas, tag said Sa,nIei Chase,
Satin, thas he IS not guilty OF any high
crime or mlsdensaror as in and by the
said article is siiedsed agans. him and
shis he psays may be enquired of by this
honorable courl in such manner as law
and Justice shall seem to them to re-
qulre. ',
The seventh article Of impeachmen, re-
,a,es to SONS conduct Of this respondent in
his Judicial capacity, alta circuit court OF
u