Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1805-03-29

did stand indifferent as to the matter in
issue, in the legal and proper sense, and
in the only sense in which such indlfter-
ence can ever exlst-and therefore his
having formed that opinion, was not such
an excuse as could have justified the
court in disch,rging him from ;he jury.
That this turor did not himself consi-
der this opinion as an opinion respecting
the matter in issue" appears clearly from
this circumstance, that when called up
on to answer on oath, whether he had
expressed any opinion As to the the mat
ter in issue ;" he answered that he had
not. Which clearly proves that he did
not regard the circumstance of his hav.
ing formed this opinion, As a legal e1-
cuse, which ought TO exempt him of
right from serving on the jury; but
merely suggested it as a motive OF DELI
cacv. which induced him to wish to be
excused. To such motives of delicacv,
however commendable in the persons
who feel them, it is Impossible for courts
Of justice to yield, without putting it in
the power Of every man uHder pretenee
OF slCh Scruples, to exempt himself
from those duties which all the Citizens
are bound to perform. Courts Of justice
must regulate themselves bv legal prin-
ciples, whic are fixed and universal ;
not BY delicate scruples, which admit Of
endless variety, according to the varying
opinions and feelings of men.
Such were the reasons of this respon-
dent, and he presume. Of his colleague
the said CYRUS Griffin for refusing to ex-
suse tine sad John Ba.set, from serving
on the Jury aforementioned. These
reasons Andth decision founded on them
he insists were legal and valid. But if
the reasons should be considered as in
valid, and the decision as erroneous, can
theS be considered a: so clearly and IA
GRAVITY incorrect, as to jl.t,N a Conclu-
sion that they were adopted by this res
Pondt n, through improper motives? are
not these r, as"uS Sufficiently stroag, or
sufficiently plausible, to justify a caAdid
and liberal mind in believing, that
judge mig hthone silly have regarded the m
as solid Has it not been c oneeded bv
the omission to prosecute jldke Grifia
for this decision, that his error, if he
committed one, WAS an honest error
Whence this distinction between this
respondent and his colleague And
why is that opinion imputed to one ..
crime, which in the other is considered
as innocent?
And the said Samuel Chase for plea
TO the sad .ecord article of impe ach-
mrnt, sal'h, that he is not guilty Of any
high crime or nIsdrm eanor, re in and
b' the SAID second article is alleged a.
Ea'0st him; and this he praNS may be
l"GHirel OF b> this honourab!e court, in
s"th "anner rs law and justice shall seem
to ,"cm to require.
ne 'hlTd utitle Of impeachment al
legs that ihIs respondent with intent
to "pH!es> 'ad procure the conviction of
III n,'so"er, Ind Lot permit the evidence
q Hhn '>i"r, material witness in
brE~'' OF tn said CAlle nder, to be given
H. IT p-cren@e that the said. Witnesses
c"':.d *trr"ve the truth of the whole of
o. OF the charges, contained in the ir-
d'ctrene al hough thz said charge con-
tanned more than one fact"
In answer TO this charge, ,hi. re.pon-
dent bes< leave to submit the following
facts and observations.
he indie tment srainss Jane, Thomp-
son Calender, which has bSen Already
ment'oned, and OF hich a copy is e1hi.
hl'"d with tins answer. consisted Of two
dl,sinct and separate counts, each of
which contained twe1tv distinc, ard in
dependent &h4rgrs, or .en Of words.
Zach Of those &c Of word. was charged
a. libel asriAs, John Adams, a. pre.i.
de '@ tnv United StatrI-anG the
twelfth Charge embraced the following
words, He (mcanirg president A.
dame was professsd ari,,ocrat; he
proved faithful and .erviceable to the
Br'''.h interest" The defence set up
was confined to this charge, and wa.
re stP n ,trOo rho truth ,,F, r.