The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-04-16


ed to bring him forward witnefs prove the fael
this was on the morning of the day of the trial, and
juit before was fworn.
PHILIP GOOCH fworn.
Mr.. Harper. Peafe to inform this honora-
bic court whether Won were prcGent at the trial
of James Thomfin Calender, at a Circuit
court holden at Richmond, in the year. 800
Mr.. Gooeb / was in court during part of
the time of that trial. did not get in unit the
Jury were called ard iuft before they were fworn
believe ] was not preftnt at the whole of the
trial.
Mr.. HARPER. What was the nature Of that
Mr.. Coach. undernood it TO be an indiSt-
ment for libel upon the Proficient, under the
ftditon law, and / went on purpofe from
Amherf county, where / rciide, to be pre-
fent 1t it.
Mr.. Harper. What did you obferve relative
tn the conduct of the court and council on that
day, tate what happened.
Mr.. Coocb. When Mr.. BaItt figgefcd to
the court his with to be Informed whether it
was their opinion that he was a proper perfon
to fcrve on the jury, becaufe ne had formed s
exprefied an opinion on the extracts which he
had feen, and declared that il correctly copied
from the work called the Profpeet Before Us,
the author was within the pale of the fedtion
law. On that fuggeftion / recoeGt, the court
decided, and laid it down as law, that he mutt
not only have formed an opinion but delivered
it alto, and the Judge gave fome reafons why
he NUT not only have formed, but delivered an
opinion. I think he faid that if notorious
murder was committed in the body of 4 couu-
ty, which every man believed ought to be pun
ilhed with death, & had 70 formed his opinion,
1t would in that cafe be impotlible to get Jury
to try fuch an offender, if it were an objection,
that a man had formed an opinion. under
food that he had confulted Judge Griffin on
this point. The court was very crowded. but
had obtained iituation jiuf behind the udg-
es, and had an opportunity of hearing in fome
degree what pafIed between them, though not
dittn6tly. MIR. Baf1et was eventually fworn
upon the jury. The cauie proceeded. MIR.
Mellon (the ditritt attorney then opened
the cafe. am unable to detail all his obfcrva-
tons, nor is it material that illould do 70
however, he faid that the intention of the ira
verier to be UNDERWOOD from the matter
which had been extracted from the Project
Before Us, and laid in the indictment with j.
nuendoes. He examined the wtnefes on the
part of the profecution, but I do not reColleGt
that any oueffion was put on the part of the
council for the traverer in objection to the tef-
timony but remember that when col. Tay-
lorwas called to give teftimony on the part of
the traverier, that the court required his coun-
fel to fate what they intended to prove by him,
and that Judge Chafe required the queftions to
be reduced 10 writing after that was done, ]
remember that he determined that as his teE
timony did not go to prove the Who'll. of
charge, it nlould not be received. He turn
ed to Judge Griffin, and ahked him if that ALTO
was his opinion Judge Griffin fad it was
Judge Chafe added afterwards, in pleafant
manner, to the council for the travericr, Won
know yourfeives TO be clever young men, s. I
believe you know that tctimony OF this kind
ought not to be adduced, but perhaps YOU do
n lin fho r<ta
minds to fate of oppofition - he then turned
to the attorney for the difrict, and faid he was
preiied by the council to admit the tefimony
of col. Taylor, and that he wihed him to give
bis content that it fhould be received. The
ditrict attorney told him that he could not :;
Judge Cbafe aiked him fecond time to accedc
to the reception of the tefti:nony of col. Tay-
Tor the diftriet attorney replied he would not,
If being inconfifent with his duty.
Mr.. Writ then opened the caufe on the part
of the traverfer (; he made fome alluiion to the
courts prohibiting the mode of defence, which
the council for the traverfer had adopted, but
he was interrupted by the court, & was told
that the decifion of the court mutt be binding
for the prefent that if they Objected, they
might file their bill OF error, and it ihould be
allowed
Mr.. Writ proceeded in the caufe, and was
endeavoring to thew that the fedtion law was
unconstitutional the court interrupted him,
and told him that what he had to fay mutt be
addrefed to the court, but if he was going on
that point, he NUT again be informed that the
court would not fuffer it to be urged. Mr.
Writ appeared to be in fome agitation, but con-
tnued his argument, and when he came up to
that point fecond time, he was again inter
rupted by the court. MIR. Writ returned his ar
gument, and faid he was going on. Judge
Chafe again interrupted him and fad no, fir,
you are not going on, | am going on; fit
down." l recoe6 alto after the Judge had
made fome obferyations, Mr.. Writ again pro-
ceeded, & having obferved that as the jury had
right to coniider the law, and as the coniti-
tuition was law, it followed fyogitcally that
the jury had right to decide on the confti.
tutiorality of law. Judge Chaie replied to
him non ifqnitur, lr, and at the fame time
made him a bow. Whether ;hefe circumltan-
ces took place exactly in the order in which
have mentioned them, I am not poitive, but
believe they did. MIR. Writ fat down, and the
judge delivered lengthy opinion. He lated
that the council NUT argue the law before the
court, and not before the Jury, for it was not
competent for the jury to decide that point
that the jury were competent to decide, whe-
ther the fediiion law embraced this cafe or not,
bat that they were not competent to decide,
49,. 1 ~ Il.