Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-08-22
THURSDAY, -4geusn Is.

SKrTcH Of the nyguate'ats on tlss s4stcs;.
fcatisns az impartial jury.
EcoNTINuHp. y
! Present JoHN NJ ia Ii chief Jasticesof
the United States.
Mr.. Ugiirt said, is wcrestosbs wished that
inshis cssea jury could be got OF such
pure materials as,sslr. Martin desired;
whose minds were as pure as the unsolied
snow on Dian's lap. But doesexper
justify 81. h a hopss The case does not
exist and he law-does netfequire t. Mr..
Martins authorities are elementary; they
are abstract, aud uot. precisely applicable
TO points of practice. 1hsye are general
phrases: they deafoniy In geasrals: Gut
swesc these books even. to be trusted and
did not their generality exclude the m from
familiar nse; You will find that when they
sPec;fy. they express particular reference
10 the person Of the accssed. 10 shcw
that these Gle men,ary principles arc not
compleatly psraued 10 the English courts,
he would refer to Tooks's case, p, 9 Any
county. any Familiarity, Is 10 Reeves a SUI
6sientsca.se for rejection: but IN Ioose's
trial, mir Ihompson.s intimacy with Mr.
L. for 81 wears was said the Jadge TO
b. DO good ground of exception. But ie,
us select another case in our own counify.
It's unprecedented the rules OF law should
not be continually shifting on The waves OF
uncertainty. 10 order that man may kuew
how to steer his course. Well, cow whaS
says the case Of Calender IN particular
Puiut: Wnen Mr.. John Bassest had 90
iec.ed to himself, because be had slready
made up his mind on the point Of libel, he
was oveTraled. But turn TO the English
laws Of ,lbsi and what is the principal point
there? Is il who IS the author! Is il on
that poin. thar the brightest beams CT elo-
qpence are shed No. Bnt is is 10 the
quessianvhsshe it's libel or not. Ihrp,
in the language Of Mr.. Bolts, was nor Cal
leuder cut CT from more than hart his
6esences. Lesns draw an analogy between
The two cases. These juFymen a'ight have
said, thar The assemblage of men On Blan
nerhassett's island was high treason; bai
they koew not whether Gel. 8. was there
Here this case and that of Calender you'd
be ssrikirgly parallel. 10 both cases, rhe
1 great facts woEldh be fixed in,the mud oitae
iuror-and The only thing that would re,
Inain would he to trace them up 10 the ius
disidual accused. But the presenF case
falls tar short OF that. These juiymeo
say. ,ha. from newspaper publications 'hsy
have taken up some impression, as to col.
Burr's reasonable intentions; bat nor one
Of them says that The meesing on Blanaer-
iassets's Island was an act of treason. Ia
anolher point aIlender's case was s,reps.
er one than this. /, was ridiculous for !.
II. Calender to have attempted TO coun-
> feract the conviction that lay against his
crime. Mr.. Bassett's opinion was Termed
from the book itself; and ,hsre was 90
other evidence 10 produces. But IN This
Gaze, juryman have seen nothing bur
the evidence 10 the newspapers; and they
say there IS conflicting evidence as 20 the
doctrine of treason. If then you would
strip col. B. Of half Of his defence. because
jusyman has made up half Of his mod,
! how much more was J. I. .Cailsnder
ssript of his! The kind Of Jury that Mr..
Martin contends for is Impossible obs
obtained from the very nature OF things
Necessity has often given the law in other
cases, and perhaps II muss 10 this. This
is net ihe DOLLY case where a purely Impair
: t,al;urymap must have dropt from Heaven
or fruuo some osher planet. Look at the
English Rebelhons of 1715 and of rs |;
when the qaes,ioo soi the Pretender snd
s-ihe House of Hanover was so warmly agI-
lated. The magazines were filed with It !:
the utmost zeal and enthusiasm animated
every man IN the nation; men not only
wroie but Tough, for II; Nand thassin SO
snail Kingdom, thar the very clang and