The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-08-14


good reafnns 20, it; and when it had been ufed
!,y his council, it had met his decided difplea-
fure. He again repeated his hope that no aIlu-
fons would he made to the paR he would
:rfwer for it that his own council fhould fur
NTH ND occsiion for cenfure.
Mr.. Martin declared that it was not his with
10 hurt any ones feelings hut that when b.
was 70 often interrupted aud accued of a dif-
petition to waite time, he could not repreis
them. AS to the point before the court, what
does the contribution moft empha,cal'y require?
That the jury ihould he impartial that they
fhould have no impredious on their mind to the
prejudice of the pri(oner: but that they ihou!d
come here to take all their imprenons from
the facts exhibited on evidence and upon oath.
To this effect he would take the liberty ofeuo-
ting Reeves's Hihory of the Englifh Law, vol.
1, p. S2e and vol. 9, p. 446, and Carey's Eng
lilh Liberties, p. 245, 24s, 249, to prove the
rigid degree of impartiality required by the
laws of England. Thefe authorities would
fhow that lurym7n ought to be completely
indifferent TO either party that he ought to
have neither enm:y nor friend!hip; and that
even a particular familiarity and at the lame ia
bic, was fufici,nt to diquali;y him. But If
was to be dveaed of all affection and all
reationibip in a civil cafe, how much more
EiouId he be in that liiuation, in cafe of life
and death 1t was of the mott facred max.
inns of the law too, that every man was preium-
ed TO be innocent, until there was fufhcient e.
violence produced to remove this prefumption.
Mr.. M. did no. underltand this having and
. quartcrng Of prejadices. 1t was not fuficient
that this man houd have one fourth of the
prepo1efiion of that; or that he fhould be
S.5!hs or 7ths eia prejudiced than ano-
Their but the law requires that lie fhould be
wholly and perfectly impartial. The contitu-
ton forbids courts Of juitice ever forcing upon
criminal airy Juror that is not perfectly unbi-
alIed. Gentlemen may fay, indeed, that we
muh either taEr iuch men, or have no trial 1T
all. BUTT was not 10: he lhould contend that
under the contribution a man fbould not be tried
and hung becauie A court cannot get impartial.
jurymen to try him. The iprit CT that nttru-
ment declares, that no man lhould be tried, un-
til he could be tried by an impartial jury. MIR.
NJ. quoted McNaly, page 667 20 ihow, that
trial may be put off on an affidavit, If the
public mind is 70 prejudced by publicati-
ons, as 70 exclude the chance of a fair trial.
To the fame effect alto he cited the cafe of the
King Us. the Dean of ST. Afaph aud the cafe
OF Brookes and others, where the trial had
been put off TO another term, becaufe an i'm
perfetl hatement of part of the evidence had
been given to the public that public, from
which the Jury was to be fele6ted. What is
the ftuation of jurymen in the prefent cafe T?
They are to determine upon the fubject matter
growing out of traa;attions in the wetern
country. Thefe gentlemen may fay that they
are fatis6ed of Col BIS treafonable purpoles
1t would be enough if they had conceived that
thete purpofes were dangerous becauie it is
the court, which is to give to ,tefe
crimes. Can then a man, wkofe mind is iul-
prcilcd with an opinion of certain practices
dangerous to the union, be locked upon as an
impartia! iuryman His mind is already half
made up; and that half is perhaps the mot ma
terial part. The at,s themisIves might be in
nocent if uncoupied with the intentions: 20
boats afTemhed at BIannerhafett's Hand, and
their crews armed with rifles, are as harmless
an apparatus, as if The men were going to fhoot
game Z: but it is the intention which ramps
them with different character. Men Whole
minds are made up as 10 the intentions, need
only have proof of certain acts and the bu-
fineis IS done. The contribution and common
1'nie both require that jury fhould be as free
from impreilions as to deiigns as to overt acts.
The principle is the fame as in cafe OF Burela-
ry.-It is TO be lamented that the public mind is
in the tate, which gentlt men have defcribed
hut 1t is certainly not 70 TO the extent which
they have represented TIE 48 men who are
on tins PANEL, arc not an accurate fpecimen oil
tie whole Rate. And who is it that commenc-
ed with thefe irfammatory publications
WASH Col. BIS couLiel No; it was the pub
Tic papers, under The patronage of the admi-
INITIATION. Aud ii was the gentleman on the O.
fprit. II was his zeal ; it was he, who was
fupPcied heit acquainted with tie evidence a.
CAN'T h'm, that pronounced upon his guilt and
Prepotfeiied the public mind againd him. No
man can be looked UPou as impartial who has
been preiudiced by fuch publications.
Mar. Bolts obferved, that every crime con-
lifted of great many component parts; and
the quefton was, when upon Analysts a jury
man lays he has not committed himfeif upon 9
or Of thcte points, he be regarded as an
impartial Jnryman. The intention is certainly
moi important feature in the crime Fix
upon IL Jurymen, Whole minds are made up
DIS TO his defgns and Col Burr is already half
Condemned. Theft men would be prepared to
md verdi6 of guilty if the acts only could be
proved, when 2 other impartial Jurymen might
be willing to acquief,e in the evidence of the
acts, when they could not be fatisfed from the
fthImony, that there was the lealt guilty inten-
ton with what face could Col. Burr's council
fand before Jury thus predetermined, urging
upon them an innocent intent?
MI Burr TCft to narrow the argument. not
te extend it, not to add any thing more, but 10
throw out Of the dicunion what bad been ac-
cIdentally introduced. That the public mind
was preiudiccd again0 him was an obvious fact (;
but how this prejudice had been produced,
n he knew not. He had not wilhed this point to
he yN Falf lot