Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-08-20

j = 10
ton was, Who was animpartial lurymans!
He mus. be- one said Mr.. Haytha, par
TAX es of the common svnsimentssofIhe ma
iosity Of the pc o2lr among whom he IS.
sides. Will the court undertake 10 say that
the majority Of this district is incapable OF
Judging properly If so he would unite
with MIR. Martin 10 saying that i was
libel on the state and the majority
would very truly return the compliment,
By saying, you alone who brand US with
this censure prove by this very act the
prejudiees with which you yourself are
actusteJ. TIE opposite counsel have sPo.
ken Of newspaper publications. He would
venture TO say that there is not man OF
however remote a situation, or OF however
supine disposition, who has net received
some impressions on this subject. These
Impressions were taken up without any
sentiment Of i'll will TO the aecused; or
w,.hou. even knowing him. Is it reasona,
ble to pronounce, that with these impress
ions the majority is incapable Of deciding
fairly !? There may perchauce be some one
igoorast man, who has received no i'm.
preston upon this subject, some solitary
Hermit thar is shut up in the hollow Of a
tree; some human being cus OF from all
human concerns, into whose solitary bo-
som the history Of these transactions has
never ye, penetrated but such is not the
picture ef the world at large. Our society
is divided into two great parties he knew
that's these two were not to man united
on this occasion but he kaew too that
there was not a man among them, who
had not taken his sids the one way or the
other. Some authorities had been cited
from Reeves and Mac Mallv they did not
bear upon ,kis case; but he should cite
two Others which did. The first was thc
case of Callendef, where it was supposed
snlficiens toask a juryman, whether he
had formed aud delivered al opinion up
op the spoint at issue. The other was
from 2 Hawkins. Oh. 48, p. 4l8 on the
subject Of challenges where il is said to BE-
no good cause OF challenge, that nan is
jurymau on an indictment similar to that
on which he has already found verdict.
Mr.. II. commented upon these authorities
at considerable length.
"a sketch Of the remarks OF Messers
Wirs. Wicsham ADD Randolph ia our
nex.:)
The Ciief fusties observed tia: the
sole object Of the constitution when tire.
CURED az Impartial jury was to have
fair trial; that is, no man should sit as a
juryman who was not ready to jedge ty
the testimony. Why were .he-moss dist
an, connections excluded? Not because
they were connections, but because the
law presumed that they would not hear
the testimony SO impartialy, .as those who
we're not in that relation. Very probably
the man himselfmight thiak that he was
capab!e Of giving fair resell, /; blu: the law
w:ilno admit Of al exception. Now, it
would be strange if The law had excluded
connection on the supposi,icn shat this
might have influenced his judgment, ADD
yet would be regardless of a man. having
actually formed and expressed an opinion
On the subject! /, has been said (perhaos
truly .saidj thar 10 such a case as tho pre-
SEN, an absolute state of indifference can.
not be Obtained. There certainly are cases
where the law must bend to positive ne
cessity; but then this necessity must .arst be
proved before it can be proper to bend the
law to i,s dictates. (l'he chief justice
illustrated these positions by the rebel!ions
Of England and ireland The alternative
" cu'd 10 such case be. either TO have no
| trial a, all, or 70 have It decided b. par
,ial jurymen. But the principle Of law
! does nos &c, .ainiy bend, until it be estab-
li>hed that all mankind are Impressed with
prejodices. This briggs ns then back to
the law, and that disqualihes every man
from serving, who has made Up and de.
clared an opinion as 10 the whsle case H.,