The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-08-18

deioended the OHIO that Col Is. had had feveral
gsgensnts with Gen. Wilkiufon; and had then been
brought before this court for trial the jury would
have decided upon thefe facts, and not upon their
own rrepoilelons. But where the etabhed
hes in this cafe ? TIE PreGdept has declared thar
OF ms guilt there can be doubt. Yet the Pref.
dent is but and liable TO deception. Gen. Will
kinion too is witnes; but his credibility may be
hereafter mPeached and the fupreme court has al
ready decided that his eGimony is not relative to the
charge OF treaioH. This whole tale then refolves
itielf into Gen. Ea.ons dopoftion of which though
we may not be diipofed TO fay it is untrue, we may
at least alert that marvellous Is this accufat
on then founded on hforical fatas3 Is there n fin.
gle document to iupport il No; not one. How
then can the gentleman pretend inltitute parel-
lei between this cafe, and the cafe of the Rebellion.
of Englandl
If it be no dfguai6ca,on for one ;uryman TO have
entertained opinion Of Col BIS treaouabe inten-
tions, it can be no disqualification for f2 of them,
What then would be the fituation of his council /?
The jury impanneed their minds made up as to
the reaionab!e delisns of Col B. With what attitude
could his counfvl and before fuch men vindicate
his innocence Would they pretend to operate upon
marble! They might as we'll at once abandon The
eaue of their client.-Thefe mpreiiious too, repe6-
ing Col BIS intentions would directly contribute to
influence their judgments the overt acts faid TO
have been committed Thefe impreflions do directly
bear upon the ar becauie the intention is the
hrit iep towards the AT itelf, and render it more
probable that that aa will be committed. What is
mot probable isfoonea believed to be MOT likely to
happen and the man whole judgement is therefore
made up the intentions Of Col 3. cannot be aid
to be impartial on any point in the caufe.-Let
the cafe be luppofed Of larymen whole mind is de-
cided as to the intentions and Others to the
vert at. How could the council pretend to addrefs
them on either of thofe points If they wifhed to
argue on one of them, they mua abandon it; beeaufe
ofthe Jury are adanan.: IF they turaed to the o.
Their, they would meet with equal prejudice and e.
qsal refiRance. II like the cafe Of the Abbefs
and the Nun recorded in Triftram Shandy; where it
would be fin for either of them pronounce GER
tam word entire but by Uplifting it into pieces
they completely removed all the fin of the tranfata-
on. One of them could then articulate the Bon and
the other the ,sy. 4
Asto Calendars cafe, had Mr.. BalIett concluded
that Calender was the author of the libel Had he
decided upon his intentions. Or upon the gull. of
Publihing it : No-Did the council who appeared
for him pretend to deny that it libel; or did
they not rather voluntarily fep forward for the fake
OF difpating the conutionality of the law and the
authority OF the court, under which he was arragn
ed Did Mr.. Randolph himfelf, in the Houie of
Representatives deny that was libel And let it
be recolleed that thi, very decion of Judge Chafe
was overruled in the Senate of the U. S. by maior-
ty OF Is to l6; and yet Mr.. Hay has now quoted it
as law.
MIR. w. then expatated upon Mr.. Hay, definition
OF an Impartial Jurynan. The fenfe of the majority
OF any country to be confdered the criterion
OF lmpartia!ity and truth. What van faving of
trouble would relult from this principle. In
teadsf tudents porting the black letter in his
own cloiet, in fearch principle, and tets he need
only go about this Barbecue and that Horle Race
to take the common ienfe of mankind. A lawyer
would perhaps eoniu his McNally or his Reeves
But MIR. Hay would go about collie Cling the rnfe of
the nation. Is there then to be 4bbee nominal a.
there has been in France, when the French people
were aazed, &" are you for Napoleon being king of
the French 2" But this argument proves too much.
Were man to declare Col. i. guilty not only of
treaionab'e intent, but of trea(onable at, could he
be coniidered as an impartial juryn,an, becaufe he
happened to coincide with the public opinion II
ism aet in,Poifhe to know what that opinion is. o.
pinons are continually fuefuating What is law UNI
der the administration of John Adams, is no, 70 under
the administration of Mr.. Jefferfsn.
Mr.. Writ has found fault with elementary
writings, and afferts that they are not Away
the iefts OF truth. 1t is true that they are nor
always TO but they are mott generally IN con
i1dered. Some elementary hooks fuch as Lord
Cookies are of ncfimahle value. As to the
variation which Mr.. Writ has pointed out be.
tween one of the elementary principles OF
Reeves and the courts decilion in the cafe Of
Horne Tooke, reference TO the report of tia,
iidi WpulU Clearly NOW IHat ttllh Cdfe h1d not
been accurately represented to this court
Ihon'pfon, The juryman, was not in court he
had exercifed the difcretion of abfenting him.
ftif, and it was iaid by way of execute, that he
had been long and intimately acquainted with
the defendant. 1t was TO this point that the
judge fpoke, when he fad that it was no ex-
| cute. No execute for what ; Not from ferving
on the jury; but for not attending the court.
Mr.. Wirt here interrupted Mr.. w. and fub-
mItted it to every candid mind, which had mott
candidly ftated the pa6age. Mr. Writ then
read it and commented at fome length A
long and defultury conversation occurred on
this point; after which MIR. Wickham obfery-
ed that he had but one more remark to offer
that he had come here to try the defendant on
the law and on the fact and not on public ru-
mour: but that this trial would be nothing but
a nockery, If it were to be fubmitted to the
decilion of prejudiced jury. Why did the
trainers of our contribution attempt to fecure
the privilege of an impartial jury? Was it not
known to them, that the period would at length
arrive, when fome individual would be marked
out as the victim Of popular and political iea-
louiy! And was it not from fuch cafe, that
the contribution had originally forbid the Legif-
| la'ure to- change the law of treafon and that
a fubfe9uent amendment was introduced Gill
further to fortfy and to fecure the privileges of
| the accufyd
Mr. E. RoadoPk Cat the requet of the court)
read judge Cbafe's anfwer to the article of the
Indictment, which arraigns his decifion in the
cafe OF Mr.. Baliett: Mr.. X. then obferved that