Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-02-18

udNit " TIE UtteuOdU', anu HIS answers
Ia the inicrrogaiories The substance
of all which, take To be this, that the
defendant, To obtain report, 10 which,
by the order of reference he was Not en-
titled, offered to tie commissioner, ara has
official character. fberal fee, or a Htersi
compensation.
The only difference then, between the
report of the columns siouer, and the
this, thar by The report, the defendant
offered 10 divide with him, the sum winch
he might recover,back; and by the state
mcnts of the defendant, on oath, he offer
ed liberal fee or compensation. " mat
for Why 10 influence the commissioners,
in a case before him, 10 do that, which
by The terms of'the order, he Was not au-
thorsed 10 do.
understand by liberal fee or liberal
compensation, something more ll,an a
legal fee or. legal compensation and
this must have been the understanding
OF the defendant.
The difference then, in point of moral
turpitude, between these two offers,
seems 10 ne, to be so unlmporianl that
the defendant, if he could derive any
benefit from it, might be allowed 10 make
his election.
For, any thing offered TO a person,
concerned Ia the administration ofjnsiice,
TO influence his behavior in his office,
more than the law allows, for his services,
Is Iu The words OF 4 Bl. 1870, an undue re.
Ward: and upon every legal principle,
must be considered, as offered with a
view TO have All nnffae Influence.
Giving 10 the defendant then. the fall
be,setit of that rule. for which Mr.. Ulck.
KAN contended, that applies 10 answers.
In this court, the defendant mus, not
complain OF that part of it, which, makes
iihe answer of a party evide nee, against
himself.
Avowpg the rule then to apply both
WAYS, If the court be right in surprising
liberal fee, or liberal compensation, Of
fered 10 one acting, like the commission
er was, iD a judicial character, an andre
reward, the defendant stands convicted,
by his own oath, OF having altered a G,iLe /:
unless that part Of his oath, which AYERS
the want of any such intention can acquit
him.
How is this the answer is furnished,
by the cases be'ore mentioned, where
both at law, and in chancery, as the
fact was made "ut, the pa,t oaib, as
TO his want of iRfeafion, was denied, tho
IN PosFS case, the chancellor said he
knew the man, and believed it was so ::
aud IL those cases, both the defendants
were punished: Such is the law: and il
ought To he so: for as the chancellor
sand In 2. Atk. AL, there cannot be any
thing OF greater consequence thar to'kcep
The streams of Justice clear and pure
word from Bl. ESQ, upon ihe pcwer
oil the court. The process ofatGctnre,.t,
says that distinguish d writer, Tor con
tempfs, must necessarily be as ancient as
the laws themselves. For laws, without "a
competent authority TO secure their
administration from disobedience and
contempt, would be vain and nsgatory !:
and. surely, il there be any point 10 which
the sentineis OF justice. should turn their
attention, with more vigilance than 10 an
other, 1t should be Ia keep all the avenues
TO tins court, free from The banelnl and
corrup,lng influence of money.
have bestowed due attention on the
arguments OF the distinguished counsel
for 'he defendant and, il had time,
should take ii on myself, as a part Of my
duty, to bring them all again into view,
IN the expectation that every impression
made by them might, without doubt, be
removed. But, naye not Z M, for that
purpose /; ana ! must content my S 1T with
the view, that have taken aud | shall
DO u undera very firm lmpres sion that
it"il' be found nv those who may review
nose arguments that they were not tena-
Bile.
have performed painful duty. | can
say, as tbe chancellor said in the case oil
Pool, know Bfr. Fresland. have
known him long and in all that time
tS f,,t h.t I
complain OF him, have never had any
cause to complain of him my self and
Truly regret, the necessity which has led
to this investigation.
but, public justice seems TO require, that
an example should be made, at the Mresh-
old of such conduct.
There is but one more painful duty 10
perform. II Is TO pronounce that SEN
tence which il becomes the duty of tie
court.
This would be more painful dutv
than The one which, have performed. il
the offer to b,ibe the commissioner of The
court, in this case, had been made under
more aggravaiing circumstances.
Ihatpriscipie then, which IS 10 he found
III our benign system OF laws, IN relation
TO crimes. seems to furuisLa standard. lor
Tue exercise Of that sound discretion
WHICH should govern The court, in lis
sentence. The standard 10 which refer
IS 10 be found in ibat principle of the
laws that apportions puDishmenis TO
crimes.
Tile hoaor, The Justice, and tie integrity
OF The commissioner, III repelling the ap-
pilcaiion of lie defendant. and IN not ac-
cedingto lis Offer, (bc ii tile one or the
Otner1 prevented The 1OSsthilitx If M.
injury, except that, Which might follow
from the example, Of il we're suffered 10
pas unnoilced,) andfqliat, which ,nusi con
sequentls attach 10 tie defendant: so
that feel inclined as il is the first case OF