Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-06-29

The insinuation that these cases might have
been influenced by IN, ireumsisnce Of thei,
being IN writing or print, and thc;, there fore
they parto"k OF the nature of l,bsIS, can llavs
no weight because the antb0r.,rs put III.
,crttng and speaking cDnteWpiuously Of ,hs
Juds.s'n their judicial capacity upun The sam.
footing, & because this ven v case iurnisles.,ruv
mat, by a combination Of time, place and cir
cumslaucrs, speaking such dsinay prnduc,
as great, u not greater evils, than writing %,
printing the same words would have prudIc.
ed. Other authorities were relied urun by
the defendaot's counsel. Bat upon -xauii,,a-
ton It will be found, that the contem ptuous
words complained of, were spoken of Inferior
courts, or tn. Judges of inferior courts who
have not authority I" proceed by attachment
Tor contempt, as courts leet, ecclesiastical
courts, &c. Of hich there are many in Fog
'snd-or that it did not appear the officer
was Judge Of a court having such authority
or that the words did not appear To have been
spoken Of his Judicial acts. These auihori-
ties seem, therefore, not TO bear upon this
question. -.
Let us, then ,enquire how far!those principIez
apply to the case before the court.
To do this correctly it is necessary to take
into view the time, the place, and all the cir
cunstances connected with this gross insult,
Tor such every one must consider il, offered to
the Judge. A cause had heen, and then was,
depending in the court, Of which he was the
sole Judge, against Mr.. Bassett as surety for
the defendant, in the result of which he 1.-THE
defendantl was deeply interested. That
cause had been once tried, and new trial
granted to Mr.. Bassett. On the second day of
the fall term, in the year l82S, hen that cause
stood for trial, and during which term it was
actually tried the secoad time, these Contempt
Gus words were spoken TO the Judge, as he
was ascending the steps Of the courthouse, to
take his seat upon the bench, in reply to-, at
least, civil and apparently friendly saIuta-
ton. They charged him with cOwardice and
corruption, upon former occasion, in that
very cause. This charge was thus openly made.
at the very vestibule of the temple of Justice.
in the presence of all who were there assem-
bled, on this public occasion. Is it necessary
to reason upon this subject? Does not eyery
one perceive at once, that it was not only a
gross personal insult offered TO The Judge. but
high charge against his judicial conduct, a
gross scandal upon his court and eminenily
calculated to produce that want of respect and
regard, of which when court of Justice is de-
prived, ITS authority, SD necessary Tor the good
order OF the common wealth, is entirely lost
among the people? Nay more dues moi every
one at all acquainted with the nature of Judi
cal proceedings, distinctly perceive, that il
was calculated TO have deliterious effect up-
on the result of the aforesaid cause (? That il
was an imputatiOn, which, if it could possibly
have been believed, or even suspected to have
bsen just, must have produced an opinion.
that Bassett, who stood in the defendants
shoes, did not stand chance for fair trial,
not merely on account of The prejudices, but
OF The rices ofthe Judge Let il be remember
ed thai, at the then expected trial he was. of
necessity, To preside: That it was duty from
which he could not finch, unless indeed he
was so cowardy as 10 be driven from it by the
defendants denunciati0n, not only To deter
mine every question of law with respect to
the admissibly of evidence, sc. but to in
struct the jury upon every question of.aw sub
mtled TO them, If called upon to do SO. What
respect would juryman pay TO, what conf
dence would he place in, the instructions of a
Judge, whom he even suspected, 0fhaying
acted corruptly upon any occasion, but more
in that very cause Is il possible
to imagine charge more completely calcula
ted to bring the court, over which that Judge
presides, into disrespect among the people,
aud utterly to destroy its usefulness think
not, and therefore am bound To say that the
defendant has committed high contempt to
that Court.
But it is said that even If it be so, yet the
In this case are novel, and erroue
Gus there has bevn no affidavit, no rule. no az
Iachment, &c. But was not this offence with
10 the knowledge Of the Judge within his o,on
We're not the words uttered 10 him.
and Of him Could any affidavit or any mum,
Der OF afidavits have made him better ac.
4uainted with them? Affidayiis are only neces
'ary 10 satisfy the court Of the prnpriciy Of in
curing into the matter. Upon the speaking of
The words he could have no doubt the tnIy
doubt which c0did arise was about tn. occasion
alluded TO by him, and the motive by which he
was actuated; and, indeed, from the circum
stances attending the transaction there could be
out little doubt about them. w here is the reason
or authority which, IN such case, can require
previous afhdavits This abuse, with all its
was within the knowledge of
he Judge. he has stated it upon The record.
aud called upon the defendant TO say whether
mat statement was or was not correct, and 10
say whether the allusiOn and motive charged
% that statement were also correct. The
defendant has answered and admitted ,h,.
ruth of the whole charge, as TO the words. the
allusion and the motive. How has he been
injured, or otherwise subjected than he would
have been if aflidavits had been taken, rule
granted, &c? WHY'S the rule, or attachment.
awarded They are nothing but process to
bring the person of the accused into court. and
are intirely unnecessary when he is already
there. But Mr.. cambridge was already there.
and the statement of the judge was read to
him. What was required Of him (? That ne
should enter into recognizance TO appear and
answer interrogatories. The very thing that
would have been done il he had been brought
n upon process. And he has answered and
hOnUrablY confessed the truth of the ,xh ,,Io