Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-06-30

mont.
Mr. Jorrs stated, that If there was any season
ior these Instructions II WIS in au earlier sir.e of
,he proceedings The law lad acluioScpd IN the
nocision OF the Jury ignoring the bill for forgery.
The Counsel for the United States, in comparing
the two indictments, camn 10 the conclusion that
The Jury were convinced that tho iacts nverred had
been proved, and that they did amount in their essence
To forgery, but that, through mistake of the law
thcy refused to find forgery. lie contcndcd that
Shis was not affair statement. Alter the bill charging
forgery was returned ignordmss, the Counsel for
inc United States admitted that new bill was. in
n lew minutes sent mp TO the Jury, without word
OF explanation. If there had been mistake of
'hc Jaw, that was the time to ask that the
should be corrected.
1.-THE Courtsho determine To GO into these mi
mute details ON the merits of the law and the facts
whieh Is common in charging petit jury, the Coun-
lot the accused woudt some grave objections TO
oHcr' But they would restrain themselves until thcv
are convinced that such Il course would be pursued
MT JONES dlsclaimcd any idea of arguing whether
certain lacts amount to forgery not because he
considered that question c0,u non JUDGE at pre-
scnt and one which could only be discussed as ar os
c",tts, or ec gratin His whole argument was drcc-
ted to the alleged mistake OF the law, bv the Grand
Jury lie would ask, however, IL the alteration of
an abstract, or account current was necessarily for
gerry The Counsel for the United States had them
selves abandoned this as Il ground for n charge of
forgery. They had also annexed further quaifica
,i"nS IN their arguments against the dcmurrc's,
winch would now make against those arguments by
instructions. The Counsel on the other side had
ooen repeatedly called on 10 show in what respects
hnd how, the United States might be defraudcd and
they had only replied by reference TO extrnneous cir
cunstanceS. They had not shown how the fraulu-
lent intent was possible. An indie mont was sent
mp, winch neither makes ont forgery or fraud. The
Grand Jury had not been convinced, hut wcrc con-
WINGED OF the contrary that the alterations OF this alb
stract dd not amount TO forgery. The of the
Grand Jury had not been in rejecting one indict-
ncnt hut III finding any one Indictment out of the eight
ihere had not been single which WAS accom-
panied by any evidence whatever. With the eyccD-
ton ofthc st, not one had been founded ON any pre-
ccdent prcSen,mcnt: but had been returned on bills
sent er ocio by tho United States Attorneys to the
Grand larry
All the evidence as mere hear say, unon which
the Counsel for tic United States or their clerks
had prepared the averments Considering this 10
DC an abuse IN the criminal practice of the Court
H. called upon the Conrt to lay it's hand upon it. He
referred 10 the swearing Of the Witnesses who had
appeared in tile original Indictment by which they
were sworn not 20 give evidence any specific car-
ges, but merely 10 give evidence against Tobias
Watkins. The accused had been committed for tri.
nj, and witnesses summoned against hin not one oc
these witnesses had becn sworn. lie hud been IN
la two months and eight Indictments had been found
IN which perjury might have been hcaped upon per-
jury, without any remedy from any human tribunal.
Judge Thruston asked how the counsel know those
fhcts9
MIR. Jones said lie had asccruincd it officially nv
applying day by dav to the clerks table to know
what witnesses had been sworn against the accused
lie referred 10 the old practice ofmarking the names
OF the witnesses the back of The Indictment and
swearing them as they sent to the jury. That
practice wHs now depattCd from, and the only oath
which had been, III any case administered, was IN
unlawful oath, TO give true evidence before tho
Grand Jury. On such testimony the two or three
picseniments first made were founded; and all the
indictments presented since, had even 10 such
foundation as TINT. He then entered his protest
against tho practice, amounting TO abuse, which
was a direct violation of the MARYLAND law ON
which ii said to be foUnded-and if So q NOR.
infamous contraband had never been introduced
INTO the practice here, and IL ought TO be condemn
e. 10 6o burnt by the common hangnan--that
witnesses are to be sworn generally, and indefinite
~, and on their general and indefinite Testimony
Grand JHres are 10 be left 20 make any present.
mens they please, cffcctng even the life Of an ndi
viduai. When doctrines thus denying first prnci-
pies, overurnng tho laws Of social order are thus
proponnded by the counsel or tho other side. il is
necessary to rccur TO first principles. He then re-
cited from Chty the forms of Practice in order TO
snow the departure which had taken place in tho
present case, which the Grand Jury had been lcf)
TO proceed al Hbunl to any enquiries they may see
ut to go INTO, instend of being confined to q specific
enquiry. They might present physician for not be-
ing good physician, lecturer for not being a rood
lecturer court Tor not doing business fast enough
or Legislature Tor not cnactng sufficient laws
He also oboe,ed the wan, of responsible sccuser
ana the substitution for such of the Gland Ju1v who Tom
their own breasts maze presenlments gaius
II
witnesses may hc sworn generally give evidence there
IS II" responsibility any where, the witnesses them
'e'Ves may 5weoI what they please without exposing
themselves To the penalties OF PERJURY. lie called on the
court To pu, their hand on his buSc.
The various modes Of proceeding in Of nIcmon;
he pointed ard tork view NJ the dc niio ncs MIN.
OF the term pTesentnt sufficient number NJ the inv
may know IN their own brc1st that crime has been
committed. In that case, II is only compc ten, for ,I,
10 present the facts within their Rn knolcdre In ,be
t'fm ~ prssonirnont An Indictment on tie other hand
- Ionnded on charge made and sufficient evidence o.
dueed beiofo the Grand Jury in its support Hc Quoted
nom bacone Bnd Chilly, his views on hese
points. The Statute OF Maryland which had been 1uo
ted to sustan ihe loose practice OF neio ministerial
"cei' o. "o C"nr', instead of sanconing extension
Of the powers Of G,and Jury, dad IN fact lir, their
powers.
Ia ms case m The second d'y or Tho term largc ma
ri witnesses were swotu and does not appsar on the
reeod mat any one was sworn to give evidence agans
! "ei"s " atkins " istfne, Amos Kendall pas sworn
among the witnesses, bu he liberty N swear 10 uv
thing ne pleased as he was not give evidence
against TOBIAS watkins. Neither ths indictments nor the
presenimen profess 20 he made upou any evidence Thus
instead OF being oeen'ed upon any competent testimony