Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-07-03

must arise Iii collecting the evidence of.lis crime
MS o;'ehce was decided by Of the Judges to b..
might hG hug.i at larVc
Instead OF rejecting uron the Jury he thonri,
e should sustain theli. He cvnsdurc. that tic
we're highly respectable aud int elli.scnt SET of mon
lie Related a conversation he had held with the
jury ~ Which he had given it as l. Is opinon thai
even ii Inc term forgery were uni, ed IA the injct
'heHt, the iacts would Amount 10 gerv in com.
mon law The Jury had doubts; they finally s,r,cI,
QUO tue forgery. ana left il us Cucston OF iaw .o
DC decided by the Court They had now found all
tie facts, and left it TO the Celrt to say whether
ese ac's amounted to forgery, How then could il
DC commended that there was any inconsistency in
The course wiiic tbs United States Counsel l, now
adopted.
J The questions, he Thought, might be disposed OF
Wlthnut throwing imrutatIon either on the Jury Or
the Counse! OF the United Suites. 1t was for the
Court to decide whether iLc iac,s amount 70 forgery
or not.
! Fie Court (Judge TnRrsroN) asked ii Mr. SmAss
declsior
! MIR SWANS replied in the negative. No man was
more dHSitouh than himself to preserve the beundu
Iios between the court ~ the jury TO the be-
long All questions of ia0 and TO The iurY AL Cues
uous OF fact; and lie considered it prcpcr that the
court should instruct the jury, M questions of law
respecting which they were Ill doubt. lie did not
doubt az 10 the power and the right of the court tu
instruct The Jury, from lime time on points oil law
Such INSTRUCTIONS aay be necessary i. the conrs. OF
their deliberations and may he given in any
lie referred To varo'is authorities sho.y that such
hau be- the uiiIofm rractlcC OF courts: and that as
the relation was in whici the court stood 10 Il netit
lnry SO was their relation TO Grand Jury: and as
thcy mad power To ciiarge the oue they had mower
10 instruct The other. ltcwcnt on 70 Consider an
anpl!tcutlon Oh this point Public Justice he con
tended required that the instructions now asked for
should be givcn.-lf the court would Instruct the
Jury that they had erred. ignorantly erred he would
pledge ms word that they would ind BIZ! fer for
@ery Tie United States Counsel therefore asked
f, icr these Instructions u matter Of Yrht. He
thought the OF Burr, which had been referred
to- made III favor oithis application, & against it,
He thought the court were bound To rive the In
siruciiono which asked.
judge fiokskLL suggested that question had
oet raised by the opposite counsel THAT when bill
had been Ictu.1ed iynoyun,S, the .alne cIirnc ,oil
not again be fubmitied to the same Jury.
MIR. SWAN expressed an opinion, that in some
cases Ibis might DC true, bu; Tot iii The present.
- air. JONES then rose To djsclaim any reflection
upon Tie United States counsel, iii his renars Owes
toriay He lad merely stated the effects wiicl,
Would result from certain modes OF procedurc not
III reference TO this charge against Watkins in
particular but in all Gases. Ike still contcDded that
1t was an Insult to the Grand Jury suppose that
they would not return bill in proper terms, because
they had refused To return III improper tefns.--
The court lie conceived, would never, by any
charge, sal their Opinion! OIL Tic merits OF any
case.
One of his arguments had been the ir.ecularitv
OF the indictments in consequence Of the irregular
testimony on which they had been found. lie raye
10 tNc gentleman On the other
arlable and just feelings. 1t was therefore unne-
cessary for the gentlemen WHO had lust spoken 10
disciaiIn any Ill viii! to the accuscd lie would have
better shown the absence Of all i'll feelings had he
rclraIned from the iBsuaiionS no had made against
the accused, By stating that he had committed
crimes SO black that he had been deserted by LIS
friends.
Ir. joNus then explained what he had said yestcr-
day On the subject OF tue rules OF proceedings and
made some observations on the two stltutGs Of Ma
ryland, which had boon referred to in the course of
this argument lie showed what the practice in
public and private prosecutions Ill The English courts.
lie reiterated his objections TO the improper and IN
sufficient manner lii which the evidence Was sworn
in the first Instance, and to the Indictments whit
had been presented, subsequent to those which had
been founded prescnLncpts, without any FRESH
testimony. The opinion he bad yesterday expressed
and sustained by authority, that preseltinens must
be founded on the actual knowledge Of the Jury, he
enforced. 1t had been argued by the opposite Coun-
SELL that they had waited with humanity or the Grand
Jury TO present their indictments. lie showed that
only twoiudictncpts had originated with the Grand
Jury, while the other six had been sent To them,
without the substratUm of any prescntmont. As to
his practical knowledge, he explained that wiIc
he had gone to trial pres2ntments, it had been
done with the consent Of the parties. lie bad not
said that it was necessary to end sc the names Of
the witnesses on the back of indictment, although
if he Lad sold So it would have been onv c6pfornabIc
the practice Of the best courts. By the endorse
ment, the accused is put in possession of the witness
scs, who TO be brought against him, and may
prepare himself to impcach their testimony their
characters, may he within his power.
Mr.. Jones gave it as his belief from the result OF
twenty-threc years acquaintance with the practice of
this Court, that until this case, had there been
indictment found which the names of the wit
| Desscs had not been endorsed.
In reply to question from Judge TnRUsroS whe-
tLer the argument did not 20 60 quas MI the in
dctments which had been found. Mr.. JoNE5 said it
could be answered unless the several indictments
are brought before tho Court, and their vices and
defects developed
He looked at the list Of witnesses sworn before The
Grand Jury at this time. They were 2OG, and who
was to tell what these several witnesses testified
| How were We to know what Witnesses arc against
us? There are the names Of Amos Kendall, Of Mr..
Pauldng, and Mr.. Harris, and from ciscu1ust ances
connected with their Names we may guess that they
were witnesses against us, but there was nothing to
provo no act ftLe ,rio1e 1O6 worn sworn crpne-