Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-07-01

mildly but firmly. lie would always when he believ.
co crime was yet behind the curtain, send bills of in
dictiicnt TO the jury, no had done in this case
The opposite Counsel seemed To be not aware TIM,
ny demurring TO the indictment, they had admitted
r the facts The ground on which the accused had
been defended that he had used no I,rccn,;on
and this defence had been rtustaned bv tho Com,
SO that because this prosecuted man had defended
himself ON tho ground that he had not lied in com
uniting his frauds, Inc had got OF from punishment,
hitherto.
-. Counsel for the United States Ind becn ,c
cuscd'of Delaying tho trial. WHY if an iutlyidnnl
will Commit Offences and commit them that the
persons concerned are, one at Pensn cola one M
Norfolk, one at Boston, one ut this plac, and one
n: another, is no TO complain of the DELAY which
must arise in collecting the evidence of his crime
lis oiehce was decided by one Of the Judges to be
bsnble and, il his friends had not deserted him, no
might have been at arge.
Instead OF rejecting upon the Jury, he thought
NO should sustain them. lie considered that they
were highly respectable and intelligent set of men.
lie related conversation he had held with the
curry in which he had given il Id his opinion, that
oven II the term forgery were omitted in the ndict
'nent, the facts would amount TO forgery in com
mon law The jury had doubts; they finally struck
out the forgery, and left it question of law to
be decided by the Court. They had now found ali
the facts, aud left 1t 10 the Court to say whether
these facts amounted TO forgery How then could it
be commended that there WINS any inconsistency in
the course which the United States Counsel nd now
adopted. O
The question: he thought, might De disposed Of
without throwing imputation either OIL the Jury or
the Counsel of the United Statcs II ,yns for tho
Court to decide whether the facts amount to forrerv
not.
The Court Judge Tnnrsrox) asked irMr. SWANS
was authorised by the Grand Jury 10 ask for thia
decision.
Mr.. SWANS replied in tho nerayc. No man was
more desirous than himself To preserve the botnda-
ries between the 81 the jury. TO the court he
iong all questions OF law; and TO the jury all ques-
lions oil iact and he considered il proper that h,
court should instruct the Jury on all questions
respecting which they were in doubt. IL @ did not
doubt as To the power and the right of the court To
iustrnct the jury from time tIe points OF law
Such Instructions may be necessary in the course of
their deliberations, and may be given in any s:n1a-
lie referred to various authorities show that such
had been the uniform practice of COURTS and that as
tue relation in which tho court stood To pciit
Jury, their relation - Il Grand Jury: and a.
illey had power TO charge he one, they had power
20 instruct the other. He on to consider an
Modification on this point. Public Justice, he con-
tended, required that the instructions now asked for
should be givcn.-lf tie court would instruct the
jury that they had erred, ignorantly erred no would
pledge his word that they would find bill for for
gerry. The United States Counsel therefore ASKED
Tor these instructions Us matter o? right. He
thougbt the case Of Burr, which had been referred
TO- made IN favor OF tins application, 81 against it.
lie thought The court were bound TO rive the I'M
siructions which were asked.
Judge MoRsELL suggested thnt a question had
oeen raised by The opposite counsel, that when bill
lad been returned ignorG.auS the same charge could
not again be submitted 10 the same Jury.
MIR. SWAMI expressed an opinion, that i'm some
cases this might be true DO; not in the present.
-. Mr.. JoSEs then rose To dsclaim any reelection
upon the United States counsel i'm his remarks of YES
terdny. He had merely stated the effects which
would result from certain modes OF procedure moi
an reference to this charge against Watkins In
particular, but IN all cases I've still contcnded that
Il was an insult To the Grand Jury to suppose that
thoy would not return dill proper terms because
they had refused 10 return in improper ternIs--
The court, he conceived, would never, by any
charge, forcsta their opinion Oh the merits of any
case
One of his arguments had been the irrcguur;y
on the indictments, in consequences of tie irregular
Testimony on which they had been found. lie gave
20 the gentleman on the other sll-, credit for
amiabc and jus, IL eiings. 1t WIS therefore unne-
ccssary for the gentlemen who had Just spoken to
disciain any Ill Will to the accused: re would have
better shown the absence of all i'll feelings had he
RETAINED from the iusinunons he Ind made against
the accused, by stating that he had committed
crimes so black that he had been deserted by his
friends.
Mr.. JoSEs then explained what no had said vcster.
day on tho subject OF the rules OF proceeding. and
made some observations the two statutes of Ma
rylnnd, which had been referred TO in the course nf
this argument. He showed what the practice in
public and pfvate prosecutions, the English courts.
lie reiterated his objections the improper and in.
sufficient manner in which the evidence was sworn
IN the first instance, and TO the indictments which
had been presented subsequent To those which had
been founded on prrsentmcnts, without any fresh
testimony. The opinion he had yesterday expressed
md sustained by authority, that presenmcnts must
be founded on the actual knowledge of the Jury, he
enforced. IL had been argued by the opposite Coun-
sr that they had waited with humanity for the Grand
Jury to present their indictments. He showed that
only two indictments had originated with-the Crane
Jury, while the other six had been sent TO them,
without the s,Ihstratum of any prCsentmcnt. AS to
his own practical knowledge, he explained that when
ho had gone 10 trial presentnents, it had been
done with the consent Of the parties. He had not
sud TINT 1t was necessary TO endorse the names of
the witnesses on the back Of an Indictment although
If he had said would have been only contorma6e
TO the practice Of the best courts. By the endorse
meDt, the accused is put in possession Of the witness
ses, who are 40 be brough, against him, and may
prepare himself to mpeach their testimony or their
Characters, as may be within his power.
MI: jones' gave il as his belief from the result Of
kwentythree years acquaintance with the {.
this Court, that until this case, had there been
IN indictment found OH which the names Of the wit
nesses had not been endorsed