Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1831-01-27
PUBLISHED DAILY BY
MEL NOW ID E N,
Daily Paper SIS per am,m-Coustry Paper IS
: THURSDAY, JANUARY 81, 1881.
Mr. UYRT'S Commencing Remarks In DE-


Mr.. WRIT rose and addressed the Court In
substar &c, as follows:
He had, he said, been the unwilling cause OF
much delay in the present proceedings, anu Tor
the indulgence so kindly extended to him, he felt
il his duty i'm the sincerest manner, to thank this
high and honorable Court. His friend MIR.
Incredibly ALSO il might be considered, had con-
sumed more than proper portion OF time, out II
was due to him TO observe, that the reading OF au
thorities-such mass OF authorities that the
Court could not otherwise have leisure or oppor-
tunity to investigate, if merely referred tO-had
occuSied the greater part of that valuable time.
And the case was one Of such importance both
as TO theprinciples it involved in its consideration,
and as to the respondent himself, his character as
a man. and his conduct as Judge being at stake,
that though this consumption of the time OF the
Court was involuntary on the part OF his friend.
he knew that his friend would nave considered it
a crime-a dereliction Of his duty had he felt
single proposition that was advanced unnoticed,
or single argument that could exhibit the case
in its true light, unsubmitted to the honorable
Court. Besides it was his opinion that IN the
end. much time would be saved by all those au-
thorities having been read in cOnsequetive order,
as il was not their intention again to read them,
should they again be called up in the course of
argument.
Before he would proceed to the prominent features
of the case. he thought it necessary to allude to
some topics which had been introduced, by an
honorable Manager (Mr. M'Duffie) on the other
side. In noticing them, he had to request, 1t ne
should express his disaPProbaton OF them IN
strong terms, that his remarks would not be con-
sidered as originating IN any personal feeling
whatever. For although he felt, that certain to-
MICS introduced, were uncalled for, and that Ian
guage was made use OF, IN his opinion, unwarrant-
able. still he believed that 1t the honorable gen.
tleman had erred In the course he had adopted,
it was not from impure motives, or than that gen.
tleman, no one was possessed Ut more upright,
hiph-minded, or honorable feelings. But his du-
e.. however, impeed him to denounce that
course-to cOntrayent whatever topics the gen.
tleman hadthought 6t.unnecessarily to introduce;
and as the attention of the Court had been claim
ed for them, they could not be by him MIR.
Writ passed over. liz had been asserted, that
large majority Of the House of Representatives
win due deIoeration without haste-uninfluen-
ced by aught of party feelings, had voted this
in peachmQnt. large majority had voted the
observation-disclosures that subject fit to be intro
duced? With what intention was 1t preached,
and how was it to operate! Whether this I'M
peachment was voted hastily or deliberately
influenced by the spirit of party,or unniiuencedls
that subject which with this Court could tor
w
proper or decorous to impeach them 1.-THE House
of Representatives. for coming to such vote!
No-he knew too well what was due to that hon
orabe body. as we'll as to himself to impugn their
motives. or their acts. The honorable House OF
Representatives in voting this impeachment, have
mn doubt. acted conscientious what they con-
ceiyed IN their opinion, was called Tor; and IN
every thing, they had done III the present case,
he would not say but that that honorable and en-
liohtened body had done but their duty. But
when the case was now before this Court Tor trl-
al, wbas did that amount to? Was it any thing
more in substance than the finding OF bill by
Grand Jury. which merely imported that from
the case as exhibited before them, the party
should be sent to another body who would pro,
nounce ON his innocence or his guilt. And
would the petty Jury, in investigating the facts,
;nouire into the character OF that grand jury. or
take into consideration the majority, small OF
qreot which had sent the case before them!-
Then what does the vote amount to? 10 an &C
cusation merelv-the question OF guilt or innocence
untouched. The House ofRepresentativesh have not
come here to demand sentence on victim alrea-
DIV doomed to destruction; they know their duty
ton well TO pronounce Judgment on er parfe evil
dence, and the vote implied nothing more than
that they thought the offence with which the re-
spon,lent stood charged was worthy OF trial.
They did not assume that he was there lot 'r'ai'
but they sent him here to be tried, not already
preiudged, to undergo, in that case, mere mock
ery of trial. Where thea was the occasion, he
would ask. for such statement as that which was
msdei What was the fundamental feature in
every such accusa.ion-in every trial? The prin-
chile of law and of justice presumed every man
innocent. till once found guilty. ifthe assertion
were to have any weight, in voting the impeach-
ment, they should at once have pronounced him
guilty. The remark struck him as extremely
improper. It was enough surely, as every IN
nreiudiced mind must think, for the respondent
70 he alone-unknown-from the far distant wes-
tern wilds-it was enough, that, conscious OF in-
nocence, he stood this floor before this honora.
bic court demanding triai-a fair and impartial
trial: aud such trial, no one doubted 6ut ne
would have. unprejudiced. uninfluenced by the
mere act of impeachmeut-sucha as the case stood
On the evidence and facts as submitted-tacts as
they really existed, but not as portrayed, as it