Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1839-09-06

,wean IN. ,risnner and The Cumnonw ea!th. ms We
think, was all that the most scruruInus f'e''' W
Justice and the his and safety OF tue IL.
When airociUus acts committee, shfy ',;. Il,
come the subject of conversation AUD fehio'"i
Impressions and opinions favorable OF "". s
party accused but when such "pin"ns u" ~ :,:s he
ed the mind with toag md deftae" eoNs.s''"".
y hch the Justice md tgrncsS OF me juror - go"
pocn ,)a e,,ssnca may be Influenced, we ihnh liza" No
disqualification is produced. Sustaining chu'"" :,
Jurors for favour slight gr"nnts' ,fnas :" mos,
administration public justice III me hh""s -
i,no,snt md Iasi d eliminating portion "i ''e eo'
MI, by - bcb The sairiv Of the accused may pe '""""
psrpd and The proper administration OF me 'a"s P
h,z,,d aud 70, ure Therefore no: disposed to enia
grounds of challenge brirnd 'h's" p'oP''!
from the cas-, frrri"iur crcIG'a , 49,,
RrNaeKs uT JUDCE tHASE AS TO '" -
,rycramorr IN, articles OF Impeachment eAh'o''fo
by n. Honse Of Rep sr"'a'lvrs against J"oae lG"se
woe one charging that upon The itaI {" LGt""dF 'of
lheI no oyarruled the objection Of Jain B'SSt one OF
Iha irv l. no wished I" ne excused hofl serving oe
49,, j.. lad u,udr upon his mind IS Ia The publication
FIN h,c, The words charged 10 be llstil"us were tx
irocted Chases Trial ar. =, p W hen b"sSa af'
nrsred he vas asked Oh Ga IL. ns he oci loiois WIZ
y h,her h, had ever formed aud delivered any opinion
cncsrniar he charges contained 10 The Indictment al"
oncs,iou he answer IN The rfenvt; but he ehpesse'
wish 10 BE- excused rcm serving IN the rldl pecase
no hpd formed opinion that the puoiicauoh e"''tu
Th. Prospect u.s. from which The words were su
"a h, extracted but wch lie lad never seen as accord
inn 10 ne r. p Of IL which he md recti' u.
within ID. SeGi,on Jaw. This declaration ay b8Ssei
was not considered by rhr court sufficient f'"$mh 'r'
Withdrawing him from lie lr!y; and he was Gcceiu"eY
sworn IA ile'. Id p. 81, ~
In ms answer Ia the charge mace against NM Juoef
Chase not oply defends the purity oil his motives, ou,
contends that The opinion which he gave Hhs II ga! aio
.o.re, This honorable e""h lac says i''I n.y.
informed ihs, il i. the d0iy ct Courts before WHICH
criminal trials take piucf. 10 prevent Jurors from oeng
EXCUSED Tor hight and insufficient causes II ms RUE
were not observed il would follow, That as serving on
such trials, urur, rs app |" te very
business esppcialIy lhnse best qnalf for 1t htfe
would he great difficulty. and "en an iInposse''''y,
in finding proper iurIts The law Las therefore esla.
blshed fixed md general rule On This SUBJECT, chicu.
late d. not Ia crafty the wishes or HE unteaSonnhe scru-
pies of Jurors bu, TO The patty accesed, as lar
as IN r imreslecou Of human nature II can br secur
ed fair aud impartial trial The criterion established
ny this rule is that TIE Juror stands ind ieren between
the government ard tie person accused as TO lie matter
in issue the Indictment, Tbs indifference is always,
according 10 q well know maxim CT law 10 De presumed
unless HE contrary appear and he contrary may De al
gsd BY way Of excuse BY The uor himself or by the
prisoner by way nf challenge. Even not alleged, II
may be inquired into by The court, OF It's own mere mo-
cn or The sugge son If The prisoner and il mny be
established by the confession Of The juror himself, on
oath. or 10y other testimony
But in order TO shew that Juror does NOT stand IN
different briween the accuser end the accused as 10 ne
mGir in issue, ii is not suffice 10 prove that he has
expressed general opnon shat such offence ns that
charged by the Indictment ought 10 be punished; or
that The party accused guilty Of the offence charged
agans, him. ough, TO be punished or that beck, Tor
printing aud publishing which The party is indicted,
comes within The law hch The irGciment Is ruHc-
ed. All these geE, raj expressions OF opinion as 10
the crimnaly of set Ct which the party is accused,
and Of " hch hs may &c guilty; mol declarations OF an
opinion ai he actual IS gully OF the "!t nee :" IN
which he stands charged IL is impossible for any man
in 81 cit;y avoid hov..g and extremely difficult Tor
hir avoid expressing opinion to The crim.aly
or Innocence n those which for The most part
The subjects o. indictments toI offences Of public VA
irTf such treason, sCdon, aEd lihels against The
government Such acts always pngCCe public slrniioR
sud become The subject oil public conversation; and if 10
have formed or expressed an opinion ns 10 the general
nature Of 'h acts sufficient ground of challenge
Juror when asc' against him. or VI excuse 'iCcr
st rring when alleged bl hlmsri il would be in The
power Of almost every irnter 10 proven, jury from
being ImPannelled 10 Try hin, and q: almost every man
Ia exempt himself ir'm The pleashnt task OIL serving
on snch jur!rs The magnitude and heinors nature Of
IN ofence would give !, greater tendency 10 attract
public attention, aud 10 Gaw forth public expressions Of
Indignation; aud would hits increase lis chance Of i'm
punIiy.' Id r. - 80, "a.
"The .ror Ind formed opinion abou, he guilt
innucerce OF The party accued which tepe uded on four
iuc,s wholly distinct from the opinion which he had
formed First. whe,her The contents Of he bonk were
really such hsd been represented 10 him Secondly
whether they should The trial he proved 10 be true
Thirdly, whether Tie party accused was really the au
thor OF publisher Of tins book And fuurihly whe
H.. published il with !ntrat 10 ,riane The Pre-
sid, burg him corrmp, disTepuie 10
sxciP against h.m The haired y, he good people OF The
tnit'G Snhs On all il.se qrcs,icns HE mind VI the
perfectly al large notW outstanding the opinion
which lie had formed lie might consistently with that
rrlnl"n, determine ia IN ell IN The rfenive md Was
them that The Issue between Tie L S ard CaHtncGr
depended. Consequently, his Juror, nulw outstanding
The opinion which he had Tins formed. did stand ird
ternt 10 HE matter in issue. in tie legal aud proper
sense, :Gd in the only in which such ind:i:rr.
euce ever exist: and therefore hs having luinsG
that opinion not such excuse as cond have JUS
lifted Tie court in dschafeu 9 ham from he jury
"lhnt this juror did not himself consider Tins Opt
Mon cpuiu respecting the .EIaiter 10 issue, ap
pears clearly from tits circumstance Tint when called
upon answer oath '~lrrler he had expressed any
opinion 10 the matter in ISSUE he answered that he
had not Which clearly proves that he did not regard
tue circumstance If bis having formed this opinion
legal excuse, which ought 10 .zempi him Of right from
sewing The )my but merely suggC Sled II rs motive
OF dtiIcacy hch induced him to wish 10 hc excuse d.
To such motives u drlruc,, However c"nmentab'e IN
The who feel Ihrm mro s;be iur Courts Of
Justice to Yield wh.ut putting II III The power oi every
nan under pref. OF such scrnpi,s. TO exempt HIM
self from those du;ips uIrh all the CIi'2rrs nre bound
perform Courts Of Justice must regulate themselves
by legal principles which fixed and universal mol by
delicate scrures which admit Of endless variety, ac.
cCTdInn 10 The varying opinions and feelings oil men
Id p % 90
OPINIONS or JrrGE MARSHALL. The decision in
Cohtnda' case cane ~ der review in Bt7r case =
Hamilton .HUrTIS"H upon being called said that he had
frequently thought and declare lha, Colonel Burr was
guilty if the statements which lie he'd heard true
thai he did not kruw whether they SO. but only
thought, from the great clsmor which had been made.
that II might be possible hn; they true; TIM, he had
not passed any positive upron Though he was not Ger
tain that h. had always qualified II by saying IT these
things ut; that he did not rscoeci To have said
that Colonel Barr ought 10 be punished, without saying
al The tine. if he were guilty. Tie was there
upon suspended for further examination. When CALI d
again he declared tina, il with pain he should serve
The jury; tina, he did wish 10 il; Tim, it
SILL more disagrefhhle 10 him. Is the deiencent
seemed to have such imaginary thoughts agains, him
TINT he had mfddled with The prisoners Transactions,
though perhaps he night have done So had 1t been pro-
hiable To him The court scided that sufficient
wns not shewn agnins, .r,isons being proper Juror
Barr's 1fiaf rOi p SCI, 3e3
Judge NorskaH j" delivering lis opinion upon ano.
ther cues'inn which afterwards nrcsP, alluded 10 Cal
,irL kns