Independent Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1842-1844, 1842-11-19
EVENING. ~oyEur.. ,o ,e,,

hefS and mode of address, there is mn,
much which Is Objectionable in our higb.
est courts. There is not, to be sure. tha,
hlgh b ed cIvIilty and amenity which are
observable IN the English courts: hui
some part OF this difference is owi mo ia
! me elect OF our republican institutions
4 upon Inc ;neral manners Of sori.ty. II
Is alS' irne, Occasionally, tn Il Judge, ia.
'lgued with official Iabors, or inAIenced ne
an unhappy phy,i al or nervous ienpera-
fmen', accoSts member of the bar in n
trnde, c1arSe,~or harsh manner, more par.
h'Irnlarly unseeml y as coming from so high
lnnctIonary, and sometimes, in The hurry
nt business, when many are pressing to be
heard, the Judge cannot spare time to he
c"'I; but these things, happily, arc not Of
very frequent occurrence
$50 many are the ways in which iudr-
es can interfere in the progress of a trial
before a Jury, and give direction to it
tor or against party, and SO dangerous is
'ch power in human hands that many
have suggested the expediency of chang,
ing, 10 some extent, our mode of mlnao.
ing trial by jury in our new EngI,nd
courts. lndesd, already IN some OF the
Western and SIuthern States radical
change has been intro luced Their re.
publican Jealousy of official inhuen e and
interference long ago decided that Judges
should have nothing to do with the facts of
IA cause. Instead of permitting them. as
with rs and in England, to charge the inry
by recaplluatlon Of the evidence and
facts, in those States the Judge is forbid
den 10 speak 10 the jury upon the facts in
any way whatevor, and he is not permitted
TO state the law tie them, except upon those
points upon which counsel have requested
him 50 To do, in order to raise the point for
decision Ivy the whole bench. Whether
or no, thus is an improve nent in the mode
OF irwin causes before ury, we have
not here space and tImc to consider; we
nav, perhrps, res me the dis ;ussiOn OF the
subject here iiier is connexion with other
"p'cS touching Judicial Proceedings"
x 1t is worthy of remark, in the judicial
history Of the Union, that of the four cases
IF impeachment, the whole number which
nave been brought before the Senate of the
United States, the only two of any import
lnce, and the only cases which were really
ried, originated in alleged misconduct of
Judges towards counsel. In the impeach-
nent of Judge Samuel Chase, in the tot nth
article, it was alleged THAT the conduct of
he said Samuel Chase was marked by man
fest injustice" &c.
80 In the Of unusual, rude, and con-
expressions towards the prison.
ar's counsel, &c.
80. In repeated and yexatious Interrupt
ions Of the SAID counsel, on the part or the
said Judge, which at length induced them
o abandon their cause ami their client,
who was thereupon convicted" &c.
These proceedings were alleged in the
impeachment to have taken place in the
rial OLA certain James Thompson CaIen-
Ter for libel on John Adams, then Presi-
lent of the United States" at Richmond in
Virginia, in the year 1900. The trial took
,lace before the Senate in February. 1905, |
md is remarkable as exhibiting a most
pIendid array Of genius and eloquence,
10Th Oh the part of those who managed the
in behalf Of the House OF Re-
and on that of the counsel
or the distinguished defendant. No dis
,lay of torsenic talent and skill can he com
jared with it during the last hundred years,
Xcept the trial Of Warren Hastings and |
hat of the Queen Consort of Great Britain. |
t is further remarkable that although Judge |
;hase was acquitted by a majority of the
senate upon five out of eight of the articles
It parchment, he was voted TO be guilty
" majority upon three ofthe articles, one
t which was the fourth, charging him
With misconduct towards counsel, as stated
bove.
The other case was that OF Judge James
| Peck, who was accused of having i'm
rlsoued and fined Luke Edward Lawless,
counsellor at law, for an alleged con-
empt of court. without any lawful right to
O 80. The Senate acquitted him by ma
ority of one vote.
La 10th cases those who voted to acquit
rohabIv did so upon the ground that no
orrupt motive or wicked intent was sufi-
lently made out. As TO both, there could ,
e little doubt that they were honest judg- !,
5, intending TO do their duty and no more,
ut exhibiting zeal and haste somewhat
discreet. A vote of two-thirds being re-
uired to convict in cases of impeachment |
etore the Senate ofthe United States, the {
,spondents ia both the above cases were a
cquitted. Il
THE GRAVE WITH d
FLOWERS. l.