Newspaper Page Text
Georgia Kepuoncan,
AND
STATE INTFLLIGENCER
BT LION and MORSE.
SAVANNAH, March 71 ißcy.
High Court of Impeachment
ANSWER of SAMUEL CHASE.
(Continuedfrom our lajl.)
In the firft place, this respondent con
fidcred himfelf and the court, as hound by j
the authority of the former decifiona ; es- j
pccially the lad of them, which was on j
the fame case. He considered the law as |
fettled, and had every reason to believe I
that his colleague viewed it in the fame 1
light. It was not suggested or under- j
flood, that any new evidence was to br I
offered ; and he knew that if any (honk! j
be offered, which could vary the case, it |
would render wholly inapplicable both ■
the opinion and the former decision on
which it was founded. And he could
not and did not fpupofe th*t the prifoti
er’s concftl would be desirous of wafting
very precious time, in addrelling to the
court an ufclcfs argument, or a point
which that court held itlcif precluded
from deciding ih their favor, Ha there
fore conceived that it would be rendering
the counfcl a fervicc and a favor, to ap
prifo them before hand of the view |
which the court had taken of the fub
jed ; so as to let them fee in time, the
neceility of endeavoring to produce ir w
testimony, which might vaiy the case, and 1
take it out of the authority of former ue
fiiions.
Secondly, There were more than one 1
hundred civil caufea then depending in
the laid court, as appears by the exhibit
marked No. 1, which this respondent
plays may he taken as part of this, hi',
answer. Many of those canlcs had al
ready been fubjeded to great delay, and
it was the peculiar duty of this refpoudant
•as pre Tiding judge to take caie, that as
little time as pollible Ihould be unnectfla-
rily conlumcd, and that every convenient
and proper dispatch fhcnld be given to
the butinefs of the eitiy.em. He did be
lieve, than an early communication of tiie
-court's opinion,might tend to the faring „f
time, and confeqneiitly to the dilpatehof
business.
Thirdly, As the court lithl itfelf boun i
by the former deeifiom;, and could not j
therefore alter its opinion in consequence j
of any argument ; ami as it wa , the duty j
of the court to charge the jury on the |
law, in all cases submitted to their confi- j
deration, lie knew that this opinion rr.uft
not only be made known at fome period
or other of the trial, hut muff at the end
of the trial be expretsly delivered to the
jury by him, in a charge from the bench 1
and he could not fuppofc, and cannot
yet imagine, that an opinion, which was
to be thus folcmnly given in cliatge to the
jury, at the close of the trial, could make
any additional itnpreflion on their
minds, from the circttmftance of its be
ing intimated to the counlel before the
tiial began, in the hearing of those
whu might be afterwards lworn on the
Jury.
And, lallly, it was then his opinion
and, flill is, that it is the duty of every !
com t of this country, and was It is dutv
on the trial now under conlidcration, to
guard the jury against erroneous irnorel’-!
lions respecting the laws of the laudfj
fie well knows, that it iu the right of in- |
ries in criminal cases, to give a general j
verdidt ct acquittal, which cannot beset
aiide on account of its being contrary to
law as well as on the fadts, in all criminal
Cnfcs. This powe rhe hold itobe afa
Cfcd part of our legal prtvilcdes, which;
he never has attempted, and never will ]
attempt to abridge or to obftrud. But’
he also knows, that in the nterche of tlii
powers tt is the duty of the jury to govern
thcmfelves by the laws of the land, over !
which they have uo difptuli.vg power ; |
sad their right to expert and receive from
front the court, all the atiiihnce which it I
can give, for rightly underltamiinp the
law. To withhold this alfil*. nice, in any
manner whatever ; to fjrbc. r to give it
in any manner whatever ; to forbear to
g’vc it in that Way, which may be molt
C’tvftual tor preterving the jury from
tror and mistake j would he an abandon- )
ment or TorgetfurneTfoT dutv, which tjo'j
jtidgeeould jull.fy to It’s c •mfcieuoje or .
Ho the laws. In this cni<, therefore*i
where the <jucftion ot Uw a .sing on the!
findiiliiient, h>d been finally fettled bv
“authoritative decilions, it was the duiv :
of the court, and efpccul!) of this n i
pendent as presiding ca-ly to ap
prise ‘.hecounfci and the jury of tin. it ue- ‘
cifior., and their cffe:i, m a-, to lave tuc j
former from the dauber of malting an im- j
proper attempt, to milkad the jury in a i
matter ot law. and the jury trom having 1
their minds preoeopted by erroneous un- i
prdTious.
It was for tlufe reafons.that on the ;ad I
day of April, isoo, when the laid John ‘
Fries was brought mu court, and placed j
in the prifouers box for trial, but before *
the petit jury was impanneded to ti y him 1
this reipouduu. mtoiined rhe above aicnti- !
Cued William Lewis, one of his couufel, |
the aforcuid Alexander James Dallas not j
being then in epurf, “that the court hod
deliberately contidercd the indictment a
gaiutl John Fries for treason,& tne three
ievera. ovcrt aCts of treason dated iKere
in : That the crtiue of treaftin was de
fined by the conduction of the United
States ; That as die federal legifluture
had the power to make , alter, or repeal
laws.fo theju icatory only iudt tie power,st
e: was taeir duty,to decline,eipo uni Si n
.terpret the constitution and laws of the
United Slates . That it was the duty
of the court, in all criminal cafc3, to Rate
to the petit jury, their opinion of the law
arising on the fads, on a consideration of
the whole case s That there mull be
fume conftruitive exposition of the terms
used in the constitution, ‘ levying war
against the United States That the
question, what ad’s amounted to levying
war against the United Stales, or govern
ment thereof, was a question of law, and
had bten decided by judges Patter
son and Peters, in the cases of Vigol and
Mitchell, and by judges Iredell aid Pe
jters, in the case of John Fries, pnfonef
| at the bar, in April, 1799: That
judge Peters remained of the lame opinion
j which he had twice before delivered, and
• he, this respondent, or. ion* and great
’ consideration, concurred in the opinion of
judges Patterson, Iredell, and Peters ;
j i'hat io prevent unnectffary delay, and
to save time on the trial of John Fries,
and to prevent a delay of justice, in the
! great number of civil caufcs depending
i for trial at that term, tin; court had
drawn up in writing, their opinion of the
law, ariliug on the overt ads, ftattd
in the indictment agninft John Fries ;
and had directed David Caldwell their
clerk, to make out three copies of their
opinion one to be delivered to the attor- i
ncy of the ciitirict, one to the couiif.l for j
the prifoncr and one to the petit jury 1
after they Ihould have been impannelled |
| and heard the indidment read to them by
the clerk, and after the diltrid attorney
ihould have stated them the law on the j
overt acts alledged in the indictment, as
| it appeared to him.”
j After thele observations, tl is respon
dent delivered one of tiie above mention
ed copies to the atorcbid William Lewis,
[then attending as one of the prifoncr’s
J cuunfel : who read part of it, and then
laid it down on the table befoie him.—
j Some obkrvattons were then made on the
j fubjeCt, by him and ihe above mentioned
I Alexander James Dallas, who had then
come into court ; but this respondent
doth not now recoiled these observations,
and cannot undertake to liatr tiiemaccu-
rati ly.
And this respondent fn thcr faith,
that the paper marked exhibit No. 2, ‘
and herewith exhibited, which he prays 1
leave to made part of tlii:, his answer, is a :
true copy of tiie original opinion, drawn |
up by him and concurred in by the faiil .
Eicltard Peters, as above set fott’i, which 1
original opinion is now in the poflefiton !
jof this reipordent, ready to be produced
to this honorable court. He may have
J erred in funning ihis opiriion, and in the
time and manner oi making it known to
the counsel for the pnfoner. if lie erred
in forming it, lie erred in common with
his colleague and with two of his prede
ctflora ; and lie prelumes to hope that
an error which has never been deemed
criminal in them, will not be imputed as
a crime to him, who was led into it by
their example and their authority, ifthe
erred in the time and manner of making
known this opinion, he feels a jnlf confi
dence that when the re&fons which fie
lias alledged for his conduct, and by
winch it seemed to him to be fully jufti
fied, (hail come to be carefully weighed,
they will br luiiicicut to prove, if not
that this conduct was perfectly regular
jaud correct, yet that he might liucerely
’ have considered it as right ; and that in
j a case where so much doubt may cxilf, to
i Intel- committed a mitlake, as not to have
j committed a crime.
And this respondent furilter anfwer—
j ing -infills, that the opinion thus deiivct
]ed to the prisoner’s counsel ; viz. that j
| “any inlurreCtion or riling of any body
jof people within the United States, foi |
j the purpose of refilling or preventing by j
| force or violence, under any pretence 1
| whatever, the execution of any statute j
| ot the United Spates, ten - levying or ceil- 1
1 letting taxes, or tor any other ohjtdt of j
a •enerrl or national concern, is levying !
war against the United States, within the j
contemplation and true meaning, of the j
‘.constitution ot tiie United States,” is a I
ja iegal and correct opinion, supported
not only by the two previous decilions
above mentioned, but alio by the plaineit
\ principles of ’.aw and reason, and by the
■ uniform tenor of legal adjudications in
England and Great Britain, lrom tiie
rCvolimou in 17S& 10 this time. It ever
way and now is his opinion, that the
peace .md faletj’ of tUc natioual federal i
govcrni’ie n<, muit be endangered by any
other eouftiuidion of the terms “ levying
| war against the Unfed States,” used by
the federal constitution ; ana he is con
fident that no judge ot the federal go
vernment, no judge of a lupetior date
court, nor any gentleman of eflablilhed
(reputation for legal knowledge, would
or could deliberately give a contrary opi
nion.
If however this opinion were erroue
| oils this respondent would be far leis
; cenlu abie than his predecdlprs, by whole
jixample lie was led all ray, and by whose
authority he considered himfelf bound. I
] Was it an error to conlider himfelf bound !
‘by the aiunority ot tueir previous dcci
] lion ? It it were, he was led iutu the er- !
I ror by the unitorm course of judicial
j proceedings, in this country and in Ell- i
|giand, and is supported in it, by one of
the funUa ncntai principles of our juris,
prudence. Can such an error be a crime
oV mifdemeauor ?
It on the ottier hand the opinion be in
itfclf correct, as hebchcves and infills that
it is, could the cxprelfion of a correct
opiuion on the la*, whatever and howe
ever made, millead the jury, infringe th sir
rights, or give an improper bias to their
judgements i Could truth excite impro
per prejudice ? Could the jury be Ids
prepared to h.ar the law dileuifed, and
to deckle on it-eorrc&ly, because it was .
corrcdly stated to them by tue court : j
And is not that anew kind of offence, 1
in this country at” Waft, which confiits in
teliing the truth, and giving a corred ex
position of the law.
As to the second fpecific charge addu
ced in support of the firft article of im
peachment, wich accuses this respondent,
“of reftrictmg the counlel for the laid
Fries, from recurring to such English au
thorities as they believed apposite, or
from citing certain llatutes of the Unit-
ed States, which they deemed iliuftrative
of the positions upon which they intend
ed to rest the defence of their client,”
this respondent admits that he did, on
the above mentioned trial, express it as
his opinion to the aforefaid counsel for
the pnfoner, “ that the decision in En
gland, in cases of indidment for trtafon
at common law, against the person of the
king, ought not to be read to the jury,
on trials for treason under the constitu
tion and statutes of the United States;
beenufe inch dtcefion could not inform, 1
but might mislead and deceive the jury :
th t any decifiona on cases of treason, in
the courts of England, before the revo
lution ol 1688, ought to have very little
influence ih the courts of the United 1
1 State.. ; that he would permit decisions in
{the com is of England or of Great Bii
j tain, ti e the laid revolution, to be read
jto the court or jury, for the pa-pofc of
j fh-.-wmg what rets have been considered
by tlioie courts, as a conilrudive levy
ing of war against the king of that comi
j try, in Ins regal capacity, hut not against
his person j because levying war against
hit govaament, was of the fame nature
ua levying war against the government of
llte United States ; but that such decifi
-1 oils, nevcithelefs, were not to he conii
-1 dereo as authorities binding on the courts
I ;ln d jurors of the country, but merely in ;
■ the ligiit of opinions entitled to great I
1 riijxdt, as having been delivered after]
tuli confijeration, by men of great legal.
■ learning and ability.
Thele arc the opinions which he did,
lon that uecanoti, deliver to the counsel
■for the priloner, and which he then
I thought, and still thinks, it was his duty
to diltvcr. The counfellors, admitted j
’ i<> practice in any court ofjuftice, are, in !
’ hi3 opinion, and according to universal ]
practice, to be considered as officers of l
j iu;h courts and ministers of justice there
j in, a.id as such. aubjeft to the direction
: and control of the cuurt.as t their con
duct in its presence, and in condiuifinir the
defence of criminals on trial before it.
As counsel, they owe to the r>—■Ton ac
cused, diligence, fidelity, aau lecrccy, and
to the court and jury, due and correct in
formation, according to the belt of their
knowledge and ability, on every matter
‘-’flaw which they attempt to adduce in ]
argument. The court, on the other |
hand, hath power, and is bound in duty |
to decide and direct what evidence, whe- ;
ther by record or by precedents and de- ’
cifior.s in courts of justice. is proper to |
be admitted for the cftabhlhment of any ]
matter of law or fact. Coufequently, ]
Ihould counsel attempt to read to a jury, |
as a law still in force, a statute which had j
been repealed, or a decision which had !
been teverfeJ, or the judgments of courts !
in counties wfinfie laws have no counec- J
Won with ours, it would be the duty of j
the court to interpose, and prevent l'uch t
an iiripoiitioii from being praCtifcd on ]
the jury. For thele reasons, this icfpou- 1
dent ’hinks that his conduit was correct, I
in eNyreffing to the counsel for Fries, j
the o; in ions stated above. He is not |
bou .u .0 n:..wer here for the correitnefsj
[of th.ft. principles, though he thinks!
} dic.n inconteftible j but merely for the!
j correctnels of his motives in delivering
1 1hem. A contrnr) opinion would con-!
| vert this honorable court, from a court of |
[impeachment into a court of appeals ;j
[aiul vould lead directly to the ft range)
[abfiirdity, that whenever the judgment!
Ji.f an inferior court fnould be reverted on j
j appear or writ of error, the judges of that
] imurt tnnft be couviited of high crimes |
land mjfiemeanor.s, and turned out of]
office, and that crimes may be committed i
witiiout any criminal intention. Against
a doctrine so abiurd and mifcliievous, so
contrary to every idea of justice hither
to entertained, so utterly fubvenive of
all that part of oar fyftcm of jurft'pru
dence, wiiieh has been wifely- and hu
manely eftablilhed fm- the protection of
nmostfiipc, phis respondent deems it his
duty now, and 011 every fit occasion, to
inter his prote(l and lift up his voice ;
and he trusts that in the dilcliarge of his
duty, infinitely more important to his
country than to himfelf, lie fliall find ap
probation and support in the heart of
every American, of every man through
out tiie world, who knows the blellings
of civil liberty, or refpefts the principles
of univerfa! justice.
It is only then, far the correflnefs of
his motives m deli rering tliefe opinions,
that he can nmv be called to answer ; and
this correttnefs ought to be presumed,
unless tin; contrary appear by fome
direct proof, or by fome violent preemp
tion, arid.ig from his general conduct on
the trial, or from the glaring improprie
ty ol the opinion itfelf. For he admits
that cases may be supposed, of an opinion
delivered by a juJge, l'o palpably errone
ous, uni nil and oppressive, as to preclude
the polfioility t its having proceeded
from ignorance or initiate.
Do the opinions uow under confiJera
tron bear any of these maiks ? This ho
norable court r.eedpuut be informed that
their has exited inFngUnd.nofuch thing
as treason at common law, lince the year
1350, when the ilatute of the 2j:n Ed
ward 111, chap. 2, declaring ivnat alone
dioold tn future be judged trer-fo i, was
Pailed, it is perfectly clear that deciu
.ans made before that ft.itr.tr, e; 3 years
jago, wi.cti England, together with the
I:et of Europe, was ltiil wrapped in the
deepest gloom of ignorance and barbar
ian ; when the fyftcm of English juris
prudence was still in its infancy ; when
law, justice and reason, were perpetually
trampled under foot by feudal oppietCon
and teudal anarchy ; when, under an able
and vigorous monarch, every thing was
adjudged to be treason which he thought
fit to cal! so ; and under a weak one, no
thing was considered treason which tur-
bulent, powerful, and rebellious nobles
thought tit to perpetrate ; is it petfedly
; clear that decilions, made at such a time,
and, under such circumstances, ought to
be received by the courts cf this country
as authorities to govern their dccifions,
or lights to guide the understanding of
juries i Is it perfedly chear that decifi
ori3 made in England, on the fubjed of
treason, before the revolution of 1663,
by which alone the balance of the Lll
- constitution was adjusted, and the
Enghfh liberties were fixt on a firm bails ;
decifior.s made either during tht furious
civil wars, in which two rival families con
tended for the crown ; when the vicifU
tuJcs of war, death and coufifeation in
the forms of law, continually walked in
the train of the vidiors, and adions were
trcafouable or praise worthy, according
to t'ne preponderance of the party by
whose adherents they were perpetrated ;
during tne reigns of three able and arbi
trary monarchs, who succeeded this
dreadful conflict, and relaxed or invigo
rated the law of treason, according to
their anger their policy or their caprice ;
or during those terrible struggles between
the principles of liberty, not yet well
dcfind.l or unuerftood, on one hand, and
arbitrary power iniiuuating itfslf under
the forms of the constitution, on the
j other ; struggles which presented at fome
j times the wildest anarchy, at others, the
j extremes of servile fubmiflion, and after]
naving brought one king to the lcaffold,
entered in the expulfionof another from his
throne ; Is it clear that dccifions .j,| Un ]
law of treason, made in times like these. I
ought not only to be received as authori- J
tics in the courts of this country, hut i
also to have great influence on the deciii-}
1 ons ? Is it clear that decilieons made in
! England, as to what arils will amount to
j levying war against the king, personally,
1 tyid not against his government, are ap
■ plieable to the constitution and laws of
] this country ? It is clear that such En-
J glifli dccifions on the fabjeft of treason,
are applicable to our constitution ar.d
j laws, are to be received in our courts,
not merely as th: opia.k.-ns of learned and
j able men, ‘.vni-a luay enlighten their
[judgment, but as authorities which ought
jto govern absolutely their decisions ? Is
1 all this so clear, that a judge could not
honeft'.y md sincerely have thought the
country ? That he could not have ex
: pressed all opinion to the contrary, with
j out correcft or improper motives i if it be
I not thus clear, then in lift it be admitted
! that this respondent, liucerely and ho-
I niftly and in the best of his judgement
j considered these decilions as wholly
I inadmissible, or admiflible only for the
i purpofe* and to the extent which he
j pointed out.
1 And if He did confider them, was it
! not his duly to prevent them, from being
[ read to the jury, except under those re
! ftrittions, and for those purposes ? would
I his duty permit him to fit silently, and fee
j the jury imposed 011 and milled i To
t lit silently and hear a book read to them
•ns containing the law, which lie knew
‘ 1 did not contain the law ? Such filencc
’ would have rendered him a party to the
1 deception and would havejuftly fubjetl
-1 ed him to all tiie contumely, a conscien
tious and courageous difeharge of his
[ duty, has so unmcritcJiy brought on his
I name.
] With refperil to the statutes of the
] United States, which he is charged with
j having prevented the prisoners counsel
! from citing on the aforelaid trial, he dc
j nies that lie prevented any ad of congress
1 from being cited, either ro the court, or
[jury, on the said trial, or declared at any
time, that he would not permit the pri
prifoner’s cour.fe! to read to the jury,
or to the court, any act of congrels
whatever. Nor does he remember or
believe, that he exprefled on the said tri
al, any difapprobaiion of the conduct of
the circuit comt before whom the said ]
case was firft tried in permitting the acl
of congress relating to crimes less than
treason commonly called the sedition act
to be read to the jury. He admits in
deed that he was tnen and still is of opin
ion, that the said ad of congrels was
wholly irrelevant to the issue, in the trial
of John Fries, and therefore ought not to
have been read to the jury, or regarded
by them. This opinion may be erroneous
but he trulls that the following reasons
on which it was founded, will be consi
dered Ly this honorable court, as lufti
ciently strong to render it poinbie, and
even probable, that such an opinion might
be sincerely held and boiieftly expres
sed -. 1 ft, That congress diJ not intend
by the sedition law, to define the crime
of treason by “ levying war.” Treason
and sedition are crimes very diftind in
their ■.iture, and fubjed io very different
puiiilhments ; the former by death, and
the latter by fine and imprisonment.
2tlly, The feuition law makes a combi
nation or conspiracy, with intent to im
pede the operation of any law of the
Un'ted States, or the advising or at
tempting to procure any iufurredion or
riot, a high mildtmeanor pur.iihable by
fine ani imprisonment; but a combina
tion or conspiracy, with intent to pre
vent the evacution of law-, or with intent
to raise an inlurredion for that purpose,
or even with iatent to commit, trvafeu,
it not treason by ‘-Irvyi.i* war” aga n q
the United States, uniefs it be ioll o*. 0 *.
ed by an attempt to carry such com.
bination <jr conspiracy into effect, by
tual force or violence. 3<iiy, The con*
ftitution of the United Slates is the fun
damental and supreme law, and having
defined the crime of treaton, Congress
could not give any legislative interpreta-*
tion or exposition of that crime, or of the
part of the constitution by which it is dt>
fined, gthly, The judicial authority of
the U. States, 13 alone vested with pow-
er to expound their constitution and
law.
And this respondent further anfvrerint*
faith, that afterhhe above mentioned pro!
ceeding h and taken place in the laid trial
it was pollponed until the next day,
Wcdnefday, April 23d, 1 300, when at
the meeting of the court, this, respond
ent told both the above mentioned coun
sel for the prisoner, “ that to prevent any
mifui. derftanding ‘of any-tiring that had
puffed the day before, he would inform
them, that although the court retained
the fame opinion of the law, arifiw| on
the overt aft 9 charged in.the indidinenv
against Fries, yet the counsel would b.
permitted to offer arguments to th
court, if latrifted that they had erred in
opinion, would coried it 1 and also, that
the Counsel would be permitted to argue
before the petit jury, that the court,
were mistaken in the law,” And tb :
respondent added that the court had gi.
en no opinion as to the facts in the cafe 1
about which both the counsel had
declared that there would be no contro
versy.
( To be continued.)
Some late accounts, afTjre
•hat cue- Ruffians are afti/c upo
their (outhern territorres, and
are encroaching upon their Per
■i.ia neighbors. Whetli- r thele
are repetitions of the font- ac
counts >v.*.ich were brotfijhc ian
Autumn, is uncertain ■, but th:,’
; importance of ail the movemen: t
of the extenlive errtpirc of th t
-1 north, is unqueitionable, etpeci
ally in regard to their (outlier j
poUellions. Tojudgeof the obi
jed, we h ve already noticed rb ‘
poatioii Oi the i?eriun provide
towards whichthe Ruffians dire
their armie.% and Ihall now ref.
co the pall hiitory of the count
which RmTu has repeatedly at
tempted to gam. Georgia an i
ifirivan itil part of the sp ace
tween tiie BlackSc Calpian feau
ind by these the Persians havi
in important navioatlon. jtf
following is the hi,lory of I*
band, the iea-port of the Penh,’
province of Erivan, as given i \
sir W.* Oufely, from the Orie
tial Geography of Ehu Stauk J
a traveller of the tenth contui 1
Derbend is a city built upon f 1
.hore of the lea, [Cafpian] . }
tw > banks ot a bty, with tw j
wails so conftrufled as to rend, j
che navigation more convenie 1
and lase, and a chain is dra J
acrols the enr ar.ee, that fl 1
nay not enter or fail ouc witlu -J
pcrmiilions ; and tliefe two wa 1
are termed of Hone or lead ; ana
this town of Derbend is fituatel
on the coast of the sea TabcriaJ
It is larger than Ardebil wuifl
many hrlds anci meadows, and]
cultivated lands. It doe? ndfl
produce much fruit, but the peSI
plefuppiy that from ocher qua*]
ters. A wall of (lone extent
from the city to the mountain*
and another of clay, to hind J
the Cadres from commiog inn
che town. Part of this wIJ
projects a little way into the
so that ships may not come c|
near the ramparts. This wall jr
a strong building, and was tH
work of Noufhirvan Aadel (clSi
juft).— Ihe city of Derbend IS
very large, and remarkable f J
is iurrounded by enemas whj
have different languages. Ol
one fide of Derbend is a greJ
mountain, called Adeib. Cl
this mountain they affembl
every year and kindle fires .1
terrify their enemies. The f<l
vercigns of Perfiahave confide*
ed the pofie-Gion of this city t,
a matter of great importance
and have eflablilhed a race it
people called Tairberans t
guard it. And there anothl*
tribe called Lekzan. There al,
also two other tibes, the Lenirl
and Servan. The foot foldit*
arc tnofl of these tribes; t'm
have few horsemen. DerbenW
the port town for Khozr, arT.
berir, and Gurkans and Tab;i
flan, and Kurge, Kapchak ; al
from it they fend linen cloths \
all parts of Aran and Azelb
1