Newspaper Page Text
Georgia Republican,
AND
STATE INTELLIGENCER
BY LTON and MORSE.
SAVANNAH, March i .1805.
High Court ot’ Impeachment
ANSWER of SAMUEL CHASE.
( Continued from our lajl.j
After fome observations by the said
William Lewis and Alexander James
Dallas, they both declared to the court
“ that they did not any longer confider
thcmfelves as the counsel for John Fries
the prisoner. This respondent then a(k
----•d the laid John Fries, whether he with
ed the court to appoint other counsel for
his defence ? He refufed to have other
•ounfel afiigned ; in which he afted, as
this respondent believes and charges, by
the advice of the said William Lewis and
Alexander James Dallas : whereupon the
•ourt ordered the laid trial to be had on
the next and iy, Thursday, the 24th of A
pril, 1800.
On tnat day the trial was proceeded in,
and before the jurors were sworn, they
were, by the direction of the court, ftve
rally asked on oath, whether they were in
anyway related to the prifoncr, and whe
ther they had ever formed or delivered
any opinion as to his,guilt or innocence,
or that lie ought to be pumlhed ? Three
of them answering in the affirmative, were
v.i lidrawn from the pannel. The laid
John Fries was then informed by the,
court, that lie had a right to challenge
thirty-five of the jury, without (he wing
any cauic of challenge againfl them, and
as many more as lie could Ihew cause of
challenge againlt. He did acordmgly
challenge peremptorily thirty-four ol
the jury, and the trial proceeded. In
the evening, the court adjourned till the
next day, Friday the 25th of April ;
when after the diflrict attorney had dat
ed the principal facts, proved by the wit
nefles, and had applied the law to those
fads, this respondent, with the concur
rence of his colleague, the laid Richard
Peters, delivered to the jury the charge
contained and exprefled in exhibit ma Ic
ed No. 3, and herewith filed, w hich lit
prays may be taken as part of this his
answer.
Immediately after the petit jury had
delivered their verdict, this respondent in
formed the said John Fries, from the
bench, that if he, or any person for him
could fhevv any legal ground or fuflicleiit
cause to airell the judgment, ample time
would he allowed him for that purpose.
But no cause being (hewn, lenience of
Jcain was palled on the (aid Flies, on
Tuelday the ad day of May, 1800, the
lad day of the term ; and he wjs after
wards pardoned by John Adams, then
president of the United States.
And this respondent further answering
f*uh, that it the two inltanccs of mileon
dtift, full dated in support of the gene
• ral charge, contained in the firll article
of impeachment, were true as all edged,
yet the inference drawn from them, w..
“that the said Fries was thereby depriv
ed ot Ihe benefit ot counsel for Ids de
fence,” is not true. He infills that the
laid Fries was deprived of the benefit of
counsel, not by any lmfcouditci of this
rdpundeut, but by the conduct and ad
vice ot the above mentioned William
Le wis and Alexander James Dallas, who
having been, with their own content, al -
tigned by the court as counsel for the
pi lionet, withdrew from his defence, and
auviled him to reiulc other counlel when
offered to him by the court, * under pre
tence tiiat the law had been piejutiged,
and their liberty ot coadufting the de
fence, according to their own judgment
improperly rcllriftcd by this respondent,
hut in reality bccuufe lie knew the law and
the facts to be agaitill them, and the
cauic to be iltfpcratc, and fiippoled that
then withdrawing thcmfelves under this
pretence, might excite odium againfl the
court ; might give rife to an opinion
that the pwloncr had not been fauiy tri
ed ; and in the event of a conviction,
which from their knowledge of the law
and ot facts ihcy*kncw to be aUnoit cer
tain, might aid the prisoner in an applien
lion to the Prelide.it for a pardon. That
such was the real motive ot the laid pri
loner’s counsel, for and priving their client
of legal ailittancc on this trial, tins rct
pouUcnt is fully pet funded, aud expects to
snake appear, not only from the cucum-
Itanccs ot the cate, but from their own fre
quent aud public declarations.
Atlittl c can this respondent be justly
charged with having by any conduct of
ins, endeavored to •* vvietl from the juiy
their mdifputable right to hear argument
aud determine upon the quetliou ot law as
well as the qutiliou ot fact involved m the
verJict wtiieti tticy were required to
give.” He denies, that he did at any
time declare that the aforelaid counsel
ihould not at any time addrets tlujury
or did in any manner hinder them t.oin
addrclltng the jury on the law as well on
the tads anting in the cate. it was ex
j refsty tiaiea 111 the copy of his opinion
c. ivered us above let forth to William
. e .'is, -.'lat the jury had a right to dc
t <>c tlic law a well as the left; and
t la. 1 U nuum Lewis aud Alcxan
were exprclsly inl'ol m
t A uixd their refolulioii
fence i that they v\ci\
1 . ■ . ■ the law to the jury,
r , •• 1 believes that tue tail.
1 - . > not read the opinion
store said, except ave
• inning of it, and ct j
I
eomfr, afted up *a it without ktiiw : n~ [
its contents ; and that the said Alexan
der James Dallas read no part of the coin- !
ion until about a year ago, when he law
a very imperfeft copy made in court by a
certain W. S. Biddle.
And this respondent futher answering,
faith that according to the constitution
of the United States civilofficeri therof,
and no other persons, are fubjeft to im
peachment ; and they only for treason
bribery, corruption, or other high crime
or mifdemcanor, confiding in fome aft
done or omitted in violation of fome law
forbidding or commanding it ; on con
viftion, of which aft, they mufl be re
moved from office ; and may, after con
viction, be inJifted aud pumihed t’neie
for, according to law. Hence it clearly
results, that no civil officer of the United
States Cfin be impeached except for fome
offence forwhich he may be indicted ai
law ; and that no evidence can be receiv
ed on an impeachment, except tuch as on
an indiftment at law, for the fame of
fence, would be admaflihle. That a
judge cannot be indicted or punished ac
cording to law, for any act whatever,
done by him in his judicial capacity, and
in a matter of which he has jurifdiftioo,
through error of judgment merely with
out corrupt motives, however manifeit his
error may be, is a principle reltnig on,
the plained maxims of reason andjuf-l
tier, supported by the higed legal {
authority, and fanftioned by the uwive-)
fal lenfe of mankind. He hath uircadjr j
endeavored to ihew, and he hopes wnii •
tuccefs, that ali the opinions delivered by 1
him in the course of the trials now undo !
couli ’elation, wert correft in themlelv 1,
and in the time and manner of exprefling (
them ; aud that even admitting them to -
have been incorrect, there was such flrorg
reason in their favor, as to remove fro u
his conduct every suspicion ot improptr
motives. It thele opinion were incorrect
his mittakc in adopting them, or in the
time or manner of ex prefling them, can
not be imputed to him as an offence of
any kind, much let's as an high crime aud
mifdemcanor, for which he ought to be
removed from office •• unless it can be
(hewn by clear and legal evidence, that
he afted from corrupt motives. Should
it be confidercd that fome impropriety is
attached to his conduct, in the time and
mode of exprtffing any of these opinions
flillue apretiends, that a very wide differ
ence exills between fucii impropriety,
the eafual cff.ft of human infirmity, and
a high crime aud inifdemcanor for
which he may be’ impeached, and
mult on conviftion be removed from of
lice.
Finally, this respondent, having thus
laid before this honorable court a true
hate of his case, so far as refpefts the
firll article of impeachment, declares,
upon the flriftelt review of his conduft
during the whole trial of Johu Fries for
treafim, that he was not on that occalion
utimi dkil of the solemn duties of his of
fice as judge; that he faithfully and
impartially, and according the bell of his
ability and underflanding, difciiarged
those duties towards the said John F'ries,
and tiiat be did not in any manner, du
liug the faiJ trial conduft Imnfelf arbi
trarily unjullly or oppreflively, as lie is ac
cufed by the honorable the House of
Rcprefentatives.
And the said Samuel C’.iafe, for plea
to the said firll article of imoeachmeiit,
faith, he s not guilty of any high
crime or mifdsmeanor, as in and by
tire said firll article is alledgtj, and
tins he prays may be enquired of by this
honorable court, in such manner as
law and jultice (hall leem to them to re
quire.
The fi :cond article of impeachment
charges, that this respondent, at the trial
ot James Thompson Callender for a libel,
in May 1800, did, “ with intent to op
preis and procure the conviftion of the
j Lid Callender, over-rule the objection of
j John Basset, one of the jury, who wished
to be excuted from laving on the said
trial, bicaule be had made up lus mind
as to the publication from which the
words charged, to be libellous in the in
diftment, were extracted.”
In answer to this article, this respond
ent admits that he did, as one of tiie as
sociate juilices of the supreme court of
the United States, hold the circuit court
ot the United Slates, ior the ditk ift of
Virginia, af* Richmond, on Thuifduy
the 22d day of May, hi the year 1800
and trom that day, till the 30th of the
tame month ; when Cyrus Griffin, then
dnti ift judge of the United States for the
diftrift of Virginia, took bis feat in the
laid court; and that during the residue
ot that ft dim of the laid, court, which
continued nil the day of
June, in thF fame year, this respondent
aud the laid Cyrus Gridin, held the said
court together. But how tar any of the
other mattcis charged in this article, arc
founded in truth or law, will appear from
the following Hat.meat ; which he fub
rnits to this honorable court, by way 01
aniwcr to mis part ot the accusation.
By an aft of Congress palled on tin
4th day of May, A. D. 1798,11 is among
other tilings euafted, “ Tiiat if any per
-1011 (hall write, print, utter or pubiifh, oi
ihall knowingly and wittingly alfitl and
aid in writing, printing, uttering or nub
ulhtng, any talle, fcaiidalous, and malici
ous writing or writings, agaiml the Pref
•dent ot the United States, with intern
to defame, or to bring him into contempi
or disrepute, Inch person, being therco
tonMCleo, thaa be puaiihcd by fine, noi
exceeding two thousand dollars, and bt
imprilbumeut, not exeeding two years
aud “ that ii any perlon (lull be'profc
cuted under this aft, it ihall be lawful foi
him to give in evidence in his defence
I tnc truth of matter contained tu the pub
licatjoa rh'-gH *v a libel ; nnd th; fry’
(ball have * right to title; r.i.ic tnc law!
and the faft, under the direction of liit i
court, as in other cases.” as in and by me
laid aft, commonly called the /edition taw.
to which this respondent begs leave to re
fer this honorable court, will more fully
appear.
At the meeting of the lail above men
tioned circuit court, this respondent, as
required by the duties of his office, deli
vered a charge to the grand jury ; in
which according to his conllant praftice,
and his duty as a judge, he gave in
charge to them, fevcral acts of Congress
for the punishment of offences, and
among them, the above mentioned aft, j
called the sedition law ; and directed the
said jury to make particular enquiry, con
; ceraing any breaches of thele Hatutes
jor any of them, within the diffrift ot
! Virginia. On the 24th day of May,
j 1800, the said jury found an indiftment
; against one James Thompson Callender,
I for printing and publilhing, against the
i form of the said aft of Congress, a falfe,
scandalous, and malicious libel, called
, “ The profpeft before us,” againfl John
i A lams, then Preiident ot the United
I States, in his official character as Prefi-j
j dent ;as appears by an official copy of |
J the iaid| indiftment, marked, exhibit
; No. 4, which this respondent b f gs leave!
I to make part of this lus answer.
On Wedncfday, the 28th day of the!
Jfame month, May, 1800, Philip Nor-!
! bonne Nicholas, tfq. now attorney genc-i
; ral of tilt ltate of Virginia, and George)
j Hay, tlq- now diffriCt attorney of the!
! United States, for the dittrift of Virgi-j
j nia, appeared in the said circuit court as j
counsel tor the said Callender ; and on 1
1 Tuelday the 3d of June following, his!
trial commenced, before this relpundent, j
i and the laid Cyrus Griffin, who then fat j
jas afliltant judge. The petit jurors be-I
Smg called over, tight or them appeared,)
I namely, Robert Gamble, Bernard Mack
j bam, John Barrel, William Atiilin, Wil
f iiam Richardson, Thomas Tinfley, Mat
j thew Harvey and John Ballet ; who as
! they came to the hook to be sworn, were
i feveraliy asked on oath, by direftion of
j tiie court, “ whethei they had ever for
; med and delivered any opinion refpefting
the fubjeft. matter then to be tried, or
concerning the charges contained in the
J indiftment ?” They all answered in the
negative, and were sworn in chief to try
itheiffue. The counsel for the Lid Cal
! !c ider declaring, that it was unnecuffary
to put this qucllion to the other taur
jurymen, William Mayo, Jume3 Hayes,
Henry S, Shore and John Prior, they al
io were immediately sworn in chief.—
No challenge was made by the said Cal
k uder or bis counlel, to any of these
jurors; but the laid counsel declared,
that they would rely on the answer that j
should be given by the said jurorr, to
the question thus put by order of the
court.
After the above mentioned John Bas- ]
set, whom this respondent fuppoles an.U
admits to be the person mentioned in ‘
the article of impeachment now under
conlideration, bad thus answered in the
negative, to the question put to him by 1
order of the corn t, as above mentioned,)
which this respondent Rates to be the!
legal and proper question to be put to
1 jurors on such oceafions, he exprefled to i
I the court his wifii to be cxcufed from fer-
I ving on the said trial, because he had
j made up tiis mind, or had formed hisooi
j nior., “ that thepublicution,called “ The
, Profpeft before Us” from which the
! words charged in the indictment as libcl
i ious, were said to be extracted, but which
j he had never leen, was, according to the
j reprefentatio.i or it, which he had receiv
-1 ed, within tiie sedition law.” But the
; court did not confider this declaration
!bv tire said John BalLt, as a fufficient
i reason lor withdrawing him from the ju
ry, and accordingly directed him to be
1 sworn in chief.
j In this opinion and decision, as in all
1 the others delivered during the trial in
question, this respondent concurred with
! his colleague, the aforementioned Cyrus
! Griffin, in whom none of these opinions
{ have been considered as criminal. He
j contends that the opinion itfelf was legal
! and correft ; and he denies that he con
• curred in it, under the influence of any
I “ spirit of persecution and injustice,” or
■with any “intent to oppress and pro
| cure the conviftion of the prisoner ; as is
moll untruly alledged by the fecund ar
ticle 01 impeachment. His reasons were
correft and legal. He will submit them
with confidence to thio honorable court,
which although it cannot condemn him
for an incorrect opinion, proceeding from
an honelt error in judgement, and ought
not to take on itfelf the power of en
quiring into the correftuefs of his decift
011a, but merely that of examining the
purity of his motives ; will, nevertiielefs
weigh his reasons, for the purpose of
judging how far they are of fufficient
force, to jullify a belief that they might
tiavc so appeared falisfaftory to him.—
If they might have so appeared, if the o
limou which he founded on them be not
10 palpably and glaringly wrong, as to
carry with it internal evidence of correft
motives, he cannot in delivering it have
committed an offence.
This honorable court need not be in
formed, that u is the duty of courts be
fore which criminal trials take place, to
prevent jurors from being exculed tor
ight and infufficient caulcs. If this rule
were uot obitrved, it would follow,
hat as serving on such trials as a jury, is
■pt to be a very dilagrecablc bulinefs,
specially to those bell qualified for it,
here would be a great difficulty, and of
en an inipoffibihty, in finding proper ju
ies. The law has therefore established
1 fixed and general rule on this fubjeft,
ci’c.ra * irrtt *- the viSie? of J
the iiimeafmnoic fc.-uple* of jure'-, but
to Retire to the party wr-ufed, as far as in
the iniperieftiou of liunmn nature it can
be fecurcd, a fair and impartial trial.
The criterion established by this rule, is,
that the juror ilar.ds indifferent between
the government and the person accused,
as to the matter in issue, on the indift
ment.” This indifference is always, ac
cording to a well known maxim of law,
to be presumed, unless the. contrary ap
pear; and the contrary may be alledged
by way of excuse by the juror himfelf, or
by the prisoner by way 01 challenge.—
Even if not alledged, it may be enquired
into by the court of its own mere moti
on, or on the i'uggcftion of the prisoner, !
and it may be established by the confcfli
on of tiie juror himfelf, on oath, or by
other testimony.
But in order to ftiew that a jury does
not “ ftaud indifferent between the ac
cuser and the accused, as to thk mat
ter in issue,” it is not fufficient to
prove that he iias exprefled a general opi
nion, “ that such an offence as that char
ged by the iadiitinent ought to be pu
niffted,” or “ that a book, for printing
& publishing of which the party is indict
ed, conies within the law on which the
indictment is founded.” Ail these are ge
neral expreffiong of opinion, as to the
criminality of an aft of which the party
is accused, and of which he mav be guil
ty ; not declarations cf an opinion that
he aftually is guilty of the offence with
which he Hands charged. It is impoffi
blc for any man in focicty to avoid expre-s
----fing an opinion, as to the criminality or
innocence of those ads, which for the
mall part, are the fubjefts of indiftments
for offences of a public nature ; such as
treason, sedition aud libels again It govern
ment. Such afts always engage public
attention, and become the fubjeft of pub
lic convcrfation ; and if to hare formed
or expreifedan opinion as to the general
nature of those afts, were a fufficient
ground of challenge to a juror, when al
ledged against him, or of excuse Lorn
lervmg when alledged byhimfeif, it would
be in trie power ot alrnolt every man, to
exempt himfelf from the unplcafant talk
oi serving on fucii juries. The magni
tude and heinous nature of an offence,
would give it a greater tendency to at
tract public attention, and to draw forth
public exprdiions of indignation ; and
would thus increase its chance of impu
nity.
To the present case this reasoning ap
plies with peculiar force. “ The pro
fpeft before U3,” is a libel so profii
gate and atrocious, that it excited dif
gult and indignation in every bread not
wholly- depraved. Even those whose
interelt it was intended to promote, were,
! as this respondent has underltood and
believes, either so much afiumed of it, or
so appreheafive of its effefts, that great
pains were taken by them to withdraw
it front public and general circulation.—
Os such a publication, it muff Rave been
* extremely difficult to find a man of fuf
ficient character and informati 11 to serve
- on a jury, who had not formed an opini
on, either from his own knowledge, cr
[front report. The juror in the present
[ case had expr. i’-d no opinion. He had
! formed no opinion S3 to the faft3. He
had never leen the “ Profpeft before
Us,” and therefore could have formed
no fixed or certain opinion about its na
ture or contents. They had been report
ed to him, and he had formed an opini
on that if they tvere such as reported,
the book was within the scope and ope
ration of law tortile punifttment of “ fall'e,
scandalous and malicious libels, agaiult
the President in his official capacity,
written or publiflted with an intent to
defame him.” And who is there, that
having either feenthe book er heard of it,
had not ncceffarily formed the fame opt
nion i
But this jury had formed no opinion
about the guilt or innocence ot the par
ty accused ? which depended on four
rafts wholly dillinft from the opinion
which he had formed. F'irfl, whether
the contents of the book were really such
as had been represented to him ? Second
ly, whether they should, on the trial, be
proved to be true ? Thirdly, whether the
party accused was really the author or
publifiter of this book ? And fourthly,
whether he wrote or published it “ with
intent to defame the President, or to
bring him into contempt or disrepute, o’
excite against him the hatred of the good
people ofthe United States ?” On all these
quellions, the mind of the jury was per
fectly at large, notwithstanding the opini
which he had formed. He might,
confidently with that opinion, determine
them ali in the negative : aud it wa6 on
them that the issue between the United
State-’ and James Thompson Callender
depe ided. Confcquently, this juror,
notwithstanding the opinion which he
had thus formed, did Hand indifferent as
to the matter in issue, in the iegal and
1 proper sense, and in the only feufe in
which such indifference can ever exist ;
and therefore his having formed that opi
nion was not such an excuse as could
have juftified the court in difeharging
him from the jury.
That this juror did not himfelf confi
der this opinion as an opinion refpefting
the “ matter in issue,” appears clearly
from this circumtlance, that when called
upom to answer on oath, “ whether he
had expreffea an opinion as to the matter
in issue ? ” he answered that he had not.
Wtiich clearly proves that he did nut re
gard the circumllance of his having for
med this opinion, as a legal excuse, which
ought to exempt him of right from serv
ing 011 the jury ; but merely suggested it
as a motive of delicacy, which induced
him to be cxcafeJ. TANARUS fuck motives of
delicacy, howc-e- c-m*” ••’dujp- ■>” -he
persons who feel theui, it i' l 1 vilitt’l ‘.dor
courts of justice to yield withoqt puttj-’.g
it in the power ol every mm, unotr pre
tence of such fcriples, to exempt hiiQklf
from those duties which ail the citizens
are bouud to perform. Courts ofjullicfi
must; regulate themselves by legal prtoci*
pies, which are fixed and universal ; not
by delicate scruples, which admit of epd
less variety, according to the varying
opinions and feelings of men.
such were the reasons of this refpond*
ent, and he prefnmes of his colleague th
laid Cyrus Griffin, from refilling to ex
cuse the said John Baffct, from fervmg
on the jury above mentioned. T'yle
reasons and the decision founded on them,
he infills were legal and valid. But if
the reasons should be considered as .inva
j ud, and tbe decilions as erroneous, qaa
i they be considered as so clearly aud fia
| gramly incorr-ft, as to jullify a conclu
sion that they were adopted by thiste
• ipondent, through improper motives,
! are not these reasons fuffieicntly llrongf
|or fufficiently plausible, to jullify
did aud liberal mind in believing, tilnit a
! judge might honeftTy hve regarded them
! as solid ? Has it not been conceded, by
! the oir.iffion to profecutc judge Griffin
j tor this decision, that his error if he corn*
| mined one, was,au honest one ? Whence
tliis diftiiidtion between this respondent
! and his colleague ? And why i that opi
( nion input i to one as a crime, whkh.in
| tiie other is considered as innocent i
I And the said Samuel Chafe, for plea
i to the said fecund article of impeachment,
faith that he is not guilty of any high
i crime or misdemeanor, as in and by the
’ said fccond article is alledged against him ;
! &. this he pray* may be enquired of by this
! honorable court, in such manner as law
and justice fliali lean to them to require.
The third article of impeachment al
’ Edged that this refpendent “ with intent
i to oppreis auu procure the conviftion of
1 the prisoner, did not permit the evidence
! of J. Taylor, a material witnefa in be—
-1 half of the said CaiEnder, to be given
i in, on pretence that tiie said witness
I could not prove the truth of the whole
I of one of the charges, contained in the
indictment, although the said charge em
brace! more than one fact.
In antwer to his charge, this respon
dent begs leave to submit the following
fafts and observations.
The indiftment against James Thomp
son Callender, which has been already
mentioned, and of which a copy is exhi
bited with this answer, confitts of two
diftinft and separate counts each of
which contained twen cy diftinft and in
dependent charges, orfets of words.—
Each of those lets of wouls was char
ged as a libel against John Adams, as
President of the United States—and the
twelfth embraced the following words,
“ Fie (meaning president Adams) was a
pi of died aristocrat; he proved fathful
and fei viewable to the Britilh interest.”
Tile defence set up was confined to this
charge,and was relied upon the truth of
the words* To the other nineteen
charges no defence of any kind was at
tempted or fpokca of, except such as
might arise from the supposed unconlli
tutionaity of the sedition law ; which if
if folio, applied to the twelfth charge, as
j wetl as to the other nineteen. It was
Ito prove the truth of these words, that
John Taylor, the person rheutioued in
tne amcle of impeachment bow under
confideratiou, was offered as a witness.
It can hardly be neceff: ry to remind this
■ honorable court, that when an indift
ment for a libel contains several diftinft
charges, founded on diftinft sets of
words, the party accused who in such
place* is called the “ traverser,” mail
be convifted, unless he makes a fufficient
defence against every chaige. HE in
nocence on one, dues not prove him in
nocent on the others. If the sedition
! live Ihould be conii ierrd as unconflitu
j tional, tiie whole indiftment, including
! this twelfth charge, must fall to the
j ground, whether the words in qu-flion
were proved to be true or not. If the
; law ihould be considered as conftitution—
j al, then the traveller, whether the words
in the twelfth charge were proved to be
true or not, must be convifted on the o
ther nineteen charge*, against which no
defence was offered- Phis conviction
on nineteen charges, would put the tra
veller as completely in the power of the
court, by which the amount of the fine
and the term of the imprisonment were
to be fixed, as a conviftion upon all the
twenty charges. The imprisonment
could not exceed two years, nor the
fine be more than two thousand dol
lars. If then this respondent were defi-*,
rous of procuring the conviftion of tiW’
traverser, he was hire of his objeft with
out refpefting the testimony of John
Taylor, if his temper towards the tra
verier were so vindictive, as to make him
feel anxious to obtain an opportunity
and excuse for inflicting on him the
whole extent of punishment permitted by
the law, still a conviftion on nineteen
charges afforded this oppertunity and
excule, as fully as a conviftion on twen
ty charges. One slander more or ltf*,
in such a publication as the “ Profpeft ‘
before U’s” could surely be of 110 mo
ment. 1 o attain this objeft, therefore,
it was uot ncceffary to rejeft the tefli
monv of John Taylor.
That the court did not feel this vindic
tive spirit, is clearly evencedby the mo
deration of the punishment, which ac
tually wa* lufliftjd 011 the traverser, after
he was convicted of the whole twenty
charges. Instead of two thousand dollars
he was fined only two hundred and was
fentenccd only to nine months imprifoa
meut,intlead of two years. Andthisrefpoa
cleat avers, that he never felt ar expreiltd