Newspaper Page Text
’ Fmt 3 Ddsn..jjj*r ann.']
Voir>^/ r *f,
:.|i IP* ) . - J , - 4
*fc£*a&cbKitgr liberties and I
monitor.
**•——■ -"Sr “Sm—’ —i— mi. ■
printec
referveTfor tfte honor of modem f
times to diflipate mis uncertainty so
baleful,tpyaffteoj and toltx down'd
the dtabliflsmentupon Its’ only
proper foundation ; that oi the right
to determine without controul both
the law and the fa&in all criminal
cases ‘whatsoever . This right has
now been so long practiced upon
tn the United States, and may be
coniidered as so well >ftabli(hcd, 1
that it Ti scarcely to be expe&ed we *
lhali wttneis on that point any dis- j
fofrmce of opinion* Still fefs is it
expe&sd that we mall wit- s
defs fu-h*-difference, when we are !
difeufling principles which apply to
caies capital* In fudi cases it t|
the glory of the laws of this coun
try, that the offence of the accttied
ihouid he Me ft exclusively to the 1
liable to. i
bz i waved by the weight of’ accu- j
iing mihteneer. It is no part of
f dry b tenthm to deny the right of 1
judges to expound the law in char- ;
gitig juries. But it may be fafeiy ■
affirmed that fucb right is the mo ft
delicate they pSffjfs,” and the exer
ciieof vyhich ihouldbe guarded with
the utmoil caution and humanity.
The accused (hall enjoy the right
to al* trial by an impartial jury.”
We charge the refpondenT wrd u iß .
. liberally - important
willing from JohnTi’rieS'-the’ pfm
■■4egere>fohmnng his case heard and
himfelf fabftamiaily to decide the
erfe by, prejudging the4a\ apply.
ing thereto, at the fame time ac*
coinpadyiag the fipiniao thus for-
Hied ami thus delivO efi, by certain
declarations caicu
j lateff nettilariiy to Create a pre
j. poffcdiOfi againfl the case of Fries,
jin the minds of ’thofe who had
I been summoned to lerve upon the*
jury* thereby making them the
: reverie of impartial. .;f|h / £ “ and
| These were the ach'of a man*
j who, from bis own declarations,
. appears to have well underflood up*
| on what paints- the defence would
j turn. It was the a3: of i man, who
, it appears had been well informed
j of ‘ail that passed at the. previous
j trial of Frier; who knew that there
1 was no diipiite as to fails, and that
the whole Os the defer; tded
| upon the difeufhon and determina
tion of those very principles oi law
which he had and up*
| oh the application'’ of those autho
, rities which he bad thus excluded
: in the hearing and very presence of
those who were to pats upon the
life or death of the accused. No
arguments had jgpi| heard
j council; no opportunity-bad been
afforded to prove that the offence
j committed did not amount to the
■; crime charged ikdeiuling voice
had been jaded in behalf oi the ac
} cufdd; But without being heard,
j and without having had any oppor
• tunitiy to be heard, his case was
| adjudge:,. ■ >ist aim* I fay, ad*
yd against him withe a! the
{dance of king heard. For fureiy
j the case was adjudged againfl him,
\irhen the only point upon which
it was defensible was determined
SATURDAY, JUNE 15, 1805.-
agafoft him, and that determination 1
publicly annou iced from the bmch. S
1 r t waSl one before the ac
cuied pfiffily have had a
cnance being heard is pi ace and I
pyoud contradiclhmby alt the |
timotiy. And that the iu W
th J>r L+ U L ; ] UJ g e
tnu pomt, which he thus prejudged j
to b<b the only ground upon whi-ii
the defence rested, is perfraiv clear \
, what fffi
tionsTit tlic time of
opinion, it appears thisi: he was well
acquainted with all tb it kni&a
1 v-j,a ■ ’ • ‘ • r ** g dti j
; the previous trial of Fries,
! # Bur, fir,’ we must look further ’
into the progrvfo q! this trans .dion.
It Wiis not enough, that the poor
trembling vitVun’ of judicial onpref
fion ffiould thus have his dearest
privileges matched from fem bv a
fwejudiggiaa of his qaie 1 It v-as
tjot enffijgh, that lie *,npartiality |
of those who were to TOmoofe his
; jury, ffiould he convert, i into a
: prep -iffrilfon again fl him, by the
impofmg authority pf solemn de
] ckrarions irorn the .! But
, the ffpart remaining darling hope
j of life was to be {mothered by a
prccl|fion of his council from ar
a guiiig the law to the jury. Ibis
racV , xbo ftemly dsahol in the an
;••; ivVef .b.f the reffiguidt.im bus
thefJ pseSTei:bffilHhed ffi a man*
ibteie:
#r
I-*ewy ir cos, .vfv ~ rvl
: yAy <Uftfirms it i'jva n^nrter,pc~
being him
fc’ r prtlent when tha opini *r wu
delivered lathe bar, he received
from’ Mr, ‘Lewis a Ifatement of
what had pafltd, and ifc mi address
to the court afterwards repeated dii
a ftafeffient, and particu
larly that part which attributed to
the judge a declaration that df the
Council had any thing to fay upon
j the law] : they muff add refs them
feves to the court and not to the
jury. To this ftatemem no reply
was made by the court, either :or
recring or denying it. Thus {lands
the evidence in the affirmative.—
Opposed tt> this we have the nega
tive testimony of Messrs. Ravvle,
filghman, and Meredith, who have
no recollection of any such decla
ration. 1 add refs myfrif to those
who weft know the difference be
tween affirmative and negative tef
timoiiy. I add refs myfelf to those
<who well know the eftabliffied rule
in y law of evidence, that me
teilimony of one affirmative w finds
countervails many negative ones—
and J am fare that I add refs myfelf
1’ to thetfe who must feel the complete
coincidence of this rule with the
j dictates of common fcnfe Upon
this giound alone we iritght fafely
rest oub* proposition. But, fir, we
will not rest it here. It ajppears
from tke testimony of the witndles
on both hies, that almost every ob*
fervarion from the couhfol to the
day Kftriaive of their privileges!
. These observations, ah ho addressed
to the eoffit and carrying this fea
ture prominent in their lace, were
neither contradicted nor corrected
half Yearly,
[Number 18^*
by the court* l This wag k ftronr
.tacit thv
M *he idda’ufom which ilu\ were
ooitomed. wg Inivt i>>t
only this tacit aui dlffiv':, but we
j:>.<iye_in u , bis strut-- ,r J
hrpreffive dechratic.n U jX
•* v■: ** mat tw tattcht
be heard in e,pp..vffiP -. , 0 theopuft.
Jon at ihe court, at the • hazard ol
[ Bur, Mrs pifident, w- h ive the
pviiuvc aammion of tfic
j enr, tn page 18 of his aniVer that
!
I mon law authoriihss upon the doe
oftreafon, and aftb condemn
ing authorities under th. Ilatutr M
treafonsbut prior to the t grtifti rc*
volution.—(Here the pa (Lev iv JS
3 ttorrrenc^m
j'V-2u of the an # w : 'r, if will U'h i.nd
f. that the refpjndunt .idnmts that
J. these went rirvde
j On'the f.rft dr.v f yet, ft m>thin£
nt all ffiiff is feaaembeml hv AituTisl,
Tilghroan, or iVivsediih.—
flaw light then, how extrem*.if f
light mu ft their bare \eart of reedf
icaion uramlt the n -fitiv
: rt.t:::.. a, .. o’- . ■— r"* ,, **u
1 Teinmo&v of JLewts and Mr
’
UJiilidenr.g my as im*
controveriibly eftabliftii-cr • 1 will
l ’ • at 4Hr ed
.* with which, juries .-ftnofociai*
hg
Kvictyv 1 h-.; yu.- :•.,. r‘
ks v as the
fe giiril p<di-'df .
our Jaw.s. 'l'he accused w,u
At j* fib!
only every potlffilc ground ffiould
be occupied by councifjo the jury,
but weighed with parieriee and lor*
bearance and it- (liould never bo
forgoften, nhat judge Chafe hud
fuefi a candu£b ier i hn exnvfte
before him, in a previous trial of
. the faine cafe* V*j f .fiiya broth r
judge of b*is 5 who : iiis iatce cove
to the world offj'iriis, had set hi hi
an example fo? ii
- purity ol its excellence, .ad v. lech
i ffiould have arrested carter to.
; the coumuffion ot uei
rage upon all hiunanicy, Bat
judge Chsffi pixusienuitKit the law,
then prohibits ceunJe! fjhom pj.e.
ving to tfte jury that th; }.iw ; was
not as'laid down. This was in ef
fect an i nilhment. ut- once
Issie whole’ right .ot jury trial. All
the privileges and all the benefit.
‘of that inftittffiou -were (wtM ut
once Irc-m an American court diF.
5 justice,; and Scarcely the, exteruri.
; form prcle/ved. ?• ‘I iic lam was ore-’
l determined by the judge, and'the
accused was debiureU fr'oiu.pkad
, tog it to the jury.,. OI v.fiat atvaifs
i it, hr, that the jury ffiould he made
. : judges oi law and oi fat!-, when the
kw is not permitted u> be ex
‘ pounded to them r Os w .at avail
, kit that the accuied-ffiould have a
trial by jury, wherj hp m prevented
from and explaining t the
jury the only grojiiu? Qpdfi which
1 bis case is deienfiolc \ litcy right
■ to bear and .determine’ sods k mt
i mte , the right or < aju ty, -,ife*n the.