Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

’ 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.