Newspaper Page Text
Volume V.]
■jgpS T*IAI. O-F JUD9£ CHASE,
■*’ fig, THE SENATE FEE. 20,
jlp|sr* the respondent's
his rejection to colonei
jKjyj 3r >c testimony can be no proof
as fuctran intention might I
not the jury was to
question of law in criminal c%
ff die criminality of the char
b/tiie judge, his condition
I j& ceirratnly coited. But if, as I
ItcnJneii by the jury, then it was
L| entirely certain, that the judge
iinowl, the jury might have been j
of the opinion that the other charges
| did not come within the sedition
Jaw, and might have therefore giv
en a verdict of acquittal
; But, Mr. Prefi-ienr, this apart, J
ii is a novel proof of innocence tcK
kml appear?.mS!>lt is a hovel'-
that a man
ffiould poftbfs a spirit daring en
ough to infelt the common sense
,ei mankind. Yes, Sir,'l yield to
the refjeondent the full (hare of glo-
which he is ddirous of accumu-
The last of the three articles, ncyfc
under examination goes, on m
the defendant with various
ads of injure, partiality and in
temperance, highly derogatory to
ms character as a judge, and equal
ly injurious to the reputation of the
•Mk . ■ •>;
l’- A l U sf GTOJ ’ CGurptQ Printed weekly for 5. HILLHOUSE. :
not Wly to prove thJnu*
of the charges in point of faa, but
also to prove that any of the charg
es were hot criminal in point of
law. It was Competent for tfie de
fendant to prove the truth of a part
6f the charges, and* to contend that
the rest were not seditious. Both
tnefc grounds of defence were pro
the jury, and the jury pof
feflea the right to pafe without con
■ trot upon both. With what pro
could the indite pro
nounce from the benclrrhar toxna
title the accused to a continuance,
it must appear that he could prove
the truth of all the charges ? What,
fir, was the question of law as to
their criminality, a point which the
felf the exclusive right to deter
mine, and that too before the tra- I
verier was heard ? Indeed it would -!
appear that in this case also, as in I
the case of Fries, the law was to be j
wrested from its proper organ, the *
jury, and to be exclusively pafled !
upon by the judge himfelf. What
other conftru&ion can. be given to
his determination that the truth of
aft the charges mu,ft be proven ?
There surely could he no neceflity
for this, unless they were all fedi
tjious within the act of.congrefs.
gpfef determining then, that all must
be jarred tgttfer ft dM de-^
the >ry to^c^nnine!
The constitution of this country
has mod: wifely provided, tliat 44 the
accused (hall have compulsory pro
cess for obtaining wkntfo in his
favor.” Os what avail is this pro
vilion if time be not given for their
attendance ? Os what avail to grant
the process, and, before the witnef
fefs can by any physical poflibility
reach the place, force the accused to
trial ? This conduct,fir,is worfethan
mockery. It is an insult to the com
mon sense of mankind. It is high
treason again.! the majesty of the
conftkution of a free country. The
££Zt£&*SV&
to compel the attendance of his wit
■ndfcs. But judge Chafe so admin,
iffers, that the accused is indiSed,
arrested, tried, convi&ed and pun
ched, all in the fame term, while
his witnesses are diftaut hundreds; of
After all this, Mr. President,
we fnali not be afe;d ii?r
r *
SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 1805.
probability of which defies belief
Ahor.g those I rank the supposition
oi miltake on the part of judge
pT. “~?hy rr.at of James T. Caf
r TV 6 mi S ht just as well be
.aiked for proof of malice in a case
wHere a man wilfully and without
pi ovocation kills another. I n such
as the one hdw under con
fiueration, the answer is that the
criminal intent is apparent upon
feegef the acL And there is a
question, fir, which strikes me as
applying itfelf with almost .irrefifta
oie torce tu tl. .
can It be that such outrages ffiould
be committed upon the moft ordi
nary principles of law and-justice,
ani yet the condud of the judge
not be influenced by corrupt mo
tives ? Can it be that every thing
fhayld be done to favor the ‘profe-
C u and
yet justice be administered faith
fully and impartially and without
relpect to persons r But if all this”
be iniuflicient I pray this honorable
court to recollect the declarations
of the judge in relation to the case,
af atfelted by feverri witndTes.
The fifth and fivth articles rest
upon grounds so extremely simple,
i and so easily comprehended, that
it appears totally unneceflay to fa
tigue the patfence of the honorable
. CQ H: •> 8 dw f !iE i
Ihe leventh article is as follows :
Bekuk, held at fc
th month of June, one thouland
eight hundred, whereat the laid sa
miel Chafe presided, the laid Sa
nwd duties
of his office, did ftigl
dignity of a judge, and stoop to the
level of an refufing
to difeharge the grand jury, altho
entreated by several of the said ju
ry so to do; 4nd after the said
grand jury had regularly declared,
through their foreman, that they
had found no bills of indidment,
nor had any presentments to make,
by observing to the said grand m.
ry, that he, the said Samuel Chale,
upderftood, “that a {lighly seditious
Sa,te of Delaware, among a certain
class of people, particularly in New
castle county, and more especially
in the town of Wilmington, where
lived a moft seditious printer, unre
strained by any principle of virtue,
and regardless of fociai order; that
the name of this printer was’’—but
checking himielt, as if sensible of
the indecorum which he was com
mitting, added —>“that it might be
tlip ri* ,ir Qiibi
lip] ciio j njwwvci f
r.-v : * •’
Qbl& j h&l£ J “early.
[Number 227.
them, to find lome passage which
: fendfh the grouiufwork of
a profecqtion again if the primer of
the said paper.; • thereby dc^feg
* “i? nigh judicial fundions, and
tending to impair the public cpf’f>
oence fib and refpeef for, the tri
bunal of justice, so efiential to the
general wedfared*
’ Ifia respondent (lands here
charged with a condua, than which
in my opuiion, rcthing could be
more at war with his official duty
nothing more tarnish his official cha
’ laws
ot this country certainly intended
l l high judicial tribunals,
that those who might be appointed
to mimfter therein, ffiould be im
partial dispensers of justice between
such as might rrfort thither for an
ad just men tof their difterences. In
public prosecutions, more especial.
ly was it intended that such cifpen
fation should be made without re
fped to persons. In these, above
ail other cases, ought a judge to
ft and aloof from influence, tree
from predilection towards one, or
i ■ prejudice against the other. Moft
peculiarly here is it his duty to stand
firm at his post, resisting the over
bearing influenc of a powerful pub
lic, and protecting the rights of the
accused in so unequal a contefL
But judge Chafe, disregarding these
principles, always held (acred in a
f into
in the humane language of the
law, ffiould for the ac
cused, becomes hunfeif an accuser.
He whose duty k is impartially to
decide between the prosecutor and
becomes himfelf the
P^*ecjQfmx,fecutions.
I have
the character of an informerrilfipa
ny station, of life, was deservedly
considered as the reverft of reputa
ble. What then Stall v;e fay of him,
who defeends from the Judgement
nation.to inform apaioft,
fir, his third for pu’nifcment wL
I fiv article is .n tlief^
crftDicotSj % srs sjoij
I c v \ t * n-J