Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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