Part 93

Upon reading this first article of impeachment against the respondent, after a due degree of horror and indignation at the monstrous tyranny and oppression portrayed in it, the first question that would strike the mind of the inquirer would naturally be, when did this horrid transaction take place--when and where was it that Judge Chase thus persecuted an unfortunate wretch to the very brink of the grave, from which he was snatched by the interference of executive mercy, shocked at the injustice of his condemnation? When were the rights of juries and the privileges of counsel and their clients thus thrown down and prostrated at the feet of a cruel and inexorable judge? What would this inquirer think and believe on being informed that these atrocious outrages upon justice, law, and humanity, were perpetrated five years since? Why and where has the justice of the country slumbered so long? What now awakens it from this lethargic sleep? Why has this monstrous offender so long escaped the punishment of his crimes? To what region of refuge did he fly? But will not surprise be greatly increased when it is told that at the time of the trial of John Fries, this injured and oppressed man,--at the very time when these crimes of the judge were committed, the Congress of the United States, the guardian of our lives and liberties, were actually in session in the very city where the deeds were done, and probably witnessed the whole transaction? I do not expect to be answered here, for I cannot suspect our honorable opponents of so much illiberality, that at that period the administration of our affairs was in the hands of the political friends of the judge, and therefore he was permitted to escape, however atrocious his crimes. Whatever, sir, may have been the character of that Administration, even if a weak and wicked one, as it has been represented, it could have no object in protecting any individual at so great a risk to themselves and their reputation. If Judge Chase had really violated the law and constitution to come at the blood of Fries, and had done this in the face of the public, the Administration would have put too much at hazard by endeavoring to shelter him. I hope, however, no such reason will be given for the neglect of these charges; and as we most cheerfully and truly confide in the justice of the present Administration, we trust no such distrust will be avowed of the integrity of the former; we feel as safe under trial now as we should have done then, and look without distrust for the same impartial justice from this honorable Court, as we should have expected and received at any time.

This first article, sir, charges, “that unmindful of the solemn duties of his office, and contrary to the sacred obligations by which he stood bound to discharge them faithfully and impartially and without regard to persons, the said Samuel Chase on the trial of John Fries, charged with treason, before the circuit court of the United States, held for the district of Pennsylvania, in the city of Philadelphia, during the months of April and May, 1800, whereat the said Samuel Chase presided, did, in his judicial capacity, conduct himself in a manner highly arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust.” This general accusation is followed by three distinct specifications of offence, to wit:

“1. In delivering an opinion, in writing, on the question of law, on the construction of which the defence of the accused materially depended, tending to prejudice the minds of the jury against the case of the said John Fries, the prisoner, before counsel had been heard in his defence:

“2. In restricting the counsel for the said Fries from recurring to such English authorities as they believed apposite, or from citing certain statutes of the United States, which they deemed illustrative of the positions, upon which they intended to rest the defence of their client:

“3. In debarring the prisoner from his constitutional privilege of addressing the jury (through his counsel) on the law, as well as on the fact, which was to determine his guilt, or innocence, and at the same time endeavoring to wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument and determine upon the question of law, as well as the question of fact, involved in the verdict which they were required to give.”

In the whole of these specifications I am able to discover but one truth; the rest is wholly contradicted and disproved by the evidence. It is true, that Judge Chase did form and reduce to writing, and, in a limited manner, deliver an opinion on a question of law, on the construction of which the defence of the accused materially depended--but when the article goes on to charge that this opinion tended to prejudice the minds of the jury against the case of John Fries the prisoner, before counsel had been heard in his defence, it is utterly unfounded and untrue. To whom was this opinion delivered? To the counsel for Fries and to the Attorney for the United States; and to no other person. The third copy, and but three were made, never was delivered to the jury or to any other person, and never could produce any prejudice or injury to John Fries--nor indeed was it ever intended to come to the knowledge of the jury, until they had completely heard the discussion of the case by counsel, when they were to have taken out with them this opinion of the judge upon the law of the case submitted to them. At that period of the trial when it was not only the right but the duty of the Court to state to the jury their opinion of the law arising on the facts, then, and not until then, was it the intention of the judge to communicate to them this deliberate opinion. Could this be done with any intention to injure or oppress the prisoner? If such was the intention of the act, then, and not otherwise, it was criminal. In inquiring into the nature of this act, I confine myself now to the forming and delivery of this opinion, and to decide its innocence or criminality we should consider it in relation to its motives, its time and manner, and its consequences. If nothing partial, oppressive, or corrupt, is to be found in any of these, I know not in what or whence the criminality is to be established. In deciding, sir, upon the motive which prompted the judge to this act, we must look for materials in the testimony: by this we must be governed, and not by the imputations, surmises, and constructions of our opponents, however eloquent and ingenious. The judge and his motives are not only strongly denounced in the article, but have also had the same fate from the mouths of the Managers. I take the evidence for my guide, and I know it will be the guide of this honorable Court.

What then, sir, is the whole amount of the crime of the judge on this occasion? That he, a law judge, had been bold enough to form an opinion--not on John Fries’s case, or the facts or circumstances of it, for he knew them not; but on certain abstract points of law, without first consulting and hearing Messrs. Lewis and Dallas. And further, he had not only formed such opinions, but he had the audacity to put them into the hands of these gentlemen, which, in the article of impeachment, is called “delivering the opinion.” The judge, then, on mature deliberation, from a full consideration both of English and American precedents and decisions, had really made up his mind upon what overt acts would constitute the treason of levying war; and to prevent mistake, he had reduced this opinion to writing, and for the information of the counsel on both sides (no partial selection) he gave a copy of this opinion to each of them, and intended to give another to the jury to take out with them. The jury should have this opinion where they could not mistake it, instead of their memories where it might be misunderstood. Is not this, sir, a fair and just epitome of the facts given in evidence? Is it not the full measure and amount of the judge’s crime and corruption?

We have heard much about the agitation of the bar on this occasion. The particular cause of it has not been clearly explained. It might have been produced by the demeanor of Mr. Lewis, which, from his own account, was violent and indignant, or it might have been the mere bustle produced by the different efforts that were made to get hold of the obnoxious paper which Mr. Lewis cast from him with so much feeling as too foul for his hand; or from a combination of these with other causes. Another circumstance equally immaterial has been dignified with much importance by the attention the Managers have bestowed upon it--I mean the novelty of the proceeding. Every witness was asked in solemn form, “Did you ever see the like before?” “How long have you been a practising lawyer?” “How many criminals have you defended?” “Was not this mode of forming and giving opinions by the Court a novelty to you?” Granted--it was a novelty--I say granted for argument’s sake--it was a novelty; and what follows? Is it therefore impeachable? Every innovation, however just and beneficial, is subject to the same consequence. But, sir, if this novelty proceeded not from impure intentions, and was not followed by oppressive or injurious consequences, where is its injustice or criminality? There were many other novelties in that trial. It was a novelty that a man named John Fries should commit treason, and be tried and convicted for it. I never heard of precisely the same thing before. It was a novelty that counsel should desert their cause in the abrupt manner in which it was then done. But I presume it will not be pretended that these things were wrong merely because they were novel; much less that a judge is to be convicted of high crimes and to be removed from office for a harmless novelty. The articles charge not the judge with innovations and novelties in legal forms, but with depriving John Fries and his counsel of their constitutional rights; and if he has not done this, the rest is of no importance now. But what is this strange novelty that excites so much interest and alarm? Is it that a law judge had a law opinion, and was capable of making it up for himself without the assistance of learned counsel? I hope not. I should be sorry to suppose this is a novelty in the United States. Was it then the reducing this opinion to writing, putting it on paper with pen and ink, that makes the dangerous novelty? To have the opinion is nothing; but to write it constitutes the crime. And yet, sir, where is the difference to the prisoner? Except that in the latter case there is more certainty; less chance of misapprehension and mistake on the part of the jury than when it is delivered to them verbally. It should be recollected, sir, and I am sure it is too important to be forgotten by this honorable Court, this written opinion contained all the limitations and discriminations on the law of treason which could serve the prisoner, as well as those which might operate against him. But, sir, I deny that there was so much novelty either in forming this opinion, or in reducing it to writing, as is pretended. Is it uncommon for judges to state their opinions on particular points of law to counsel, even before argument, for the direction of their observations? And was it ever before considered a prejudication of the case, or an encroachment upon the rights of the bar? In criminal courts the practice is constant and universal. Previous to the trial of the cases of treason, after the restoration of Charles II., the judges of England met together, and did form and reduce to writing opinions, not only upon the mode of proceeding upon the trials, but also on all those questions or points of law which they supposed would arise and require their decision in the course of the trials. (See Kelynge’s Reports, pp. 1, 2, &c.--11.) Here the judges met in consultation expressly for the purposes now deemed so criminal in Judge Chase, and took to their aid the King’s counsel. Our judge did not take to his assistance the Attorney of the United States in forming his opinion; nor did the judges in England deliver to the counsel of the accused the result of their deliberations, but doubtless it would have been received as a favor if they had. In the only two points of difference, therefore, between the two cases, we have most decidedly the advantage.

Suffer me now, sir, to offer you some observations on the second specification of the first article of impeachment. I hope it will not be necessary to trespass greatly on your patience in refuting it. It charges Judge Chase with “restricting the counsel for the said John Fries from recurring to such English authorities as they believed apposite, or from citing certain statutes of the United States, which they deemed illustrative of the positions upon which they intended to rest the defence of their client.” This charge consists of two parts; it complains of a restriction as to English authorities, and as to American statutes. I will consider them distinctly. First, sir, permit me to remark that these allegations are made to support the general charge of partiality, oppression, and injustice. But what becomes of these pretences when we bear in mind the testimony of Mr. Rawle, the district attorney, and always, and in every situation, a gentleman whose character, in all its relations both public and private, bears the first stamp of respectability, and fears no competition for credit? He has informed this honorable Court that this restriction so grievously complained of, and now the subject of a criminal prosecution, was imposed upon him as well as upon the counsel of Fries. Is this the character or the conduct of partiality or oppression? Does it evince that strong appetite the judge is said to have, to drink the heart’s blood of this unfortunate German, and stain the pure ermine of justice with his gore? I have always understood by partiality in a judge, a favoring bias to one party to the prejudice of the other; but where a restriction is put equally on both sides, I cannot conjecture how it can be resolved into partiality or oppression. It will be seen presently that as far as this restriction could have any operation, it was friendly in that operation to John Fries. But, sir, what was this restriction so much complained of, and now magnified into a high crime? That certain English decisions in the law of treason, made before the Revolution of 1688, should not or ought not to be read to the jury; and pray, sir, what were these decisions? I will take their character from Mr. Lewis himself, and no man is better acquainted with them. He says they were decisions of dependent and corrupt judges, who carried the doctrine of constructive treason to the most dangerous and extravagant lengths. True, they were so--sanguinary, cruel, and tyrannical in the extreme; and could the exclusion of such cases injure John Fries? If cases which extenuated and softened the crime of treason had been rejected, he might indeed have suffered; but how he was or could be injured by keeping from the jury those cases which aggravated his offence, I am really at a loss to learn. The restriction there was on the United States. Had they been adduced by the Attorney-General, no doubt they would have been ably answered by the defendant’s counsel; but the ability of the counsel was not inferior to Fries’s counsel; and if Judge Chase had indeed a design to oppress and injure John Fries, and to convict him on strained constructions of treason, his best policy would surely have been to have suffered these cases to have come forward, and if supported by his authority and the talents of the counsel of the United States, they might have had their influence with the jury, notwithstanding the able refutations they might have received.

May I not now flatter myself, sir, that all the criminality charged upon the respondent, in the second specification of the first article of impeachment, is washed away from the minds of this honorable Court? Under this hope and impression, I will proceed to consider, as briefly as possible, the third and last specification. In this the judge is charged with “debarring the prisoner from his constitutional privilege of addressing the jury (through his counsel) on the law as well as on the fact which was to determine his guilt or innocence, and at the same time endeavoring to wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law, as well as the question of fact, involved in the verdict which they were required to give.” This charge is absolutely unfounded and untrue, and is, in all its parts, most completely disproved by the evidence. As to debarring counsel from being heard, I need only refer you, sir, to the testimony of Messrs. Tilghman and Meredith, who expressly swear, that Judge Chase, when he threw down the paper containing the opinion the Court had formed on the law, explicitly declared, that, nevertheless, counsel would be heard against that opinion. It is, indeed, true that Mr. Lewis seems, throughout the business, to have been under an impression that nothing would be heard in contradiction to that opinion; and that his professional rights were invaded. But this appears to be a hasty and incorrect inference or conclusion of his own, from the conduct of the Court. He wholly misapprehended the Court, and has charged his misapprehension to their account. This is the usual effect of such precipitate proceedings. The Managers have greatly relied on this circumstance; they urge that Mr. Lewis, through the whole affair, and in all he said concerning it, took for granted and stated that he was debarred from his constitutional privileges. He did so; but he did so under a mistake of his own, not proceeding from the Court. It is not only that no other witness speaks of any such restriction, but expressly negative it and say, some of them at least, that none such was imposed; but Mr. Rawle has further informed you, that it appeared to him throughout the business that Mr. Lewis had wholly misunderstood the Court and mistook their intention. But, surely, sir, we are not to be condemned because we have been misunderstood; especially as the mistake seems to have been peculiar to Mr. Lewis, and no other witness fell into the same error. I rely most implicitly on Mr. Rawle’s testimony, not only from the strength and correctness of his character, but from the unusual pains he took to be accurate in his knowledge of this transaction. His notes are copious, connected, and satisfactory, and although he has no notes of the first day’s proceeding, yet he seems to have given an uncommon and cautious attention to every circumstance to which he has testified. This gentleman negatives every idea of any restriction upon the arguments of counsel, and is supported by every witness but Mr. Lewis.

But, sir, there is one circumstance in this second day’s proceeding, which has been introduced to show, that the respondent continued the same tyrannical spirit with which he is charged on the first day, and which it may be incumbent on him to remove. I mean the “unkind menace,” as it has been termed by one of the witnesses, used to the counsel of Fries, when the judge told them they would proceed in the defence at the hazard or on the responsibility of their character. To ascertain the true nature of the expression, whatever it was, which fell from the Court in this respect, I will refer to the same guide I have endeavored to follow throughout my argument, I mean the evidence. The aspect of this pretended menace will then be changed into a complimentary confidence in the discretion of the counsel, or at least into no more than such a menace as every gentleman of the bar acts under in every case; that is, to manage every cause before a jury with a due regard to their own reputation; to urge nothing as law to the jury, which they are conscious is not law, and to introduce no matter which they know to be either improper or irrelevant. This, in its worst character, will be found to be the whole amount of this terrible menace. What account does Mr. Lewis give of this occurrence? After stating that the Court manifested a strong desire that he and his colleague should proceed in the defence of their client; that every restriction, if any had been imposed, was now removed, and that they were at full liberty to address the jury on the law and the fact as they thought proper; the judge said that this would be done “under the direction of the Court, and at the peril of their own character, if we conduct ourselves with impropriety.” And was it not so? And where is the criminality of saying so? Mr. Lewis did not consider this as a menace intended to restrict him in the exercise of the rights just before conceded him by the Court, but rather as an unwarranted suspicion of his sense of propriety; for, says he, “I did not know of any conduct of mine to make this caution necessary.”

A very strange and unexpected effort has been made, sir, to raise a prejudice against the respondent on this occasion, by exciting or rather forcing a sympathy for John Fries. We have heard him most pathetically described as the ignorant, the friendless, the innocent John Fries. The ignorant John Fries! Is this the man who undertook to decide that a law which had passed the wisdom of the Congress of the United States, was impolitic and unconstitutional, and who stood so confident of this opinion as to maintain it at the point of the bayonet? He will not thank the gentleman for this compliment, or accept the plea of ignorance as an apology for his crimes. The friendless John Fries! Is this the man who was able to draw round himself a band of bold and determined adherents resolved to defend him and his vile doctrines at the risk of their own lives, and of the lives of all who should dare to oppose? Is this the John Fries who had power and friends enough actually to suspend, for a considerable time, the authority of the United States over a large district of country, to prevent the execution of the laws, and to command and compel the officers appointed to execute the law to abandon the duties of their appointment, and lay the authority of the Government at the feet of this friendless usurper? The innocent John Fries! Is this the man against whom a most respectable grand jury of Pennsylvania, in 1799, found a bill of indictment for high treason; and who was afterwards convicted by another jury, equally impartial and respectable, with the approbation and under the direction of a judge, whose humanity and conduct, on that very occasion, have received the most unqualified praise of the honorable Manager who thus sympathizes with Fries? Is this the John Fries, against whom a second grand jury, in 1800, found another bill for the same offence, founded on the same facts, and who was again convicted by a just and conscientious petit jury? Is this innocent German the man who, in pursuance of a wicked opposition to the power and laws of the United States, and a mad confidence in his ability to maintain that opposition, rescued the prisoners duly arrested by the officers of the Government, and placed those very officers under duress; who, with arms in his hands and menace on his tongue, arrayed himself in military order and strength, put to hazard the safety and peace of the country, and threatened us with all the desolation, bloodshed, and horror of a civil war; who, at the moment of his desperate attack, cried out to his infatuated followers, “Come on! I shall probably fall on the first fire, then strike, stab, and kill all you can?” In the fervid imagination of the honorable Manager, the widow and orphans of this man, even before he is dead, are made in hypothesis to cry at the judgment seat of God against the respondent; and his blood, though not a drop of it has been spilt, is seen to stain the pure ermine of justice. I confess, sir, as a Pennsylvanian, whose native State has been disgraced with two rebellions in the short period of four years, my ear was strangely struck to hear the leader of one of them addressed with such friendly tenderness, and honored with such flattering sympathy by the honorable Manager.

It is not unusual, sir, in public prosecutions for the accused to appeal to his general life and conduct in refutation of the charges. How proudly may the respondent make this appeal! He is charged with a violent attempt to violate the laws and constitution of his country, and to destroy the best liberty of his fellow-citizens. Look, sir, to his past life, to the constant course of his opinions and conduct, and the improbability of the charge is manifest. Look to the days of doubt and danger; look to that glorious struggle so long and so doubtfully maintained for that independence we now enjoy; for those rights of self-government you now exercise, and do you not see the respondent among the boldest of the bold, never sinking in hope or in exertion, aiding by his talents and encouraging by his spirit; in short, putting his property and his life in issue on the contest, and making the loss of both certain by the active part he assumed, should his country fail of success! And does this man, who thus gave all his possessions, all his energies, all his hopes to his country and to the liberties of the American people, now employ the small and feeble remnant of his days, without interest or object, to pull down and destroy that very fabric of freedom, that very Government, and those very rights he so labored to establish? It is not credible; it cannot be credited, but on proof infinitely stronger than any thing that has been offered to this honorable Court on this occasion. Indiscretions may have been hunted out by the perseverance of persecution; but I trust most confidently that the just, impartial, and dignified sentence of this Court, will completely establish to our country and to the world, that the respondent has fully and honorably justified himself against the charges now exhibited against him; and has discharged his official duties, not only with the talents that are conceded to him, but with an integrity infinitely more dear to him.

FRIDAY, February 22.

Mr. KEY.--Mr. President, I rise to make some observations on the second, third, and fourth articles of the impeachment. I shall not apologize for the manner in which I shall discharge a duty which I have voluntarily undertaken, but merely regret that indisposition has prevented my giving the subject that attention which it merits. It will be at once perceived that these articles relate to the trial of Callender. Before, however, I go into an examination of the second article, it may be proper to notice the situation in which the judge found himself and the state of the public mind at the time. The sedition law was passed in the year 1799. It immediately arrested the public attention, and strongly agitated the public feelings. In the State of Virginia it was peculiarly obnoxious; many of the most respectable characters considered it as unconstitutional, and as a violation of the liberty of the press; most deemed it impolitic; while some viewed it as a salutary restraint on the licentiousness of the press, more calculated to preserve than to destroy it. In this state of the public mind it became the duty of the respondent, in the ordinary assignment of judicial districts, to go into the district of Virginia, where he was entirely a stranger, to carry the laws into execution. It is scarcely necessary to observe that when laws are considered obnoxious, much of the odium attending them inevitably falls on those who carry them into effect. In May, 1800, Judge Chase went to Richmond to hold a court; and soon after it was in session, the grand jury found a presentment and afterwards a bill against James T. Callender for an infraction of this law, in publishing the book entitled “The Prospect before Us,” which brought into issue its constitutionality. Professional men of talents, carried along by the tide of public opinion, volunteered their services in defence of the accused; and every effort was exhausted to wrest the decision from the respondent. Exceptions were accordingly taken at every stage of the case; and when the jurors were brought to the book, a question arose which forms the foundation of the charge contained in the second article.

If we extract from this article the epithets it contains nothing will remain, and epithets fortunately do not constitute crimes. The offence and fact charged is, the permitting Mr. Basset to be sworn on the jury with an intention to oppress the traverser, which is not in the least supported by the testimony. The article alleges that Mr. Basset wished to be excused. I appeal to the testimony, whether he did wish or desire to be excused. The observations he made arose entirely from a scruple in his own mind, and not from any objection to serving. Instead of his wishing to be excused, the real fact is that which he said flowed from the peculiar situation in which he stood; and he says that he declared himself willing to serve, provided in law he was competent. The fact, therefore, on which this article rests, is not supported by the testimony, and not being supported, I might here dismiss this branch of the subject without further animadversion.

Suppose we are mistaken in the fact, which we say is proved, that Mr. Basset did not desire to be excused; admit that he did pray to be excused; still, so far as he has himself, on oath, explained the situation of his mind, there was no cause for challenge.

Admit, also, that we are mistaken in the law we have laid down, does it follow as a necessary consequence that the directing Basset to be sworn on the jury, was done with an intent to oppress the traverser? We call for the facts that impeach the motives of Judge Chase. In the opening of this case we were told that the respondent was highly gifted with rich attainments of mind. It was correctly said; and it might have been added that his integrity was equal to his talents. But the observation was made to raise his head at the expense of his heart. I will examine this argument.

The truth is that no judge is liable for an error of judgment. I apprehend this is conceded by the article itself, which states a criminal intent. Now for the evidence. What criminal intention do the honorable Managers draw from it? It is said that the respondent is highly gifted with intellectual powers, and must have known in this instance the law. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. I dislike the compliment; the best-gifted mortals are frail, and a single erroneous decision may be made by any man.

I will now proceed to the third article, which, when correctly understood, will be found as destitute of impeachable matter as either of the other articles. It is as follows: “That, with intent to oppress and procure the conviction of the prisoner, the evidence of John Taylor, a material witness on behalf of the aforesaid Callender, was not permitted by the said Samuel Chase to be given in, on pretence that the said witness could not prove the truth of the whole of one of the charges contained in the indictment, although the said charge embraced more than one fact.”

In opening the case one of the honorable Managers inquired what human subtilty or ingenuity could devise to extenuate this act of the respondent. Our reply is that it requires no subtilty or ingenuity; that it was correct in point of law, and that the case is so clear, that he who runs may read. The Court must permit me to observe that the article presents an abstract case, not growing out of, or connected with the evidence. This Court, I apprehend, is not sitting here to decide this abstract point, whether in any case it is admissible to prove one fact contained in a particular charge by one witness, and one by another; but to determine whether in this case, where one witness was offered to prove part of one charge, and no other witness offered to the same charge, it was proper to receive testimony offered. I contend that the decision was correct on the case before the Court.

Mr. Robertson says, “The attorney for the United States having concluded, the counsel for the traverser introduced Colonel Taylor as a witness, and he was sworn; but at the moment the oath was administered, the judge called on them, and desired to know what they intended to prove by the witness. They answered, that they intended to examine Colonel Taylor, to prove that Mr. Adams had avowed principles in his presence which justified Mr. Callender in saying that the President was an aristocrat--that he had voted against the sequestration law, and the resolutions concerning the suspension of commercial intercourse with Great Britain.” This was then the object and view with which Colonel Taylor was called on. What is the charge in the articles of impeachment? That the testimony of Colonel Taylor was rejected “on pretence that the said witness could not prove the truth of the whole of one of the charges, contained in the indictment, although the said charge embraced more than one fact.” The charge in the indictment is that the President “was a professed aristocrat; that he proved faithful and serviceable to the British interest:” and Colonel Taylor was called to prove that Mr. Adams had voted against the sequestration law, and the resolutions concerning the suspension of commercial intercourse with Great Britain. Was it competent to Colonel Taylor to give evidence on this point? The best evidence the nature of the case will admit must be adduced. Colonel Taylor then was clearly an incompetent witness on this point; as there was better evidence, the journals of this honorable body, within the reach of the traverser. It only then remained for Colonel Taylor to prove that the President had avowed principles which showed him to be an aristocrat; which, if proved, would have been altogether immaterial. To prove no other facts was he called upon. Are then counsel to be indulged in consuming the time of courts in the examination of witnesses, who have nothing relevant to offer?

I will now proceed to the fourth article, which contains five distinct specifications of facts charging misconduct on the respondent at Richmond.

This conduct is said to have been evinced, in the first place, “In compelling the prisoner’s counsel to reduce to writing, and submit to the inspection of the Court, for their admission or rejection, all questions which the said counsel meant to propound to the above-named John Taylor, the witness.”

If this was incorrect, I cannot perceive its injustice to Callender, nor its partiality or intemperance. But did the conduct of the Court in this instance correspond with the law and the practice? I apprehend that it did. I understand it to be a clear and admitted principle of law, that the Court is the only competent tribunal to determine the competency, the admissibility, and the relevancy of evidence; when admitted, its credibility is the exclusive province of the jury. I have before stated the reasons which rendered it necessary in this case to know what Colonel Taylor could prove. To understand the object for which he was produced with greater certainty and precision, the judge ordered the questions proposed to be put to be previously reduced to writing. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the practice in the courts of Virginia to say this was not novel, but I may surely venture to affirm that there was nothing criminal in it. I know well that in different States there are different forms of practice. I can only say, that Judge Chase, going from Maryland, where the practice does prevail, would naturally carry to Virginia the knowledge of the practice of the State from which he went.

The second specification is in the following words:

“In refusing to postpone the trial, although an affidavit was regularly filed, stating the absence of material witnesses on behalf of the accused; and although it was manifest that, with the utmost diligence, the attendance of such witnesses could not have been procured at that term.”

This charge is grounded on the fact of a refusal to postpone the trial on an affidavit. That the Court acted correctly in this instance will appear from this consideration. Nothing is more clear than that, under the common law, all applications for a continuance, on affidavit, are founded on the discretion of the Court. Is it not wonderfully singular that there should have been an application founded on an affidavit, if the law of Virginia, as stated in the 6th article, applied to the case? One thing is clear: either that the Attorney-General and Mr. Hay lost all recollection of the existence of this law of Virginia respecting continuances, or that they considered it inapplicable; for they would not otherwise have founded the application on an affidavit. They would have produced the law and have demanded a continuance. Did they do so? No. If, then, the law officer of the State and Mr. Hay both forgot that it existed, is it surprising that it should be unknown to Mr. Chase? If those gentlemen did recollect the existence of the law, they must surely have been of opinion that it did not apply to the case of Callender, or they would have saved themselves the trouble of filing an affidavit. It will however be shown that it did not apply, and hence their application founded on affidavit.