Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Art. 1.

beg leave to addrefs you on the firftarfome way, due to them; and whether this is acknowledged or not, they have, ticle, while relates to the tranfactions if driven to the laft refort, a phyfical at Philadelphia on the trial of John force, to make is fo; but fir, this fo- Fries for high treafon. The gentleman, vereignty does not confift in a right (Mr. Early) who has offered you his to control or interfere with the regu- obfervations on thefe articles of imlar and legal operations and functions peachment, appears to have grounded of the different branches of govern- his argument, not on the evidence but on the articles-Suppofing, perhaps, ment at the will and pleasure of the people-Having delegated their pow- that they would be proved, he has taer; having diftributed it for various ken it for granted they have been provpurposes into various channels and di- ed, and has haped his remarks accordrecled its course by certain limits they ingly-Had we filed a general demurer have no right to impede it while they to thefe charges, thereby admitting it flows in its intended directions, them as flated, the argument of the otherwise we have no government; in gentleman might have had the force like manner, the officers of govern- and application he intended; but if I ment are refponfible in certain modes miftake not, the refpondent has pleaded and at certain periods for the exercife not guilty, and the cafe muft therefore Obe of their duties and power; but the be decided by the amount of the evipeople have no right to make them dence and not by the averments of the accountable in any other manner, or at articles; I admit indeed that the hoany other period than that prefcribed_norable managers are put to fome difby the great compact of government;ficulty in this refpect-They are unor conftitution. Having parted with their power under certain regulations and restrictions they are done with it; they are bound by their own act and having retained and declared the manner in which they will correct abuses in office, they have no right to claim any other fort of refponfibility; if this be not the cafe, what government have we? What rule of condu&? What fyftem of affociation? none; But are truly in a ftate of favage anarchy and restless confufion; with all the vices incident to civilization with-vations I fhall have the honor to subout the restraints to control them.

Having difcuffed this neceffary preliminary point as to what is or is not impeachable, I will proceed to a confideration of the charge now in iffue between the refpondent and houfe of reprefentatives of the United States; It will be fome relief to this honorable court to learn, that for the expediting of this trial and to avoid irkfome repetition, the counfel for the refpondent have devided the articles of impeachment among themfelves-I fhall

der the neceffity of making their elec-
tion between the articles and the evi-
dence as the foundation of their argu-
ment; for they are fo totally diffimilar,
that they could not take them both,
they meet in fo few and fuch immate-
rial points, that no man can argue from
them both for five fentences.
being the fituation of the gentleman,
he has thought proper to felect the ar-
ticies and the facts therein set forth as
the foundation of his argument in de-
fiance of the teftimony. In the obfer-

This

mit, I propofe to take the evidence as my text and guide, and leave the articles to fhift for themselves, under the care and patronage of our honorable opponents.

Upon reading this first article of impeachment against the refpondent, after a due degree of horror and indig nation at the monftrous tyranny and oppreflion pourtrayed in it, the first question that would ftrike the mind of the enquirer would voluntarily be, When did this horrid tranfaction take place? When and where was it that

judge Chafe thus perfecuted an unfor- xthe neglect of thefe charges; and as tunate wretch to the very brink of xwe moft cheerfully and truly confide in the grave, from which he was fnatch- the juftice of the prefent adminiftraed by the interference of executive xtion, we truft no fuch diftruft will be mercy, fhocked at the injuftice of his xavowed of the integrity of the former. condemnation? When were the rights We feel as fafe under trial now as we of juries and the privileges of counfel fhould have done then, and look withand their clients, thus thrown down out diftruft for the fame impartial jufand proftrated at the feet of a cruel and tice from this honorable court, we inexorable judge? What would this fhould have expected and received at enquirer think and believe on being in- any time. formed, that thefe atrocious outrages upon juftice, law and humanity, were perpetrated five years fince? Why and where has the justice of the country flumbered fo long? What now awakes it from this lethargic fleep? Why has this monstrous offender fo long efcaped the punishment of his crimes? To what region of refuge did he fly? But will not furprife be greatly encreased, when it is told that at the time of the trial of John Fries, this injured and oppreffed man, at the very time when thefe crimes of the judge were committed, the congrefs of the United States, the guardians of our lives and liberties, were actually in feffion in the very city where the deeds were done, and probably witneffed the whole tranfaction. I do not expect to be answered here, for I cannot fufpect our honorable opponents of fo 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 efcape, however atrocious his crimes. Whatever, fir, may have been the character of that adminiftration, even if as weak and wicked as it his been reprefented, it could have no object in protecting any individual at fo great a rifque to themfelves and their reputation. If judge Chafe had really violated the law and conftitution 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 fhelter him. I hope, how ever, no fuch reason will be given for

T

We feel however, fir, a ferious inconvenience from the delay of this profecution. In five years facts fall' into oblivion, and witneffes engaged in their ordinary occupations of life, cannot tax their memories with the circumftances of such distant events. It is difficult to difcover indeed who were prefent at the tranfaction. To guard against injuftice of this kind even in civil cafes, and protect us from fraudulent and flumbering demands, a limitation is put by law on the claims of every man. The criminal code of the United States, has juftly adopted the fame principle. By a ftatute, no perfon fhall be profecured or punished for treafon or other capital offences, with fome exceptions, unlefs the indictment be found within three years after the offence done; and for fmaller offences the profecution must be instituted within two years. We cannot, it is true, claim the benefit of the letter of this law, but we may claim fomething from its principle; in expecting from this honorable court every indulgence and allowance for any deficiency in our proof, which fhould be attributed not to the real weakness of our cafe, but to the unreasonable stalenefs of the charges. Judge Chafe was a stranger in Philadelphia, and neceffarily found extreme difficulty in discovering what perfons were in court at the time to which the charges relate, and to felect those who had the best recollection of the tranfaction.

This first article, fir, charges, "that

unmindful of the folemn duties of his office, and contrary to the facred obligation by which he stood bound to difcharge them, faithfully and impartial. ly, and without refpect to perfons, the faid Samuel Chafe, on the trial of John Fries, charged with treafon, before the circuit court of the United States, held for the diftrict of Pennsylvania, in the city of Philadelphia, during the months of April and May, 1800, whereat the faid Samuel Chafe prefided, did, in his judicial capacity, conduct himfelf in a manner highly arbitrary, oppreffive, and unjuft." This general accufation is followed by three diftinct fpecifications of offence, to wit:

"1. In delivering an opinion, in writing, on the question of the law, on the conftruction of which the defence of the accufed materially depended, tending to prejudice the minds of the jury against the cafe of the faid John Fries, the prifoner, before counfel had been heard in his defence:

2. In restricting the counfel for the faid Fries, from recurring to fuch English authorities as they believed appofite, or from citing certain ftatutes of the United States, which they deemed illuftrative of the pofitions, upon which they intended to reft the defence of their client :

3. In debarring the prifoner from his conflitutional privilege of addreffing the jury (through his counfel) on the law, as well as on the fact, which was to determine his guilt, or innocence, and at the fame time endeavoring to wreft from the jury their indifputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the queftion of law, as well as the queftion of fact, involved in the verdict which they were required to give :

In the whole of thefe fpecifications I am able to difcover but one truth; the rest is wholly contradicted and difproved by the evidence.

It is true, that judge Chafe did form and reduce to writing, and, in a limited mahner, deliver an opinion on a queftion of law, on the construction of which the defence of the accufed materially depended; but when the article goes on to charge that this opinion tended to prejudice the minds of the jury against the cafe of John Fries, the prifoner, 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 the attorney for the United States; and to no other perfon. The third copy, and but three were made, never was delivered to the jury or to any other perfon, 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 decifion of the cafe by counfel, when they were to have taken out with them this opinion of the judge, upon the law of the cafe fubmitted to them. At that period of the trial, when it was not only the right but the duty of the court, to ftate o the jury their opinion of the law arifing 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 opprefs the prifoner? If fuch was the intention of the act, then, and not otherwife, it was criminal.

In enquiring into the nature of this act, I confine my felf now to the forming and delivery of this opinion, and to decide its innocence or criminality, we fhould confider it in relation to its motive, its time and manner, and its confe quences. If nothing partial, oppreffive, or corrupt, is to be found in any of thefe, I know not in what or from whence the criminality is to be establifhed. In deciding, fir, upon the m tive which prompted the judge to this act, we must look for materials in the teftimony; by this we must be governed, and not by the imputations, furmi

fes, and conftructions of our opponents, however eloquent and ingenious. The judge and his motives are not only ftrongly denounced in the article, but have alfo had the fame 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, fir, did judge Chafe declare himself, to be the reafons which induced him to form this opinion, to reduce it to writing, and to hand it to the counfel? And permit me here, fir, to ftate, that in all criminal profecutions for an act, equivocal in itself, and whofe character of guilt or innoIcence depends upon the intention with which it was done; the declaration of the party made at the term, are always received in evidence, to afcertain and fix the true character of the act, and the fair and legal explanation of the act is taken and derived from fuch declarations of the party, if not difproved by other evidence. What then did judge Chafe himself fay of his in་ tention and motives in relation to this opinion?

Mr. Lewis ftates, that on this occafion, judge Chafe faid, that he had understood that at the former trial there had been a great waste of time on topics which had nothing to do with the bufinefs or cafe, and in reading common law decifions on the doctrine of treafon, as well as under the ftatute of Edward III. before the revolution; and also relating to certain acts of congrefs for crimes less than treafon. That to prevent this in future, he or they had confidered the law, made up their minds and reduced it to writing; and in order that the counsel might govern themselves accordingly, had ordered three copies to be made out, &c. &c. Here then the judge, at the time of the act, now charged to proceed from a corrupt and partial intention, declares in unequivocal language, what were

his true motives. His obje was to prevent an unneceffary wafte of time in a court, where a vaft deal of criminal and civil bufinefs was then depending and waiting for trial. This was the motive and the only motive, declared and avowed by the judge, at the time he delivered this offenfive paper, and, unless it be difproved by the evidence or the circumftances of the cafe, it must be taken to be the true one. It is not a fubject of enquiry now, whether the reafon he affigned for this proceeding be a good or bad one; it is enough to our purpose that it most certainly is neither partial nor corrupt. As the motive was not partial, fo neither was or could be the act oppreffive to the prifoner, unlefs the judge in executing his defign of preventing the wafte of time, purfued it to an unreafonable extent. If he obftructed only the introduction of irrelevant matter, and did not exclude any thing which could and ought to have benefited to the prifoner, he was guilty of no injuftice or impropriety. If the proper and legal rights of the counfel or of the prifoner were curtailed to his injury, there was certainly injuftice done; but if nothing more than wholefome and reafonable reftriations were impofed, to the manifcft advantage of the general bufinefs of the court and of other fuitors there, without any unjust detriment to John Fries, then not only the motive was correct, but the act was highly laudable, and fuch was undoubtedly the cafe. If we go no farther than Mr. Lewis' teftimony on this fubject, every idea of intention on the part of the judge, to injure or opprefs John Fries, is done away. As far as the judge declared himself, his intention was pure and correct, and we cannot say that in the execution of this correct intention, he would have carried it to fuch excefs, and to produce oppreffion and injuftice; the defign was crushed in embryo; as far as we are acquainted with it, it is fair and clear of oppreffion, and we are not authorised to pre

fume that if it had proceeded farther, it would have changed its character and been partial and corrupt. It is well known in Pennsylvania, that the loudeft clamors are made against our courts for the delays of juftice, and the unreafonable time fpent in the trial of every cause. Thefe complaints had doubtless reached the ears of the judge; there was an enormous lift of important civil caufes then before him, and he prefumed that any expedient fairly to fave time would be acceptable to every body; to counfel as well as to fuitors. I have as yet, confidered this part of the cafe in its moft unfavorable afpect to the reípondent; upon turning to the teltimony of the other witneffes, its complexion becomes much more mild and unexceptionable. The fuggeftion that this opinion made up by the court and handed to the counfel, was declared to be final and conclufive upon them, and that no argument in oppofition to it was to be permitted or heard, refts wholly and folely on the recollection of Mr. Lewis. Mr. Dallas was not in the court at the time it is fuppofed to have happened; no other witnefs, of all that were prefent, have any remembrance of any fuch declaration, and two witneffes exprefsly difprove it. Mr. Edward Tilghman ftates, that judge Chafe declared the court had maturely confidered the law arifing upon the overt acts, charged in the indictment against John Fries; that they had reduced their opinion to writing; that he underflood a great deal of time had been confumed upon the former trial, and that, in order to fave time, a copy of the opinion of the court would be given to the attorney of the diflrict, another to the counfel of the prifoner, and that the jury fhould have a third to take out with them. Mr. Tilghman further ftates, that previous to the throwing of the papers on the table, and at the moment it was done, the judge expreffed himself in these words, "Nevertheless, or notwithstanding, counfel will be heard." Mr. Rawle, a witnefs

examined as well as Mr. Tilghman, on the part of the managers, gives the fame account of the declared motive of the judge, in preparing this opinion, to fave time, as much had been loft at the former trial; and flates that the judge faid, the court had determined to express their opinion in writing on the law, that they might not be misunderfood. Here we find the reafon not only for forming the opinion, but for reducing it to writing alfo. The court, continues Mr. Rawle, obferved, "they had therefore committed their opinion to writing; that the clerk had made three copies, one of which should be given to the diftrict attorney, one to counfel for the prifoner, and one the jury fhould take out with them. To put this part of the tranfaction beyond doubt, and ftrengthen, if poffible, the character it now bears, I beg this honorable court to advert for a moment to Mr. Meredith's teftimony; he too ftates, that the judge declared the court, on great deliberation, had formed an opinion on the law on the overt acts fet forth in the indictment, and that to fave time and prevent mistake, this opinion was reduced to writing, the copies to be diftributed as mentioned by the other witneffes. He further exprefsly avers, that the judge, when he threw down the papers declared, that the giving of this opinion was not intended to preclude the counsel from being heard, or from expreffing any objections to its correctnefs. After this mafs of concurring teftimony, can the motive of the judge in forming and delivering this opinion, be mifreprefented or mifunderstood? And can it now be believed or pretended that it was done, as the article charges, to prejudice the minds of the jury against John Fries, before counsel had been heard in his defence? In order to bear up this charge against this weight of evidence, and fupport Mr. Lewis' tef timony, in difcredit of that delivered by the other witneffes; the managers, who have spoken to this part of the

« ForrigeFortsett »