The enquirer. [volume], December 13, 1804, Image 1

About The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815

Image provided by: Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

                
THE ENQUIRER.
\
_. . J_ (
HraR*aSMaiHH95E!SBSEf",^‘ .1.,.., I, J.... ■ .m^mrrn, ... ^1 I __,,, I .,., T ILJ....L
_ KtCHMONH, (l-u^nhO Pbbl.suki, bV RITCHIE flf WORSEKV, , ,, the 1V,,-G. ■ •., ! , n.,; ,..s r: " AK^K...payM m^mcc.
Numbeb 05.] • rHVRSD.tr MO&NIAG, DECEMBER 13, 1804. .fV..: „E l
CONDITIO N S.
I^The Enouirer will appear twice a
week....During the fefiioii of Congrefs
and the Virginia Lcgiflature, either a
third paper or a fupplemenUry half
fheet, during the week.
II. Terms of payment five dollars
per annum, in advance.
III. Advertisements,from thofe who
do not fubfcribe to the paper, (liould
they not exceed a fquare in length,
fhall he inferted for Jeventy-five cents
the ftrfl time, fifty cents for each time
during three weeks, and for every ad
ditional infertion thirty-three cents ;
long ones in the fame proportion.
IV. Subscribers fhall have their ad
vertifements inferted for Jiftv cents
the firft time, and thirty-three cents
for every additional infcrlion.
flnrttau oalcp.
THOMAS TAYLOR A Co.
T II.L in future fell at the fere occupied hy ,V. jy
t V Hancock (sf Co. on Wednefday's in each nveck ;
and at tLeir office, on Fu fdays and Fridays as ifual.
Da. 1, 1804. eptf
&atlrsf nr ktucriom
\ T r 1LI. BE SOLD liy the fubfcribers, at die late
7 f dwelling houfe of D. M. Randolph, Efq. on
Friday the 14th inft. a variety of valuable Houlhold
and Kitchen FURNITURE ; among which are, fume
falhionable and fuuftmial Plate, lately imported;
mahogany tallies, fide board and bafon (lands of fu
perior quality; a well aflorted collection of the mult
wieful kitchen furniture ; fet< and parts of fets of ta
ble and tea China,'Sic. &c. 5cc. fee.
Alfo—A very large fuperb Carpet, and a very fu
permr Time Piece.
Terms of fate.—Calh for all funis of 50 dollars and
under ; over that fum, a credit of CO and 120 days will
bt given. The Tale will commence at 12 o’clock. In
die mean time, ladies and gentlemen arc refpeClfully
invited to view the articles; in expectation of which,
attendance hy the proprietor will be given every
morning until i i o’clock.
THOMAS TAYLOR, & Co.
AuFHoncsrs.
Dec. 5, 1804. (eptxIT.)
£>atcs at 3itcrtom
Will be fold for talk, on Saturday the loth inllatit,
{ O I No. 715, handfomely fituated on Shockoe
® ■ ■d Hill, and adjoining the lot of Mr. John Scott
t..oore.— I he fale will commence at 12 O’clock on
the prentifts.
AT PRIVATE SALE,
Dot No. 29t.,in the town of Munchefter ; for terms
apply to
THOMAS TAYLOR Sc Co. V. M’s
Dec. 11. (eptds)
Attire at Siumoit,
WILL be fold at public auCtion, for ready money,
on Wednefday the 1 Cth day of December
next, the HOUSE & LOT near the mouth of Shockoe
Creek, at prefent occupied, by B. J-. Harris, and
commonly called the Shot FaCtory—the title papers
may be lee» at any time by applying to
THOMAS TAYLOR. & Co. V. M.
N°v- 3L _ ep tds.
at SlffftQIL
WILL lie fold, on Saturday 22nd. inft. at the
Eagle Tavern, that handlome HOUSE and
LOT on Shockoe, at prefent occupied hy Mr. Beit
jantiii Moiby.— I he terms of fide will be payable
lit January next—J 1ft March, and y 1ft July.—
ALSO,
1 wo new Brick HOUSES on the ftreet near the
Canal, and adjoining the property of Mr. M'Kint.
a m. ol Sale—90 days—Notes negotiable at the
Bank of Virginia
O' ill alfo he fold at the fame time and place :
lfi*<72 acres of MILITARY LAND.
T. TAYLOR &. Co. V. M's
Dec. 1>. (eptds)
THIS DAY fS PUBLISHED,
*.ND fOR RALr AT P.ITCttlE tf. WOSSLEr’s
COOK-STORE :
Cue Fatncofes
SERIES FiRST;
Orbirtiillv Pid'i/b.-d in th
RlCI-IMONi) ENQUIRER.
A N aflociation was formed during the Dll fum
- s. mil, by a few gentlemen, of whom form- are
s to, and others have beun,in]iabitan*' of this city, for
the pnrpofr of compoftng a feriis of Mifceliaiieoii*
EfTay* for the Richmond Enquirer. ThHe Effay*
were regular'/ publifhed every Saturday, during
the months of A.:,, ft, September, and October. Thu
l:r!l number appeared nn the nth of Augnft, and the
Du otj the 20th of Oclohcr. ‘I line numbers, taken
together jn th«r order in which they wrre puldillud,
will ronfiitatr the firfi lories of tho Rainbow : and
it is this fir'l feritrs which is now prefciited hy the
prop; jetomof the Enquirer to the amateurs of Litera
ture, and to its patrons in Virginia. The feeond fe
ries wd! probably be communicated to the public in
fne prefem form, as form as it {hall be completed by
the mrmhers of the afT .elation.
Richmond, Dec. 11th, lao4.
FOR S.1LE.
j > *i virtue of a deed of trull, executed to tho fub
1 ) feriber hy David UiiDfpy, fen’r. of Albemarle
county, to fectiro the payment of a debt due Browu,
Watlon atid C<\ and Jok i W.ttfon, will he expuied to
public Die,to the highell bidder fo. ready niottry, on
I uefday tiie full day of January eighteen hundred and
live,at M Ort die, Higginbotham and Co’s Acre, ten
mil ts above Charlotte) rllie, the tradlof land whereon
t,ie laid (•dlafpy at prefi-ut reticles, containing one
hundred and feventy-fi /c acres, he the fa ne more or
k!*- , WILLIAM WOOD, Trujife.
Albemarle, Dec. 8.-~{.iw.
, , FOR SALE.
I) j virtue of a Deed of Truft, executed to the fuh
* fcri"* r hy Walter Watfon of Albemarle county,
to fee 11 re the payment of a debt due Brown, W. fon
Pc Co. will he exj.ntVd to public (ale to th* highefl nid
dei for ready money, on Tuefday tbc firll day of Ja
nuary eighteen hundred and five, et M‘Crrdie, Hig
ginbotham Pc Co’s (lore, ten miles above Charlottef
villc Die I RAC T of LAND whereon the faid
V/atfon at prelent r.-rdes, comainirg two hundred and
lixty-f.iur acre*, be the fame riorn or |ef<?.
OLO: OAR P, LIT. Truf ■>.
Albenrtrl*. Dec. 8. fltv
THE SUBSCRIBER,
Y N ! ENDTNO to dole ail his former tranfuSion*.
* with the termination of the prefent year, requSfts
[ all thofe who have demands again!’. him, cither by
bond, rntc or tipen account, to leave with h r. .5a
mu-’l at the Toll-Bridge, a memorandum of
I the nature of tludr claims amt the amount, in order
that dire«5>iou* may he g:\en for the fpeeay payment of
' them. It i* hoped that this notice will he attended to
ly all who are concerned, as it will he plead in lurto
claims which may at a future diftant day We exhibited
again ft him or his ellate.
JOHN MAYO.
Dec. II. [tf.JJ
Coitgvcfs.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
. Debate in committee of the <who!e,
un the IMPEACHMENT of
JUDGE CHASE.
Monday Dec. <J.
I
Mr. ; arnum in tie Chair.
The reported articles were read.
Mr. Elliott. It will he recollected, Mr.
Chairman, by every memher of the committee
who was prefent at the clofc of the lalt feflion,
that upon the report of the committee of in
quiry, recommending the impeachment of
Judge Chafe, no tnetnhrr but rnyfeif thought
proper, to deliver his fentinients. I feel no in
clination to retravel the ground which I then
occupied in folitnde ; clpccially as the opini
nions which I then advanced remain unaltered.
Nor have I a difpoGtion to embr.rrafs the pro
ceedings. I with, indeed, to funplify them.
But I iecl it my duty to fupgeft that courfc of
proceeding, and that mode of deciGon, which
1 believe to be demanded equally l»y our duty
to the perfon accufed, to'our own confcienccs,
and to cur country; and I fhall l'uggcft them
with confidence rather than with diffidence, be
caufe they arc fo extremely obvious. I believe
it to be our duty deliberately to Invcftigate the
principles involved in the report, fome of which
are certainly novel, and to take diftinft quelti
ons upon each general head of accufation.
Becaule I think Mr. Chafe ought to he impeach
ed for two or three mifdemeanors, I cannot
give my vote in favor of articles accufing him
of eight high crimes and thirty or forty mifde
meanors. If I fhould be fo fortunate as to be,
feconded in the opinions which I entertain up
on this fubjedt, I will move to amend the report
upon the table by ftriking out that part which
relatcsto the condvnfl of Judge Chafe on the tri
al of John Fl ics, and which is now comprifed
in the firft article.
The motion being feconded,
Air. Smilie aficed if the motion was in order,
obferving that the report confifled of a number
ofdiflinct propohtions which he conceived!
were to be confidered in the ufual way article
by article and the queftion would be either to
, concur or non-concnr. The gentleman(Mr.E.)
might gratify his zeal in this way as well as in
the mode he had propof d for finking out, and
the refult would be the fame—It would furnilh
an opportunity for every member tofpeak for
or againlt each article, as well as to amend a
ny.
Mr. Elliott replied that he was not tenacious
of torm. His only object was to obtain diftimft
queftions. If the committee of the whole
were difpofed to purfuc the courfc* pointed out
by the gentleman from Pennfylvania, he would
withdraw his motion.
[ Thr Chairman gave it zz his opinion that the
proper mode of proceeding would be to take
the report up by articles.
On the (irft article being read,
Mr. Elliott moved to flrike it out.
1 he Cl.aim.au fa id the motion to ftrike out
the ft rft fiction was in order, and was ufual in
the cafe of a bill in order to decide upon its
merit—but in independent articles I*ke the pre
fent it would he preferable to take the qucitian
on concurring, fothat the opinion of the com
mittee might be afeertained on each article.
Mr. Smilie exprelTed an indifference as to
the mode of dicifion, but he believed what be !
had fuggefted was conformable to all former
rules and pra«51ices.
Mr. f. Randolph, (after a ihort prune.) laid
that the queftion of concurrence with the fe
le«5t committee in his opinion ought to he taken
on each article, feparntcly, and far his part be
had noobjciflion to*take it upon each lepnratc
member of each article, if any gentleman v.ilh
cd it to he taken in that way
Mr. Nicbohoti obferving that there was no
queftion before the committee, conceived that
one ought to be prcfenled for their decifion.
He therefore mover! that the committee of the
whole concur v th the feledt committee, anda
grcc to the firft article. Which being fccond
ed tin- queftion u put by 1 he Chairman, a di
vilion was catted fer, and 73 members riling in
die affirm dive, it was carried without reverfing
the queftion—71 hi big more th in a majority of
the whole Houfe had all the members beenpre
fent.
'I he 2d artii Ic under confidiriticn.
Mr. Iiavjfon. ’ibis mode of proceeding in
curs fome difficulty which might be prevented
by the motion to ftrike out, as in »).<• tatter
cafe the principle upon which the article is
grounded would betefted, and if the principle
was adopted the phrafeology might hr varied Ik
amended a . might in* thought proper.
Chairman. The committee h is already de
termined to proceed in a difTen-nt manner, it
therefore docs rot reft up on the riifrrction of the
Chair.
Mr.Fm'hc f.rtg'fted the propri'^y of re-din?
the evidence in fupport of each article, <*there
were many gentler..cnhere who were •,•>! p« Cent
at the 1»ft feflio', wiicn trie tcfliinony v.as both
read and printed.
Mr. FtnJt.y lecondcd the moti >n.
Mr. A iebnlf'jtt. Reading the tc'timony will
occupy the whole day. It conftitute* tire volume
in my hand (a volume of apparently voo pa
ste.)
Mr. Smith would not call for it* reading on
hi* own account ; be had -drrady perttfeu the
tf ftimony, but the re v etc frwral gentlemen
now prefent who were not here it the daft itlli
on, who perhaps hare not had an opportunity
of feeing the documer and he believed gentle
men generally voce! with more UttstaCtion or,
fubjedis with which they arc well acquainted
than on thofe where doubt* or apprciienfions
are entertained, liefidm he deemed it r .• e
fafe and dignified to proceed with camion ami
due deliberation on fo ferious a quef.ion a* that
impeaching a pcrfon holding one of the mof
important ft;.'ions in tlie government.
/or. A '.chclfoK. The manner of proceeding
in the be finds of impeachment at thclaft ftfliou
i v. .is, in read fueh parts of the te ftimonv upor
the call of a member as related to the particu
lar arrielc under cnnfnleration. He recollected
upon the impeachment of Judge Pickcringtli.il
the gentleman on the other fide of the Hon ft
ft cur. New-Han p.ftiire called for reading the
particular part of the teftimony, moft likely te
extricate the officer impeached, or produce a
convidl ion in the mint's of others fueh as he felt
himfelf—he hoped the fame courfe of proceed
ing would be adopted by the committee, and
Inch portions wot Id from time to time be read
a? members required.
1 lie Chairman put the queftion on reading
the teftimony generally, which was loft on the
divilion, being only 4o in the affirmative, & 54
in the negative.
I he fecund article being under confidcrati
on.
Mr. Boyle moved to amend the latter part of
the article by ftrikiag out the words in Italic 8c
inferting thof-in a parenthefis—“ John B 'fl'et
one of the Jury who wilhed to be excufed
from ferving on the faid trial beenufe he had
made up his as to (that) the pubficatisn from
I which the words charged to be libellous in the
indictment were ext ratted (was within the ftatue
of the United States upon which the faid Cal
lendar was:ndidted)&c.” Making the allegation
in this way you will find it fully fupported by
the teftimony, foi they are the words of the
teftimony itfclf; it is faid that the 8th Juror
acknowledged that he had formed an unequivo
cal opinion that fueh a book as “ the Profpeft
Before Us” came within the fiditionlaw.
M'"--fuppofed that the rule adopt
ed by the committee againft the reading of the
general teftimony would not prevent particular
parts as they apply to particular points from
being read, h' ’ rtfore called for reading lb
much of the evidence as related to tiie Juror
mentioned in the 2d article.
Mr. Nicbolfin mentioned page 133 of the dc
pofitions of the witnelles on the part i.f the U
uited State.-as the place where tlie cierk would
find what the gentlemen wanted.
Whicl being read as follows:
“ Perhaps it is not improper here to obferve,
that the eighth juror anfwered when the previ
ous queftion was put to him, that though he
had never read or heard the charges in the in
dictment, and knew not what the traverfer had
publiihed, yet he had formed an unequivocal o
pinion, that fueh a book as “ The Profpect Be
fore Us," was, came within the feditmn law:
But no objection was made to him, ar.d he was
fwom like the reft.”
Mr. J. Randolph referred to page 56 near the
top for other coiroborative evidence.
The clerk read the following :
“ One of the jury, John Bail'd, ftated that he
was unwilling to ferve, having made up his mind
as to the book called “ The ProfpeCt, Scc.”
hut as lie acknowledged that he had not formed
and delivered an opinion concerning the charg
es in the indictment,hecaufe in iadt, he knew
not what they were, 4 j ohjtiflien vrjj over-rui
ed.”
I And alfo from page 61. as follows ;
[ “It is to lie oblerved that Mr. Bnfi’et who had
been fummoned on the jury, firmed to have
conliderablc fcruples at ferving, and ftated that
he had exprefled fome opinion as to the “ Prof
pc‘t Before Us.” Judge Chafe howeve- de
clared Mr. Ballet a good juror, and he was
fworn and adted as a juror.”
Mr. J. Randolph thanked hi a friend from
Kentucky for every fnggoftivn tending to Im
prove the report of the committee, confident
that his motives were highly commendable.
The report has been referred by the Houfe to a
committee of the whole fov the pnrpofe of ob
taining by a lull, fair and free difeuflion, two
objects ; firfl, to determine whether the charge#
exnibited arc fuch as the Houfe are willing to
prefer againft the ptrfon impeached, and in or
der if they be found incorrect to make them as
perfect as poflible. On both thefe points I in
vite difeuflion in the name of the fried! commit
tee, wlio brought in this report. At the fame
time I with to fuggeft to my friend (Mr. Boyle)
the nroprictv of re-examining his idea, and af
cert.lining whether the eighth juror alluded to
in the account of Callender's trial is the juror
mentioned in the teflimony of Mr. Hay, and of
Mr. Nicholas. Thefe gentlemen mention the
juror by name. Mr. Robinfon’s account of
the trial mentions him by number. Now if it
Inould appear that the eighth juror was not
Mr. Ballet, niufl nut the article fall to the
ground if the propofed alteration fhould take
place. I think it one of the ftrorgeft circum
ftances in this article tiiata juror was compelled
to fcrve after Rating that he bad made up his
mitul as to the criminal offence on the queflion
he was about being fworn well and truly to try.
The committee will perceive a confiderablc va
riation between the teflimony in page 133 Sc 56.
In the firfl the writer introduces “ with a per
haps it is not improper here to obferve,” that
the eighth juror anfwired when the previous
queflion was put to him, that though he had
never read the indidlmcnt, yet he had formed an
opinion that fuch a book as the « Profpcdt be
fore iu” came within the fedition law. This I
I relieve is the amount of what is faid in that page,
and it appears from this to be an incidental cir
cumftnnrc only; whereas if yon turn to page
56 it is iherc tinted with the clearcft precilion,
that he was unwtyling tofcrve bccaufc he had
made up his mind on the book called the Prof
pccl. It doe* not appear to be drawn from
him by the previous queflion, but it does air
pear fully and unequivocally to be-of his own
[ Mere motion, a conscientious fcruplc to try
what he had already pr.ft judgment upon. In
| >ny opinion the report is better as it Hands than
;it would be with the alteration, and I fubmit to
I my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Boyle) whether
| it would not be better to let the article Hand,
• ithcr than fail before the fc-nate, if it fhould
turn out the »li. juror and Mr.Ballet are diffe
1 pvrfons. t
I *1. »ax/r had heard no objection but which
mir ot i-e obviated b7 another amendment,that
was to it' ike out the name of John RaiTVt, and
tl»en it would 'pply to thejuryman who had uf
tvl the cr.prcfTion ; in that cafe the houfe might
u ly in fultaining their impeachment before the
Senate tip** • die evidence a# well of page 133 as
Oil that of 56. He rnr vrr] 1r> itrike O'.lt *' John
B.ilfet."
Mr. I'Ji'-hzlfcn not think ft reccfTary that
the word* propofrd to be ftricken out Jhotild
be it ruck out. fl<- thought that under the
yvordscontained in tins ar’iclc a”, it f.ood it
• would be pertcctiy te^ ilar and projHr even on
- ■■■ 1IIMH1 >ulilM Bu-\ 3WBLWW
a trial proceeding before the Senate to give it
evidence the teftimony alluded to in page i.s;t
And he had no doubt but the Senate would ad
i mit all evidence of this kind to have its pr ipei
wc'ght, becaufe it fee ms to be univerfally .uh
mitted and has been long underftood, that ir
proceedings by way of impeachment that
technical precision is not required, which i*. re
quired by our courts of law on indictment, il
! however gentlemen are enibnrrafVed,about hav.
: ing this teftimony directly pointed, this may la
I eaf’.ly come at. They can add it to the aiticie
i as another count is added to a bill of irdidtn rr.t.
i This inode is very well known, and may he a
• dopted by thofe who think it neceflary ; for
his part he did not think it neceflary.
I Mr. Boyle withdrew his motion for the pre
fent.
The queftion was now taken on the fecond
article and carried, eighty members riling in the
affirmative.
The th’rd article before the committee.
Mr. J. Randolph read the following teftirno
ny in fupport of this article, viz.
“ When the trial commenced, Col. John
Taylor, of Caroline, was introduced as a wit
nefs for the prifoner. I believe he was fworn.
The counfel wilhed to interrogate him. This
they were not permitted to do, until they had
fiated the points to which his evidence related,
j They were then obliged by Mr. Chafe, to re
j ducc the queftions, which they wiftied to pt o
I pound to Col. Taylor, to writing, and then to
j fubmit them to his ir.fpeCtion, that he might de
J termine whether they fhould be propounded or
not.
| “ Col. Taylor’s evidence was reiedled.
“ The ground of this opinion as Hated by Mr.
j Chafe was this, that col. Taylor could not
prove the whole of one charge. The charge
I was, the judge (Chafe) faid, “ that the Prclident
was a pro lei led arillocrat—that he hnd proved
faithful and l'erviceable to the Britilh intereft.”
Proving half, lie faid, was doing nothing ; both
i tads mult be proved. It was contended, on
! the part of the prilbucr that if it w as neceflary
t; prove both fads by the fame wiliv fs, tire
charge in both points would be proved by the
teftimony of col. Taylor. lie would prove
; that Mr. Adams had prof, iTVd ariftocratjcal
pinions ; and that he bad proved faithful and
fcrviceable to the Britifli intereft, in the way
. meant by “ the Pcofpedt, dec. l>y voting a-.ainft
the feqneftration law, and the law lufpending all
rintercourfe with Great Britain. The judge
(Chafe) repeated that the evidence was in.idnul
liblc, that the counfel knew it to be fo, and that
. they oniy wanted to deceive and to iniflead the
populace.”
And afterwards he added the following viz.
! “ Interrogatory 4tb.—Did Mr. Chafe refufe
to the prifoner the teftimony of a witnefs, be
j caufe he, the faid witnefs, could not prove the
| truth of a!! the fadts fet forth, and upon which
; the indictment was grounded ?
I “ Anf<iver.~After the jury in Callender’s
; cafe were fworn, co!. T aylor, of Caroline, who
; attended as a witnefs, in confequence of a f«b
perna ferved upon him on behalf of Callender,
I was called to fhe book and fworn in the ufual
j form. Judge Chafe at this moment afked, with
* confiderable hafte and eagemefs of manner,
I what the council expected to prove by the wit
| He was informed that they meant toaik him
. nefs?
whether Mr. Adams had not avowed in his
prefence, i'cntiments inimical to a republican
form of government, and whether he did not,
whilft Vice-Prefident, give the rafting vote in
the Senate,againft the fequeftration of Britifh
debts, and againft the fnfpcnfion of intercom fe
will, Great Britain. judge Chafe demanded
that the counfel Ihould ltate in writing the qut f
t'ons meant to be a Iked. The counfel far the
| defendant oppofed thi<*, bccaufe, although a
1 number of witness had been examined on the
part of the United States, no limilar requisition
l hail been made with refpeft to them, txc.mfe
it was contrary to the pradice in the ftate
courts, and becaufe alfo it was unreasonable in
ilfeif, and calculated to fubjedt every queftion
of fadt to the controul of the court. Judue
Chafe, however,infifted that thequeftions fhouTd
be fubmitted to his previous decilion. They
were accordingly put in writing, and were as
follow, to wit :
“ i. Did you ever hear Mr. Adam3 exprefh
any fentiments favorable to monarchy or nrift.>
cracy—and what were they ?
2. Did you ever hear Mr. Adana*, whilft '
Vice Prclident, exprefs hi3 disapprobation 'of
the funding fyftem ?
“ 3. Do you know whether Mr. Adams did j
in the year 1704, vote againft the fequeftration I
ol Britilh debts, and for hopping all intercourle1
with Great Britain ?
“ After having examined the queftion?, judge i
Chafe declared that Col. Taylor's evidence was
inadmiflible. He declared that no evidence
could be received that did not juftify the whole j
cli irge. The charge, fai l lie, is, that the Ira- j
verier faid of the Prrfidcnt, he is a profefted a-’
riftocrat and has proved faithful to the Britilh in- j
tereft ;—now you mult prove both points, or
you prove nothing ; and as your evidence re-!
lates to one only, it cannot hr received—you j
muft prove ail or none. This was in fubftance,j
and it is believed the procife words in which I
judge Chafe ftated his objection to Col. Taylor’s !
cviiience. i nr countei sliced the judge whe
ther they could not he allowed to prove part of*
a charge hy one witnefs and part by another?!
To this judge Chafe replied, that if the connf. I
could prove the whole of any one charge hy
Col. Taylor, they might do it, nthcrwife they I
fhould not examine him. The counfd contend- :
ed that Col. Taylor’s evidence applied to the |
w hole of the charge which the judge had Hated ,
in his opinion—That they meant lo prove hy !
him, that the Prcflder.t had profelTed smi-rr-i
publican fentiments, and had proved faithful j
an I ferviceable to the firitifh interclt, in the I
fenfe in which thofc expreflions were ufed in '
the I’rofprct. The judge, however, adhered to]
! hit determination to exclude the evidence ; and
i Col. Taylor retired from the Court with evi-1
I dent marks of aftonifhtnent.”
The qtteftion was taken upon the third arti
i cle without adivifion, anti carried.
The fourth article lying before the commit
, tee, it was conftderod hy paragraphs.
iVIr. y. Randolph. 'I tie teftimony in fngport
i of the nrH paragraph h.v. been read t>n the pre
j ceding article ; in it is that part of Mr. Nieho
teflimuny ftating *he demand of judge
Chafe that the counfcl fhould ftate in writing
the queftiona meant to Ik: afked.
The Chairman p: j;eeded to re? 1 the fccond
<ph, and
Mr. y. Randolph r ad in its fi.p; or?, the fol
lowing affidavit:
» i i« j. -x*l.' r juiuwli d*t«»
* j (*'?' of Rjct'#?3fiJ* to quit ••
'rhio day James Thomfon Callender, made
■ oath In fore me, a mag'ftrate »or the (hid City,
that Wm. Gardner, Tench Coxe. Judge Dee,
j Timothy Pickering, Win. B. Giles, Steven
j I homluu Mafiip, and gen. Blackburn, he be
1 ieves to be material witnefles in his defence, a
■g iinft an irdiltment found ajrainft him during
the prefer.: term of the circuit Court of the U.
Si.Ut , for the middle circuit, Virginia diltriit;
-- t hat Wm. Gardner, aforefaid, n fides, he 1k
li-ves, in Porrj'j/outb, in the ftate of New-Hamp
Ifiiir ,—That Tench Coxe, aforefaid, refides in
Philadelphia, in the ftate of iVimfylv'r.nia ;—
” hat judge Bee refides, the deponent hath un
j derftood, in South-Carolina, but in what part
i 'i'r Pate he knows not;—That Timothy
Pickering, vefaid, refid: d of late in Pinladel
phia, in the ftateatf Pennfyivania but where he
refi.i;«, ;.t i rirs time the deponent doth r.ot know;
j “ • :iat Wm. B. Giles, aforefaid, he hath un
j oerftood, fir.ee he hath heen fumiflted a
copy of the indiltment, and (ir.ee the laid Giles
liath left town, rc (idea in th»* county of Amelia,
and that Gen. Blackburn rclidrs in the county
, cf Bath. 7
; “The faid Jvrr.er Thomfon Callender fur
ther declares, that he expects *o prove by the
f id Wm. Gardner, and that he vcrilv believes
f that he /ball prove by the Ibid Wra." Gardner,
that the faid Wm. Gardn er vv.-.r. cotnTTnflion.er of
loans for the ftate of New Uampfl.ire, under
' the government of the United States, and tir,t
hr was turned out of the fait] office of edinmiffi
or.cr of loans, becaufe he the faid Gardner u -
I fi led to fubferibe an addr G circulated in t!
\ town of Portfmouth, in Ncw-Hantpfinre, a d
prefented to the Prefidcnt of the United St.;! ,
in the year i?9k, at the inftance of fevera? i
! habitants of the (aid town ; in which agdi. G
unequivocal approbation of the conduct o‘ :he
faid Prefidcnt in the adminiftration of tie. Ur.il
ed States is exprdfed.
“2d. The faid James Thorpfon Callender
fo declares on oath ;—That he verily befit-v •*
that he (hall prove by the evidence of Tench
C ,xe aforefaid, that he, the laid Tench C «y ,
in ♦he year 1793, held an important < ffiee er
drr the government of the United Stater, to v.r,
| commilTioner of the revenue, from \\ hit!: offitr
the laid Coxe was ejected by the prefent Fre
t fident of the United Siaies; bccanf- oc *.’d xiot
: approve the meafures of his, the Cud Prefidcnt'*
j adminiltration, or the principles on which it was
conducted.
“ That he verily believe* he (ball be able to
prove by the evidence of Judge E-e, that he
<hd receive from the Prefidcnt of the U it»d
States in the year 1799, a letter in wi.ich lie the
laid Prefidcnt did advife and requeft the* fanl
Judge Bee, then ailing in his judicial chamltrr,
to deliver to the Conlul of the Britilh nation in
Cbarlefton, Jonathan Robbins alias Thomas
Nat'’, who had been apprehended arid earned
before the laid judge on a charge* of murder
committed on the high feat on bor.vJ the Britifii
frigate Hermione.
“ He farther depofes on oath, that he verily
heljcvcs that he ffiall he able to nrove bv the
e'5'k tjr; of Timeth, Pickering, that tbe-PrcS
dent of the United Spates was in poftbffion of
d.fpatches from Mr. Vans Murrav, American
minifter in Holland, containing affurances on
the part of the French republic, that ambaffa
dors from the United States would be received
in a way fatis? nftory to the people and govern
ment cf t!ie United States, many weeks while
Congrefs was in fcfhon, before lie communicat
ed the fame to Congrcfs.
“ The deponent further faith, that he veri
ly believe* that he fhallfcc able to prove by the
evidence of Stephen Thonipfon Mafon and \Vii
lurn B. Giles, that John Adams Prcfidcut of
t!ic United States, has unequivocally avowed
in converfation with them, principles utterly
incompatible with the principles of the prefect
conflilution of the United States, principles
which could not be carried into operation un
der any puli* ical inflitution without the clta
blifliment of a direct, powerful and d.ing,rou»
ariffoenry ; that he declared in cyprefs terms
to the fair! Stevens Thonipfon Mnfon th't lie
had no more idea of the prefect ft devil cor.flitn
tion could, for any length of time, confix,ul
the people of the United States, than that it
could confront the motions of fli? placets ;
that he alfo declared to the faid Stephens
I hompfon Mdi u, that he had no mo: c Idea
th .» a political Ibciety could cxift. without a
•liftiiuhion of ranks, than that an army could
cxift without officers: and a'So that he can
prove by the faid Wm. B. Giles, that the P.of
the U. S. has avowed in converfation with him
a ft ntiment to this efledt, that he thought H>e
executive department of the U. S, ought to be
veiled with power to direct and controul the
public will.
“ Fh.it thin deponent verily believes that he
Fp1! he .d»!c to prove iiy gen. Blackburn that he
did, on the day of in the year 1798,
receive an idtlrcfs from John Adams P. of the
1J. S. in anfwcr to the field officers of Basil
county, in which the faid Prefsdent does a
vow, that there was a partyin Virginia which
defer ved to !>« humbled into duff and afhes be
fore the indignant frowns of their infuited, &
offended country.
*' And this deponent further faith, that hr is
adrifed and believes that it is material to hig
defence by the indidtment aforeCiid that hr
P »'uld procure authentic copies of fundry an
fwera marie by the Prefident of the United
wtates to addrefTes from the inhabitants of the U.
States in various parts thereof, which an he tie
copies he cannot pro'-nre, fo as to be in icadi
nefs tor trial during the prefent term.
“ He alto faith, that he i; advifed and doth
believe that a certain book entitled “An E'lay
<»n Canon and Feudal Law,” or entitled in words
to th ;t purport, alcrilxd to the Prefident of
the United States, and of which he believed th«
Prefident is the author, is material tolas defence,
and that he cannot procure a copy of the lame,
and cvii |rnc< to prove that the laid Prefident i»
the author thereof, without being allowed frve
ral Wcehs and perhaps months for the purpofe.
“ lie farther faith, that he is told bv the
counfel who means to appear for him, that they
cannot polTihly In- prepared to invtfligatj the
evidence relating to the (everal charges in the
indidnwnt, tven if all the per for. s and docu
ments wanted were upon the fpot.
WM. DUVAL.
Mny 2t»ih, lRf>o.
[ I'll/triil of t'irpinid. )
mb Circuit, \ ° il t‘
1 “ I certify that the foregoing ig truly m; ird
, from the original m mv office.
WILL. MARSHALL.
CIV. CL of’he United St Ue3, Ch ' suit,
1 Vj. i>l.H