Trial of Judge Chase. (continued 6)

If immediately after a transaction, there is a full and clear memory of the words spoken, or the acts done, there is great reason to credit the testimony; but, even in that case, if there are a number of persons equally respectable, having equal opportunity to hear and see, and who were attentive to what took place, and none of them heard or saw what is testified by a single witness, there would be great reason to suspect the affirmative witness to be mistaken; more so if the transactions had happened for some years antecedent to the examination.

But, as to Heath, we do not contradict him merely by negative testimony; we contradict him by a series of positive facts which my honorable colleague (Mr. Key) has detailed, proved by characters, whose veracity cannot be doubted, which positive facts incontestably show that what he swore never could have taken place. And, here again, permit me, sir, to make a further observation, that, where a person is charged criminally for words he is supposed to have uttered, those words ought to be proved with precision. Every witness on this occasion, who hath been examined as to expressions used by my honorable client, either on the one or the other charge, which are held as exceptionable, declares he cannot pretend to recollect the express words uttered by the judge, but only to state what at this distance of time he can consider the amount of what was said. Nay, Messrs. Lewis and Dallas declare further, that they cannot pretend to say with accuracy, what part of the conversation, of which they give testimony, took place on the first or the second day, or in what order. Such kind of testimony, therefore, ought to be received with great caution, and not to be considered as conclusive.

Having laid down these general principles as to the relative rights and duties of the Court, the bar, and the jury, I shall proceed with my honorable client to the State of Pennsylvania.

It was known that John Fries, charged with treason, had, on a former trial, been found guilty, and that a new trial had been granted upon a suggestion, which I hope will not become a precedent, will never be a rule for decisions. When I say this, I mean not to detract from the merit of that highly-respectable character who presided, and who granted the new trial. His conduct flowed, I am convinced, from his humanity; his was the error of the heart, not of the head. It was an honest, nay, an amiable error. My honorable client knew, when he arrived at Philadelphia, that the trial of Fries was to take place that term. He has been acknowledged by the honorable Managers, to be a gentleman of the highest legal talents. In this they have only done him justice; and have been as prodigal of their praise as his warmest friends could have wished. It would have given me great pleasure if they had been as just in expressing their sense of his integrity. He had been in the practice of the law for forty years, and also a judge for a number of years, and for about six years, I believe, presided in the criminal court of Baltimore County, where, during that time, there were more criminal trials probably than in any other court in America. I believe I speak moderately, when I say, that I have attended, on behalf of the State, at least five thousand criminal trials in that court. From those circumstances it is to be presumed that he was not deficient in knowledge of what related to criminal proceedings; but would he have acted the part of an upright judge, if he had not endeavored to make himself master of the law of treason, when a case of that nature was about to come before him; particularly the law of treason, as it related to levying war against the United States, or in adhering to those who levied war against them, which is the only kind of treason that our constitution acknowledges; although I have heard, I must own, of treason against the principles of the constitution, and treason against the sovereignty of the people—words well enough suited to a popular harangue, or a newspaper essay, but not for a court of justice.

When Judge Chase arrived at Philadelphia he had the advantage of perusing the notes of Judge Peters and the district attorney, relating to the former trial; he thereby became well acquainted with all the points at that time made by the counsel for Fries; and Mr. Lewis has sworn, that all the points which were intended to have been made before Judge Chase, had been made at the former trial. Why then should the Court either wish, or be obliged to hear counsel again on the law? In two previous cases the law had been settled. Judge Patterson, a gentleman of the first abilities, mild and amiable, whom no person will charge of being of a vindictive, oppressive disposition, and who certainly has more suavity of manners than my honorable client had, after a most patient and full hearing, where eminent counsel attended, decided the law as it was decided by the respondent. Judge Iredell, whose encomium has been most justly given us by the Managers, a gentleman of great legal talents, than whom no worthier man has left this for a better world; and who, while living, honored me with his friendship, after having heard Messrs. Lewis and Dallas, and after full and patient investigation, gave, in the case of Fries himself, a similar decision; in both which opinions Judge Peters perfectly coincided. Under these circumstances, Judge Chase, who had no doubt of the propriety of those decisions, to prevent waste of time when there was so much business to transact, and to facilitate the business, thought it best to inform the counsel on each side, that the Court considered the law to be settled, and in what manner. For which purpose they delivered to the clerk three copies of their opinion, one for the counsel on each side, the third to be given to the jury, when they left the bar. On this subject, Mr. Lewis, in his testimony, said it was to be given to the jury when the counsel of the United States had opened, or after he had closed the pleadings, but he believed the last. Mr. Rawle is clear that it was to be given to them, when the case was finished, to take out with them.

No gentleman on behalf of the impeachment has denied the correctness of this opinion. But the criminality of the judge is, we are told, not in the opinion itself, but in the manner and the time in which it was given.

Was there any thing improper that the opinion should be reduced to writing? Why are opinions given? Surely to regulate the conduct of those to whom given; for this purpose they ought to be perfectly understood, and in no degree subject to misconception; delivering the opinion, in writing, greatly facilitates these objects; if, therefore, it was proper to give an opinion, it was meritorious to reduce it to writing, and Judge Chase, in so doing, most certainly acted with the strictest propriety. And, unless a court of justice is bound to sit and hear counsel on points of law, where they themselves have no doubts, before they give their opinion, my honorable client could not be incorrect in delivering it at the time when it was delivered. If the opinion was proper, how, I pray, could any injury be done to Fries by its being delivered? The honorable Managers say, it was intended to influence the jury. In the first place, this assertion is not supported by the evidence. When the paper was thrown on the clerk’s table, not one word was said of its contents; nor did the Court declare any opinion on Fries’s case. They only determined the indictment correct in point of form, and not liable to be quashed. They determined that the overt acts stated were overt acts of treason, if Fries had committed them, but whether Fries had committed those acts remained for the jury to determine upon the evidence; as to that part of the case the Court gave no opinion. But the honorable Managers have told us that Judge Chase must have known what were the facts in the case, because they had been disclosed in the former trial. And I pray you, sir, if he had the knowledge, could it alter the law in the case, or render the declaration of what the law was more improper? But, as a new trial was granted, the judge could not know what additional evidence might be brought forward to vary the case from its former appearance.

But if the opinion had been publicly read and known, how could it have injured Fries? He was to have an impartial trial. What is the meaning of these expressions? It is a trial according to law and fact, in which, if he is proved innocent, he shall be acquitted; if guilty, convicted. If, then, the opinion was agreeable to law, it could not prevent, it could not interfere with his having an impartial trial. If in any case a person is acquitted, when the facts are clearly proved, and the law is against him, it must be because he has had a partial, not an impartial trial.

Well, be it so, and let us consider the trial of Fries as if it had been conducted on that principle. The judges, with their minds like this white sheet of paper, were to sit still and suffer the counsel to scrawl thereon whatever characters they pleased, to blot and to blur it, until they were perfectly satisfied. After this ceremony, the judges, examining the impressions thus made upon the antecedent clean sheet, were from these, and these only, to form their opinion of the law; and this opinion, having been thus formed from nothing but what occurred during the trial, and after the jury were sworn, would not be called a prejudicated opinion, and therefore, I presume, would be perfectly satisfactory to the honorable Managers. So far we should have done very well as it related to the trial of Fries. But next day another criminal is to be tried for a similar offence; Messrs. Lewis and Dallas are not his defenders. Getman has selected Mr. Tilghman for his counsel. How, I pray you, are the judges to be qualified to preside with propriety in this trial? Yesterday they gave a solemn determination in Fries’s case upon the same question of law which now must come forward in the case of Getman. Mr. Tilghman was not then heard. The opinion then given is, as to Mr. Tilghman and his client, as much a prejudicated opinion, an opinion as contaminating to the hands of a lawyer to receive, and as highly criminal for a court to give, as was the opinion given by my honorable client. What can be done? The minds of the judges are no longer a pure unsullied sheet of paper. Yesterday, in the trial of Fries, they had been scrawled upon and sullied by Lewis and Dallas; the impressions still remain. I, sir, can think of no remedy in this difficulty, except that the judges should be supplied with a reasonable quantity of India rubber, or something which will answer in its place, with which they might wipe off and erase every impression which had been made the day before by Lewis and Dallas, during the trial of Fries; and thus once more take their seats on the bench for the trial of Getman, with minds again like clean sheets of white paper, ready to be again scrawled over, again to be blotted and blurred at the pleasure of Mr. Tilghman, and from these scrawls, blots, and blurs, and from these alone, to take their impressions as to the law, and form their decision as to Getman’s case, without regarding, or even remembering the decision they had given the day before; and in this manner to proceed in every case that might come before them successively in their judicial capacity.

I shall conclude what relates to this article by observing that the conduct of Fries’s counsel to the Court on that trial was such as nothing can excuse. It can only be palliated by the reflection, that for his crimes he was liable to suffer death. Feelings of humanity and compassion, independent of interest, might excite in their bosoms an earnest anxiety to save his life; this may serve to mitigate censure; but even those feelings, however amiable, ought not to be gratified at the expense of national justice, nor by an endeavor to stamp upon judges of uprightness and integrity the dishonorable charge of partiality and oppression. I fear, sir, I have been tedious on this article; but it will be considered that, whatever may be my own sentiments of the futility of any part of these charges, I cannot determine how far this honorable Court may correspond with me in sentiment; nor can I do otherwise than treat, as of consequence, any charge brought forward by the honorable House of Representatives, or not consider it as being of importance.

The second article goes on to charge Judge Chase with overruling the objection of John Basset, who wished to be excused from serving on the jury in the trial of Callender, and causing him to be sworn, and to serve on the said jury by whose verdict Callender was convicted.

This article requires a discussion of the law relating to challenges of jurors, and whether Mr. Basset was legally sworn on that jury. And here again, as well as in the case of Fries, I meet with the most perfect novelties, for except in those trials I never heard of jurors, when called to be sworn, examined on oath whether they had formed, or formed or delivered, or whether they had formed and delivered an opinion on the subject about to be tried. And here also let me observe, that there is no just grounds for the charge that Judge Chase from partiality administered the oath differently in Callender’s case from the manner in which he administered it to the jurors in the case of Fries; for Mr. Rawle, referring to his notes taken at the time, has told us that in the case of Fries, one or two of the first jurors were only asked whether they had formed an opinion, after which the question was put whether he had formed or delivered an opinion, but ultimately the question asked was, whether they had formed and delivered an opinion, which question was put to the greater part of the jurors; so that the interrogatory ultimately fixed upon in the case of Fries, is the same which was put to all the jurors who were interrogated in the case of Callender.

I have, Mr. President, been in the practice of the law for thirty years. Before the Revolution I attended, two or three years, the two counties on the Eastern Shore of Virginia—Sussex County in Delaware, and Somerset and Worcester in Maryland; since the Revolution I have constantly attended the general courts on the Western and Eastern Shores of Maryland, and the civil and criminal courts of Baltimore County, and for about six years several other counties in Maryland. In the whole course of my practice, I have never known a single case, either civil or criminal, in which the jurors have been, when called to the book, demanded to answer upon oath either of the aforesaid questions which the defendant’s counsel requested to be put to them.

If either party choose to challenge a juror for favor, on account of declarations made by the juror, the only ground for it is that he has used expressions showing his determination to decide for one party or the other without regard to truth and justice. In which case the party makes his objection to the particular juror, specifying the expressions uttered by the juror indicative of such improper determination, and produces witnesses to establish his objection; for the juror cannot be examined on oath to substantiate the charge; and, unless by mutual consent, the objection made must be decided, not by the Court, but by triers. And the only matter to be decided is, whether the juror has made any declaration of a design to give a verdict one way or the other, whether right or wrong; for if the juror made the declarations from his knowledge of the facts in the case, this would be no cause of challenge, nor any objection to his being sworn on the jury. And as the juror himself against whom such objection is made cannot be examined on oath, it follows, of course, he cannot be challenged for having formed an opinion, but only for having delivered it, as third persons cannot know of an opinion being formed but by its having been delivered. And, as I have observed already, even the delivery of an opinion is no cause of challenge, if it appears to have been founded upon the juror’s knowledge of facts, and not from partiality. In consequence of this principle of law, it can be no objection against a juror being sworn, even though he should have the most perfect knowledge of every fact relative to the issue, to try which he is about to be sworn; on the contrary, the principal reason assigned why trials ought to be by jurors from the vicinage, is the presumption that they will be best acquainted with the facts which will be put in issue for their decision.

I now come, Mr. President, to the third article, wherein my honorable client is criminally charged for the rejection of the evidence proposed to be derived from Colonel John Taylor.

In this part of the case the facts are admitted. The next question of law, therefore, which presents itself for discussion is, whether or not Col. Taylor’s evidence ought to have been received, or was properly rejected. Here again I must observe that the honorable Managers, to support their charge, resort to principles which are to me, to the last extremity, strange and novel. We are told that the Court have no right to order questions which are meant to be put to a witness to be reduced to writing. Nay, that the Court have no right to know what evidence is meant to be given by the witnesses, or its connection with other testimony, or its bearing on the cause, but to receive it drop by drop, as the counsel think proper to deal it out. In answer to these extraordinary ideas which we have had thus introduced, I must be permitted to assert that the Court have, in my opinion, an undoubted right to require of the counsel that they should open their case, explain the nature of the evidence meant to be given, and on the production of a witness, state what they expect to prove by such witness. In the course of my practice it has been the usual method of proceeding for counsel to conduct themselves in this manner, and on this subject McNally, in his rules of evidence, page 14, expressly lays it down as a rule, “that counsel ought not to call a witness without first opening to the Court the nature of the evidence they intend to examine into. This has been often solemnly adjudged, though not strictly adhered to in practice.” And in page second he gives us as the first rule, “that no evidence ought to be admitted to any point but that on which the issue is joined.” But how is a court to prevent, and it is only the Court which can prevent, evidence being admitted which is not pertinent to the point on which the issue is joined, unless they are first informed what evidence is meant to be given? It is then upon the authority of McNally established that the Court have the legal right to know what counsel mean to prove by a witness; and having that right, they may exercise it whenever, in their discretion, they may think it necessary.

Let us now examine the set of words to which Colonel Taylor’s evidence was meant to apply; they were without any innuendo, as follows: “He was a professed aristocrat; he had proved faithful and serviceable to the British interest.”

This sentence consists of two separate distinct clauses or parts; the first, that “he was a professed aristocrat;” the second, that “he had proved faithful and serviceable to the British interest.” I ask this honorable Court if either of these clauses or parts, of themselves, and without an innuendo, carry with them any charge of criminality, or any thing libellous? To say that a man is an aristocrat, a democrat, or a republican, is not of itself charging the person with any thing criminal, nor is it slanderous, unless indeed the charge is accompanied with an innuendo, stating that, by the epithet so used, something very bad was intended; and that government would indeed merit contempt in which a person should be punished upon such a charge. So, also, to say that a man had been faithful and serviceable to the British interest charges him with nothing criminal, and therefore cannot be slanderous, because the British and the American interest in many instances have been and may be the same.

There may be a variety of instances in which the interest of two nations may concur. There have been many in which the interest of America and of Britain did concur; many also in which the interest of America and France have combined. In the first instance a man may have been faithful and serviceable to Britain, in the other to France, without the violation of any duty to the United States—without having been guilty of the least criminality.

The sentence then taken altogether, connecting the two clauses, does not of itself import any thing criminal, and consequently is not slanderous, if it remained without any innuendo; and if it was free from an innuendo, being not slanderous, would not require any evidence relative thereto. Nay, it would be no part of the charge put in issue, for in legal construction it is only such part of the publication stated in an indictment which is slanderous; that is the point in issue.

As to the second question, to wit: “Whether Mr. Adams, while Vice President, had expressed his disapprobation of the funding system?” the question could not be in any degree relevant to the one or the other clause in the sentence. Whether Mr. Adams expressed his disapprobation, while he was Vice President, of the funding system, or not, could in no respect go to prove or disapprove his being a professed aristocrat, or his having sacrificed the interest of the United States to the interest of Great Britain. The Court, therefore, considering this question totally irrelevant to the “point in issue,” did as was their duty to do, they refused to suffer it to be put to the witness.

So much for the two first questions. We now come to the third, respecting the votes of Mr. Adams, when Vice President, against the bill for the sequestration of British debts, and the bill for suspending intercourse with Great Britain. For the conduct of my honorable client in refusing to permit this question to be put to Colonel Taylor, two reasons may be assigned; the first, that if the fact was as stated, it could not be proved by Colonel Taylor. The second, that if the fact was established it would be totally immaterial to the issue; Colonel Taylor’s evidence was not the best which the nature of the case admitted. I will not say that the traverser, in order to prove this vote, was under the necessity of procuring a copy from the Journal of the Senate, properly authenticated by their clerk, but he certainly ought at least to have produced a printed copy of the votes and proceedings of the Senate, as published by them. One thing at least is certain, that the traverser could not, consistently with rules of law, give parol evidence to establish the vote of Mr. Adams, and therefore that Colonel Taylor could not be legally examined on that subject. But I will go further in defence of my client, and will say, that if they had had the best possible evidence of the fact, if they had had an attested copy from the records of the Senate, the judge would have departed from his duty if he had permitted the evidence which was wished to have been obtained from Colonel Taylor to have been given to the jury. Ought any evidence to be given to a jury which is not proper and pertinent to prove the fact in issue, or to prove some fact from which the fact in issue ought legally to be inferred—evidence not relevant to the point before the Court and jury? Was not, as to this part of the charge, the fact in issue, whether Mr. Adams had swerved from his duty by intentionally prostrating the interest and welfare of his country to the interest and welfare of Great Britain? Should not a charge of so atrocious a nature be proved by some direct act of this criminal sacrifice of the interests of the United States to the interest of Great Britain, or by the proof of some other act from which such criminal sacrifice must and ought on principles of law to be clearly and necessarily inferred? And what was the proof proposed to be offered for the purpose? That upon the question whether British debts should be sequestered, and whether our intercourse with Great Britain should be suspended, after full discussion one-half the members of the Senate voted in favor of those measures, and one-half of the Senate against them; and that in this situation Mr. Adams, thinking them of too hazardous a nature, and such as might involve our country in a war, did not choose to take upon himself so great a responsibility as to give his casting voice in the affirmative.

I shall now, sir, proceed to the fourth article, which charges the respondent’s conduct to have been marked during the whole course of the trial by manifest injustice, partiality, and intemperance.

From the evidence it certainly appears that Judge Chase prevented the counsel from arguing to the jury that the sedition law was unconstitutional; and this seems to have given rise to a great portion of the altercation and ill-humor between the Court and the bench.

I admit that the constitution gives to a criminal the right of having counsel; but the constitution has not defined the rights or duties of counsel, or to what extent they are to exercise them. One thing, however, is certain; that they have no constitutional right to impose upon the Court or mislead the jury.

When Callender’s counsel contended that if the jury have a right to decide questions of law, then the constitution being the supreme law of the land, the jury must of course have the power of deciding on the constitutionality of a law; the judge might well say it was a non sequitur.

What has been allowed to the jurors as their incidental right on the general issue? Not to decide whether there is an existing law, or whether a law is in force, but to declare the true construction of an existing law, and whether the case at issue comes within the true construction of such law.

But those who contend that the jury have a right to determine the constitutionality of a law, insist not for the power of the jury to decide its true construction and whether the prisoner’s case comes within it, but to decide whether what is produced as law is not void, a mere nullity, a dead letter; or in other words, whether such a law is in existence. The maddest enthusiasts for the rights of jurors, their most zealous advocates, have never contended for such a right before the cases of Fries and Callender. Whether a law exists, whether a law has been enacted, whether a law has been repealed, whether a law has become obsolete or is in force? The decision of these questions hath always been allowed the exclusive right of the Court. The power of the Court to decide exclusively upon these questions hath never been before controverted. Nay, the very right claimed on behalf of jurors, that they may determine what is the true construction of the law, and whether the case is within its provisions, of itself necessarily presupposes, and is predicated upon the existence of a law, the construction or meaning of which they are to determine. It has indeed been seriously questioned, and that by gentlemen of great abilities, whether even the Judiciary have a right to declare a law, passed by the Legislature, to be contrary to the constitution and, therefore, void! I shall not enter into an examination of that question, but I have no hesitation in saying that a jury have no such right, that it never was intended they should have such right, and that if they had the right, we might as well be without a constitution.

The first specific instance of my client’s unjust, partial, and intemperate conduct, which is stated in this fourth article is, that he compelled the traverser’s counsel to reduce to writing the questions which they meant to propound to Colonel Taylor. The correctness of this procedure will depend on the question whether the Court had by law such a power, for if such a power was possessed by them, it is to be presumed that they, on that occasion, exercised it according to their best discretion, nor can it be inferred that their conduct was criminal, because the procedure was novel in Virginia. There are cases in which the practice of a court may be considered the law of the court; but these are not in any manner analogous to the case in question; nor do I find the practice of the State courts is obligatory “in any case of this kind on the courts of the United States.” My honorable client did not consider what was usual in Virginia, but what was correct and proper; he knew that the law authorized him to make this demand. In Maryland, where he imbibed his legal knowledge, and where at the bar and on the bench he had carried it into practice, nothing was more common than for questions to be reduced to writing at the request of counsel, or at the request of the Court. If counsel doubt of the propriety of the evidence meant to be drawn from the witness, or the correctness of the question meant to be propounded to him, they have a right to request it to be reduced to writing. So also, if the Court, without whose approbation no testimony can be given to a jury, and whose duty it is to prevent improper testimony to be given, has reason to suspect an intention to introduce such evidence, they have a right, and they ought to require the questions to be reduced to writing, that there may be no misapprehension of the tendency of the question, and that they may more deliberately decide whether it is proper to be put to the witness. And in this case, the counsel were not required to reduce their questions to writing in the first instance, or before they had stated what they had meant to prove, as hath been suggested. When Colonel Taylor was called and sworn, the Court desired to be informed what they meant to prove by him. McNally is an authority that in so doing they acted legally. The counsel stated the facts, to prove which Colonel Taylor was called; upon which, the Court doubting the admissibility of the testimony directed the question to be reduced to writing for their consideration. It cannot for a moment be seriously contended, but that the Court had a right so to do. As my respectable colleague (Mr. Key) has observed, the practice of this honorable Court during this trial, hath perfectly sanctioned that part of my client’s conduct. If at any time a question has been put, the propriety of which hath been doubted, it has been directed to be reduced to writing. It is true, that this has been, principally, when an objection has been made by the counsel; but there can be no doubt, that if any honorable member of this Court had apprehended the question to be improper, the Court would have had a right, and would have directed the question to be propounded in writing for their consideration. The propriety, the principle, in each case is the same. On this part of the charge I need not dwell any longer.

The next instance of the judge’s conduct specified in this article is his refusal to continue Callender’s case to the next term, notwithstanding the affidavit filed, and the applications made. On this subject, I shall not make many observations as to the law; but I may venture to assert that the conduct of Judge Chase in this instance also appears to have been free from any corrupt or oppressive motive or design; no part of his conduct on this occasion has been produced to show that he entertained a disposition to prevent Callender from obtaining the testimony of his witnesses, or deprive him of the necessary time to procure their attendance. Let it be recollected that the first affidavit prepared and proposed to be filed in order to obtain a continuance of the cause was a general affidavit. By the laws of England a general affidavit is not sufficient to entitle the party to a continuance, and upon principles of law as adopted in England and the United States, at least in Maryland, a supplemental affidavit cannot in a case of this nature be received.

If, then, Judge Chase had wished that Callender should have been, at all events, prevented from a continuance of his cause, he would have suffered them to file their general affidavit.

Why should capital cases, rather than inferior crimes, be tried at the first court? The honorable Managers admit that it is the general rule not to continue, but to try at the first term, capital cases. Surely if indulgence, if delay is necessary in any case, it is in a capital case, where life is at risk; where an injury, if done, is irretrievable!

There are many reasons which show the propriety that prosecutions of every kind should be decided with as little delay as possible. One of the principles as to criminal jurisprudence, as Governor Claiborne has justly observed, is, that though punishments should be mild, yet they ought to be speedy; by having an immediate decision there is a great certainty that the criminal shall not elude justice by flight.

The next specification, in this article, of improper conduct in the judge, is, that he “used unusual, rude, and contemptuous expressions towards the prisoner’s counsel; and insinuated that they wished to excite the public fears and indignation, and to produce that insubordination to the law, to which the conduct of the judge did at the same time manifestly tend.” As to this part of the charge, there is but little of a legal nature contained in it, I shall, therefore, hastily pass over it. If true, it seems to be rather a violation of the principles of politeness, than of the principles of law; rather the want of decorum, than the commission of a high crime and misdemeanor. I will readily agree that my honorable client has more of the “fortiter in re,” than the “suaviter in modo,” and that his character may in some respects be considered to bear a stronger resemblance to that of Lord Thurlow than to that of Lord Chesterfield; yet Lord Thurlow has ever been esteemed a great legal character, and an enlightened judge.

But let me ask this honorable Court whether there is not great reason to believe that the sentiments my honorable client expressed with respect to the conduct of the counsel, and their object, was just and correct? What was the conduct of Callender’s counsel? Was it not such as immediately tended to inflame the minds of the bystanders, and to excite their indignation against the Court, and highly insulting to the judges? In the first place, they endeavored to obtain a continuance of the cause to the next court, merely with an intention to procure delay, and to prevent the cause being tried before Judge Chase, acknowledging that they had no hopes or expectation from any testimony to save their client if the law was determined to be constitutional; and yet they brought forward their client to swear just what they pleased, in order to procure this delay, with respect to the necessity of witnesses, whose testimony they acknowledged they were conscious could be of no service to them, and yet they wished the bystanders to consider the Court acting highly improper for not granting that continuance? Was this even to serve Callender? No, they avow they did not appear to serve him, but to serve the cause. Sir, it appears from their own evidence that Callender would have submitted to the Court, but for their interference; that they volunteered on the occasion not for him, but for their cause; and yet the volunteers wanted the Court to give them to another term to prepare themselves, and made Callender swear what they pleased to effect their purpose. They said they were not well acquainted with the law upon libels, and therefore wanted time to examine the subject; but surely when persons undertake to volunteer their services on any subject, they ought to be masters of it, and are entitled to no indulgence of delay. And as they declare they had formed the determination, on the first instance of an indictment under the sedition law, to come forward and volunteer their services for the sake not of the man, but of their cause, common decency to the Court, and a proper respect for themselves, ought to have dictated to them in the interim to have made themselves fully acquainted with all the law relative to that subject in which they had thus determined officiously to interpose.

When my honorable client went from Baltimore to Richmond, to hold the circuit court, he knew how violently that State was opposed to the enforcement of this law; but he equally knew that it was his duty to carry it into execution, without regard to the sentiments of any portion of the community, or however disagreeable it might be to them. Under these circumstances he went to Richmond, and found the counsel, from the first step in this cause, attempting, as he could not but consider it, to inflame the audience and excite their indignation against him. My honorable client, who well knows mankind, and has been accustomed to popular assemblies, appears to have been anxious, as his best security, to keep the bystanders in good humor, and to amuse them at the expense of the very persons who were endeavoring to excite the irascibility of the audience against him. Hence the mirth, the humor, the facetiousness, by which his conduct was marked during the trial; and which, most fortunately, was attended with the happy consequence he hoped from it, for it is admitted that he kept the bystanders in great good humor, and excited peals of laughter at the expense of the counsel, as the witness very justly concludes, for he says, “the counsel did not appear to join in the laugh.” And this, sir, most satisfactorily accounts for the more than usual exertion of his facetious talents on the trial of Callender; and I doubt not was the real cause of that exertion.

But the judge is also charged with great rudeness in the manner in which he replied in one part of the argument to Mr. Wirt, just at a time when that gentleman had finished a syllogism, by replying that it was a non sequitur. I will state the transaction: Mr. Wirt having, as he supposed, established the position, that the jury had a right to decide the law as well as the fact, he proceeded to state that the constitution was the supreme law of the land, and, therefore, that since the jury had a right to decide the law, and the constitution was also the law, the jury must certainly have a right to decide the constitutionality of a law made under it; and this conclusion was, as he declared, perfectly syllogistic. As Mr. Wirt had assumed the character of a logician in his argument, nothing could be more natural than for the judge, in his answer, to assume the same character; he therefore replied, like a logician, “A non sequitur, sir”—the correct answer to a syllogism which is rather lame in its conclusion. But it seems this answer was accompanied by a certain bow. As bows, sir, according to the manner they are made, may, like words, according to the manner they are uttered, convey very different meanings; and as it is as difficult to determine the merit or demerit of a bow without having seen it, as it is the expression of words without having heard them; to discover, therefore, whether there was any thing rude or improper in this bow, I could have wished that the witness, who complained so much of its effect, had given us a fac simile of it. Had we been favored not only with the answer, but also with a complete fac simile of the bow, we might have been enabled to have judged of the propriety of my honorable client’s conduct in this instance. But it seems this bow, together with the “non sequitur,” entirely discomfited poor Mr. Wirt, and down he sat “and never word spake more!” If so, it was a saving of time. But we have no proof that Mr. Wirt meant to have proceeded any further in the argument, even had he not been encountered with this formidable bow and non sequitur. And the presumption is, that having condensed the whole force of his argument into a syllogistic form, and, finding his syllogism did not produce the conviction intended, he took his seat without wishing to spend more of his breath in what, after the failure of his logical talents, he no doubt considered a fruitless attempt. Mr. Nicholas followed Mr. Wirt. He is a gentleman mild and polite in his manners; he was treated by the Court with politeness. He did not persist in addressing the jury contrary to the decisions of the Court; he, therefore, met with no interruptions.

But, sir, there is another charge which has been made against my honorable client, to justify that part of the article which accuses him of rudeness. It is said that speaking of Callender’s counsel, or addressing himself to them, he called them “young gentlemen.” To me it appears astonishing that these expressions, if used by the judge, should be thought reproachful to the counsel, or a proper subject of a criminal charge; and it gave me real pleasure to find that Mr. Nicholas, whose whole conduct marks him as a gentleman, did not consider them as offensive. He has observed that he was young at the time, and whoever has seen him as a witness, must be convinced of the truth of his assertion. But we are told that Mr. Wirt was at that time about thirty years of age, had been a married man, and was then a widower. It doth not appear that Judge Chase knew of these circumstances; but if he had, considering that Mr. Wirt was a widower, he certainly erred on the right side, if it was an error, in calling him a young gentleman. But, sir, let it be considered that my honorable client has been stated by the honorable Managers, to be nearly threescore and ten, let also his great legal attainments be considered, and let me ask, if any person can think his addressing gentlemen, so much inferior to himself in age and knowledge, by the epithet of “young gentlemen,” offensive to them, much less criminal as to the public? But as another instance of his rudeness we are told, that, addressing himself to Mr. Wirt, who observed that “he was going on,” the judge replied, “No, sir, I am going on, therefore sit down, sir.” This address was made by the judge to Mr. Wirt, when he (the judge) was about to give a long opinion to him and the counsel employed with him, which opinion, upon Mr. Wirt’s sitting down, the Court did give; and pray, sir, was there the least impropriety in a situation of that nature, that the Court should desire the counsel to be silent and to take their seats?

Before Judge Chase went from Baltimore to hold the circuit court at Richmond, he knew that the sedition law had been violated in Virginia. I had myself put into his hands “The Prospect before Us.” He felt it his duty to enforce the laws of his country. What, sir, is a judge in one part of the United States to permit the breach of our laws to go unpunished because they are there unpopular, and in another part to carry them into execution, because there they may be thought wise and salutary? And would you really wish your judges, instead of acting from principle, to court only the applause of their auditors? Would you wish them to be what Sir Michael Foster has so correctly stated, the most contemptible of all characters, popular judges; judges who look forward, in all their decisions, not for the applause of the wise and good, of their own consciences, of their God, but of the rabble, or any prevailing party? I flatter myself that this honorable Senate will never, by their decision, sanction such principles! Our Government is not, as we say, tyrannical, nor acting on whim or caprice. We boast of it as being a Government of laws. But how can it be such, unless the laws, while they exist, are sacredly and impartially, without regard to popularity, carried into execution? What, sir, shall judges discriminate? Shall they be permitted to say, “This law I will execute, and that I will not; because in the one case I may be benefited, in the other I might make myself enemies?” And would you really wish to live under a Government where your laws were thus administered? Would you really wish for such unprincipled, such time-serving judges? No, sir, you would not. You will with me say, “Give me the judge who will firmly, boldly, nay, even sternly, perform his duty, equally uninfluenced, equally unintimidated by the “Instantis vultus tyranni,” or the “ardor civium prava jubentium!” Such are the judges we ought to have; such I hope we have, and shall have. Our property, our liberty, our lives, can only be protected and secured by such judges. With this honorable Court it remains, whether we shall have such judges!”

Monday, February 25.

Mr. Harper.—It was greatly to be desired, Mr. President, and might have been confidently expected, that in a case every way so important, where it so greatly concerns the public happiness that the decision should command the public confidence, nothing would be presented to the view of this honorable Court in aid of the prosecution, except the law which ought to govern the decision, and the proofs relied on for supporting the allegations.

But it has not so seemed good to the honorable Managers. They have thought proper to introduce into the discussion, the political opinions and party connections of the respondent, for the purpose of throwing a shade of doubt over his motives and of establishing inferences unfavorable to his character. How far this conduct ought to be commended, it is not for me to decide. My confidence in the justice and discernment of this honorable Court forbids me to apprehend that it can be successful.

But since these opinions and connections have been introduced, permit me to use them for a different purpose.

The duty imposed on judges is at all times delicate, and in criminal cases, where life or liberty may be affected, where reputation, dearer than both, depends on the issue, this duty becomes peculiarly arduous and painful to an honorable and generous mind. But if there be a situation more delicate, more embarrassing than every other to such a mind, it is that of a judge sitting on the trial of a person who, from political opposition, or any other cause, may have excited hostile or angry feelings in his mind. It is then that he most fears to trust himself. It is then that he most dreads the influence of his passions in misleading his judgment. It is then that he feels the strongest alarm for his reputation, lest he should possibly afford ground for the suspicion that he had gratified his resentments under the semblance of executing the law. Hence he constantly leans towards the side of the accused, and requires the clearest conviction before he condemns. Hence he rejects all doubtful or contradictory testimony, lays out of the case all little indiscretions and slight shades of suspicion; and is rigid in requiring from the prosecutors the unequivocal proof of unequivocal offences. That his enemy is in his power, is always a reason for the utmost forbearance. The fear that he may possibly be misled by his passions, is always a reason for acquittal, where doubt can exist.

Need I invoke these noble and generous sentiments in the breasts of this honorable Court? No! my heart tells me I need not. I see on those benches distinguished soldiers and eminent statesmen, who have triumphed alike in the fields of politics and war, and who always disdained to tarnish their laurels by the blood or humiliation of a vanquished foe.

If, then, the person now arraigned at your bar be connected with a political party in opposition to any of those who sit as his judges; if it were possible that, in promoting the views of that party, he may have excited feelings of anger or resentment in the mind of any member of this honorable tribunal; if it were possible that any portion of the angry passions engendered by the conflicts of party could find a place within these hallowed walls, and could attach itself to him who stands upon his trial at this bar, the existence of such a possibility would furnish every member of this honorable Court with the strongest motives that can operate on a generous and noble mind, for leaning constantly to the side of the accused, and for pronouncing in favor of an acquittal, wherever there remains a doubt of guilt.

Attempts have also been made to enlist the sympathy of this honorable Court on the side of the prosecution, and for this purpose, a criminal twice convicted, who did not hesitate to risk civil bloodshed in support of political theories, and is now indebted for his life to the clemency of that Government against whose laws he armed his ignorant and misguided neighbors, is presented to view, decked out in all the ornaments which rhetoric can bestow. We, Mr. President, disclaim the aids, and protest against the interference of rhetoric and sympathy. However proper in other situations, they ought to be excluded from courts of justice, whose decisions should be governed by truth and not by feeling.

But if sympathy could find a place in this tribunal, what object more fit to awake it than that now presented at your bar? An aged patriot and statesman, bearing on his head the frost of seventy winters, and broken by the infirmities brought upon him by the labors and exertions of half a century, is arraigned as an offender, and compelled to employ, in defending himself against a criminal prosecution, the few and short intervals of ease allowed to him by sickness. Placed at the bar of a court, after having sat with honor for sixteen years on the bench, he is doomed to hear the most opprobrious epithets applied to his name by those whose predecessors were accustomed to look up to him with admiration and respect, and whose fathers would have been proud to have been numbered among his pupils. His footsteps are hunted from place to place, to find indiscretions which may be exaggerated into crimes. The jests which, flowing from the gayety and openness of his temper, were uttered in the confidence of private conversation; the expressions of warmth produced by the natural impetuosity of his character, are detailed by companions converted into spies and informers, and are adduced as proofs of criminal intention.

This cup, so full of bitterness for one who has been accustomed for forty years to fill the most honorable stations in his country, he drinks to the dregs without complaining. In this sad reverse, he supports himself with a calmness, a fortitude, and a resigned dignity which melt the hearts of those who are not his enemies, and extort the respect of those who are.

If sympathy must be excited, here let it find a nobler object. If from generous breasts it cannot be excluded, let it be turned towards

and greatly supporting himself under a pressure of evils the most afflicting that an elevated mind can know.

Not content with endeavoring to blow up a flame of party spirit against the respondent, and to engage sympathy in the ungracious, and to her unnatural, task of aiding a criminal prosecution, the honorable Managers have resorted to a principle as novel in our laws and jurisprudence as it is subversive of the constitutional independence of the judicial department, and dangerous to the personal rights and safety of every man holding an office under this Government. They have contended “that an impeachment is not a criminal prosecution, but an inquiry in the nature of an inquest of office, to ascertain whether a person holding an office be properly qualified for his situation; or, whether it may not be expedient to remove him.” But if this principle be correct—if an impeachment be not indeed a criminal prosecution, but a mere inquest of office—if a conviction and removal on impeachment be indeed not a punishment, but the mere withdrawal of a favor of office granted—I ask why this formality of proceeding, this solemn apparatus of justice, this laborious investigation of facts? If the conviction of a judge on impeachment is not to depend on his guilt or innocence of some crime alleged against him, but on some reason of State policy or expediency, which may be thought by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senate, to require his removal, I ask why the solemn mockery of articles alleging high crimes and misdemeanors, of a court regularly formed, of a judicial oath administered to the members, of the public examination of witnesses, and of a trial conducted in all the usual forms? Why not settle this question of expediency, as all other questions of expediency are settled, by a reference to general political considerations, and in the usual mode of political discussion? No! Mr. President! This principle of the honorable Managers, so novel and so alarming; this desperate expedient, resorted to as the last and only prop of a case, which the honorable gentlemen feel to be unsupported by law or evidence; this forlorn hope of the prosecution, pressed into its service, after it was found that no offence against any law of the land could be proved, will not, cannot avail. Every thing by which we are surrounded informs us that we are in a court of law. Every thing that we have been three weeks employed in doing reminds us that we are engaged not in a mere inquiry into the fitness of an officer for the place which he holds, but in the trial of a criminal case on legal principles. And this great truth, so important to the liberties and happiness of this country, is fully established by the decisions of this honorable Court, in this case, on questions of evidence—decisions by which this Court has solemnly declared, that it holds itself bound by those principles of law which govern our tribunals in ordinary cases. These decisions we accepted as a pledge, and now rely on as an assurance that this cause will be determined on no newly discovered notions of political expediency, or State policy, but on the well settled and well known principles of law and the constitution.

Having taken this view of these preliminary points, I now proceed, Mr. President, to consider the various charges against our honorable client, in the order in which they have been stated by the prosecutors. It is not my design to go over the same ground which has been so recently trodden by my able colleagues. The task assigned to me, is to range rapidly over the first six articles; to present some views of the subject, which the multiplicity of the matter induced my learned colleagues to omit; and then to discuss at large the law and the facts, under the seventh and eighth articles, which have not yet been touched.

Let the charge, Mr. President, be carefully examined, and it will be found to have no object in view but to convince the people of Maryland, by arguments drawn from reason and experience, of the danger of adopting a change in their State constitution, which had been submitted to their consideration, and the object of which was to abolish all their supreme courts of law; to introduce a system entirely new and untried; and above all, to destroy the independent tenure of judicial office, secured to them by their existing constitution; and to leave the judges dependent on the Executive for their continuance in office, and on the Legislature for their support. The respondent, who had contributed largely to the formation and establishment of the State constitution, was greatly alarmed at these changes. He considered them as of the most destructive tendency to the liberty and happiness of the State to which he belonged, and he resolved to take this opportunity of warning his fellow-citizens against them. This is the whole scope of his address to the grand jury, to show the importance of an independent judiciary, the dangerous tendency of changes already made, and the mischiefs which would result from taking this additional step in the career of innovation. He did, indeed, advert to the act of Congress for repealing the circuit court law, and remarked that it had shaken to its foundation the independence of the Federal judiciary; but the manifest and sole object of this was, to show that the spirit of innovation had gone forth, and ought to be carefully watched; that the public respect for great constitutional principles had begun to be weakened; and that by how much the security which might have been derived from an independent Federal judiciary had been diminished, by so much the more vigilantly it behooved us to guard our State institutions. No other object can be discovered in the charge, or inferred from its general tenor, or from the language in which it is expressed; neither is there any evidence which has the most remote tendency to show that he had any other object in view. And was not this an object which a citizen of this country might lawfully pursue? Is it not lawful for an aged patriot of the Revolution to warn his fellow-citizens of dangers, by which he supposes their liberties and happiness to be threatened? Or will it be contended that a citizen is deprived of these rights because he is a judge? That his office takes from him the liberty of speech which belongs to every citizen, and is justly considered as one of our most invaluable privileges? I trust not. And if there could be any doubt on this point, I would remove it by referring to a recent instance of two judges of the Supreme Court of Maryland, who, in a late political contest, entered the lists as champions for the rival candidates, and travelled over a whole county, making political speeches in opposition to each other. Yet these gentlemen justly possess the confidence and respect of the public; their conduct in this instance has never been considered as a violation of duty; and he who espoused the interest of the successful candidate has been far from receiving any marks of displeasure from the Government of this country.

If, therefore, a judge retain this right, notwithstanding his official character; if it still be lawful for him to express his opinions of public measures, to oppose by argument such as are still pending, and to exert himself for obtaining the repeal, by constitutional means, of such as have been adopted, I ask what law forbids him to exercise these rights by a charge from the bench? In what part of our laws or constitution is it written that a judge shall not speak on politics to a grand jury?—shall not advance, in a charge from the bench, those arguments against a public measure which it must be admitted he might properly employ on any other occasion? Such conduct may perhaps be ill-judged, indiscreet, or ill-timed. I am ready to admit that it is so; for I am one of those who have always thought that political subjects ought never to be mentioned in courts of justice. But is it contrary to law? Admitting it to be indecorous and improper, which I do not admit, is every breach of decorum and propriety a crime? The rules of decorum and propriety forbid us to sing a song on the floor of Congress, or to whistle in a church. These would be acts of very great indecorum, but I know of no law by which they could be punished as crimes. Will they who contend that it is contrary to law for a judge to speak of politics to a grand jury, be pleased to point out the law of the land which forbids it? They cannot do so. There is no such law. Neither is there any constitutional provision or principle, or any custom of this country, which condemns this practice.

And will this honorable body, sitting not in a legislative but a judicial capacity, be called on to make a law, and to make it for a particular case which has already occurred? What, sir, is the great distinction between legislative and judicial functions? Is it not that the former is to make the law for future cases; and that the latter is to declare it as to cases which have already occurred? Is it not one of the fundamental principles of our Constitution, and an essential ingredient of free government, that the legislative and judicial powers shall be kept distinct and separate? That the power of making the general law for future cases shall never be blended in the same hands, with that of declaring and applying it to particular and present cases? Does not the union of these two powers in the same hands constitute the worst of despotisms? What, sir, is the peculiar and distinguishing characteristic of despotism? It consists in this, sir, that a man may be punished for an act which, when he did it, was not forbidden by law. While, on the other hand, it is the essence of freedom, that no act can be treated as a crime, unless there be a precise law forbidding it at the time when it was done.

It is this line which separates liberty from slavery; and if the respondent be condemned to punishment for an act, which far from being forbidden by any law of the land, is sanctioned by the custom of this country for more than twenty years past, then we have the form of free government, but the substance of despotism.

Let the gentlemen, before they establish this principle, recollect that it is a two-edged sword. Let them remember that power must often change hands in popular governments; and that after every struggle the victorious party come into power, with resentments to gratify by the destruction of their vanquished opponents, with a thirst of vengeance to be slaked in their blood. Let them remember that principles and precedents, by which actions innocent when they were done, may be converted into crimes, are the most convenient and effectual instruments of revenge and destruction with which a victorious party can be furnished. Let them beware how they give their sanction to principles which may soon be turned against themselves; how they forge bolts which may soon be hurled on their own heads. In a popular government, where power is so fluctuating, where constitutional principles are therefore so important for the protection of the weaker party against the violence of the stronger, it above all things behooves the party actually in power to adhere to the principles of justice and law, lest by departing from them they furnish at once the provocation and the weapons for their own destruction.

This charge, therefore, fails like the rest; and what remains of the accusation? It has dwindled into nothing. It has been scattered by the rays of truth, like the mists of the morning before the effulgence of the rising sun. Touched by the spear of investigation, it has lost its gigantic and terrifying form, and has shrunk into a toad. Every part of our honorable client’s conduct has been surveyed; all his motives have been severely scrutinized; all his actions have been brought to the test of law and the constitution; his words and even his jocular conversations, have been passed in strict review; and the ingenuity and industry of the honorable Managers have proved unable to detect one illegal act, one proof, or one fair presumption of improper motive.

Tuesday, February 26.

The Court opened at about half past ten o’clock, A.M.; the Managers, the House of Representatives, and the counsel of the respondent having taken their seats.

Mr. Nicholson, as one of the Managers, addressed the Court in reply to the counsel of the accused. He said the House of Representatives having impeached Samuel Chase, one of the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors; the evidence on their part having been adduced, and that on behalf of the accused, and the arguments of his counsel having been fully and patiently heard, it now became his duty to reply in support of the impeachment. To me, Mr. President, this duty is an unpleasant one. Upon all occasions and under all circumstances, the office of a public accuser is the most painful that can be imposed on us; but it is more peculiarly so when the object of accusation appears before us covered with age and infirmities. I think I speak the sentiment of my brother Managers of the House of Representatives, when I say, that this impeachment never would have been instituted, that it never would have arrived at its present crisis, if we had not believed that the best interests of our common country required that the conduct complained of should not go unpunished. There is no nation on earth, sir, in which the freedom of man and the consequent happiness of society are not inseparably interwoven with the full, free and impartial administration of justice.

It was to preserve this unity of safety, to avert this common danger, that we thought ourselves bound by the most solemn obligation to bring these charges before the highest tribunal of the nation. We may in vain make laws to secure our property, to protect our liberty, and to guard our lives, if those to whom we appeal, and to whose decrees we are bound to submit, shall prove unfaithful in the discharge of their duty. If our laws are not faithfully administered; if the holy sanctuary of our courts is to be invaded by party feeling; if justice shall suffer her pure garment to be stained by the foul venom of political bigotry, we may indeed boast that we live in a land of freedom, but the boast will be vain and illusory.

In this point of view, therefore, this cause may justly be called an important one. I need not however urge its importance to the Court, for the feelings of every honorable member will speak its importance more forcibly than any thing that I can utter. But I do trust that those frequent appeals which you have heard, those frequent instances in which you have been reminded that posterity will pass between the accused, his accusers, and his judges, will have no influence on your minds. A desire to secure the approbation of posterity is an honorable feeling, pervading every human breast, and is most inseparable from our nature: but to secure the approbation of posterity, we must take care to pursue the dictates of our own consciences, and, by doing justice here, trust to posterity to do us justice too.

Our country, it is true, are now looking on with anxious solicitude for the event of this cause; but the sentence which they shall pass will not depend upon the judgment given here. To the world and to posterity the conviction of the accused, by this Court, will not establish his guilt; and I thank God, as the case has been put in issue between us, his acquittal will not prove his innocence. The facts in the cause, sir, those facts which we have proved by the most undeniable evidence, and upon which your judgment must be given; those facts will be presented to the eyes of the world and of posterity, and upon those only will they decide. If it should ever be the fortune of my humble name to descend to posterity, by the vote which I gave for instituting this impeachment, and by my conduct in discharging the great duty now committed to me, I cheerfully consent to be tried. To this awful tribunal I willingly submit. If the judge is guilty, posterity will heap on him all that odium which his guilt deserves; if he is innocent, let that odium be turned upon his accusers.

Because Sidney and Russell bled upon a scaffold, have their names been less the objects of veneration with posterity? and because Scroggs and Jeffries escaped the punishment due to their crimes, have they therefore been less the objects of universal execration? No, sir; and the honorable counsel (Mr. Hopkinson) who first addressed you on behalf of the accused, gave us himself a memorable example of the poor respect which posterity will feel for the decisions of those who have gone before them. That honorable gentleman told you that Warren Hastings was impeached for the murder of princes and the plunder of empires, and yet he was acquitted. But, is there any who hears me, that believes he was innocent? If we read the history of that trial; if we look to the facts charged, and listen to the unexampled eloquence by which they were supported, our only wonder will be, that he was not condemned. Sir, it has been said that those plundered millions were the best witnesses to prove his innocence; and I greatly fear that the day will come when the crying blood of those murdered princes will be the best witnesses to prove his guilt. The most splendid action in Edmund Burke’s life was his accusation of Warren Hastings; the foulest stain upon the national justice of England was his acquittal.

We have been charged, sir, by one of the honorable counsel (Mr. Harper) with having endeavored to enlist on our side the sympathies of the Court. Permit me to ask, what sympathy have we endeavored to excite? What feelings have we endeavored to engage? To what passion have we addressed ourselves? None, sir. We came here to demand justice. The constitution has placed in your hands the power of punishing guilt; we have proved the guilt of the person accused, and at your hands we demand his punishment. To your consciences and your understandings we appeal, and not to your feelings. These have been assailed by our adversaries. They have exhibited their client to you, covered, as they say, with the frost of seventy winters, and have endeavored to hide the magnitude of his crimes, in the length of his years, and the infirmity of his health. In attempting to excite your compassion, they have wished to drown the voice of justice, and have addressed you not as judges but as men. I do trust, however, that if any sympathy is to be excited, it will be neither for the accused, nor his accusers. Let your feelings be turned toward the nation! Let your sympathy be awakened for those who are to come after you, for by the sentence which you pronounce in this case, it must ultimately be determined whether justice shall hereafter be impartially administered, or whether the rights of the citizen are to be prostrated at the feet of overbearing and tyrannical judges. We, who are engaged in this prosecution, feel that our fathers handed down to us a glorious birthright, and we appear at this bar to demand that it be transmitted to our children unimpaired and unpolluted. Do the nation justice, and you will do justice to us, to yourselves, and to posterity. We were also told by the honorable counsel for the accused, that when we found the accusation shrunk from the testimony, and that the case could no longer be supported, we resorted to the forlorn hope of contending that an impeachment was not a criminal prosecution, but a mere inquest of office. For myself I am free to declare, that I heard no such position taken. If declarations of this kind have been made, in the name of the Managers, I here disclaim them. We do contend that this is a criminal prosecution, for offences committed in the discharge of high official duties, and we now support it, not merely for the purpose of removing an individual from office, but in order that the punishment inflicted on him may deter others from pursuing the baneful example which has been set them.

Nor do we mean to take another ground which the counsel for the accused have thought proper to assign us, for we never entertained the most distant idea that any citizen might be impeached. It was with no little surprise that I heard such doctrines ascribed to us, and I was astonished to hear the Attorney-General of Maryland combating positions which we had not laid down, and searching for argument to prove that which we should not have hesitated to admit.

But, sir, there is one principle upon which all the counsel for the accused have relied, upon which they have all dwelt with great force, and to the maintenance of which they have directed all their powers, that we cannot assent to; we mean to contend against it, because we believe it to be totally untenable, and because it is of the first importance in the decision of the question now under discussion. We do not contend that, to sustain an impeachment, it is not necessary to show that the offences charged are of such a nature as to subject the party to an indictment, for the learned counsel have said that the person now accused is not guilty, because the misdemeanors charged against him are not of a nature for which he might be indicted in a court of law.

To show how entirely groundless this position is, I need only pursue that course which has been pointed out to us by the respondent himself, and his counsel. I might refer to English authorities of the highest respectability, to show that officers of the British Government have been impeached for offences not indictable under any law whatever. But I feel no disposition to resort to foreign precedents. In my judgment, the Constitution of the United States ought to be expounded upon its own principles, and that foreign aid ought never to be called in. Our constitution was fashioned after none other in the known world, and if we understand the language in which it is written, we require no assistance in giving it a true exposition. As we speak the English language, we may, indeed, refer to English authorities for definitions, as we should refer to English dictionaries for the meaning of English words; but upon this, as upon all occasions, where the principles of our Government are to be developed, I trust that the Constitution of the United States will stand upon its own foundation, unsupported by foreign aid, and that the construction given to it will be, not an English construction, but one purely and entirely American.

The constitution declares, that “the judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their commissions during good behavior.” The plain and correct inference to be drawn from this language is, that a judge is to hold his office so long as he demeans himself well in it; and whenever he shall not demean himself well, he shall be removed. I therefore contend that a judge would be liable to impeachment under the constitution, even without the insertion of that clause which declares, that “all civil officers of the United States shall be removed for the commission of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The nature of the tenure by which a judge holds his office is such that, for any act of misbehavior in office, he is liable to removal. These acts of misbehavior may be of various kinds, some of which may, indeed, be punishable under our laws by indictment; but there may be others which the law-makers may not have pointed out, involving such a flagrant breach of duty in a judge, either in doing that which he ought not to have done, or in omitting to do that which he ought to have done, that no man of common understanding would hesitate to say he ought to be impeached for it.

The words “good behavior” are borrowed from the English laws, and if I were inclined to rest this case on English authorities, I could easily show that, in England, these words have been construed to mean much more than we contend for. The expression durante se bene gesserit, I believe, first occurs in a statute of Henry VIII. providing for the appointment of a custos rotulorum, and clerk of the peace for the several counties in England. The statute recites, that ignorant and unlearned persons had, by unfair means, procured themselves to be appointed to these offices, to the great injury of the community, and provides that the custos shall hold his office until removed, and the clerk of the peace shall hold his office durante se bene gesserit. The reason for making the tenure to be during good behavior, was, that the office had been held by incapable persons, who were too ignorant to discharge the duties; and it was certainly the intention of the Legislature that such persons should be removed whenever their incapacity was discovered. Under this statute, therefore, I think it clear that the officer holding his office during good behavior, might be removed for any improper exercise of his powers, whether arising from ignorance, corruption, passion, or any other cause. To this extent, however, we do not wish to go. We do not charge the judge with incapacity. His learning and his ability are acknowledged on all hands; but we charge him with gross impropriety of conduct in the discharge of his official duties, and as he cannot pretend ignorance, we insist that his malconduct arose from a worse cause.

It has been alleged by the counsel for the accused, that my honorable colleagues have argued this case upon the articles and not upon the evidence; and this allegation contains an admission, that if the articles are proved, the guilt of the party is established. It shall be my endeavor to show that there is no material variance between the charges as laid in the articles, and the evidence brought to support them; but that they are amply and fully proved by the very best testimony which could be adduced.

One of the learned counsel in commenting upon the first article, declared that he discovered but a single truth in it, which was, that the judge had formed and reduced to writing an opinion upon the law; and that gentleman, as well as the Attorney-General of Maryland, labored with great zeal and with much display of talent, to convince the Senate that there could be nothing wrong in this. Unfortunately for these learned gentlemen, even that truth is not to be found in it, for by recurring to the article it will be found that the judge is not charged for having formed an opinion, or for having reduced that opinion to writing, but for “having delivered 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 prisoner before counsel had been heard in his defence.”

In this we find no charge against him for having formed an opinion, or for having reduced it to writing, and certainly the learned counsel might have spared themselves the trouble of proving what I am sure every member of the Court was fully convinced of before, that there was no impropriety in a judge’s forming an opinion on any subject whatever, whether legal or philosophical. It is not, however, usual for skilful advocates to attempt to draw the attention from the material points in dispute, for the purpose of fixing it on others of little or no importance. Such has been the course pursued by our adversaries. But, Mr. President, the real charge is, that Samuel Chase did, upon the trial of John Fries for treason, endeavor to prejudice the minds of the jury against him, by delivering an opinion to them upon the law before his counsel were heard; and this too in a case of life and death, where the jury had an ample, uncontrollable right, to decide as well the law as the fact. It is the right and duty of judges to inform their minds upon all questions of law whatsoever, but it is an unwarrantable proceeding, it is an unauthorized assumption of power in them, to deliver that opinion to the jury in a criminal cause before the jury is sworn, and before the counsel of the prisoner have been heard in his defence.

Much has been said with a view to convince the Court that the opinion thus delivered was a correct one, and it has therefore been argued that his conduct was perfectly justifiable. For my own part, I consider it totally immaterial in the present case whether the doctrine of treason, as laid down by the judge, was correct or not; for even if it were correct, the time and manner of delivering it, and the persons to whom it was delivered, form the substance of the charge against him. It is a misdemeanor, a high misdemeanor in a judge, wantonly to give an opinion upon any case which is to come before him, previously to the swearing of the jury, and the offence is made much greater by the opinion being publicly declared in the presence of the jury, who ought to come to the trial of every cause with minds wholly free from prepossession against either party.

Although the judge has said in his answer, that no gentleman of established reputation for legal knowledge would deliberately give a contrary opinion, yet I have not the slightest apprehension that any little reputation which I may possess, can in any manner be affected by my expressing, as I now do, my entire conviction that the doctrine of treason, as laid down in Fries’s case, is wholly repugnant to the spirit and meaning of the constitution. It is not my intention at this time to enter into an argument to prove this, for I have before said that I consider it quite immaterial in the present discussion; but I will offer some few observations, to demonstrate to the Senate that there was nothing very unreasonable in the wish expressed by Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dallas, to show that the constitution was susceptible of another construction.

The constitution declares that “treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” John Fries was indicted for levying war against the United States, and the facts I believe were, that he, with some others, did, in a forcible manner, rescue some prisoners from the marshal of Pennsylvania. This was called a resistance to a law of the United States, and, by construction, was determined at the former trial to be the treason of levying war. It was in opposition to this construction of the constitution that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dallas wished to be heard. It was certainly not a very extravagant wish on their part, for it ought to be recollected that we are a young nation, and it is deeply interesting to us all that the Constitution of the United States should not receive a construction unwarranted by its letter. After the decisions had taken place in the courts upon the Western insurrection, (I mean in the cases of Vigol and Mitchell,) Congress had passed an act declaring that to resist a law of the United States should be deemed a high misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment; and they had before provided, by the act of 1789, that to rescue prisoners from the custody of the marshal should also be punishable by fine and imprisonment. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dallas were desirous of showing that Fries’s case came within the provisions of these laws, and that his offence was not of such a nature as to forfeit his life. They also wished to have an opportunity of proving that the terms levying war ought not to receive the same construction here as in England. To convince the Senate that they were not singular in their ideas, and that the construction given by the Court has not been unanimously assented to, I shall take the liberty of referring to an author of merited reputation, to whom I believe our adversaries will not refuse their respect. Judge Tucker of Virginia, in his valuable edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries, in the appendix to the fourth volume, under the title of treason, after reciting that part of the constitution relating to the subject, observes:

[Here the opinions of Judge Tucker were read.]

Such we find are the opinions of Judge Tucker, an able and upright lawyer, who thinks that the constitution ought to be construed agreeably to the plain import of its language, and ought not to be involved in technical abstruseness. In that series of publications entitled the Federalist, written at the commencement of the present Government, by some of the ablest men in this nation, for the purpose of defending the constitution, it is matter of boast, that treason was fully defined, and not left to wild and arbitrary construction. But what avails the definition, if the constructive treasons of England are to be drawn in as precedents for us?

I before stated that I did not mean to enter into an argument against the correctness of the Court’s opinion; nor have I done so, but have offered these remarks to show that it was not unreasonable in Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dallas to wish that another construction of the constitution might be received. The counsel for Judge Chase seem to think it monstrous that they should have wished to argue the point after the law had been settled by three former decisions, which had taken place in the course of four years. Let it be remembered that Sir Matthew Hale doubted, after the lapse of one hundred and fifty years from the first of these constructive treasons, and after, for aught I know, one hundred and fifty cases had been decided. Mr. President, far from thinking their conduct on that occasion extraordinary, I, as a free man of America, most cheerfully accord them my thanks for the stand they made; and I do hope and trust, that if ever a similar case should occur, in which the same doctrine of constructive treasons shall be urged to a jury, men like Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dallas will be found, men of exalted talents and extensive learning, who will be bold enough to assert the rights of the citizen, and save the constitution of their country from destruction.

Another justification of a peculiar nature is set up in defence of Judge Chase, by a statement made in Keelyng’s Reports. It is there said that “after the happy restoration of King Charles the Second, Sir Orlando Bridgman, chief justice of the King’s Bench, and some six or eight others, judges, prosecutors, and King’s solicitors, assembled for the purpose of determining in what manner the regicides should be tried, and they settled many points which it was supposed would occur upon the trials.” This, sir, is an unfortunate period to refer to for justification of the conduct of judges in our day. Never was there a moment of such fawning servility; never was there a period of such unbounded licentiousness. The hope of reward or the fear of punishment brought almost every man crouching at the footstool of the throne, and all united in singing hosannas to the King, and crying aloud for the crucifixion of the miserable regicides. This conspiracy (which has been quoted) against the wretched victims whose sacrifice was resolved on, was headed by that most servile of all servile tools, Sir Orlando Bridgman. His character and those of his brother judges who conspired with him, may be recollected from the charge which he gave to the grand jury on that occasion. It will be found in the fourth volume of State Trials, and it will there be seen how flamingly he talked of the divine right of Kings, whom he called God’s vicegerents on earth; their persons he said were too sacred for their conduct to be inquired into: they held their power from God, and were accountable to him alone: it was treason in their subjects to inquire into the propriety of what they did; with much more of the same cast. These are the times, these the men, and this is the conduct now introduced for the justification of Judge Chase. If they will afford him a justification he is welcome to it for me. They were woful times indeed; one would have thought the Parliament which the King found in session upon his return, was submissive enough; but he was not satisfied, and finding the whole nation ready to bow at his nod, he ordered a new one elected, and they proved so compliant to all his wishes, that he continued them for eighteen years. This sufficiently proves the servile spirit of those whom the King thought proper to employ on this noted occasion, and it is not much to Mr. Keelyng’s honor that he was one of them. The points which they did settle were of an extraordinary nature, and one of them was read a few days since by one of the counsel (Mr. Key) to show that Basset was a good juror in Callender’s trial.

If, however, this famous precedent had been made in the best of times, it does not apply to the present case. For these judges, bad as they were, yet had modesty enough to keep their opinions to themselves, till after the trials had commenced, and did not deliver them until the occasions arose which called for them. Judge Chase, we have fully proved, delivered his opinion beforehand, publicly, and in the hearing of the jury, so that the authority of Mr. Justice Keelyng and Sir Orlando Bridgman does not justify him. He outstripped even them.

Having thus, as I conceive, fully established the first specification contained in this article, and having answered the only colorable excuses advanced in favor of the judge, I shall proceed to the second specification. This is a charge against him for “restricting Fries’s counsel from recurring to such English authorities as they believed apposite, and 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.”

I must therefore be permitted to insist that Fries’s counsel were prohibited from recurring to English authorities, and from citing certain statutes of the United States. It is fully proved by Mr. Lewis, and corroborated by Mr. Dallas. The latter was not in Court when the conversation took place; but coming in immediately after, he was informed of it by Mr. Lewis, and then stated to the Court what Mr. Lewis had told him. The Court did not deny it, and certainly it is to be presumed, if Mr. Lewis had made an erroneous statement of facts to Mr. Dallas, and they had been repeated by Mr. Dallas, the Court would have contradicted them. This was not done, and both these gentlemen now swear that they were prohibited.

An attempt, however, is made to shelter the judge from this part of the accusation, by saying that he declared counsel would be heard although this opinion was given. Sir, this is another evasion. The opinion itself carries with it internal, uncontrovertible evidence of the determination of the Court that the counsel should not address the jury. What is the principal ground of the defence? what is the leading reason urged for giving this extraordinary opinion before the jury was sworn? It was, as the judge says, and as his counsel have argued, to save time. They state that there were more than one hundred civil causes then depending, that the delay of business in Pennsylvania had been long a subject of complaint, and the judge was anxious to make Fries’s trial a short one, in order that they might have time to proceed with the other business. Now suffer me to inquire how time was to be saved; how the trial of Fries was to be shortened, if his counsel were to be allowed to address the jury on the law which the Court had already decided? Was not the opinion of the Court given for the express purpose of preventing them from addressing the jury; or, if not for this, let me ask for what purpose it was given? Was it to prejudice the minds of the jury; to close their ears and their understandings against any arguments which might be offered them? Gentlemen say no. Was it to save time? This was impossible, because the time was still to be occupied by the counsel being permitted to address the jury. Why then, let me ask, was the opinion given? The answer is ready. It was intended to produce both these effects. The minds of the jury were to be preoccupied by the imposing authority of the Court, and in this manner it was expected to deter the counsel from addressing them on the law. Nothing, therefore, can be clearer, than that the counsel were prevented from addressing the jury, and that the judge “endeavored (in the language of the article) to wrest from the jury their right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law.” But it is said that the right of the jury to decide the law does not give them a dispensing power over the law, and that therefore they are bound by the opinion of the Court. Nor does the right of the Court to decide the law give them a dispensing power over the law. The jury have a right to decide the law, and are not bound by the opinion of the Court. In order to enable them to decide correctly they have a right to hear argument, and any attempt to prevent this, is an attempt to wrest from them their right to decide the law, and is a high misdemeanor.