Trial of Judge Chase.

satisfied on this point. However, the respondent assigns a curious reason to be sure, for his conduct. If the witnesses who were absent were actually before the Court, and were to prove all that Callender had stated or expected, it would not have justified all the libellous passages that had been selected from the book and thrown into the indictment. How was Judge Chase to know but that Callender had testimony as to those points on which his absent witnesses would not have deposed?

The respondent, it seems, was willing to postpone it for a particular period, provided he would be present at the trial. Nay, he would go all the way to Delaware, and return again to accomplish an object he seems to have had so much at heart. In my humble opinion this part of the Judge's conduct proves stronger than almost any other of his acts, the motives which influenced him. If I were to select any one circumstance to prove that his intentions were improper, I would lay my hand on this. "I will not postpone this important trial until the next term, because, according to the arrangement, I shall not then be on this bench, but I will agree to delay it for a shorter period, and travel three or four hundred miles in order to accommodate Mr. Callender with my presence on the trial." Did any lawyer ever hear of such conduct? Did they ever hear of a court adjourning to a particular time, to try a single solitary case of a common misdemeanor?

I do respectfully submit, for the reasons assigned, that the conduct of the learned judge, in refusing to postpone the trial of Callender, was a most manifest violation of the principles of law, and was attended with such circumstances as render it highly improbable that it proceeded from a mere error in judgment.

intelligence to his brethren. The respondent proceeds to deliver an appropriate charge to the jury-a charge free from all those blemishes which stain a subsequent performance of the same kind. He presented to their view in chaste and eloquent language the proper subjects for their inquiry. In my humble opinion it may have been equalled but never excelled. I considered it, according to my poor judgment at the time, a perfect model; the most finished piece in style and substance that I ever heard addressed to a grand jury. Had he stopped here he would have been an object of praise rather than complaint. Had he been contented with discharging his official duty, he would have been entitled to our thanks, rather than merited an accusation.

The grand jury retire to their chamber, and after some time return to the box. To the credit of the then marshal of the Delaware district, I must observe, that he had manifested on that occasion, (as I know him uniformly to have done, even when the storm of party raged with the greatest violence,) in the selection of his jurors, an independence becoming the responsible station which he filled. They were not men of pliant tempers, nor were they carefully culled from the ruling sect, but chosen without respect to party, from the most respectable of both sides. It gives me great pleasure to speak of such conduct, because I wish to hold it up as an example. The grand jury were asked by the clerk in the usual form, "Have you any bills or presentments to make?" Their foreman respectfully answered they "had not." On this, the judge could no longer bridle his temper. He had anticipated perhaps a treat from the prosecution of an obnoxious printer, and expected to regale his palate with a favorite dish. Provoked by disappointment, his passion burst into a flame, and he condescended to stoop from his bench, for the purpose of seizing on his prey. It was at this period he betrayed emotions so highly reprehensible, and so very unsuitable to the dignity of his situation. In a tone, well adapted to the exceptionable language, he observed to the grand inquest, "What! no bills or presentments?" This was matter of astonishment to him, and he proceeded to make the observations so correctly described by Mr. Read, the District Attorney of Delaware, a gentleman of irreproachable life and manners, whose character is not only unimpeached but unimpeachable, and Mr. Lea, one of the grand jury themselves, to whom part of the observations were addressed, a merchant of established reputation, and as a man respected by all who are acquainted with him. Sir, after the observations I have made on positive and negative testimony, I will not stop to demonstrate that every thing stated by Mr. Read and Mr. Lea was said, though not

From Virginia, flushed with success and elated with his triumph over Callender, the respondent hastened to Delaware. The night preceding the day on which the respondent was to hold the court, he lodged at the village of Christiana, about five miles distant from the court-house. From this place he rode into Newcastle the next morning with Dr. William McMechin, who was summoned as a grand juror to the court, and it is in evidence, was actually sworn on the panel. This is the very man, who, it is represented, gave the respondent the information relative to the seditious printer. As a grand juror it was his duty to communicate to his fellows any offences against the laws of the land which had come to his knowledge, and it was the duty of the grand jury to present every criminal act punishable by the laws of the United States. We are bound to pronounce that Mr. McMechin put the rest of the grand jury, for he was sworn so to do, in complete possession of all the information which he communicated to the respondent. With these circumstances, the re-recollected by some other witnesses. I will spondent was perfectly well acquainted. He saw with his own eyes the very man impanelled on the inquest who had opened the budget to him, and knew it was his duty to unfold the

barely mention that all the extra-judicial remarks of the respondent were addressed to the grand jury or to the district attorney. They must, therefore, naturally be presumed to have

Trial of Judge Chase.

the temperate and learned charges to be delivered by the president of a court. The character of an electioneering partisan, whose rostrum is a stump, or whose stage is the head of a hogshead, is utterly inconsistent and incompatible with that of a grave and upright judge. The duty of a judge is to expound the laws, and not to exercise the office of a censor over them, and much less to disgrace himself by reprobating them in a manner calculated to excite groundless alarm and apprehensions in the minds of the people, and to alienate their affections from the Government. Every man in his individual capacity possesses the undoubted right to advocate the political principles which he believes most beneficial to his country. The respondent as an individual is entitled to this privilege in common with his fellow-citizens, and to the free exercise of his splendid talents in such a case. But does this justify him as a judge in his judicial character, and from the judgment seat, to preach political sermons, and impose his private dogmas on the people, under the garb of administering the laws? Sophistry may for a moment confound two things perfectly distinct in their nature and effect, but the mist vanishes before the light of argument.

paid the strictest and closest attention to all that fell from the learned judge, and we have produced one of the grand inquest themselves, and the district attorney, to prove the language he used. I feel confident, under these circumstances, that implicit credit will be given to them. I am also convinced that the statement made by the respondent is scarcely more favorable to his cause. The grand jury repeat, to the interrogatory put to them by the respondent, the answer which they gave to the previous question of the clerk, and request additionally that they may be discharged, as many of them were farmers, and it was hay harvest, a very busy season with them. But no matter for that, the business of the persecution, for I will not say prosecution, must go on if possible. The judge would not discharge the grand jury on the first day, agreeably to general practice, as proved by Judge Bedford, though pressed so to do. He proceeds to give them information of the seditious temper which had manifested itself in the State, and particularly in Newcastle County: a county, which, suffer me to say, is well known from its old and unshaken patriotism from the Revolution to the present day. But he did not stop here; he proceeds to mention a seditious printer, point out the place where he It will be conceded that there yet exist State lived, and the borough of Wilmington, justly jealousies against the General Government, the celebrated for its uniform attachment to the acts of which are closely watched and scrucause of republicanism, and, according to his tinized. When the Constitution of the United own answer, to specify the title of his paper, States was framed, it was the legitimate offand just as his name was escaping from his lips, spring of a liberal spirit of accommodation, a returning sense of propriety checked his speech. which reconciled jarring interests, discordia Sensible how deeply he had committed himself semina rerum. It requires the patriotic exeralready, he paused for reflection. But he had tion of every good man to preserve and to progone too far to effect a safe and honorable re-mote a reciprocal cordiality between the Gentreat. He calls on the district attorney to know eral and State Governments. The officers if a file of the papers cannot be had. Some particularly of each should manifest a respect officious person offers to procure them, and the and reverence which would inspire at once conrespondent directs the district attorney to ex-fidence and attachment. What language can amine them and lay them before the grand jury, who are ordered to attend the next morning. They do accordingly attend, the file of the papers is laid before them and examined. Behold, after all his exertions, the respondent had his labor for his pains; after all this noise and bustle montes parturiunt, and not even ridiculus mus nascitur. The grand jury return once more to the box without any bills or presentments, and the learned judge with admirable address covers his defeat.

express the criminality of the respondent, when from the bench of the United States he undertook to thunder anathemas against the act of the Legislature of an individual State? Was this a part of his duty, or was it not? Can there be a doubt, sir, but that it was a gross violation of his duty, and that the respondent well knew it at the time? Yet such were his unbridled passions and his uncontrolled prejudices, that, regardless of the station which he held, and the dignified post which he occupied, The conduct of the learned judge at the cir- he did not hesitate to commit the character of cuit court in Maryland, furnishes, I consider, the United States by conduct which must have one of the strongest articles of impeachment. irritated the audience against the government I had intended to have dilated very much at of Maryland and its officers. If ever a moblength on this charge, but the fatigue of yester-ocracy take place in this country, it will be day has really indisposed me, and I have already trespassed too much on your time.

Every member of this Court must have been sensible of the impropriety of the respondent's conduct on that occasion. Every reflecting man must be decidedly opposed to the idea of blending political discussion with the legal observations which ought to proceed from the bench. A party harangue little comports with VOL. III-18

brought about by such instruments and such conduct. Let those clothed with the laws become the violators of them, let the judges of the United States issue fulminations against the measures of individual States, and the judges of the different States retaliate, by declaiming against the acts of the General Government, and the consequences are easily foreseen.

When a poor miserable object like Callender,

WEDNESDAY, February 27.

Trial of Judge Chase.

without character and without influence, cen- | able offence, whence this cumbrous and expensures the measures of our Administration, or re- sive process, which has cost us so much labor, probates an unconstitutional law, the respond- and so much anxiety to the nation? Whence ent considered him guilty of a crime and de- this idle parade, this wanton waste of time and serving of punishment. But a man elevated to treasure, when the ready intervention of a court the bench may declaim in the strongest lan- and jury alone was wanting to rectify the evil? guage against any measure or law of the United In addition to the instances adduced by my States, or of an individual State with perfect right worthy friend, (Mr. Nicholson,) who first impunity! Recollect, sir, that if the defendant addressed the Court yesterday, permit me to be justified in reprobating a single law of the cite a few others by way of illustration. The United States, he has the right to reprobate President of the United States has a qualified them all indiscriminately. It is without ques- negative on all bills passed by the two Houses tion the duty of a judge to inculcate a respect of Congress, that he may arrest the passage of and a reverence for the laws of the land. But, a law framed in a moment of legislative delirisir, the respondent, so far as he was able, has um. Let us suppose it exercised, indiscrimiendeavored to excite the indignation of the nately, on every act presented for his acceptpeople against them, and to terrify them into an ance. This surely would be an abuse of his opposition to measures which he has chosen constitutional power, richly deserving impeachfrom the bench to denounce, by the dread of a ment; and yet no man will pretend to say it is mobocracy and other alarming stories unworthy an indictable offence. The President is authorthe columns of a common newspaper, and ized by the constitution to return any bill prescarcely equalled since the days of the Rye sented for his approbation, not exceeding ten House, and of Titus Oates. days, Sundays excepted, within which period he may return it to the House wherein it originated, stating his reasons for disapproving it. Now let us suppose that, at a session like the Mr. RANDOLPH.-Mr. President: The course present, which must necessarily terminate on which has been pursued by my learned col- the third of March, (and that day falls this year leagues and right excellent friends leaves but a on a Sunday,) the President should keep back barren field in which to glean after them. I until the last hour of an expiring Congress, shall, therefore, present you with the most con- every bill offered to him for signature during densed view that I can take of the subject, en- the ten preceding days, (and these are always deavoring, as far as possible, to avoid the ground the greater part of the laws passed at any seswhich has been already trodden; and should I sion of the Legislature,) and should then return fail in this attempt, I hope to be pardoned, as them, stating his objections, whether good or having been absent during a great part of this bad is altogether immaterial. It is true that a discussion. Very far indeed is it from my in-vote of two-thirds of each branch may enact a tention, by tiresome repetitions, yet more to weary the patience of the Court, and prolong that decision which is anxiously awaited by all. I was not present when the defence was opened, in a style so honorable to himself, by the junior counsel of the respondent, (Mr. Hopkinson.) I was then ill abed. I regret the loss of the very able argument which he is said to have urged against the first article. God forbid that the time shall ever come with me when merit shall be disparaged because found in an adversary. Report speaks fairly of the gentleman's performance, and I am willing to credit her to the utmost extent.

law in despite of Executive opposition; but, in the case I have stated, it would be physically impossible for Congress to exercise its constitutional power. Indeed, over the bills presented to the President within nine days preceding its dissolution, the Legislature might be deprived of even the shadow of control, since the Executive is not bound to make any return of them whatever. Now, I ask whether such misconduct in the President be an indictable offence? And yet is there a man who hears me who will deny that it would be a flagrant abuse, under pretence of exercise of his constitutional authority, for which he ought to be imSuffer me to say a few words on the general peached, removed, and disqualified? Sir, this doctrine of impeachment, on which the wildest doctrine, that impeachable and indictable are opinions have been advanced-unsupported by convertible terms, is almost too absurd for arthe constitution, inconsistent with reason, and gument. Nothing but the high authority by at war with each other. It has been contended which it is urged, and the dignified theatre that an offence, to be impeachable, must be in- where it is advanced, could induce me to treat dictable. For what then I pray you was it that it seriously. Strip it of technical jargon, and this provision of impeachment found its way what is it but a monstrous pretension that the into the constitution? Could it not have said, officers of Government, so long as they steer at once, that any civil officer of the United clear of your penal statutes so long as they States, convicted on an indictment, should (ipso keep without the letter of the law-may, to the facto) be removed from office? This would be whole length of the tether of the constitution, coming at the thing by a short and obvious way. abuse that power, which they are bound to exIf the constitution did not contemplate a dis- ercise with a sound discretion, and under a high tinction between an impeachable and an indict-responsibility for the general good?

Trial of Judge Chase.

Mr. President, through every stage of this of England. But, unfortunately for this gentletransaction you perceive every symptom of man, the guilt or innocence of his honorable guilt-trepidation, remorse, and self-abasement. client is in nowise affected by the guilt or inLook at the consultation at Rawle's, who was nocence of this poor German and his comrades. followed home by the judges as soon as the The respondent stands charged with a deparCourt rose. Recollect the conversation which ture from the principles of the constitution ensued, and the conduct of the Court on the fol- and the established forms of law, in conductlowing day, when the respondent is said to have ing the trial which was to ascertain the guilt atoned for his misbehavior; although, in the or innocence of John Fries. What has this to same breath, you are told there was no offence do with his character? How does that affect to expiate. Do you recognize in that proced- the question? Guilty or innocent, he was enure an honorable and manly acknowledgment titled to a fair and impartial trial, according to of unintentional error, which, from a sense of the known usage and forms of law; for, be it justice, the respondent was anxious to rectify? remembered in such cases, form is substance. Or do you behold the sullen perverseness of It is the denial of this sacred right, which the guilt, half ashamed to confess its offences, yet constitution equally secures to the most hardentrembling at their consequences?-now sooth- ed offender as to persecuted virtue-this daring ing, now threatening its adversary-every char- outrage on the free principles of our criminal acteristic of conscious crime? Sir, I blush for jurisprudence, that constitutes the respondent's the picture which the gentleman has drawn of crime. If Fries was innocent, what language his client; and I ask you, Mr. President, if such can sufficiently reprobate the conduct of the a character is fit to preside in a court of justice? judge? An innocent man, by his procurea man whose violent temper and arbitrary ment, iniquitously consigned to an ignominious disposition perpetually drives him into acts of death. If guilty, he ought to have expiated his tyranny and usurpation, from which, when vig-guilt_upon a gibbet. But what was the fact? orously opposed, he must disgracefully recede; equally ready to take an untenable position, or meanly to abandon it. To-day, haughty, violent, imperious; to-morrow, humble, penitent, and submissive; prostrating the dignity of his awful function at the feet of an advocate, over whom, but the day before, he had attempted to domineer. Is this a character to dispense law and justice to this nation? No, sir! It demands men of far different stamp-firm, indeed, but temperate; mild, though unyielding; neither a blustering bravo, nor a timid poltroon. I speak not of private character; with it I have nothing to do. It is the official conduct only that concerns me. I have no hesitation in saying that such men are not fit to preside in your judiciary; and that the greatest abilities, when joined to such tempers, serve but still more to disqualify their posses

sors.

The President of the United States, in consequence of the arbitrary and unprecedented conduct of the Court, was, in a manner, compelled to pardon him. The public mind would never have brooked the execution of any man thus tried and condemned. By the misdemeanor of the respondent, then, to rescue the administration of justice from the foulest imputation, to make some atonement for the offended majesty of the constitution, the Executive was reduced to the necessity of turning loose upon the country, again to sow the seeds of disaffection and revolt, a man represented by the adverse counsel to be every way desperate and daring—a traitor and a rebel. Upon what other principle, sir, can you account for the President's application to the prisoner's counsel, and his subsequent pardon? I repeat, Mr. President, that it is wholly immaterial to the question before you, whether John Fries was or was not a traitor. I must here reiterate my regret at losing the Either alternative is fatal to the respondent. argument of the gentleman who opened the He is charged with oppression and injustice on defence. I understand him to have said, (speak- the trial, and you have not only the clearest ing of Fries,) "Could that man be 'innocent,' testimony of the fact, but it is in proof before who had been twice convicted of treason? you that such was the President's motive in Could he be illiterate,' who pretended to ex-issuing the pardon. He must have believed that pound the constitution? Could he be 'friendless,' who had arrayed his numerous followers in opposition to the laws of his country?" Sir, this is a very pretty specimen of antithesis; but, unfortunately for itself, it proves too much, whilst, as to the question before the Court, it proves nothing. Does the gentleman believe the London mob, in 1780, to have been among the most influential men in England? or, because their discontents grew out of religion, that they were more deeply read in canon law than any other body of men in that kingdom? They far surpassed the Northampton rioters in depth and intricacy of research. They undertook to expound the Constitution of the Church

the sentence was in itself unjust, (which serves but to aggravate the respondent's guilt,) or he must have acted (as I am unwilling to concede he appears to have done) on the ground that, however deserving of punishment, the prisoner had been unfairly tried, and his condemnation illegally obtained. Whichsoever of these positions be true, the defence set up on behalf of the respondent is false. What have you seen? A man condemned to death, unheard, by a prejudiced jury and an unrighteous judge, thirsting for his blood; the Executive demanding to hear that defence, to which the Court would not listen, and extending the arm of its protection to snatch the victim from the oppressor's

Trial of Judge Chase.