No uniform laws xift throughout the courts of the United States, but they vary according to the customs and ufages of the ftates. This was provided for the foundeft reafon; that the people of the different ftates had been accuf. tomed to be proceeded again't by their own laws, and would like them better than a new code. I by no means deny the right of congrefs, to pafs a general law for the government of the federal courts, but by the law of congrefs it is declared, that the ftate laws fhall prevail. An attempt has be n made in the courfe of the debate, to arraign the testimony of John Heath. How is it arraigned. He is a creditable man, has been a member of congrefs, and is now one of the executive counfel of the fate of Virginia. Marshall stated, that when he went to the chambers of the judge, he found Heath on his way out, but he does not remember whether Randolph was with him at the time or not, Randolph might have been there before, and the converfation between him and the judge have taken place. Heath stated at this bar, that he related the converfation to Mr. Holmes and feveral others. An attempt his been made to thew, that he could not have related it to Mr Holmes on that day, because Holmes left Richmond before Callender was arrested. Heath did not itate whether he related it to Mr. Holmes directly. He (tated that he told it to feveral immediately, and that he remembers to have told it to Mr Holmes; and the latter itates, that it might have been told to him at the September court following. Heath ftated, that he had related the converfation to Merriwether Jones, who was fummoned as a witnefs, but was preveured by indifpofition from attending, he would therefore have itated that as true which was not a fact, when he expeted that Joes would be here as a witnets. If I had been governed by p-rfonal confiderations. I thould long face have clofed my remarks, but my duty compelled me to be longer than I with ed. I fhall however endeavor to finith, that this caufe may go to a tribunal where it may be decided in the fpirit and letter of justice. I feel averfe to detain this court any longer, when I am confcious that business of importance claims their attention; but I must be permitted to repeat one argument, that the independence of the judiciary is amply fufficient for the faithful di charge of their duties If judges are perfect, and not to be confidered as men, why did the conftitution provide for impeaching them? This court was told to guard against the fpirit of party, and of the mifchief that would refult from a conviction of the refpondent; as the fpirit of victorious factions have been adduced, I will fay a few words. The prefent ruling party has been repr fented as a victorious one, and warned not to follow the example of others What is the fubje of the profecution? To hold up to the judges a warning, to act with uprightnefs in office, and not to lean to “ally party. If they do their duty an adminifter juice to every perfon, they will be free from prof·cation. profecution will be a folema memento to them, that juftice, although fometimes flow, is always certain to overtake her victims. In the year 1800, when the refpondent was fitting on the trial of Fries, was it dreamt that in fo fhort a time he would be called to an account for his conduct? Certainly not. There was not the leaft expecation of the great change which has taken place in our affairs. This is a clue to the key which unlocks the whole conduct of the refpondent. He withed to recommend himself to the prefident of the United States, and fuppofed that the conduct which he purfued, was moft likely to have the defired effect. It is well known that this country was divided by political parties, and that in the year eighteen hundred, the one to which the refpondent belonged had the afcendancy. The refpondent then conceived that This his conduct would recommend him to the ruling party, and procure him promotion. Nay more, he is an ambitious and afpiring man, and probably had his eye fixed on the prefidency of the United States, to which his talents would have recommended him. Can it be doubted but that if he had been brought forward, he would have obtained as many votes as any other man of the party? The tranfactions of this day was among the leaft of all pofiible events which he fuppofed could have taken place, and he fuppofed that the rigor he showed, would recommend him to the majority of the nation. I have too much respect for the gentleman who then held the executive power to believe, that (notwithstanding all his errors) fuch conduct would have been a recommendation to him. and fuffer the infirmities of my nature to carry me beyond the bounds of my duty, let me be ftoned to death. It is not for having an irritable temper that we complain of the judge, but for not governing it in a high judicial station; his age ought to have taught him this, or he ought to have refigned. Why does he not follow the example of the chief justice, a man as much fuperior to him in point of talents, as he is in uprightness of conduct? It be comes the court to fay, whether a man who has acted in the manner the refpondent has done, and poffeffes the imperfections which it is admitted he poffeffes, fhall be turned loose to repeat his outrages upon the nation, or to ftand as a land mark and a warning, that hereafter no talents, no age, no connections, fhall protect a man from Mr. Prefident, I have been very de- the juftice of this nation. The atten fultory in the remarks which I have tion of the nation is drawn to this trial, made, I am convinced that if time had and they are waiting in anxious expecpermitted me to have reduced my argu- tation for the event. If judge Chafe is ments into fome fort of order, fhape, innocent, let him not be merely acquit and form, that I fhould have been un- ted. Let it be an unanimous vote. able to have detained the court fo long. Let hofannas be fung to his name, and In a little time, I will difmifs them to let it be faid, "thus fhall it be done to their confciences and their God. We the man, whom the highest judicial tri demand not that an independent judge bunal in the nation delighteth to hofhall be removed from office. There nor. On the other hand, if he be guilare independent judges on the bench, ty, which we contend he is, let a unan whofe difmiffal we do not feek. We imous vote of condemnation, be proonly ask that a man, who is unworthy nounced against him. You are called of the high judicial ftation which he upon to punish him, that henceforward fills, fhould be difmiffed from the fer- judges may be detered from bringing vice of his country at the age of seven- politics into court. I beg the court to ty years. A man who has marked his paufe, and confider the confequences whole character with oppreffion, and that will refult from an acquital. We been conftantly employed in preaching do not afk that the judge fhall be bepolitics and conftruing treafon. The headed. Nay, we do not ak that he fufpicion excited against the judge, is fhould be difqualified from holding an enough to render him unfit for office. office hereafter. The conftitution does We have been told, that the judge pof- not require it. We demand, in the feffes an irritable temper, and that name of the people of the United allowances ought to be made for the States, that a judge unworthy of office, imperfections of human nature. I am be removed. If he is worthy, his counthe last man in the world, who would fel ought to be impeached for the decondemn the judge on the fcore of ir-fence which they have made. They' ritability of temper; but if ever I fhould be exalted to an official ftation, have not attempted to justify his conduct, and that is fufficient evidence of his unworthiness. In the name of the houfe of reprefentatives, therefore, I demand justice at the hands of this court, and that the refpondent be re moved from office. Mr. Harper, I beg leave, Mr. Prefident, to correct the honorable gentleman who has just concluded, (Mr. Randolph) with refpect to what he has called admiffions on our part; and to notice a little the authority which he has read refpecting chief justice Keelynge. The honorable gentleman, has ftated that we admitted our client to be guilty. I difclaim and deny any fuch admiffion. Had we made it, we fhould have admitted what is not true. We did indeed admit, that our client has been guilty of fome cafual indifcretions, fuch as are common to every man; but we neither did or could admit more. The honorable gentleman is alfo incorrect, in his manner of ftating John Heath's teftimony. John Heath did pofitively fwear, that he told the circumftances to Mr. Holmes, within an hour after the converfation in his prefence took place, between the refpond ent and the marshal. The honorable gentleman has alfo faid, that I compared the conduct of my client to a brawl or a riot. This is an utter mistake. I faid no fuch thing -I made no fuch comparifon. I merely adduced the cafe of a perfon, who had been engaged in a brawl or a riot, and afterwards came into court to give evidence concerning it, as an inftance to fhew how inaccurate are the accounts given by angry men of tranfactions, by which their paffions have been strongly excited. As to the authority cited by the honorable gentleman from Hatfell, to fhew that Sir John Keelynge was a man of worthicis character, whofe writings are not entitled to credit; it does indeed appear from Hatfell, that fir John Keelynge, while chief juftice of England, was cited to appear before the house of commons, upon charges. exhibited against him. But what was. the refult? The honorable gentleman has omitted to inform us. But had he proceeded to read the next fentence in the book, he would have found that fir John Keelynge appeared to the fummons, made his defence, and was most honorably acquitted. It was a light vague and groundless accufation, which met with the fate that ought ever to attend fuch accufations, and that I hope will attend the prefent. The honorable gentleman has alfo difcovered, that the decifions reported by fir John Keelynge, which were cited by my learned colleague, were Star Chamber decifions; and he has indulged himself in repeating many of the usual invectives against the Star Chamber proceedings, and Star Chamber decifions. But where did he find that thefe decifions were made in the Star Chamber? If he had taken the trouble to read the book, which, together with it's author, he has fo much stige matized, he would have found that thefe decifions were made, not in the Star Chamber, but in the court of King's Bench; which was at that time filled, by fome of the ableft lawyers that England has ever produced. If he will take the trouble to open the learned work of Hale on the criminal law of Hale, whom he and his colleagues have so much and so justly extolled, and whofe eulogium is a perpetual theme, in every court of criminal jurifdiction; if he will turn to Hawkins, the leading authority and conftant manual on criminal law; he will find that Keelynge's Reports are conftantly cited as authority by thofe learned writers; and that the very decifions cited by my learned colleague, which have fo ftrongly excited the indignation of the honorable gentleman himself, are, at this moment, confidered as the established law of England; and confequently of this country fo far as they apply. The latitude allowed by this honor able court, would admit of my correcting many other miftakes of minor importance, into which the honorable gentleman has fallen; but the latenefs of the hour, and our anxious with to bring the trial to a close, admonith me to abstain from any further remarks. Mr. Randolph. I hope the gentleman will have until to-morrow. The President. The gentleman has not afked for time. If with to reply, you will pleafe proceed. you Mr. Randolph. I did not fay that Star the cafe cited from Keelynge was Chamber decifion, but that it took place in thofe times when Star Chamber defions were in force. I did not cite Hatfell to fhew that chief justice Keelynge was convicted, merely to prove that an investigation was made into his conduct on account of complaints having reached the house of commons, that the rights of jurors had been innovated by him. The gentleman cannot deny this, or it is immaterial whether he does or not, because his denying it will not prevent it from being The event in the cafe of judge Keelynge fhewed that the houfe had received erroneous information; but in the cafe before the court, I trust the charges have been fatisfactorily fubftantiated. If he is innocent, on us and on the houfe of reprefentatives be the difgrace of having accufed and brought him to this bar. As I before obferved, let there be a unanimous vote of acquital; let hofannas be fung to truc. HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT. At half paft 12 the court took their feats, and the prefident having directed the fecretary to read the first article of impeachment, obferved that the queftion would be put to each member, on each article feperately, as his name occurred in alphabetical order. The first ar.icle was then read. When the question was hereupon put by the prefident of the court, and repeated after each article as read, viz. Is Samuel Chafe, esq. guilty or not guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor in the article of impeachment just read and decided as follows The Prefident then faid, "There not being a conflitutional majority on any ot article, it becomes my duty to pronounce that Samuel Chafe, efq. is acquitted on the ar ticles of impeachment exhibited against him by the house of representatives." The court then adjourned fine die. For the names of the members as they voted, fee page 62 appendix. |