On the 27th day of June, 1800, this refpondent, as one of the affociate juftices of the fupreme court of the United States, prefided in the circuit court of the United States, then held at Newcastle in and for the diftrict of Delaware, and was affifted by Gurning Bedford, Efq. then district judge of the United States for that diftrict. At the opening of the court on that day, this respondent according to his duty and his uniform practice, delivered a charge to the grand jury in which he gave in charge to them feveral ftatutes of the United States, and among others, an act of Congress paffed July 14th, 1798, entitled "An act in addition to an act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," and commonly called the "fedition law." He directed them to inquire concerning any breaches of those ftatutes, and especially of that commonly called the fedition law, within the dif trict of Delaware.

On the fame day before the ufual hour of adjourn. ment, the grand jury came into court, and informed the court that they had found no indictment or presentment, and had no business before them, for which reafon they wifhed to be discharged. This refpondent replied, that it was earlier than the ufual hour of difcharging a grand jury; and that business might occur during the fitting of the court. He alfo afked them if they had no information of publications within the diftrict, that came under the fedition law, and added, that he had been informed, that there was a paper called the "Mirror," published at Wilmington, which contained libellous charges against the government and Prefident of the Únited States that he had not feen that paper, but it was their duty to inquire into the fubject; and if they had not turned their attention to it, the attorney for the district would be pleafed to examine a file of that paper, and if he found any thing that came within the fedition law, would lay it before them." This is the substance of what the refpontent faid to the grand jury on that occafion, and he believes nearly his words. On the morning of the next day, they came into court and declared that they had no prefentments to make, on which they were immediately difcharged. The whole time therefore, for which they were detained, was twenty-four

hours,

hours, far less than is generally required of grand juries. In these proceedings, this refpondent acted according to his fenfe of what the duties of his office required. It certainly was his duty to give in charge to the grand jury, all fuch ftatutes of the United States as provided for the punishment of offences, and among others, that called the fedition act; into all offences againft which act, while it continued in force, the grand jury were bound by their oaths to inquire. In giving it in charge, together with the other acts of Congrefs for the punishment of offences, he followed moreover the example of the other judges of the fupreme court, in holding their refpective circuit courts. He alfo contends, and did then believe, that it was his duty, when informed of an offence, which the grand jury had overlooked, to direct their attention towards it, and to request for them, and even to require if neceflary, the aid of the diftrict attorney in making their inquiries. In thus difcharging what he conceives to be his duty, even if he committed an error in fo confidering it, he denies that he committed or could commit any offence whatever.

With refpect to the remarks which he is charged by this article with having made to the grand jury, relative to "a highly feditious temper, which he had understood to have manifefted itself in the state of Delaware, among a certain class of people, particularly in Newcastle county, and more especially in the town of Wilmington," and relative to "a moft feditious printer, refiding in Wilmington, unreftrained by any principle of virtue, and regardless of focial order;" this refpondent does not recollect or believe, that he made any fuch obfervations. But if he did make them, it could not be improper in him to tell the jury that he had received fuch information, if in fact he had received it; which was probably the cafe, though he cannot recollect it with certainty at this distance of time. That this information, if he did receive it, was correct, fo far, as it regarded the printer in question, will fully appear from a file of the paper called the "Mirror of the Times," Sc. publifhed at Wilmington, Delaware, from February 5th, to March19th, 1800, inclufive, which he has lately obtained, and is ready to produce to this honorable court when necef. fary,

fary, and fome extracts from which are contained in the exhibits feverally marked No. 7, which he prays leave to make part of this his anfwer.

And for plea to the faid feventh article of impeach ment, the faid Samuel Chase faith, that he is not guilty of any, high crime or misdemeanor, as in and by the faid feventh article is alledged against him, and this he prays may be inquired of by this honorable court, in fuch manner as law and juftice shall seem to them to require.

The eighth article of impeachment charges, that this refpondent," difregarding the duties and dignity of his official character, did, at a circuit court for the diftrict of Maryland, held at Baltimore, in the month of May, 1803, pervert his official right and duty to addrefs the grand jury then and there affembled, on the matters coming within the province of the faid jury, for the purpose of delivering to the faid grand jury an intemperate and inflammatory political harangue, with intent to excite the fears and refentment of the faid grand jury, and of the good people of Maryland, against their state government and conftitution," and alfo that this refpondent, "under pretence of exercifing his judicial right to addrefs the grand jury as aforefaid, did endeavor to excite the odium of the faid grand jury, and of the good people of Maryland, against the government of the United States, by delivering opinions which were, at that time and as delivered by him, highly indecent, extrajudicial, and tending to proftitute the high judicial character with which he was invefted, to the low purpose of an electioneering partazin."

In anfwer to this charge this refpondent admits, that he did, as one of the affociate juftices of the fupreme court of the United States, prefide in a cir-. cuit court held at Baltimore in and for the diftrict of Maryland, in May 1803, and did then deliver a charge to the grand jury, and exprefs in the conclufion of it fome opinions as to certain public measures, both of the government of Maryland and of that of the United States. But he denies that in thus acting, he difregarded the duties and dignity of his judicial character, perverted his official right and duty to addrefs the grand jury, or had

any

any intention to excite the fears or refentment of any perfon whatever, against the government and conftitution of the United States or of Maryland. He denies that the fentiments which he thus expreffed, were "intemperate and inflammatory," either in themselves or in the manner of delivering; that he did endeavour to excite the odium of any perfon whatever against the government of the United States, or did deliver any opinions which were in any respect indecent, or which had any tendency to prostitute his judicial character, to any low or improper purpofe. He denies that he did any thing that was unusual, improper or unbecoming in a judge, or expreffed any opinions, but fuch as a friend to his country, and a firm fupporter of the governments both of the state of Maryland and of the United States might entertain. For the truth of what he here fays, he appeals confidently to the charge itfelf; which was read from a written paper now in his poffeffion, ready to be produced. A true copy of all fuch parts of this paper as relate to the fubject matter of this article of impeachment, is contained in the exhibit marked No. 8, which he prays leave to make part of this his anfwer. That part of it which relates to the article now under confideration is in these words: "You know, gentlemen, that our state and national inftitutions were framed to fecure to every member of the fociety equal liberty and equal rights; but the late alteration of the federal judiciary, by the abolition of the office of the fixteen circuit judges, and the recent change in our state conftitution by the establishing universal suffrage, and the further alteration that is contemplated in our ftate judiciary, (if adopted) will in my judgment take away all fecurity for property and perfonal liberty. The independence of the national judiciary is already fhaken to its foundation; and the virtue of the people alone can restore it. The independence of the judges of this ftate will be entirely deftroyed, if the bill for the abolishing the two fupreme courts, fhould be ratified by the next general affembly. The change of the ftate conftitution by allowing univerfal fuffrage, will in my opinion certainly and rapidly deftroy all protection to property, and all fecurity to perfonal liberty; and our republican conftitution will fink into a mobocracy, the worst of all poffible governments.

I

"I can only lament that the main pillar of our state conftitution has been thrown down, by the establishment of univerfal fuffrage. By this fhock alone, the whole building totters to its bafe, and will crumble into ruins before many years elapfe, unless it be restored to its original ftate. If the independency of your ftate judges, which your bill of rights wifely declares to be effential to the impartial adminiftration of justice, and the great fecurity to the rights and liberties of the people,' fhall be taken away, by the ratification of the bill paffed for that purpose, it will precipitate the destruction of your whole ftate conftitution, and there will be nothing left in it, worthy the care or fupport of freemen."

Ad

Admitting thefe opinions to have been incorrect and unfounded, this refpondent denies that there was any law which forbid him to exprefs them, in a charge to a grand jury; and he contends that there can be no offence, without the breach of fome law. The very effence of defpotifm confifts, in punishing acts which, at the time when they were done, were forbidden by no law. mitting the expreffion of political opinions by a judge, in his charge to a jury, to be improper and dangerous; there are many improper and very dangerous acts, which not being forbidden by law cannot be punifhed. Hence the neceffity of new penal laws; which are from time to time enacted for the prevention of acts not before forbidden, but found by experience to be of dangerous tendency. It has been the practice in this country, ever fince the beginning of the revolution, which feparated us from Great Britain, for the judges to exprefs from the bench, by way of charge to the grand jury, and to enforce to the utmost of their ability, fuch political opinions as they thought correct and ufeful. There have been inftances in which the legislative bodies of this country have recommended this practice to the judges; and it was adopted by the judges of the fupreme court of the United States, as foon as the prefent judicial fyftem was established. If the legiflature of the United States confidered this practice as mifchievous, dangerous or liable to abufe, they might have forbidden it by law; to the penalties of which, fuch judges as might afterwards tranfgrefs it, would be juftly fubjected. By not forbidding it,

the