Norfolk Gazette And Publick Ledger

FROM RELF'S GAZETTE.
Washington, February 25.

Though I have constantly attended the trial of Judge Chase these three past weeks, my time otherwise has been so occupied that I have not had leisure to write to you, and give you particulars of the proceedings.

I will unbosom to you some thoughts that grow from the fullest conviction of my mind. Judge Chase, as a judge, has in all things deported himself innocently, legally, correctly, and faithfully. The more immediate cause of his impeachment was the trial of Callender. Have you heard of that notorious limb of the law at Richmond, who scribbled so much in favour of the licentiousness of the press, and afterwards caused Callender's imprisonment for the exercise of its liberty) this George Hay, on the trial of Callender, insisted on his right of arguing before the court and jury the constitutionality of the sedition law: the court very justly refused him. Having no other hope of clearing his client, he repeatedly pressed this right on the court, which the court as repeatedly refused. The court retorted his impudence with good humour. The audience, whom Hay intended to inspire with opposition to the court, were several times affected with risibility at the expense of Hay; for, as said one of the witnesses, though the audience repeatedly laughed, Hay did not even smile. Foiled in his attempt to rouse the indignation of the audience, and in his attempt to clear Callender by proving the unconstitutionality of the law, in great dudgeon, and with much insolence, he left the court.

This inability on the part of the counsel, more particularly Hay, roused a spirit of revenge. Unable to deter the court from the full discharge of their duty, an incorrect and malicious account of the proceedings of the court was published: and those who were not present were led to suppose that the court had conducted in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Callender was at that time a favourite; and I doubt not that his libels on Washington and Adams were so grateful to many characters, that their enormity gained him all the friends he had. Among these, Giles—who long since declared his determination to put down Judge Chase.

The first notice that I remember to have been taken in Congress of the Judge's conduct was by that Smilie, who three sessions since, undertook: to denounce the conduct of Judge Chase as illegal in the trial of John Fries. I recollect well, friend Bayard's rising immediately after, and observing, that he had always understood that two requisites were necessary in a reporter of law cases, the one a good share of natural abilities, the other a competent portion of legal information; whether Smilie possessed these requisites, he would not undertake to say.

In the spring of 1800, Judge Chase delivered a charge to the grand jury in Baltimore: a part of it was political. By the constitution of Maryland, if one legislature wish an alteration in that constitution, and pass a law for that purpose, and such law shall be confirmed by the succeeding legislature, it becomes a part of the constitution. A law had passed one legislature for abolishing the general court of that State. One John Montgomery, a violent, noisy, headstrong democratick leader in the Maryland legislature, a man whom I personally know, and whose character is such, that I can have little respect for those who have any respect for him; this man was the instigator of the law in Maryland for abolishing the general court, and was present when Judge Chase delivered his charge. All that Judge Chase said relating to the general government, was in this manner: That the repealing law of Congress dismissing the 16 Judges, the law of Maryland granting universal suffrage, and the law of Maryland abolishing the general court, if confirmed by the succeeding legislature, would have a baneful effect on the independence of judges, and on the rights and liberties of the people. Montgomery immediately after published in the Baltimore American, a long invective against Judge Chase, endeavouring to show that he ought to be impeached; and asserting that the Judge had denounced the present administration as weak, inefficient, not striving to subserve the publick interest, but solicitous only to maintain themselves in their ill-gotten authority.

What influence this Montgomery had with Nicholson, and others of Congress, I cannot say; but you well know the Judge was impeached the last session. There had been so many scandalous falsehoods related of the Judge: circumstances attending the trials where he had presided had been so misstated, and his general conduct had been so traduced, that I must have the charity to suppose, that many, who voted for his impeachment, really imagined that he had misbehaved in office, and had been governed by unjustifiable principles: yet I extend not this charity to his influential accusers in the house of representatives.

If J. Randolph and J. H. Nicholson truly believed him guilty, (which I think impossible) they only discover their ignorance of law and of the duties of a Judge. I believe the great hope entertained by his accusers, arose principally from a trust in the efficacy of party spirit. Perhaps those who might have had hopes of succeeding the Judge, should he be convicted, were partly instrumental in the prosecution.

Who these are I know not, but report suggesteth, that Dallas hath not been rewarded for his labour in the field of Democracy, that the Secretary of the Navy would greatly prefer a Judgeship, that the Comptroller of the Treasury, might entertain expectations, that Levi Lincoln is sore and wishes healing, that J. H. Nicholson is itching for some such office, but John T. Mason more especially. But if these men have been instrumental, they will surely lose their labour, for Judge Chase will undoubtedly be cleared.

I have heard the evidence of almost every witness on both sides, if I have a right to say both sides, where the evidence is almost solely on one side. Though many of them were called by the other, and have not been able to find established a single charge of a feather's importance. There are only two evidences that have said anything against the Judge, these are, a lawyer Heath of Virginia, and John Montgomery of Maryland. Heath swore that he had occasion one morning to go to Judge Chase's lodgings in Richmond, that while in the room, the marshall, (D. M. Randolph, Esq.) came in with a paper in his hand—the judge asked him what he had there, that the marshall replied that it was a list of the persons to try Callender; that the judge then asked him if any of those creatures called democrats were on the list, if so, to strike them off. Heath swore that he never was in the room but once, and that no other persons were present besides the judge, the marshall and himself.

The evidence was however done away by the marshall, who swore that he never did show Judge Chase any list of the jurors; that the judge never asked him any question of the kind, that he was never in the room with Chase and Heath together. The clerk of the court also swore, that when he went into the room, there was no person in it but the judge, and Heath at the door coming out—the clerk also deposed, that previous to the trial of Callender, from having seen Wm. B. Giles in the court one evening he remarked that if his situation as a judge would allow him to drop a hint to a marshall on the subject of jurors, he could wish that Giles might be on the jury to try Callender, and indeed, that all the jury might be men of that description of politicks, for it would have a better effect to be so condemned, and Callender's case was so plain, that no jury would give an incorrect verdict. But, in addition to this, what totally destroys Heath's evidence is, it was proved that the jury to try Callender were not summoned till the day after this pretended conversation of the judge and the marshall.

The other is the evidence of John Montgomery, before mentioned, viz. that among other things Judge Chase in his charge to the grand jury at Baltimore said, that the present administration was weak, inefficient, not endeavouring to promote the publick good, but desirous only of continuing their ill acquired authority. In contradiction to this, are the oaths of 10 or 12 most respectable characters, who all swear, that they paid strict attention to the judge's charge, they heard nothing of the kind, nor even that the administration once mentioned.

The Judge read his charge from a manuscript book, and every word relating to politicks, was long since published. Friend Harper observed, that Montgomery, in his affidavit against the judge, had remembered what none of the numerous persons present had remembered, and what in fact no one recollects. Randolph asked the Vice President if the witness was not under the protection of the court? Undoubtedly, answered the Vice, but if the gentleman substantiates by evidence what he has asserted, he had a right to make the question; and friend Harper did substantiate it.

What impressions are made on the minds of people here respecting this creature's testimony you cannot imagine as correctly as myself.

On the whole, throughout this long examination of witnesses, there has not appeared (I speak truly) the slightest foundation on which to rest a single serious charge against the judge: nor can I conceive it possible for a single member of the Senate to pronounce him guilty. Party spirit I know may operate insensibly: men's opinions may be warped by it without their knowledge or consent; but how any man can pronounce one guilty of a high crime or misdemeanour, where not even a wilful or involuntary error of judgement is proved, far exceeds my comprehension. Hence I am inclined to believe, contrary to general belief, that the response of every Senator will be NOT GUILTY.

It would be in vain for me to attempt giving a sketch of the evidence in this trial, or of the speeches of the Counsel for the respondent: it would fill many of your papers. They will all be published; and the world will judge whether upright or detestable principles have occasioned this great expense of time and money. I think however, in two points of view, the trial will have a beneficial effect on the publick mind: It will most amply clear the character of the judge from any imputation of improper motive, or even incorrect proceeding; and it will show in a proper light the cast of those characters who had the principal influence in procuring this impeachment.

As to the managers, I cannot avoid pitying several of them: I truly believe they would willingly relinquish half of their salary never to have meddled. They are pigmies before the counsel for the judge; and the court cannot but hold them extremely cheap. A small portion of Judge Chase's legal talents would outweigh the whole of them. You have seen Randolph's speech at the opening of the cause. Would any man think such an one, delivered by a country attorney before a most inferior court, worthy publication? John Randolph opposing Judge Chase in controverted points of law! Personally or intellectually considered, the one reminds me of a reverend gothick church of the time of the first Harry; the other of a tailor's yard covered with a bull's calf skin.

It is expected that Randolph will speak again, after the counsel for the respondent have closed. I trust his only hope of making any impression on the court will be by endeavouring to rouse party spirit. The whole evidence against the judge amounts to nothing but a pompous catalogue of paltry occurrences, as Mr. Hopkinson justly observed; such as were below the cognizance of a court of quarter sessions, and the calling on the Senate to punish the Judge, for which, is like calling on the elephant to remove a mote too minute for the grasp of an insect. What can the managers say? Conjecture is puzzled, yet they will probably eke out some kind of trash. The managers are deeply chagrined:—I will say no more of them, but leave them to that just estimation in which an insulted publick will hereafter hold them; premising that Randolph and Nicholson are to be considered the principal offenders.

When all the testimony was given in, Early opened in behalf of the managers. His speech was not long: and considering that he had no foundation on which to labour, he acquitted himself without disgrace.—After which, the pendulum, (G. W. Campbell,) began to oscillate, and so continued upwards of an hour, when he came to a full stop, and told the Vice that he was indisposed. The court adjourned for half an hour. At the end of which, Early told the Vice that Campbell was still indisposed. Jackson of the Senate then moved that the counsel for the respondent should proceed. Campbell then rose himself, and made some excuse; and the court were obliged to adjourn till the next day. The next day Campbell emptied some extraneous matter for a short time, and again stuck fast, and sat down. After about 10 minutes, Clerke rose and said he would, to use his own pronunciation,
make some inquiry into the 5th and 6th articles. He was bothered in about 10 minutes. Randolph was not present that day nor the day before. The counsel for the judge then commenced. Mr. Hopkinson, after some preliminary remarks, told the court that his assignment among the counsel was the defending of the first article, the trial of Fries. In a speech of three hours and a half, which disappointed most people in the greatness of the eloquence, and the power and brightness of its reasoning, he left the accusers of the judge without one loophole through which they might peep to copy a fault in the conduct of the judge. The next day Philip B. Key, Esq. followed with equal eloquence and strength of argument. Charles Lee, Esq. formerly attorney-general of the United States, proceeded in a luminous, logical, and convincing speech. On the first day of the week Luther Martin, Esq. that living library of logical knowledge, commenced about half after ten, and continued till between two and three, when the court adjourned for half an hour to refresh. After which he continued speaking till past five, when, feeling himself greatly exhausted, the court adjourned till this day. This day L. Martin concluded, and R. G. Harper, with his accustomed eloquence, held the court till after candle-light.

February 27.

Yesterday and this morning, Nicholson and Rodney. About 12 o'clock J. Randolph commenced, and with much imprudence, declamation and wildness, without argument or method or frequently pertinency, vexed me nearly three hours. The trial has now ended, and the day after tomorrow at 12 o'clock the Senate will bring in their verdict.

* Here we would remark, in the words of Pope, that "to censure wrong for one that writes this" -Although there may be a dispute upon whether the word should be pronounced in-guiry or inkwy-ry, no correct orthographer will write Enquiry or Enquirer--With respect to the pronunciation we believe the world is pretty nearly divided; we are disposed to rely upon Sheridan.

[Ed. Ledger.