pcckkivburfl
nae^
The powers granted under the Constitution^ being derived from the People of the Tjiuled Slates, may be resumed by them whenever perverted to their injury or oppression '^—Madison.
VOIiUmE 4.
CHARLOTTE, ]\0RTH-CAR01.I]VA, FEBRUARY 7, 1845.
TVUMBER 196.
THE beautiful residence of
the late Mrs. Sarah A Harris,
deceased, in the villaire of
Charlotte, will be sold on T\ies-
day oj February Court. Terms, credit of six months;
note payable on the Bank wilh approved endorsers
and mortgage on the premises until paid.
P. S. Possession to be given on the let January,
.S16.
W. A. IIAURIS.
January, IS 13. 94-6w
§ AI.1]
:T^IIE Su')^'*ribcr will sell his PLAXTATION
,*t th«; C-.urt House in Charlotte on the Tues-
ly . our ii( XI 1 ior Court, if not sold privale-
\ ' i.'-irc tiiui iinu“. li contains
Acres,
wi'll known as a healthy location, four miles.
: ih oi' C'hii:-ioit('. 'I'he hvnldings are new and
n:= of the land undt r cultivation is fresh. Terms
' iil be favorable lo the purchaser.
--ALSO—
PROTKST
OF SENATORS, AGAINST THE RESOLU
TIONS TO EXPEL THE SENATOR
FROM ONSLOW.
The undersigned, members of the Senate, avail
mg themselves of the Constitutional privilege, as
securrd by the 45th section of the Constitution of the
State, to dissent Jrom, and protest against any act
or resolve of the SeJiate, which they may think irtju
rious to the public, or to any individual, and to have
their reasons for suck dissent entered upon the Jour-
j nals of the Senate
• Do here now present lo the Senate their most sol
I e:nn dissent and protest against certain acts and re
solves of the Senate in the case ol Mr. Ennett,
Sfnator Iroin Onslow, with their reasons therefor,
that the same may be entered on the Journals of the
Senate.
The Committee appointed to investigate his case.
r« poncd the folosving resolutions;
Resolved, That the certificate of tho Senator
from Onslow, and by him introducted to the Senate
as gtnuaic. the first day of the session, is a forgery.
Resolved further. That inasmuch as no evidence
has bet n oirered before the Committee to implicate
any other person in the transaction, tlial the iSenator
himself has either been guilty of the forgery, or,
procured it to be done, or was at least aware that it
was nQt ^^enuine ; and therefore, practised a fraud
upon the Senate and ought to be expelled.
Resolved. That for the reasons aforesaid, tl)c So
tTo ‘I !i cf Mnroh he v.-il! f:(']l at his residence j nntor from Onslow be and is hereby expelled from
' ^ iJouich'^iJ and Kitchen Furniture. i the S' nate, and iiisseat thereiti vacated.
I- I T^,rr* ' first resolution passed the Senate unanimous
Iv. tbe tuo last by the casting vote of its Speaker,
Hortics.). ^ ^
^ : 1 he undersignt'd prc!esl against the passage of
! iht tu-o Ktst resul'jiions, because, the rule of evidence
which the fnajoi ity of the Committee m tht^ir report
ap['li* d t ? his case, was laid dow^n in too broad, harsh
TWO .AllLClI COWS,
And a ivw
\S ilii
a tt)p. aiul Harness; ; and tmquahfied a sense; — because, the evidence w’as
^ not correctly reported — because, that report wasac-
ONE NEW W.4GGN ,
a; on, Corji, Fodder.
'-K
‘ v:> n.iY: i;o mj shl\(;li::s;
STU\ r':S. an I . ther articles uunecc;
•V ■ on t'if
.0:0, M.
' 1V oi‘ .c'lle.
.!.■ CALl> WF.LI,.
I'l-
T
IE :i ^
r('s;u .
. r,.-T.
■'i-i V.
V. 13. i
iy iMi'ornie.l
nuv’i's.
I). >:y
’ ciui ! e hiui in
: of thia Institution, are
tiiai It. is now open fur
: nuTciiisox.
!!;■-■ village, or ni the
SI-
oi' iictters
; i^MALMNG i;i the P^st Uilict* at Charlotte
A. C., oil ilic I«-t day ot’ Junnarv. 1845, to wit
:nucr,
;U;jKL*r,
A.
J M. A. I-'. Alexander.
.Sirah J. Aioxaniler,
idin A
'' ■ . A
J • Ait.X.Ml.i.T.
M. W. AU-; ;!i.i r,
13.
iJtTryhi!!
A/ iridii D;u,y.
ih i w,
A. S. Berry,
Buchauaij, *
V\ m. Briiri'.'o;),
Barnette,
-'I.. jj:.ii‘!soIt.
i'iifn M. Bonz(.r,
iirj
(\
* of V‘ck!t nbu.';^
^ ^’oiiiiry Cor.rf,
-• '• 11. i,i. Cuiuiin^’liain,
Clarke,
. Kunioe A. Carter,
F. Cowan,
C. Ciildwell,
L).
Allen W. Davis,
John S. Davis,
James Dougheriy.
•^iiines S. Earlv,
-Ir. Erwin,
Alexander Ervin.
F.
4v. G. Flannamin.
Q.
iTev. John Gitford,
Ih'nrv J. GaniiOn,
' H.
B. Iliintcr,
•^anies Hipp,
i ions ton Grier,
M. Herron,
U’. H. Hovey •>.
i’iiild Henderson,
J.
Vv'm. J(;hnston,
Vv 111. Jack,
Mrs. .Mary Jones,
^^ lac Jones,
J'l aes Johnston,
Mary E. Johnston.
K.
^^iirvey Kenncdj'.
It. Lyon,
'irs. E. Leuimonds,
-I-M.Long,
, if. Lenionds,
I '^^'•ah G. Lewis,'
l.eJwell,
Mary Lentile.
M.
Robert McGey,
Hu^h McCahan,
Janies Me(^iy,
\V^ P. Mc(/lelland,
Dr. S. McClanahan
Jo.^epfi -McCombs,
Thoii.as Mack,
Jame-s McLeoil,
B. D. Mottley,
li. K. MeDowcH,
H. Me.Dowtll,
F. H. McDowell,
Jiiines C. Moore,
John .\L Morri.;,
A. C. Miller.
O.
R'tfjert Urrnnnd,
J. L. A.O.T C j.
P.
Joshua Perry.
Mrs. S. S. Peoples,
Frarjklin Pegues.
VV'm. rsi. Parks,
Benj. PiereCj
O. A'l. Peck,
Levi Poke,
Miss M. Porter,
R.
C. M. Ray,
Dr. J. M. Ramsey,
Miss E!iz. Ren 2,
Richard Rozzel,
Mary Ann Rankin,
Dr. J. W. Ross.
S.
Cyrus Stinson,
Coi. Geo, Sniitl',
i\ii.ss S. Sasberry,
^Juhn F. Sellars,
'ilrs. E. Sample, or )
^lrs. A. S. Berry, ^
Elam M. Spratt,
\v illiam Springs,
Miij. Joseph Smith,
James Sloan,
Miss Jane A. JSloan.
Hiram T. Sloan,
Hugh & Eli Stewart
T.
Thos. Thompson,
James G. Torrence C,
L. E. Tiiompson,
VV,
Moses C. West 2,
Stephen Wilson,
Ricliard Warren,
P. J. Wilson,
S. iX. Weddington,
Miss L. A. vVilliams,
Dr. James Wooster,
Dr. E. D, Williamson
T. R. Hushes.
J. W. HAMPTON, P. M.
'Jv,%
cranpanit-d by an argument against !NIr Ennctr, b i
st*d t-’i’on unluundtd assumption, and lend«d to ptf-
j'jJi-'-' hia trial—bfcause. that report, and the pun
.(.• c ij'.:iine>i in the second resolution, threw upon
iii;n tat; burihen of establishing his own innocence,
brciust. Lis counsi I was denied that liberty of sp**ech
whk-u IS indispenaible to’a fair aiid mipaiiial trial,
and, bccause. i\Ir. Enn ti’s own account of the way
!io wai put in possession of the ailedgtd spurious
ceitilicate, and whicii was part of the «-videnc«.' re-
[)0i't'd by the Committee, being nncontiadicted and
fully supported by ihtj t\'hoIe e vidence put in on
histinl. and corroborated by unquestioned proof,
of hio having the most unblemished character, foi-
iucii a wcii^ui ui w stunony, vvhicii repciitd every
suspicion c: h.s gui!'}’ conncciioo with the spurious
cel t:fi ’ale.
Tho undersigntd wiil now procrcd to state the
reasons at'd facts whijh fortn the grounds of their
Ol lief.
The PiiooF snortly stated, was that Mr. Enorlt
left home under the most confident belief and expect-
alioti. of leceiving his certificate of election in lime j
to take his seal on Monday, the 15(h of X'U’ember,
the day of the met ting of the Legislature—that he
had assuranc* s to this t fFtct from the Sheriff and
iw'O other persons—that he was advised before he
hit home and after reaching Raleigh by several
m mbers of the Le gislature, that his c€itifi-att' was
not indispensabK* to his taking his seat, but that his
cvilhai’Uts or oihers, would be heard to provu his
election as iiad been tlie practice in other cases—that
he had rmntioned it publicly, on the day he arrived
ht.if, (Saturday.) that he had come without his cer-
t fica;e—that on Monday morning he informed hia
ruuui-n;ute, Mr. Jackson, and also Mr. Melvin,
aud slated publicly in a company cf gentlemen at
Mr lloldtn’s ofiice, that he had received his certifi-
‘•ate on the night before (Sunday night)—that the
statement he then made to Mr. Melvin of the way
and manner he had received it, corresponded stib-
1 siai.tialiy wi’li his Iwo '' onn made lo Mr.
j iSioiir- on Tuesday morning after, and the other to
j the Senate on ihe 29th of November, although the
i latter was not so full; Whicli were in substance,
j ihai a stranger callvd at his room on Sunday night,
j aboui 8 o’clock, said he had a letter for him, did
not inak' hirnself known to Mr. Ennett—he asked
I him to walk m—the stranger replied he was in a
j hurry, and handed him [Mr. E ] the letter, and inj-
jmidiaiely reii.td in thedark—that Mr. E. supposed
j it to be i k'tter from some effice seeker, but on open
I mg it discovered il contained the certificate he ex-
I ptcled of his eitiction. The proof w'as also, that
i tile si^natui** to the certificate reseiribhd the hand-
I writing of Sherifl’Averett, only slightly, bi>t enough
i lo mai^ea ])eison acquainted with it, suppose it might
have been written on his knee; that on xMonday af
ter Mr. E. pr« senied the certificate and took his seat
in tfiC S' iiale. Mr. Senator llellen obtained posses-
iion ol the ceitilicate fiom the Clerk, Mr. Stone,
u'ilhoiit any order or authority from, the Senate.^
—took it out, kt pt it for some lime, showed il to se
veral persons; that several persons marked their
initials on the ceitifjcale, among thrm Mr. Gaither
(afti. r .vard? chosen Speaker) and Air. Senator Hoy
den—that it did not appeat that this movement on
the part of Mr. IJcllen and others, intimating their
suspicion, teas made known to Mr. Ennett at the
time—that as soon as Mr, E. heard of the suspicion
ot ijf-nuinenc ss, which was either on Monday night
or 'i'uesday morning, he repaired to Mr. Stone, the
Clerk of the nale, on Tuesday before 10 o’clock,
and asked lo see the certifjcate, IVIr. Slone handed
it 10 him, and alu r examining it, he stated to Mr.
S thai he was sufficiently acquainted wilh Mr.
Av.-reu’s handwriting '.0 say, that the body of it did
rtsemble Mr. A’s handwriting, but parts of the sig
nature not so much—and then gave Mr. Slone the
account as above set forth of ihe manner he had got
ten possession of il—that this statement to Mr. Stone
was inade alter he had taken his seat, but before the
Senat- had organized on Tuesday morning the 2d
day vii. !ie S-^?sion—that on the 29th of November
lie iiad leceived the cerlificate of his election in a
letie. fiom Sheriff A verett, enclosed to him in a let
ter ‘lorn Mi. Marble, and on that day presented ihe
two It tiers lo ihe Senate, made his stotement how the
[»oss ?M'>n of the alleged spurious cerlificaie had
■ n jcii upon him, aud I hat he now believed from
'■ • ij^Mtii.iir ih'' two he had be u iir*po.'«t:d uje. u. and
-'iSktd tlis Senate to laise a q1
tion on the matter. The Hon Wm. IL W^ashing-
ton, of the Ilouso of Commons, proved that Mr.
E.’s character was that of€?;i ignorant, inofjensive.
harmless man, 'without a blemish resting on it.—
Mr Tho. D. Meares, of W ilmington, that Ae
as fair as any man in Onshic. Mr. Jeremiah Nix
on, of the Ho. of Commons, that he has known his
character intimately fcr 10 years, that his general
character was that of an hv?iest good man, without
a blemish, simple and confiding^ a domestic man in
his habitSy a sober, moral, industrious farmer, a
kind father and an obllgiKj benevolent neighbor.
No one disputed this lestimouy.
The proof was also, that ; Comirilteeof Inves
tigation had incorrectly repo.tt-ti Mr. Saund r’s tes
timony before the Committe^^ They reported, thal
Mr. S. said before them that he thought it was on
Mojiday morning IMr Ennett told him tfiat he had
not received his certificate, whereas, IMr. Sanders
w'hen brought lo tho bar of tlie Senate swore, that
he told the Committee several times, that he was
uncertai/i whether it was Sunday or Monday, and
that since his examination before the Committee up
on reflection, he was still uncertain, and Mr, Sena
tor Louis D. Wilson, also stated on the inal, that
Mr Sanders had, when examined before the Com
miltee and afler his testimony w’as written down
staled iw’ice or thrice that he was uncertain wheth
er It was Sunday or Monday.
The whole proof then csiublished these facts: 1st,
that Mr. Enneit’s three several statenunts of the
manner he got possesfion of the spurious certificate,
was not unnatural or improbable- that he was tiiat
good, honest, simple, con'fidiog man. t.hat might
easily fiave been imposed upon in a City where he
was a stranger and did »iol know ihe habits of inter
course. 2d. 'I’hat he had no motive to palm a
forged ceitilicate upon the Senate, as ho knew he
could obtain his seat by ether proof of his election,
od. Thai as soon as he iieard it rumored that its
genuinentiss was suspectcd, on Tuesday morning
before the Sinate was organized, he called on the
Srnate’s olficer, Mr. Stone—made a full and open
i-iatemeni of the matter, which if he was a guiliy
man. it is improbable he would have done, as the
ulFic^^r by reporting il to ihe Senate placed it in the
power of that body to rcscmd the order admitting
liun to his stat. and thus have defeated his ulioie
purpose, ‘llh, 'J’hai as socn as he received the gen
uine cerlificate from the Sheiiil' wheicby he was
enabled to form a belitf to the true character of
the first cerlificate, he )oct no time in stating thaf
belief 10 the Senate and asking for a Commiitte of
Inv( stigauon.
The Committco of lavcsiigaiion rested tiieir belief
of Mr. Etmeti’s guili upon 'hic^ principal points;
1st, the general maxim of lav*, ihat he w’ho is in the
P'Jsccjsk-'Ij of a for^,.d iiiS’.ic.})d j!ves no sptis
factory account of the manner he got the possession,
nor the person who lijd it, and Uocs it for his own
benefit, must be pre?umrd to have forged it himstdf
2d, 'i’hat the manner that Mr. E got possesbi ni of
the certificate, wa? so suspicious in itself ihat every
other man wouU have suspected it under like cir-
cusiances. 3d, I'hai Mr Enneli’s stalemt nt oufrht
to be discredited bccause he did not inform his room
mate, Jacksoo, he had received it.
We shall’ examine ihese points 'n their order:
1st As to the maxim of law. We say that its
application to Mr. E.’s casi' was harsh and ufujuali-
fied. and that ov» n as harshly as ihey applied it, il
only raised a tc'hnical preum]>hoyi oj g\:iit,\\\n''\\
under the exeicise of a small degree of the ordina
ry benignity of th*^ law, was ccrnpletely repelled by
ihe fact, of ail absence of motivn on his part lo forge
a cerii.^i'ate; by fiis consistent and reasonable ac
count of the way it came into his possession ; and
by the proof of his unblemtshed, simple, conliding
character, which latter fact, his good character, the
Committee do not allude lo in their report, and there
fore we must presume did tjot enquire into it, not
withstanding in their report, they express such a
great anxiety to find oul and report to the Senate
all the evidtnce that might cstablhh .Hr. Z'hiuelt's
vntoccncc.
The rultiof evidence which the Comn^ittce one hi
to have appiieu to bis case, is this, “that wh^re the
possession is of such a kind, tiS'Wttinifcsls lha‘- l!ie
stolen good* (or forged certificate) have cor?.e to the
possessor by his oicn act ortviih his undoubted con
currence'^ it aflbids presumption of guilt. (See
Judge Gaston’s opinion m the late case of tho Slate
vs. Smith, 2d Iredell’s lep) In Mr. Enneli’a case
the evidence did not manifest tkat the spurious cer
tificate camc 10 his possession by his own act, nor
by his own concurrence, nor. that no other person
could have had a motive to put the possession upon
him. His statement being ihal of an honest man,
and njade part of ihe evidence in the case, showed.
that a LETTER was put into his possession, by
an unknow7i hand, and that until he opened it, he
did not know what ii contained ; and that before he
opened it the unknown bearer of ihat letter was gone,
lie had no suspicion of any thing being wrong, be
cause letters are often times handed by unknown
hands—because office seekers about Raleigh are in
ihe habit of sending letters »o members in every form
and wav, he expected at first that it was a letter
from an office seeker, and afler he opened it, and
found il contained a cerlificate of his f lection, it was
what he also expected to arrive every hour, al
though he did not know certainly m what way, by
hand or by mail: and he had enquired that night at
the post office, and had not obtainrd it, b( fore this
letter was hand d lo him. Ilis siatenunt then
showed, that he did not acquire the possession of
the cerlificate, by his own agency, but lha* it was
put upon him under covt r ol a lktter—not by his
own concurrence, for he did not know what the let
ler contained, until opened—nor, that no other per
son had a motive to do it, for office s(H-kers had a
motive 10 do so, is he had been a day in Rahigh.
and had made known he was without his cei'.ifi*
cate.
The rule of evidence which the Conmiillee appdi-
ed, they rested on the authority of th>" Sia'e vs. Biitt,
2d Vol. Devereux Re[>o of the Supreme Court,
page 122. That case was this: Briu,tin'defendan;,
w'as found in the possession of a forged order m his
own lavor, had presented and obtained on it money
01 good^. and upon being charged wilh the I'orgery,
said *• he had, intended lo take up ihe order before it
was discoi-ered.^' In this case the rule of the Com-
mitlre wv3 npplied by 'he C/Oiirt, because, ihe de
iendani (U«t noi alterrrpt ?o ncTTOifni for the '.vny he
acquired the possession, by any accompanying state
ment of his own, or otherwise: nor did he impute
any other agency or concurrence than his own in
obtaining il; on the contrary, he staled, that he in
tended iu have taken up the or-ler before thej'orge-
ry was discovered, which manifested, that he had
come to the possession by his own act and concur
rence.
'i’he next authority cited in argument by the ma
jority Commiilee, was the Slate vs. Morgan, repor
ted in 2d Vol. Dev & Bat. page 343. That case
showed that the defendant had himself presented a
forged nolc to the Hank al Salem for discout;* r.i
his ow.M favor, and had received tho moriev—..j
statement of ihe defendant imputed guiliy lo oihers,
nor no ciicumsiance appeared to raise a suspicion that
any other person had been concerned in the posses
bion than the defendant, nor did il appear ihat any
other person had a motive to impose it upon him,
but all the evidence vianij'ested that he alone for-
ihey professed, to search out in the evidence, the
circumstances of his innorcnce, instead of first as
suming, as they have done that his account of the
matter icas suspicious, and from the suspicion, in
their own minds, drawing the most unfavoiable in
ferences against him, and arguing the case in their
report altogether on one side.
The next ground the Cofnmiiloe lake is, that
his whole stalt merit oughllo he dhcreditcd, because
he did not meriiien lo his room n;ale, Jackson, on
Sunday night, when he returned home from preaeh-*
irg at 9 o’clock, thal he had rcctived his cenificate
Had ?I J-'iin«ti taken e.Miaordinary pains to make
ui.own UiC tece^j i of lii^ ceiliiicate, would if
have exciied suspicion? A-s itwas', he did inform
Mr. Jackson. h;s room mate, alihough a stranger lo
him until ihat day, and Mr Saunders, his col
league, of il the next morning, and when^the ques-
lion was a^ked in a pullic company at I\lr. IIoI-
den’s office (;ri that morning, “ who was the mem-
ged the order. But even m that case, the Court I ber that had 1*. ft hcrr ,■ without his cerlificate,” he
in applying the Committee’s rule of evid n.-e, said
The force of the piesumption. depends upon the
“ ability of the accused to show WITH FACILI
" TV, the real truth ; and his refusal lo do so. if
there be other circumstances from which it may
" be judged that certainly or PROBABLY his
" possession was 7iot acquired by his 07c?i taking,
“• the/i, the li'hole presumption fails.'' The case of
the Stale vs. Britt was decided in June, 15S1, ihe
latter case in June, 1S37.
In a very late case decided by the Supreme Court.
Junr, 18-12, State vs. Scipio Smi;h, 2d Vol. Irc'
deli’s Rep, page 402, Judge Gaslcn as organ ol the
Ccuit, lays down the rule of evidence iruly applica
ble to Mr. Enneii’s case. The evidence in that
case was, that one Chambers had had his tobacco
stoleii on Friday night, thal tie followed t.he
tract of a cart from near his tobacco house, to
a house of the dL:"ti.danl, Scipio Smiih, on
ihe ne.xt moining, Saturday—that said house as
on S.miih’s land and wilh in SO or 100 yards fiom
his dw llino house, and ihat on that day (Saturday)
his tobacco was found in Smith’s house—thal Smith
claimed the tobacco so found in his liouie as his
own, in the presence of Chambers, and stated in
what field il was grown, and that he. Smith, had
ordered u lo be pul in that house. It was also pro
ve*5 that Scipio S:nith’s two sons lived with him al
ih'Mime, who were ioinily indicted and ti ied wilh
tli--ii father
bt ing prc'f til replit d, *• he supposed he was the
pMSun meant, but that he had received it on tho
night before.” lli re. ih; n, the Conimittee so ,*nx
K us lo 'taldish Mr Enneii’s innoccnce, assnmtd
Uif fact thal not to the reception cf the
certif.caLc to his room male was suspicious, atid
when the /:tct a])j,eared on the trial, that he Jirid
not only mcntioiied it to his room mate but to hi.?
colleague find lo c^lijers, il availed him nothing v. iiii
his accuse is.
Tlie undeisign' i farther { rotest in this, that as
the Committee in liitir repoit, and the Senate ty
the mode of his liiai, ha.i thrown upon Mr. Ennei;
the bu'^then of proving his own iiincctnce, conlraiy
to the maxim of la;v und usages in such iGfts. •
counsel ought not lo have been refused, as they zvere,
the right ati.i privilege of rej.lying to such ohjetlici.s
as iniehl have been made in aigumcnt to that proof,
aiid iiiore especially, as ihf' CommiUee’s report
charged \vi:h all its errois, had been prinled, ciicu*
luieel, and :nusi f^ave prrjudiv;(!d Mr I'^eneu’s causc.
A)id ihe under .signed alr.v proiczl in this, that iht'
Speaker ought i]ot to haveinterruj'.ted Mr. Knnelt’s
I counsel as ho did, by repci.tcdly caiimg hini 10 or
der, for we think il vras t!;t* coi:ns( i’s duty 10 say
whai iic did. \vhen thus calied lo oider, wilh ihe
view of sccujing an unprejudiced trial to his clicnt.
'I'he facts ihe.?e, '.Lg counsel cautioned the
Senate agamst any unfavorable itnjircssicns or pre^
'Phe Judge who tried the cause be- judice that the report of the Commi-tee might hav?
low, applied lo Scipio Smith, ilie fathci’s case, the | made m iheir bosoii s, as that report contained vaii-
ruie of law which the Commiilee have applied to I ous errors of law and fact and had been for some
Mr. 3’i.neli’s case. All ihe defendants were coii : time printed and circulnud fu ni which he was fcar-
victed ; they appealed to the Supreme Court, and | .^ul h:s client's case may have been prejudged, dis*
the Supreme Couit set aside the verdici against Sci- ciamiiiig i-t the same lime at:) intention to impute
pio Smiiii the falher. Judge Gaston, who has been improper ir.olivis to the Commiilee or lo the Senate.
tru!y ceiled “rood Cian and a urea; JijdiiH,” ilc , 'i'i:, counse l wr? o-.'.ir-J to order by the Sp^ak*
livercd the epinion of ti;e whole CoJit. lie says er lor charging the Senate wvh having prejudged
as follows: when we examine the eases, in which j tlie case He promptly reitoratrd his disclaimer cf
‘•such a prcsumplion l:as been sanctioned, or con- | intending any ihir^g personal and was permitted tj
'• s>der the ground of reason and e.xperience on 1 procecd.
•• which the presumption is clearly warianJcd, we
“shall find lhal it applies only, when this posses-
•• oion is of a kind which manifests thal ihe siolen
•• goods have come lo the possessor ly his cwn act,
atalU venls, by iiis rxDovirrLD coNe uRnENcr:.’'
'I'he connsrl tlien rcmaiked, upon the embarrass
ment which surroundfd his client’s defence against
suefi charges at ihis lime; ihat all men, in ail ages,
were subject to the iujirniity of enteitaining preju
dices, however honest mi^ht be iheir hearls and
He ilun hj( ntions a leac.ing case staled by thal | inientions; thal the most honc t and confidincr j
great and good Judge, I^ord Hale, where a horse j were someiimes the most iivsensibie to its
wa« stolon from A, and ihal same day, B was found . ihat he impuud no more infirmilv ^
upon him —1> was iiied, convicted, and iiung for' than our own e.xperit nee, than
siealmg the horse, on ihe ground, thal being found | Bible and the d caloguc inipu^r/; iaws^ ihan the
in possession of the horse, and not able to account | and to himselt, ^(ihe counsel^-niankmd,
for It, he must be presumed lo be the thief Vet, ; rred leave to assume the r / nerefore, he beg-
‘ .u: i-.ovince of the Preacher—
shortly after this, C was apprehended and tried for
robbery ?.nd con victed; and when executed, confes
sed lhal he had stolen the liorso for which B was
hung, and being closely pursued, requested B, a
stranger to him, ’.0 walk his horse for linn while he
turned aside on a necessary occasion, rnd cscaped.
Here B was hung, because being found ia posses
sion, he could no' account how' he come to the^r^
session. 'Phe Jury forgetting lhal
a horse might bo put upon a and he never
theless be unable toit, as the Senate
may have in Mrri^nnetl’s case, forgotten, ihat a
man i be put in possession of a letter containing
S lOrgfc ' cerlificate or counte*feit notes, and the pos
sessor t unable to prove who gave hiiTi that letter
— much jore easy and common il is to palm a let
ter upon a man, than to palm a horse upon him,
and yet both have and may happen. Another case
is mentioned by Judge Gaston where the sheep of
A stray from his lloci: lo the flock of B, and B
as the Preacner s congjf,- , , ,,
, ry Vi'^gauon oughi not and ccu d
not lake anv ofienc^-- ° ,, ^ ® ,
. .V, . ibc decalogue was read
to them, so llie iiX i t ■ ,
. ot a man charged with an in
famous crime ^
mg resp*"'
ih* 1
^Tjuuia take nn personal offence at be
lly warned aud cautioned to examine
ha' and guard against any prejudice insen-
fbly taking possession there. He' spoke of the laii
lude allowed iu this nspeoi m Courts of Justice,
wheie, not only it was made the uuty of counsel,
but also of the Judge, to warn the jury againsl ihe
danger of enteriaming an\’ prejudices, or participa
ting in any public excilement on the defendant’s ease
—lhal he fell it to be his duty as Counsel to give
this caution, and meant not lo be personal or disies
peclful in the least. 'Pherefore, he thought tho
Senate ought lo be wary and distrustful of them
selves, when paity spiiit was so rife every' whero
in this Siatt, and throughout ih'- country, and dis
card al! personal, sectaiian or parly prejudice, for
lha’ prejudice woul.l someiimes course through
diives them up with his own llock and shears them, ^ honest minds as iusensiblv a? the blood did through
B was held not guilty, bccause ho n.i^ht not have | iiie veins—siu ntlv and warrnlv : or as m?ins;bly as
suspected they were not his sheep, and il was bet- | ijie atmoslpiiere through the lun'us.” Here he wa^
ter ihat 90 guiliy persons should escape than that
one innocent person should sufler.
'Phe coincidence of many circumstances pointing
to one thing, forms so natural a ground of belief ac
agaii'i called loor.Jcr by ih e Speaker, on the grounds
lhal a discussion of party feeling was out of order.
'Phe counsel immediately look his seat.
Senator Wilson then arose to the question of
cording lo human experience, that ilis trpon lhai I and stated that he did not perceive how tho
very ground, lhal the rule 01 evidence has been so J counsel was out of order, and that it seeme.d to him
well established in law, that handwriting may be
proved by a person who Ins received a letter from
a suan^er lo him, in the due course of business,
from whom he exprctrd to receive a letter on that
;iarticu!ar busin ss, although he never Isefore had
seen his writing.' So strong were the coincidenccs
in Mr. Enneii’s case, ihat he was noi only late
and according to common experience, w.*rranted in
believing the certificate to have come from the Siier
iff, .Mr. Avert It; but it would have been thought
stiange indeed if he had susptcted it h-ad not II
canif- in a letter—which he expected—at that time
— and.purporting to be from the verson he expected
to send it—resembled that person's handwriting—
and he teas not well enough acquainted ivilh that
personas handwriting to detcct a plausible imjiosi
tion.
The next ground the Committee lake in their re^
poll 'S, thal the manner of his receiving the cer
tificate, was so strange and unnatural, that it ought
to have exciied his suspicion. Had the Coaimilte*-
examined wiihduecarealliheforegoingcoincidences,
(*ix m number) which could onl\’ consist wiih in
nncf-nce—had they compared them with i\lr. En
nelt’s confiding simplicity of character—with the
absence of all motive on his part lo perpetrate such
a crime; with his open disclosure lo the Senate’s
Clerk on Tuesday morning soon after a fraud was
suspected, of the circumstances which attende'.i the
way he got into possession of the cerlificate, and j .j jj^fjiily and constituency, was only accora
with his unblemished innocent life, and charac»- r, pijgUed by the casting vote of the Speaker
thtr/'v^’OTjld indeed ha'"'* shown that anxious wishi Th»3 en'>r.mity cl the charge against Mr. Ennetf;
impossible, that he could do justice to his cf lent un
less such latituilc of remark wasiillowed him. The
Speaker C ilK^d Mr. Wilson to order, and he took
his seat. Senator Biggs next arose to the question
of order, staling thal he .lid not perceive that the
counsel’s remarks were out of order. The Speaker
calltil him to order .unlesshe meant to appeal from the
derision of ihe Chair, and if he did, he must reduce
Ills poini of Order to writing. Mr. I3iggs did so, and
reatl it aioud to thf'- Speaker, who remarked, that he
w'ould writedown his point of order himsell’. Hav
ing w’ritten.it, and read it to tlie Senate, it w'as iJiis:
“ The ciiair decides that the counsel for Mr. En
nett must confine himself to the rules prescibed lor
tlie government ofUiC Senate in the discu.ssion of
the que stion helore ihe House, and that it was not
in oraer to I'ejvr to, or discuss the state of parlies
thut divides the coiintnj.''^
The cxciicd manner of the Speaker—his having
changed tiie grounds of l;is decision—and the
remarks of the counsel showing that he w’as improji-
erly interrupted by the Speaker—«aHsfied the un
dersigned, thal justice could not be done le Mr.
Ennctt’s defence, unless that freedom of debate was
allowed his counsel, v/hich in no «iher tribunal before
have they known it to be denied, and the necessity
Ibr which they think the sequel to this trial has fully
shown; for, the fact is now^ before the world, that
whilst the w’hole Senate of both parties, recorded
Iheir votes m lavor of the first resolution, only his
political opponents, [by a strict parly rote,'\ voted his
guilt und exjmlsion, and that AT LAS'f, this dread
ful (iegradation o! a man. [of unblemished charac-