The third article was read by the Secretary, as follows:
Art. 3. That, with intent to oppress and procure the conviction of the prisoner, the evidence of John Taylor, a material witness on behalf of the aforesaid Callender, was not permitted by the said Samuel Chase to be given in, on pretence that the said witness could not prove the truth of the whole of one of the charges contained in the indictment, although the said charge embraced more than one fact.
Those who pronounced guilty on this article, are:
Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Breckenridge, Brown, Cocke, Condit, Ellery, Franklin, Giles, Howland, Jackson, Logan, Maclay, Moore, Smith of Maryland, Sumter, Worthington, and Wright—18.
Those who pronounced not guilty, are:
Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Bradley, Dayton, Gaillard, Hillhouse, Mitchill, Olcott, Pickering, Plumer, Smith of New York, Smith of Ohio, Smith of Vermont, Stone, Tracy, and White—16.
The fourth article was read by the Secretary, as follows:
Art. 4. That the conduct of the said Samuel Chase was marked, during the whole course of the said trial, by manifest injustice, partiality, and intemperance; viz:
1. In compelling the prisoner’s counsel to reduce to writing, and submit to the inspection of the Court, for their admission or rejection, all questions which the said counsel meant to propound to the above-named John Taylor, the witness:
2. In refusing to postpone the trial, although an affidavit was regularly filed, stating the absence of material witnesses on behalf of the accused; and although it was manifest, that, with the utmost diligence, the attendance of such witnesses could not have been procured at that term: