called upon Judge Chase and thanked him for the impartial manner he had treated him when on his trial. The whole matter was then considered, as it undoubtedly was, a _ruse de guerre_ of ingenious counsel, and no one attributed any bad motives to the bench. The approval of Judge Peters at the time is a conclusive evidence that the course of Judge Chase was not only pure in design, but that it was not in violation of the strictest rules of judiciary proceedings. He had given an opinion upon the _law_, not upon the _facts_ of the case. This he was bound to explain to the grand jurors before they proceeded to find any bills, and to the traverse jury that tried each prisoner. This constituted the first charge in the impeachment. Shortly after, a man named Callendar was tried before Judge Chase in Richmond, Virginia, under the sedition law, for publishing a libel upon the president. During the trial the judge refused the admission of testimony offered on the part of the prisoner, as he believed illegally, and thereby greatly offended those who were opposed to the law in question. He believed the law salutary, as he did that which suppressed the tories and Quakers in 1776; and believed the venality of the press required a check; many others thought differently. The law, right or wrong, he was compelled by his oath of office to execute so long as it remained in force. That his _legal_ decisions were correct, must be presumed, or a writ of error would have been taken under the existing excitement. This formed the foundation of the second charge. From Virginia he proceeded to New Castle, Delaware, where he held a court aided by Judge Bedford. In his charge to the grand jurors, presuming that cases under the unpopular sedition law might come before them, he gave his views frankly upon it, and that they might better understand what constituted a breach of its provisions, alluded to the publications of a high toned party paper printed in the district, as containing the kind of libels intended to be suppressed by it. This gave great offence to those who were opposed to it. But the judge only discharged a duty which he had sworn to perform. The personal allusion may be considered by some uncourteous, but his object was plain and simple demonstration for which he was always remarkable. No ingenuity has or ever can fairly construe it into a pre-judgment of the case. The publications were before him, they came clearly within the meaning and intention of the law. He charged them upon no individual specifically, but that some one had published them was beyond dispute, and that they were in violation of the law in question, was to his mind equally plain. This constituted the ground of the third article of the impeachment.