In 1803, Judge Chase, in delivering his charge to the grand jury of Baltimore, having become a decided federalist and believing the course pursued by the democrats was wrong, made sundry remarks upon the politics of the day. This was, in my opinion, a surplusage of duty, but not a subject of impeachment, and may be traced to the warm temperament of his mind, the great political excitement of that period, and to the innovations, as he believed them, upon the constitution and laws by political influence, without discovering a shadow of impurity in his motives. Freedom of speech is a constitutional privilege, and he was only using the same liberty claimed by his opponents, and which was then given by the repeal of the sedition law. That it was a proper time and place to read a political lecture I do not pretend, but it does not therefore follow that his designs were corrupt or his conduct criminal. The ermine of a judge is not rendered more comely by being powdered with the farina of politics, but his right to think and speak upon this subject, none will question. He animadverted in his charge upon the alterations of the constitution of his native state, particularly upon that of the extension of the right of suffrage, to which he had strong objections. In this particular his opinions were in unison with many of the most devoted patriots of the revolution, who deemed the elective franchise unsafe if controlled by uninformed men, who, not distinctly understanding, would not properly appreciate their rights. The reasons for this opinion were stronger then than now, and an anxiety to preserve the government pure and undefiled, unquestionably pervaded the bosom of Judge Chase. In another part of this charge to the grand jury he spoke strongly against the changes that had been made in the judiciary system of the United States, attributed them to party politics, and deemed them personal in their objects and not conducive to the public good in their operation. The last two points were proper subjects of comment, inasmuch as they related to his official duties. That a man like him should remark severely upon what he believed to be impolitic or wrong, was a matter of course. He was never accustomed to half-way business. In all this nothing appears to lead any candid mind to suppose he was not honest in his intentions and pure in his motives. Upon these premises the six articles of impeachment were based, and at the next session, out of the same material, two more were manufactured—the natural increase of a year.