Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

intent of the publisher; for the intent is as much a fact as any other, must be proved in the same manner as other facts, and must be proved as stated in the law of Congress-to defame the President, to bring him into contempt and disrepute, and to excite against him the hatred of the people. The mere publication is no offence, and though you consider them separately the offence is created by the two coupled together.

First, then, as to the PUBLICATION—

The publication is proved, and with very aggravated circumstances. It appears from the testimony that the traverser went to the house of a justice of the peace with this paper, whom of all other characters he ought to have avoided, for it appears indecent and outrageous to deliver such a paper to a justice of the peace, and the manner in which it was delivered was yet more indecent. "This is my name, and I am the author of this handbill," was pronounced with the same solemnity as if the traverser was about to part with an estate. This conduct shews a disposition in the traverser to dare to defy the government, and his subsequent conduct proves to my mind such to have been his disposition, for he justifies his publication in all its parts.

The Judge observed, that the jury ought to take the publication and the intent together, and consider the whole when taken together. The traverser states, that he does not arraign the motives of the President, but he has boldly asserted in his defence, that he intended this publication as a censure on the President, which his conduct deserved. Now, gentlemen, the motives of the President in his official conduct is not a subject of enquiry with you. It is no apology to say that the President is honest, but he has done acts which prove him unworthy the confidence reposed in him by the people of the United

States,

States, incapable of executing the duties of his station, and renders him unworthy of being appointed to that important office which he holds. The motive or intent of the traverser and not of the President is the matter to be enquired into by you.

The Judge then divided the libel and made observations on its several parts, and first he considered that part which relates to the President in the following words: "Even those who doubted his CAPACITY, thought well of his intentions." The Judge thought that in this compliment, as to the "intentions" of the President, there was contained a sting, which was intended should be felt, for it was in substance to say of the President: "You may have good intentions, but I doubt your capacity, your capacity is doubted."-But the traverser goes on to say: "Nor were we yet saddled with the expense of a permanent Navy, nor threatened, under his (the President's) auspices with the existence of a STANDING ARMY. Our credit was not yet reduced so low as to borrow money at 8 per cent IN TIME OF PEACE." Judge Chase asked, if these things were true, what effect would they have on the public mind? If the people believed those things, what would be the consequence? If true, ask yourselves, gentlemen, what would be your opinion of the President of the United States ? Those charges are no less against the President, than against the Congress; for these acts cannot be done without Congress. But the President is further charged, for that "the unnecessary violence of his official expressions might JUSTLY have provoked a WAR." A serious charge, indeed! By bis violence, not only PROVOKED a war, but provoked a JUST WAR against his country. If you believe he has done this, again, gentlemen, ask yourselves, What would be your opinion of him? Surely the worst you could form of any man. You would,

most

most certainly consider him as very unfit and unworthy the high station which he has so honourably filled, and with so much usefulness to his country.

As to the expressions of the President, the Judge observed, that when the great body of the people, in their addresses, expressed to him their sentiments of personal attachment and confidence, he replied. to them in answers which generally echoed those sentiments, and his expressions were as general, as the nature of answers would admit. The Marine Society of Boston, in their address, as old seamen, attached to the navy, speak in favour of a navy, the President, in his reply, thinks a navy a good measure of defence, and there can be no offence in publishing this as his opinion, without coupling it with the malicious intent.

The traverser asserts, that under the auspices of the President, we have a standing army. This is not true; the traverser ought to know that it is not true-No standing army can be raised in this country, without a violation of the constitution of the United States, which declares, that Congress shall have power" to raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years." And there can be no permanent or standing army. The Judge stated, that government had thought proper to raise two armies, the one the western army, whose enlistment was limited to five years, and the other whose enlistment was also limited; that is, during the existence of the differences with the French republic, so that neither can, with truth or propriety, be termed a standing army; and the publication is calculated to alarm and mislead the most ignorant, for there is nothing which the people of this country more dread than the existence of a standing army.

[merged small][ocr errors]

The traverser states, that under the auspices of the President our credit is reduced "so low as to borrow money at 8 per cent. IN TIME OF PEACE." Is this true?-Do you believe it? You well know that the very expense incurred, upon which the loan is made, is in consequence of the conduct of France. Is there no war? no hostilities? Has not. France plundered us to the amount of millions? Have we not of late been defending ourselves, and taken some of their armed vessels, and is this PEACE? Although there has been no formal declaration of war, yet actual hostilities have taken place; and to call this peace is not true, and the traverser must know it to be untrue.

Judge Chase passed over that part of the publication relating to projected embassies to Prussia, Russia, and the Sublime Porte, as matters of no consequence, and proceeded to that part of the publication which charged the President with interfering "to influence the decisions of a court of justice.'

99

Although this is to be considered as a mere sketch of the Judge's charge, and very inferior to it in point of language, yet in substance we believe we have been correct. His enquiry into the case of Thomas Nash; heretofore called Jonathan Robbins, contained an important judicial decision on that case, delivered in the most clear, correct, and precise manner. He stated the case-that Jonathan Robbins, whose real name appears to have been Thomas Nash, was charged with piracy and murder committed on board the British armed ship the Hermione-that Nash was in America, and the British Minister made a requisition to the President that he should be delivered up-the question then occurs, whether the President was obliged by treaty or law to deliver him up? If so, the charge of interference to influence the decisions of a court

This

court of justice is without foundation. question then is to be enquired into. The requisition of the British Minister was made in consequence of mutual stipulations agreed on in the British treaty, that either of the contracting parties "will deliver up to justice, all persons who being charged with murder or forgery committed within the jurisdiction of either, shall seek an asylum within any of the countries of the other, provided this shall only be done on such evidence of criminality, as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial, if the offence had been there committed." The Judge considered the reason why this stipulation was introduced into the treaty, and observed that the one crime was an offence against the laws of God and man, and ought never to be committed with impunity that the other was an offence which affected all commercial countries, and should always meet with its proper punishment. Nash, then, was charged with murder committed on board a British armed ship. All countries have two kinds of jurisdiction; the one territorial, which is confined to the territories of the country; the other personal, which extends to their subjects in their armed ships on the ocean; all nations have this personal jurisdiction, and the reason is plain, for all countries are answerable for their citizens on the ocean; unless it were so, crimes committed on board of armed ships would go unpunished, for no other country can claim jurisdiction. Nash, then, charged with having committed murder within the jurisdiction of Great Britain, and, on judicial examination, such evidence of criminality appeared, as, according to the laws of this country, would justify his commitment for trial, if the offence had been here committed, was required by the British

Minister

« ZurückWeiter »