50.

fair exercise of their professional duty, and for such a limitation of their privilege of speech, as would prevent any abuse of it to improper purposes, or to an unreasonable extent. Suffer me, sir, to make one further remark, in confirmation of my position. It grows out of the acknowledged circumstances of the case, and, if fairly deduced, is evidence of the highest description. It is agreed by all the witnesses that on the second day, the respondent manifested and expressed the utmost solicitude and anxiety for the counsel to proceed in the defence and that he took "great pains" to induce them to do It is not doubted that he was sincere in this. Is it probable or possible then, with these dispositions, and while he was endeavoring to persuade and to induce these gentlemen to return to the defence of their client, he would indulge himself in threats, in insults and menaces, which would necessarily confirm them in the abandonment of the cause, and defeat the acknowledged wish the judge had that they should return to it? But still we are told, and this first article of impeachment concludes with averring, that in consequence of the conduct of the respondent, Fries was deprived of his right of being heard and defended by his counsel. To refute this unfounded assertion, we need go no further than to the testimony of Messrs. Lewis and Dallas. They surely are the best judges of the motives of their own conduct. What reason do they give for denying Fries their aid and advising him to refuse all other counsel? Because they had no hopes of success on a trial; because they believed the court had got into a difficulty where they were determined to keep them; because they thought they had a better chance to save their client's life by the uses they might make of the novelty of the first day's proceeding, than they could have on a full trial after this novelty was removed;

the counsel in short, withdrew from the defence of Fries, because they thought it would best serve him, and were not influenced by any other motive whatever. How does this testimony support the averment in the conclusion of the article, which boldly affirms, not that John Fries was saved, but that he was condemned to death, in consequence of not being heard by his counsel ?

A very strange and unexpected effort has been made, sir, to raise a prejudice against the respondent on this occasion, by exciting or rather forcing a sympathy for John Fries. We have heard him most pathetically described as the ignorant, the friendless, the innocent John Fries. The ignorant John Fries! Is this the man who undertook to decide that a law which had passed the wisdom of the Congress of the United States, was impolitic and unconstitutional; and who stood so confi. dent of this opinion, as to maintain it at the point of the bayonet? He will not thank the gentleman for this compliment, or accept the plea of igno. rance as an apology for his crimes. The friendless John Fries! Is this the man who was able to draw round himself a band of bold and determined ad. herents, resolved to defend him and his vile doctrines at the risque of their own lives, and of the lives of all who should dare to oppose? Is this the John Fries who had power and friends enough, actually to suspend, for a considerable time, the authority of the United States over a large district of country, to prevent the execution of the laws, and to command and compel the officers appointed to execute the law to abandon the duties, of their appointment, and lay the authority of the government at the feet of this friendless usurper? The innocent John Fries! Is this the man, against whom a most respectable grand jury of Pennsylvania, in 1799, found a bill of indictment for high

treason; and who was afterwards convicted by another jury, equally impartial and respectable, with the approbation and under the direction of a judge, whose humanity and conduct on that very occasion have received the most unqualified praise of the honorable manager who thus sympathizes with Fries? Is this the John Frics, against whom a second grand jury, in 1800, found another bill for the same offence, founded on the same facts, and who was again convicted by a just and conscientious petit jury? Is this innocent German, the man who, in pursuance of a wicked opposition to the power and laws of the United States and a mad confidence in his ability to maintain that opposition, rescued the prisoners duly arrested by the officers of the government and placed those very officers under duress; who with arms in his hands and menace on his tongue, arrayed himself in military order and strength, put to hazard the safety and peace of the country, and threatened us with all the desolation, bloodshed, and horror of a civil war; who at the moment of his desperate attack, cried out to his infatuated followers, "come on! I shall probably fall on the first fire, then strike, stab and kill all you can?" In the fervid imagination of the honorable manager, the widows and orphans of this man, even before he is dead, are made in hypothesis, to cry at the judgment seat of God, against the respondent; and his blood, though not a drop of it has been spilt, is seen to stain the pure ermine of justice. I confess, sir, as a Pennsylvanian, whose native state has been disgraced with two rebellions in the short period of four years, my ear was strangely struck to hear the leader of one of them, addressed with such friendly tender. ness, and honored with such flattering sympathy by the honorable manager.

It is not unusual, sir, in public prosecutions for the accused to appeal to his general life and conduct in refutation of the charges. How proudly may the respondent make this appeal. He is charged with a violent attempt to violate the laws and constitution of his country, and to destroy the best liberty of his fellow citizens. Look, sir, to his past life, to the constant course of his opinions and conduct, and the improbability of the charge is manifest. Look to the days of doubt and danger; look to that glorious struggle so long and so doubtfully maintained for that independence we now enjoy, for those rights of self government you now exercise, and do you not see the respondent among the boldest of the bold, never sinking in hope or in exertion, aiding by his talents and encouraging by his spirit; in short, putting his property and his life in issue on the contest, and making the loss of both certain, by the active part he assumed, should his country fail of success. And does this man, who thus gave all his posses sions, all his energies, all his hopes to his country and to the liberties of this American people, now employ the small and feeble remnant of his days, without interest or object, to pull down and destroy that very fabric of freedom, that very government and those very rights, he so labored to establish? It is not credible; it cannot be credited, but on proof infinitely stronger than any thing that has been offered to this honorable court on this occasion. Indiscretions may have been hunted out by the perseverance of persecution; but I trust most confidently that the just, impartial, and dignified sentence of this court, will completely establish to our country and to the world, that the respondent has fully and honorably justified himself against the charges now exhibited against him;

and has discharged his official duties, not only with the talents that are conceded to him, but with an integrity infinitely more dear to him.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1805?

Mr. PRESIDENT,

Mr. KEY.

I RISE to make some observations on the second, third and fourth articles of the impeachment. I shall not apologise for the manner in which I shall discharge a duty which I have voluntarily undertaken, but merely regret that indisposition has prevented my giving the subject that attention which it merits. It will be at once perceived, that these articles relate to the trial of Callender. Before, however, I go into an examination of the second article, it may be proper to notice the situation in which the judge found himself and the state of the public mind at the time. The sedition law was passed in the year 1799. It immediately arrested the public attention, and strongly agitated the public feelings. In the state of Virnia it was peculiarly obnoxious; many of the most respectable characters considered it as unconstitutional, and as a violation of the liberty of the press; most deemed it impolitic; while some viewed it as a salutary restraint on the licentiousness of the press, more calculated to preserve than to destroy it. In this state of the public mind, it became the duty of the respondent, in the ordinary assignment of judicial districts, to go into the district of Virginia, where he was entirely a stranger, to carry the laws into execution. It is scarcely necessary to observe that when laws are considered