PETITIONS TO REPEAL THE LAWS. The petitions for the repeal of the Alien and Sedition Laws took all sorts of forms and shapes. Some merely felt alarmed because freedom of thought was restricted and freedom of speech proscribed, trial by jury abolished, and the President armed with a dangerous power; others said the acts were tyrannical, repugnant to the principles on which the government had been founded, were premature, unconstitutional and infringed on the rights of the people; and some of the legislatures were requested to memorialize Congress on the subject. This exactly accorded with the desires of the Republicans, and they resolved that the legislatures which they controlled should make a determined stand against encroachments on State rights by the Federal government. The publication of the Kentucky resolutions (to be mentioned later) elicited a still larger batch of petitions and remonstrances. All sorts of politicians, foreign-born citizens, aliens and others shouted condemnation; and in some cases the petitions contained more than 1,500 signatures. Those that came from Pennsylvania bore over 18,000 names, and in more than one instance getting these signatures led to riot.* The third session of the Fifth Congress should have convened on December 3, 1798, but the scanty attendance of the members delayed the opening until the 8th, when the Presi *McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 423-424. 373 dent's speech was delivered.* Hardly had Congress convened when scores of the above mentioned memorials commenced to pour in.† They were all referred to a committee, which reported on February 21, 1799. That the committee found that, almost without exception, the memorials attacked the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Laws because Congress was not given power by the Constitution to remove aliens, to abolish trial by jury, or to abridge the liberty of the press. The committee considered the various arguments against the laws and then reported to Congress, at the same time submitting three resolutions: that the public interests would not be conserved by repealing the Alien and Sedition Laws, or any laws respecting the army and navy, or any of the revenue laws.§ These three resolutions were taken under discussion on February 25, 1799. Gallatin made a long and able speech against the first, but it was carried.¶ Nicholas * Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., pp. 271-275. Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 3d session, vol. iii., pp. 2798-2803, 2807, 2883-2907, 29342935, 2957-2959. See American State Papers, Miscellaneous, vol. i., pp. 181-184. For the various arguments, see Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 3d session, vol. iii., pp. 2426-2437, 2445-2456; McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 424-426. § For the complete report, see Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 3d session, vol. iii., pp. 29852993. Annals, pp. 2993-3002; Stevens, Albert Gallatin, pp. 162–163. 374 LYON CONVICTED UNDER SEDITION LAW. then spoke against the second,* but the Federalists treated him with great disrespect - laughing, coughing and talking at the top of their voices until Nicholas was "coughed down." Livingston then spoke for a few minutes, but, on the pretext that" what he was saying was not to the question," he was finally silenced by the Speaker, who thereupon put the question on the second resolution, which was carried by a vote of 52 to 48. The question on the third resolution was carried without a division, and the House then agreed to the action of the committee on all three resolutions, affirming the first two by votes of 52 to 48 in each case, and the third by 61 ayes.‡ The first to be tried under the Sedition Law was Matthew Lyon, of Vermont, who several times had brought himself to the notice of the country. During the debate on the bill, he had written a letter which, after Adams signed the bill, was read by the subscribers of the Vermont Gazette. In this letter Lyon said that in the fastday proclamation "the sacred name. of religion" was used "as a state engine to make mankind hate and persecute each other," other," and that bounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice."* When Lyon returned home to begin his campaign for re-election, to Congress, he was arrested for libel on three charges; first, on account of this letter; second, for reading at a political meeting some extracts of a letter from Joel Barlow to Abraham Baldwin, in which occurred many objectionable passages; and third, for abetting the publication of the Barlow letter in full. At the trial Lyon was convicted, sentenced to a fine of $1,000, and sent to jail for four months. Owing to the interference with the Congressional canvass, there was no choice made at the first election, but on a second trial Lyon was re-elected, though he was then in prison. in prison. Vermont thus lost her representation on the floor of the House for most of the winter, and this situation was brought to the notice both of Congress and of the Executive. As Lyon had now become a poor man, a petition, signed by several thousand persons, was presented to the President requesting that the heavy fine be remitted. But on being informed that the petition did not emanate from Lyon, Adams refused to interfere, saying that “ "penitence must precede pardon." When finally near the close of the session, Lyon made his appearance on the floor of *Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 432. McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 398-400. For prosecutions under the Sedition Act, see Wharton, State Trials, pp. 322-333, 345, 659, 684, 688. DUANE ATTACKS THE ELECTORAL LAW. the House, an attempt was made to expel him on the ground that he had been convicted for sedition, but the resolution failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote.* A great deal of excitement and violence on both sides occurred after this trial, partisan passion exhibiting itself in many foolish acts. During the first session of the Sixth Congress, the Senate gave another example of tyranny. James Ross, of Pennsylvania, introduced a motion that a committee be appointed to consider measures for deciding disputed Presidential elections, and for determining as to whether electoral votes were legal or illegal. A bill was reported and had passed the second reading, when it was published in full in the Aurora. It provided that, after the electoral votes had been counted by Congress, on the second Wednesday in February following the Presidential election, the papers should be turned over to a committee consisting of the Chief Justice and six members from each branch of Congress, who should examine and decide upon the qualifications of the electors and the manner in which they had cast their votes; who should make investigations and ascertain if the election of the electors was legal; who should determine which electoral votes should and which which For the debate in Congress, see Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 3d session, vol. iii., pp. 2954, 2959-2973. See also Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 432. VOL. IV-25 375 should not be counted; and whose decision was to be final. The purpose of this shameful bill was apparent to all. The Presidential election was approaching, and the Federalists needed the electoral votes of Pennsylvania. At this time there was a bill before the Pennsylvania Legislature to change the old method of choosing electors, by dividing the State into electoral districts, each of which was to choose one elector. this bill could be passed through the State Legislature and the electoralcount bill through Congress, the Federalists were assured of success; for it would be an easy matter to challenge and disqualify the Republican electors before the Electoral Committee and give their votes to the Federal electors.* If William Duane, editor of the Aurora, pointed out the iniquitous features of the bill and the cupidity of the Federalists so boldly that the Federalist Senators, becoming enraged, raged, determined upon revenge. They caused the Senate to appoint a Committee of Privileges, which decided that the publication of the bill by the editor of the Aurora was "false, defamatory, scandalous, and malicious," and recommended that he be punished, to which recommendation the Senate agreed. Duane, being summoned, denied the jurisdiction of the Senate and was allowed to procure counsel. The Senate decided, *McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 462-463. 376 OTHER CONVICTIONS UNDER THE SEDITION LAW. however, that Duane's counsel could speak only in excuse or extenuation of the crime or on disputed questions of fact.* Alexander J. Dallas and Thomas Cooper were chosen by Duane as his counsel; but, in reply to his letters asking them to serve, both Dallas and Cooper wrote that to appear in the Senate under the conditions imposed - with gags in their mouths would be disgraceful to themselves and degrading to their profession. Deprived of counsel, Duane was found guilty of contempt, and a warrant was issued for his arrest; but he kept out of reach of the sergeantat-arms and thus retained his freedom.† The Senate next considered means to punish his counsel for their insolence. It decided not to proceed against Dallas, as the caustic remarks in his letter were the only evidence of sedition procurable against him. But Cooper, being an Englishman and having attacked the President and the Federalist party in an address made some time before, could be reached by both the Alien and the Sedition Laws. He was indicted, brought to trial before Judge Samuel Chaset on April 11, and convicted. Before imposing sentence, Chase asked if the Republican party or Cooper would pay the fine; for if the former, he would impose an extreme penalty, but if the latter, he would give only a light sentence. Cooper's counsel declared that he alone was to be considered and was thereupon sentenced to a fine of $400 and six months' imprisonment. By this time ten editors and printers had been convicted under the Sedition Law: Charles Holt, of the New London (Conn.) Bee, who was tried for libel and convicted; Matthew Lyon; Anthony Haswell, printer of the Vermont Gazette, who was fined. $200 and imprisoned for sixty days; Benjamin F. Bache, who died before his trial; Abijah Adams, of the Independent Chronicle; Luther Baldwin and Thomas Frothingham of the New London Bee; Thomas Cooper; William Duane; and James Thomson Callender. Callender had published a pamphlet, entitled The Prospect before Us, in which he exposed "the misconduct of the President," and "the multiplied corruptions of the Federal Government." Some of the attacks were considered so libelous that Callender was arrested and the case called for trial at Richmond toward the close of May, though the actual trial did not take place before the first part of June. One of the Court of the United States.”— Vol. ii., p. 466. See also Schouler's opinion, United States, vol. i., p. 460. * McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 467-468. THE NATURALIZATION ACT. three attorneys employed by Callender was the subsequently renowned William Wirt. At the trial Judge Chase was so domineering that Callender's counsel threw down their briefs and walked out of the court. Being found guilty, Callender was sentenced to a fine of $200 and imprisonment for nine months,* and was required to give securities for good behavior. At this trial the lawyers for the defence brought out the fact that Judge Chase has commanded the marshal to see that none of the rascals called Democrats were allowed to serve as jurymen. This convinced 377 the Republicans that the partisan Federalist judges were packing the juries, and an outcry against the courts immediately arose. Thereupon Charles Pinckney introduced a bill in the Senate in January of 1800, providing that the juries of the United States Courts should be drawn by lot (which Madison says was "a great improvement on the regulation in force "*) and specifying the manner in which the names should be drawn. The Senate, however, would send to the House a bill providing only that in selecting juries the Federal Courts should follow the custom prevailing in the State where such courts were held.† I. APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XIV. IMPORTANT SECTIONS OF THE NATURALIZATION ACT, JUNE 18, 1798. An Act supplementary to and to amend the act, intituled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject. SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no alien shall be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or of any state, unless in the manner prescribed by the act, intituled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject," he shall have declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, five years, at least, before his admission, and shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare and prove, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction in the case, that he has resided within the United States fourteen years, at least, and within the state or territory where, or for which such court is at the time held, five years, at * McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 468-472. least, besides conforming to the other declarations, renunciations and proofs, by the said act required, any thing therein to the contrary hereof notwithstanding: Provided, that any alien, who was residing within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, before the twenty-ninth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, may, within one year after the passing of this act and any alien who shall have made the declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the United States, in conformity to the provisions of the act may, within four years after having made the declaration aforesaid, be admitted to become a citizen, in the manner prescribed by the said act, upon his making proof that he has resided five years, at least, within the * Madison's Works (Congress ed.), vol. ii., p. 156. Annals of Congress, 6th Congress, 1st session, pp. 35-41, 107, 152, 168, 170: McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 472-473. Of January 29, 1795. |