EXTRACT FROM A SPEECH,

IN THE TRIAL OF SAMUEL CHASE, A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO WAS IMPEACHED BEFORE THE SENATE FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.

BY JOSEPH HOPKINSON.

A VERY strange and unexpected effort has been made, sir, to raise a prejudice against the respondent on this occa. sion, 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 unconstitu tional; and who stood so confident 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 ignorance as an apology for his crimes. The friendless John Fries! Is this the man who was able to draw round him. self a band of bold and determined adherents, resolved to defend him and his vile doctrines at the risk of their own lives, and of the lives of all those 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 Pennsylvanin, 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 Fries, 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 spilled, 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 tenderness, 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 possessions, 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, im. partial and dignified sentence of this court, will completely establish to our country and to the world, that the respond. ent 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.

ARGUMENT,

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, IN THE TRIAL OF THOMAS O. SELFRIDGE, FOR KILLING CHARLES AUSTIN.

BY SAMUEL DEXTER.

you

It is my duty to submit to your consideration some observations in the close of the defence of this important and interesting cause. In doing it, though I feel perfectly satisfied that you are men of pure minds, yet I reflect with anxiety, that no exertion or zeal on the part of the defendant's counsel can possibly insure justice, unless you likewise perform your duty. Do not suppose that I mean to suggest the least suspicion with respect to your principles or motives. I know you to have been selected in a manner most likely to obtain impartial justice; and doubtless you have honestly resolved, and endeavored to lay aside all opinions which may have entertained previous to this trial. But the diffi culty of doing this, is perhaps not fully estimated; a man deceives himself oftener than he misleads others; and he does injustice from his errors, when his principles are all on the side of rectitude. To exhort him to overcome his prejudices, is like telling a blind man to see. He may be disposed to overcome them, and yet be unable because they are unknown to himself. When prejudice is once known, it is no longer prejudice, it becomes corruption; but so long as it is not known, the possessor cherishes it without guilt; he feels indignation for vice, and pays homage to virtue; and yet does injustice. It is the apprehension that you may thus mistake, that you may call your prejudices

principles, and believe them such, and that their effects may appear to you the fruits of virtue, which leads us so anxiously to repeat the request, that you would examine your hearts, and ascertain that you do not come here with partial minds. In ordinary cases, there is no reason for this precaution. Jurors are so appointed, by the institutions of our country, as to place them out of the reach of improper influence, on common occasions; at least as much so as frail humanity will permit.

But when a cause has been a long time the subject of party discussion; when every man among us belongs to one party or the other, or at least is so considered; when the democratic presses, throughout the country, have teemed with publications, fraught with appeals to the passions, and bitter invective against the defendant; when, on one side, every thing has been done which party rage could do, to prejudice this cause; and on the other, little has been said in vindication of the supposed offender, though, on one occasion, I admit that too much has been said; when silence has been opposed to clamor, and patient waiting for a trial to systematic labor to prevent justice; when the friends of the accused, restrained by respect for the laws, kept silence, because it was the exclusive right of a court of justice to speak; when no voice has been heard from the walls of the defendant's prison, but a request that he may not be condemned without a trial; the necessary consequence must be, that opinion will progress one way; that the stream of incessant exertion will wear a channel in the public mind; and the current may be strong enough to carry away those who may be jurors, though they know not how, or when, they receiv ed the impulse that hurries them forward.

I am fortunate enough not to know, with respect to most of you, to what political party you belong. Are you repub. lican federalists? I ask you to forget it: leave all your political opinions behind you; for it would be more mischievous, that you should acquit the defendant from the influence of