DEC. 15, 1830.]

Post Office Department.

[SENATE.

He

Mr. WHITE said he would then move that the resolu- known, that in that and other departments of the Gotion be so modified as to refer it to the Committee on the vernment, they who were the most in the habit of dancing Post Office and Post Roads. There was nothing in it attendance, were the most successful in their applications. which was not proper for reference to the regular com- Rash as this declaration might be considered in him, he mittee. If the whole affairs of the department were to had said it, and he should not retract. Let these departbe examined and considered, the investigation would im-ments be brought to the bar of justice, and tested by part to that committee a fund of information, which would their conduct. If he were one of the majority, he would prove useful to them hereafter. not withhold an inquiry into the conduct of any officer, Mr. HOLMES hoped that the resolution would not be even from Andrew Jackson down to the humblest menial. so amended. A great deal of labor would have to be He meant in this remark no allusion to the high minded performed by this committee. It would be their duty to and honorable public officers who differed from him in examine the department well; to see how the business in politics. He respected them as much as any gentleman. it was done, and to present the result to the Senate, that A star from the West would shortly appear here. they might act upon it as circumstances might require, hailed its approach. Mr. NOBLE then inquired of the Seand the information obtained might go forth to the public cretary, who was the chairman of the Committee on the for their consideration. It had been understood that a Post Office and Post Roads? And, upon being informed new bureau for removals and appointments had been es- by the chair that it was Mr. GRUNDY, he inquired whether tablished in the Post Office Department; a bureau, which, Mr. BIBB, of Kentucky, was not also a member of that for brevity, might be called the bureau of proscription. committee? [The CHAIR said not.] Mr. NOBLE said that It has had a good deal to do: it had done a good deal: its he meant no disrespect by the question. Mr. BIBB was business must be nearly at an end. All had probably the chairman at the last session, and he had thought that been touched by it, whom it could well lay its hands on. he was a member at present. He declared that a rigid It services might now, perhaps, be dispensed with. He committee was required on the present occasion. also hoped that the time would soon come when the de- sooner the Augean stable was cleansed the better. It partment could pay all the expenditures with the receipts would be better to have a special committee for the purof the year. It appeared that upwards of eighty thousand pose. He referred, as a precedent in point, to a similar dollars had been taken out of the surplus fund to defray investigation into the General Post Office affairs some the expenses. He admitted that this fund had been also heretofore diminished; but he trusted that it might not be hereafter necessary to apply to it. He was in favor of referring this examination to a special committee, whose particular attention should be directed to that object.

The

years ago, by a special committee, of which that distinguished reformer, the present Secretary of the Treasury, had been the chairman. He also alluded to that other chief of reformers, whose late message had shut up the great outlet of the West.

Mr. GRUNDY said that, a a member of the Post Of Mr. BELL said, that many complaints had been made fice Committee, he ought, perhaps, to be sparing in his concerning the Post Office Department. They had lately remarks on the question before the Senate. Gentlemen been more general than at any other time. He did not were, however, mistaken as to the burthen of business say that they were well founded, but they deserved the which that committee had to perform. They had nothing attention of the Senate. It had been the general practice to do, except what might be specifically imposed upon to refer particular investigations into the manner in which them by the Senate. He was indifferent about the dispo- executive duties of the Government had been performed, sition which might be made of this resolution, but the duty to special committees. He did not know why this pracof the Post Office committee was connected with the bu- tice should be departed from on this occasion. It was siness of that department. It was a duty especially as- proper that this inquiry should go to gentlemen disposed signed to them. They were to ascertain what laws were to make the most thorough investigation. If gentlemen defective, and in what manner they should be amended. were convinced that the complaints were unfounded, they He did not object to the proposed scrutiny; and if it were ought to permit those to make the investigation who were committed to other members, he should cheerfully acqui-impressed with the opinion that an investigation was neesce. He was no fonder of labor than other gentlemen. cessary, because a report from such a committee in favor If the examination were assigned to the Post Office Com- of the Department would be satisfactory to every body. mittee, he, for one, would be willing to engage in it. It was due, therefore, to those who desired the inquiry, Mr. HOLMES observed that the practice of referring as well as to the Postmaster-General himself, that it should duties of this kind to special committees was not novel. go to a special committee. These reasons induced him It was not unusual in the other House. When there, he to vote against the motion to amend. had been a member of a committee of investigation. The House had given them the power to send for persons and papers. Some of the heads of Departments had been brought before them. The committee had made a thorough examination, and had discovered some abuses which required correction. A new administration was now in power, and it might be well for the Senate to take a peep behind the Executive curtain. In the Post Office Department great changes have been made; mistakes, errors, abuses, might have crept in. It was, therefore, proper, in order that the subject might undergo a full and thorough examination, that it should be referred to a special committee.

Mr. NOBLE said that he did not mean to be tedious, but he should tell the truth. Great complaints had been made against this department. There was Obadiah B. Brown-he did not wish to be rough--and there were the relations of Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, who had large contracts with that department for carrying the mail. Worthy and honorable citizens felt aggrieved at the favoritism shown by this department. It was well

Mr. KING said, that gentlemen seemed to treat this subject as if any member of the Senate were opposed to the inquiry.

Mr. BELL explained. He assured the gentleman from Alabama that it had not been his intention to make any such suggestion.

Mr. KING considered that the Post Office committee was composed of as honest and as honorable men as any other members of the Senate. As to their having too much to do, it was notorious that they had little or nothing to do, until after the Post Office Committee of the House of Representatives had made their report. Unless some effect different from a fair exposition were intended or expected from this inquiry, he could imagine no reason for taking it out of the hands of the standing committee to which it properly belonged. Was it proposed to refer the subject to a special committee in order to impress a belief in the existence of extraordinary complaints and of abuses? He was no apologist for any department. If any head of a department had done wrong, let him be brought before a committee; let him be censured, or even

{{

SENATE.]

Roads.

punished, if punishment was proper. He did not believe was created, did it enter the mind of the President or of that the individual now at the head of the Post Office the Senate that the duties enjoined by this resolution would shrink from any investigation, if it were intimated were to be committed to them? These duties were not to him that it was desired. He had administered that de- of the nature of those which belonged to a standing partment with integrity, skill, and ability. His predeces- committee. It results from the character and object of sor did the same. Mr. KING hoped the inquiry would be standing committees, that a vast variety of items were referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post referred to them in the ordinary transaction of the business of the Senate. These were, generally, as much Mr. CLAYTON expressed a hope, that gentlemen as they could attend to. He believed that, if a standwould not suppose that he wished to take this inquiry from ing committee had even taken up any subject like that the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, because contemplated by the resolution, a knowledge of it had of any want of confidence in them. He had no such idea. never passed beyond the walls of the room in which they Because he had confidence in that committee, did it follow had deliberated. Duties specifically belonging to a that this special and laborious investigation should be referred to them? The same argument would apply with but the proposed inquiry was one which was peculiarly standing committee should go to it, as a matter of course; equal force against the reference of any other proposition appropriate to a special committee. He did not mean to a special committee. Were not other standing comto compliment; all the members on this floor stood on mittees composed also of honorable men? The objection, if it were sound, would apply on all occasions. He had an equal footing. His objection was not to the integrity as great confidence as any gentleman in the judgment and lected with a view to this investigation. This was a of the Post Office committee; but they had not been seability of the Post Office Committee. Yet, on this occasion, he preferred a committee selected by the Senate question of selection; and he should vote for the resoluitself for this special purpose. In regard to that committee tion as offered by his honorable friend from Delaware. having nothing to do, it was an erroneous idea. Peti- The question on the motion to amend, so as to refer tions and memorials were presented every day, over and the resolution to the Committee on the Post Office and over again, and referred to that committee. They would Post Roads, was taken by yeas and nays, and the vote have to examine and prepare reports on all these. The was 18 Yeas, and 20 Nays, as follows: duty of the proposed special committee would be arduous YEAS-Messrs. Baker, Benton, Brown, Dickerson, and laborious. The standing committee would not have Dudley, Ellis, Grundy, Hendricks, Iredell, Kane, King, time to investigate the whole subject. Gentlemen could Poindexter, Sanford, Smith, of Md., Troup, Tyler, vote for the members of that committee as members of White, Woodbury—18. the special committee, if they pleased; but nothing was fairer than that the Senate should select a committee for themselves.

Mr. KING said, that the Senate was a small body. Was there a member in it who was not on some committee? If the honorable Senator had no particular objection to the gentlemen composing the Post Office Committee, and, upon his soul, he did not know who they were--why refer this resolution to other gentlemen having equally or more arduous duties to perform on other committees?

Mr. CLAYTON replied, that some of the members of the Post Office Committee had other arduous duties to perform also. The gentleman might, however, in the selection of a committee, judge for himself, as he should, in this respect.

NAYS-Messrs. Barton, Bell, Burnet, Chambers, Chase, Clayton, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Holmes, Johnston, Knight, Marks, Naudain, Noble, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Willey-20.

The original resolution, as offered by Mr. CLAYTON, was then adopted.

Mr. BELL then moved that a committee of five be appointed, by ballot, to take charge of the resolution.

Mr. GRUNDY inquired of the Chair what was the rule of the Senate in relation to the appointment of committees?

The President read the rule, by which it appeared that the power to appoint committees belonged to the Chair. That power, however, could be exercised by the Senate, by unanimous consent.

Mr. GRUNDY said that would not be given.

Mr. FOOT asked whether the rule of the Senate could not be altered or amended?

Mr. WHITE had not expected, when he had made the motion before the Senate, as much debate as had arisen upon the subject. He had listened to it with attention; but it had not changed his original views. If the subjectMr. KING replied, that it could, by giving a day's notice. matter of a resolution applied to a standing committee, Here the conversation ended, and the President anthe general rule was to refer it to that committee. He nounced the appointment of Mr. CLAYTON, Mr. admitted that there were exceptions to the rule; but every GRUNDY, Mr. HOLMES, Mr. WOODBURY, and Mr. object of inquiry in this resolution belonged to the Com- HENDRICKS, as the committee. mittee on the Post Office and Post Roads. There was nothing in it that could take it out of the general rule. Under this impression, he had made the motion now before the Senate. He could not believe that the Post Office

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16.

EXPLANATION.

Committee were so much pressed as gentlemen supposed. Mr. NOBLE said, he had understood that, in the reThey had as much leisure as any other committee. They port of his remarks yesterday on the resolution respectwere familiar with the business of the department. It ing the Post Office Department, which had appeared in would be injustice to them to suppose that they could de- the Telegraph, he had used language that had been ofsire to suppress any investigation. They would no doubt fensive to some of his friends. He had been reported as give to the subject the fullest and freest examination. If having represented Colonel Richard M. Johnson as an any abuse existed, let it be brought to the notice of the agent to that Department. He had no recollection that Senate and the nation. He thought it more proper to he had made such remark. A different report of his refer the resolution to the standing committee, than to a speech had been made in the National Intelligencer. He special committee: but he should acquiesce in whatever decision the Senate might come to on the subject.

Mr. CHAMBERS concurred with the honorable Senator in the general principle which he had laid down; but he thought that it had been misapplied on this occasion. When the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads

had made allusion to some of the friends of that gentleman as having contracts with the Department. This he could not disguise. But it would have been wrong and unjust to represent Colonel Johnson as an agent of the Post Office, because he was a member of Congress, and was prohibited, by law, from accepting any office of

DEC. 17, 20, 1830.]

that kind.

He did not consider that it would be honora- of the common law had no force in our tribunals. He was ble in him to do injustice to his fellow men, whether in that House, in the other House, or out of the House, whether they differed with him in politics or not.

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17.

After disposing of several private bills, and the consideration of Executive business, the Senate adjourned to Monday.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 20.

TRIAL OF JUDGE PECK.

aware it might be said, that it was necessary for the courts to adopt some principle which would authorize them to maintain their jurisdiction by punishing for contempts committed within and against it. But the power of punishing for contempt was a high criminal power; and, although it was, of all others, the most dangerous that could be enhad been exercised by courts of chancery as well as law, it forced. He maintained that the power could not legally or constitutionally be exercised so as to disfranchise a citizen, or to deprive him of his liberty and the means of his existence. The correct principle, then, was this: the courts of the United States had no power to punish for contempt, further than their own self-preservation required. It was

The Senate resolved itself into a Court of Impeach-necessary that they should possess the power to protect ment, for the trial of Judge Peck, of Missouri.

The Marshal accordingly called over their names. Some of them did not answer.

Mr. MEREDITH observed, that three of the material witnesses for the respondent were not present. We are, said he, notwithstanding, ready to go to trial, Mr. McDUFFIE then rose, and opened the case for the prosecution in substance as follows:

themselves in the administration of justice; to prevent and The House of Representatives, preceded by their man- punish direct outrages upon the court; to prevent the agers, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. McDUFFIE, Judge judge from being driven from the bench, the jury from SPENCER, Mr. STORRS, and Mr. WICKLIFFE, came being assaulted, and the regular and fair administration of into the Senate chamber in a body, and having taken justice from being impeded. This power the courts posthe seats prepared for them, sessed independently of the laws of the United States, or Mr. BUCHANAN rose and said, that the managers on the common law. The right to punish in such cases was the part of the House of Representatives were now pre-inherent. But how far did it extend? What principle of pared to proceed in this trial. necessity, the tyrant's plea, would justify the exercise of Mr. MEREDITH, one of the counsel for the respon- this power? for nothing but necessity could justify it. dent, desired that the witnesses summoned in his behalf It could be enforced only so far as to protect the courts in might be called. the administration of justice; to prevent any obstruction in their proceedings. It must be a flagrant outrage in the face of the court to justify a summary punishment for contempt. If, in such cases, our courts had not the power to protect themselves in the discharge of their high functions, it would be in vain for them to attempt to administer justice. Certain powers, however, had been imperceptibly introduced here from the common law courts of EngMr. MCDUFFIE said, that, in opening this case, he should land; our judges and lawyers had been thus imbued with endeavor to reduce to the narrowest limits the preliminary certain principles, which were utterly incompatible with view, which he proposed to take of the principles upon liberty. What was the case of the respondent? He was which he should invoke the judgment of this honorable not in court; he was not in the actual administration of juscourt on the charge set forth in the article of impeachment tice, when the publication of Mr. Lawless was made. He against the respondent now upon his trial. It was unne- claimed the power of protecting his sacred person, like cessary for him to attract the special attention of the court, the King of England, from all scrutiny! The judgment by any exposition of the importance of the case. Every of the court had been rendered six months before the pubmember of this honorable court must be aware of its great lication. The decree had been entered. There was an importance to the respondent himself, and to the country end to the judicial functions of the judge as to that case. at large. He asked that patient attention, in the consider-But some four or five months after judgment rendered, ation of the case, which was indispensable to a correct Judge Peck, from some motive, no doubt having referdecision upon it. He then proceeded to lay down the ence to the public interest, thought proper to come out principles of the constitution and law upon the subject of and publish an extra-judicial opinion in the newspapers: a contempts, and contended that Judge Peck had violated labored argument, prepared after his judicial functions them, and had, in the summary punishment which he had had ceased, to make such an impression upon the land inflicted upon Mr. Lawless, been guilty of an illegal and claimants in Missouri as should correspond with his own. tyrannical usurpation of power. Whatever view the And it was this extra-judicial opinion which he sought to court might take of the powers of the judge, he maintain-protect from all scrutiny, by the principles of the common ed that no contempt had been committed. The common law; upon the principle that the king could do no wrong, law of England was utterly unknown to the judicial tribu- and that the judge was, as the representative of the king, nals of the United States. Upon what principle, he de- administering his justice, equally exempt from responsimanded, could it be contended that the English common bility.

law, as such, had any force in this country? Were it not Was there any thing in this case to justify the exercise that it had been partly adopted in some of the States by of such an extraordinary power, as that assumed by the legislative enactments; had we not been educated in its judge, to commit and suspend Mr. Lawless? Was justice principles; would it occur to any human being in this coun- likely to be impeded, because, by an extra-judicial act of try that it had any existence here? It was utterly absurd the judge himself, his opinion was subjected to public disto say that the common law was in force in the courts of cussion? Suppose the article written by Mr. Lawless to the United States. He granted that, as respected many of have been, what it was not, an atrocious libel, founded in our laws and acts of Congress, especially those which pro- falschood, an infamous and defamatory libel, where was vided for the organization of our courts, they were ex- the evil? What injury could it have done to the adminispounded according to the principles and rules of the com-tration of justice? Was it a case of emergency? No, sir. mon law. Where our courts were called upon to decide It would have been an ordinary case of libel, which could cases, they must have rules of proceeding and action, and just as well have been punished, through the ordinary he agreed that for these they had wisely and properly re-channel of trial by jury, in two years, as any other libel. sorted to the common law. These were wise rules of ac- Adrait the impunity of Judge Peck from scrutiny; suppose tion for cases within the express jurisdiction of the courts. him to have been administering the king's justice, and to But, with regard to crimes and punishments, the principles have been protected from all animadversion; where then

SENATE.]

Trial of Judge Peck.

[DEC. 20, 1830.

was the necessity for inflicting punishment by a mode of tending to impede the course of justice, any insult to the trial which excluded all investigation; without any trial in court or jury, any contempt perpetrated in the face of the fact: without investigation; without the interposition of a court, by fine and imprisonment. The express grant of jury? Would any man of sense contend, on these princi- one power was the negation of another. The power ples, that the judges of the United States had any power, conferred by this act raised a presumption that Congress any right, to punish any libel, however flagitious, on any had not intended to go farther; that the federal courts act of the court, after it had been done as a contempt? possessed no other or greater authority in relation to conHad the people no right to discuss the principles of the tempts. He humbly conceived that the kind of punishjudges of the Supreme Court of the United States? Had ment indicated by that act, was that by fine and imprisona South Carolina editor, for example, no right to examine ment alone. If it were, it would be most extraordinary the opinion of that court in the case of Cohen,and to produce that the courts should claim the power to punish in any it as evidence that the judges were the ministers of despot- other way than by fine and imprisonment. Unquestionaism? He demanded of this honorable court, whether there bly, they did not possess any such authority. What arguwas any unmeasured language of reprobation, in which a ment, then, could justify the respondent? Although Concitizen might not indulge towards a court for pronouncing gress had authorized only fine and imprisonment for the an opinion, and proclaiming principles dangerous to liber-higher grades of contempt, the respondent claimed the ty, and to the free institutions of his country? Would the power to inflict a greater punishment for the milder Supreme Court send the Marshal to South Carolina or grades. In any view, whether we regarded the common Louisiana to bring such an editor before them for con- law, the laws or usages of our own country, or of Engtempt, and to punish him by the summary process of at- land, or the principles of the constitution, our courts and tachment? From his knowledge of that court, and of the judges could not inflict a greater punishment for contempt Chief Justice, he had no hesitation in saying that they than fine and imprisonment: they could not inflict disfranwould unanimously, and with one accord, decide that they chisement: they could not deprive a man of his occupawere a court of limited powers; that they did not possess tion, his inheritance, or the means of subsisting his family. any authority on the subject of contempts, except the in- Such a power was never claimed before by any tribunal herent power to protect themselves in the administration in the civilized world. of justice, and to prevent its obstruction. To support his It must be apparent, by this time, that the district court argument, Mr. McD. adverted to the sedition law, not for of Missouri had no power to punish a citizen of the United the purpose of exciting any prejudice, or reviving any States for contempt, further than to protect the court in party feeling, in this honorable court, but as furnishing the actual administration of justice. Even the principles some analogy for the illustration of the present case. That of the common law conferred no semblance of authority law was thoroughly understood by every public man in the to punish a contempt against the majesty of a court. country. It was settled in the public mind to be an usur- What was the principle assumed in regard to contempts by pation. Every man of understanding considered it to the courts of England? In the case of the King against have been unconstitutional. And yet it was a mitigation Almon, which was no case at all, a mere extra-judicial of the common law of England. It exploded the mon- opinion of Chief Justice Wilmot, found among his papers strous heresy, that the greater the truth the greater would after his death, all the principles laid down in it were the be the libel. But it was deemed unconstitutional. Con- principles of unmitigated judicial despotism. This ingegress were condemned not for having passed an act which nious and artful tissue assumed, that the judges of Engmitigated the principles of the common law of England, land, deriving their authority from the King of England, but because they had no authority to pass any law restrict- and administering the King's justice, were an emanation ing the liberty of speech or of the press; because they had of his power, and that the same principle which protected conferred on the federal courts a power to punish for the character and person of the King, as sacred, protected contempt any man who might utter or publish what they those of his judges in like manner. This opinion was gomight deem a libel. Was not this a grievance? The law ing the whole. The judges, sitting in the seat of the had been repealed: it had become universally odious. And King, could not be called to account for denying the writ now, the President, the Senate, and House of Represen- of habeas corpus, or refusing to grant it, without making tatives, together, did not possess the power which Judge the King violate his coronation oath! This miserable tisPeck, representing the King of England, and administer- tue of sophistry and falsehood was used to justify the puning his justice, claimed, of punishing a citizen for con-ishment of a fair and manly publication on the law of hatempt, in daring to question the infallibility of his opinion. beas corpus as a contempt! God forbid that any man in Whence did he derive a power which did not belong to this country should say that the opinions of judges were the united functionaries of this Government? Under the not a fair subject of animadversion, or that the proceedsedition law, the citizen accused of a libel was entitled to ings of this honorable body were not also open for discusa trial by jury, and to give the truth in evidence. sion. No man, according to this doctrine, had a right to

By its repeal, the people of the United States had de- publish any thing, true or false, concerning any public cided that the President, Senate, and House of Represen-functionary, disparaging him, his character, or opinions. tatives could not subject a citizen even to trial by a jury for This principle of the English courts, a district judge of the most defamatory libel. But here, in this case, the the United States has had the boldness to advance to jusjudge undertakes, not by the interposition of a jury, but tify his judicial tyranny. Could this be law? Any publiof his own will, to punish for a contempt imagined by cation against a private citizen was prima facie a libel: it himself, which nobody else would have noticed or view was the private individual that ought to be protected from ed as a contempt. Without law, this honorable judge calumny. The same immunity did not belong to the pubclaimed a power to punish, much greater than that which lic functionary. What might properly be punished for was possessed by every other branch of the Government being said against a private citizen, it would be justifiable united. He claimed a power to make the law, and punish to say against a public functionary. There was hardly under it, at the same moment. This was the most infa- any thing, true or false, that ought not. with impunity, to mous and tyrannical of the whole tissue of usurpations. be allowed to be published against a public man, rather We had analogies in the acts of Congress bearing on this than run the hazard of restricting the liberty of discusBy the judicial act of 1789, the federal courts have sion. By the irreversible decision of the people of the the power to punish for contempts committed during the United States upon the sedition law, it had been decided progress of a trial of any cause depending in court. In that you cannot punish any thing said against a public carrying this law into effect, they might punish any act officer. A decision so unanimous as that was did not ex

case.

DEC. 20, 1830.]

Trial of Judge Peck.

[SENATE.

ist on record. He would now barely call the attention of Mr. Lawless presented the strongest illustration of judicial this honorable court to one or two British authorities to despotism that had ever been exercised, from the first satisfy them that Judge Peck had been guilty of a high dawn of civil liberty to the present day. It must have remisdemeanor, even if we admitted the force of the com- quired all the disordered imagination and furious passion mon law in this country. Some of the elementary Eng- of this judge to distort into a contemptuous libel one of the lish authors carried the doctrine of contempt further than others.

most innocent publications ever issued from the press. As God was his judge, if he did not know the respectable Blackstone, in whose work, unfortunately for many of counsel of the respondent, he should say, from the defence us, we were educated as a text book, supported the autho- of the judge, that he must have been deranged. No man rity of the King on all occasions, and spoke of the right in his senses could have tortured the publication of Mr. of the court to punish for consequential contempts. But Lawless as he had done. In the case of Soulard's heirs, even he did not push the doctrine as far as this tyrannical although the judge had decided against the claimants, he judge had done. Hawkins broadly laid down the princi- said, in his published opinion, that it was still open for the ple, that any words, however true or false, which might discussion of counsel. Mr. Lawless, therefore, combe uttered, reproachful of the judge, were immediately menced his publication, with an unbecoming humility to finable by the court; but that the better opinion was, that the court, such as no citizen ought to have manifested, by a man could not be punished for words said against a judge saying that he would avail himself of the permission grantnot in the actual execution of his official duties. If a man ed by the judge, to point the public attention to some said that a judge was a numskull, and deserved to be of the principal errors which he thought he had discoverhanged for giving such an opinion, here was contemptu-ed in his opinion. This very apology had been seized on ous as well as reproachful language; but the man could by this jealous tyrant, and tortured into an insult upon the not be punished for it. This had been laid down by a court. The judge alleged that he had not said the case writer who pushed the King's prerogative to its utmost was open for newspaper discussion; nor had Mr. Lawless limits. Such a man might say to a judge, out of court, said so. But the judge seemed to suppose that Mr. Law“your opinion is a fair subject of investigation: I have a less had discovered a secret; that by the publication of his right to pronounce you a fool or a scoundrel." This lan- opinion, Judge Peck had shown so little sense of judicial guage would not be a proper subject of indictment. He decency and decorum as to invite a newspaper discussion would not pretend to compare language so contemptuous of a case which had been decided in his court. And this and disrespectful as this to the publication, by Mr. Law- was the insult which Mr. Lawless had committed! This less, of "A Citizen," for which his majesty Judge Peck was the congeries of ridiculous absurdities uttered by the had imprisoned, suspended, and disfranchised the author. judge; this was the defence which he had dared to make His was a respectful and harmless publication. He would before the highest tribunal in the United States! Such produce another English elementary writer. According an idea never could have been conceived by any man of to Holt, it is held in England that a judicial opinion is a understanding. Humbly as the judge might estimate the fair subject of discussion, provided no bad or corrupt mo- land claimants in Missouri, no one of them would have tive be ascribed to the judge. Although he would not ad- been so deficient in common sense as to have put the conmit that it was punishable to say to a tyrannical judge, struction which he had put on the apology of Mr. Law"you are a judicial tyrant," yet, even according to the less. Mr. McD. then consecutively and critically examEnglish law, as expounded by the writers to whom he had ined every specification in the publication of "A Citizen," referred, Judge Peck had no right to punish Mr. Lawless, with the commentary of the judge upon it; and, in relation who had ascribed no wrong or corrupt motive to his opi- to the first, he remarked, among other things, that, with nion in the case of Soulard. The power exercised by due deference to Mr. Lawless, he thought the only crime he that judge was the most arbitrary and dangerous ever ex-had committed was a violation of grammatical accuracy; a ercised by any court or judge in this country. It was a blunder which, he believed, was common to the Irish and pregnant proof of the danger of such an exercise of judi- Scotch Irish; he had construed a want of power in a subcial power, to say, as he would declare, that the power to delegate of Louisiana to grant land for services rendered, or punish for contempt, even in cases of necessity, was a to be rendered, into a prohibition from making such grants. dangerous power, a despotic power, an anomaly, utterly And for this monstrous and flagitious blunder in the King's incompatible with liberty, the essence of tyranny and des- English, committed by Mr. Lawless in the presence of his potism. It was the very illustration of tyranny, that a honor Judge Peck; for thus wounding the vanity of the judge might make the law, fix the punishment, and pun-judge, clothed in a little brief authority, Mr. Lawless was ish, at the same time. Could any man doubt that Judge charged with the suggestion of a falsehood, and sent to Peck had assumed the right to punish a contempt against prison for a contempt! In the progress of his analysis, his sacred person; that he had fixed the punishment, and Mr. McD. endeavored to demonstrate, that many of the enforced it too; that he had performed the functions of interpretations put by Judge Peck upon the publication legislator and judge in his own case? Could any man of Mr. Lawless could have been conceived only by the doubt that this judge, to gratify his vindictive passions, had, by an arbitrary and summary process, deprived an American citizen of his rights, subjected him to an ignominious confinement in prison, and deprived him of the means of supporting his family? Was not such a man a judicial tyrant, whose crimes called aloud for exemplary punishment?

very spirit of judicial cavilling; by none but a tyrant in the meridian of his tyranny; by nothing but the very genius of despotism in its maddest freaks. He pronounced Judge Peck himself to be the most accomplished libeller that had ever appeared in a court of justice, and declared that his whole commentary upon the publication of "A Citizen," was a tissue of libels offensive to decency. The charge Mr. MCDUFFIE then proceeded to call the attention of of falsehood, absurdity, libel, ran through it; it was the the Court to the publication of "A Citizen," which Judge phantom which haunted his imagination when he sent this Peck alleged to be a libel, punishable as a contempt; and man to prison. Frail would be the tenure by which the peohe analyzed it paragraph by paragraph, comparing it as ple would hold their liberties, if an American citizen could he went along with the opinion of the judge, on which it be punished by a judge for the coinage of his own brain; was a commentary, and with the answer to the article of if, frantic with rage, by a species of school-boy cavilling, he impeachment, in order to show that it was not even a misrepresentation, much less a disrespectful contempt, of the opinion of Judge Peck. By this analytical process also, he would demonstrate that the conduct of that judge to

might perpetrate this indignity upon an American citizen! Mr. Lawless had a full knowledge of the facts and the laws in relation to land claims in Missouri at the time of writing and publishing the article for which he was pun