Page images
PDF
EPUB

TRIAL

OF

THOMAS COOPER,

FOR A

SEDITIOUS LIBEL.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT.

PHILADELPHIA, 1800.*

THE libellous matter complained of was as follows:

"Nor do I see any impropriety in making this request of Mr. Adams. At that time he had just entered into office; he was hardly in the infancy of political mistake: even those who doubted his capacity thought well of his intentions. Nor were we yet saddled with the expense of a permanent navy, or threatened, under his auspices, with the existence of a standing army. Our credit was not yet reduced so low as to borrow money at eight per cent. in time of peace, while the unnecessary violence of official expressions might justly have provoked a war. Mr. Adams had not yet projected his embassies to Prussia, Russia and the Sublime Porte, nor had he yet interfered, as President of the United States, to influence the decisions of a court of justicea stretch of authority which the monarch of Great Britain would have. shrunk from an interference without precedent, against law and against mercy. This melancholy case of Jonathan Robbins, a native citizen of America, forcibly impressed by the British, and delivered up, with the advice of Mr. Adams, to the mock trial of a British court-martial, had not yet astonished the republican citizens of this free country; a case too little known, but of which the people ought to be fully apprised, before the election, and they shall be."†

* Mr. Cooper, immediately after the trial, published a report of it, from which, together with the notes of Mr. Rawle, I have made up the text.

These passages were extracted from the following publication:

TO THE PRINTER.

TO THE PUBLIC.

SIR, I should not condescend to answer anonymous slander, but the information on which the falsehoods contained in the following paragraph are grounded, must have been originally derived from the President himself. I cannot believe him capable of such misrepre

April 11, 1800. The bill was found upon the ex officio action of the district attorney, there having been no previous binding over.

sentation, for I still think well of his intentions, however I may disapprove of his conduct : but the following narrative will show that some of his underlings are capable of anything.

From the Reading Weekly Advertiser of October 26, 1799.
COMMUNICATION.

"Thomas Cooper's address to the readers of the Sunbury and Northumberland Gazette, of which he was editor, having been republished in this State, with an introduction approba tory of the piece, a correspondent wishes to know if it be the same Thomas Cooper, an Englishman, of whom the following anecdote is related? If it is, every paper devoted to truth, honour, and decency, ought to give it a thorough circulation.

Not many months ago, it is said, a Mr. Cooper, an Englishman, applied to the President of the United States, to be appointed "agent for settling the respective claims of the citizens and subjects of this country and Great Britain." In his letter, he informs the President, that although he (Thomas Cooper) had been called a democrat, yet his real political sentiments are such as would be agreeable to the President and government of the United States, or expressions to that effect. This letter was accompanied with another from Dr. Joseph Priestley, who did not fail to assure the President of the pliability of his friend Cooper's democratic principles.-The President, it is said, rejected Cooper's application with dis dain, and Priestley's with still stronger marks of surprise, saying, it is said, as he threw the Jetter on the table, does he think that I would appoint any Englishman to that important office in preference to an American? What was the consequence? When Thomas Cooper found his application for a lucrative office under our President rejected, he writes in revenge the address which appeared in print, and Dr. Priestley exerted his influence in dispersing this very address, which he must know was the offspring of disappointment and revenge!

The address is as cunning and insidious a production as ever appeared in the Aurora or the old Chronicle, and as for impudence, it exceeds, or at least equals, Porcupine himself. Priestley and Cooper are both called upon to deny the above narrative. A recourse to the letters themselves, would establish the accuracy of this anecdote, even to a syllable."

Yes; I am the Thomas Cooper alluded to-luckily possessed of more accurate information than the malignant writer of that paragraph, from whatever source his intelligence was derived.

About the time of the appointment of commissioners under the British treaty, Doctor Ross, who had sedulously brought about an intercourse of civility between Mr. Liston and myself, urged me to permit him to apply on my behalf to that gentleman, for one of the appointments that must then take place. He pressed on me the folly, as he termed it, of my confining myself to Northumberland, his earnest wish to see me settled in Philadelphia, and the duty I owed my family to better my situation by every means in my power. He stated that Mr. Liston, he knew, thought highly of me, and though the post of the fifth commissioner was probably then disposed of, there must be an agent for the British claimants; an office which, from my situation as a barrister in England, and my knowledge of mercantile transactions, I was peculiarly fitted to fill. I replied, that he probably over-rated Mr. Liston's opinion and his own influence, and that, at all events, my known political opinions must render it equally improper for Mr. Liston to give, and for me to accept, any office whatever connected with the British interests. That Mr. Liston and I understood each other on this question, and had hitherto avoided all politics whatever. That, being au American, I should not object to any office under this government, if I could fairly obtain it; but that I would never consent to any application to Mr. Liston.

Through Mr. Coleman's interest, Mr. Hall of Sunbury was complimented with the offer of being appointed agent of American claims. On mentioning to Dr. Priestley, one night at supper, that Mr. Hall had declined it, Dr. Ross's persuasions occurred to me, and I said that such an office as that would have suited me very well. Dr. Priestley replied, if that was the case, he thought he had some interest with Mr. Adams, with whom he had long been acquainted, and who had always expressed himself in terms of the highest friendship: that, as he never intended to ask any favour of Mr. Adams for himself, I might as well let him try for once to ask one for me. On my objecting that Mr. Adams' politics and mine were probably very different, Dr. Priestley declared that this, so far from being an objection, might be an inducement in my favour; for if Mr. Adams meant to be the ruler of a nation, instead of the leader of a party, he would be glad of an opportunity to exhibit such an instance of liberal conduct. At length I consented, expressly requesting Dr. Priestley to take care that Mr. Adams should not mistake my politics. In consequence of this conversation, Dr. Priestley wrote the following letter; not a few months, but above two years ago.

Some difficulty arose at the outset concerning the right of the defendant to compel the attendance, as witnesses, of several members of Congress (Congress being then in session), and of the President.

August 12, 1797.

DEAR SIR-It was far from being my intention or wish to trouble you with the request of any favours, though it is now in your power to grant them; and it is not at all probable that I shall ever take a second liberty of the kind. But circumstances have arisen which I think call upon me to do it once, though not for myself, but a friend. The office of agent for American claims was offered, I understand, to Mr. Hall of Sunbury, and he has declined it. If this be the case, and no other person be yet fixed upon, I shall be very happy if I could serve Mr. Cooper, a man I doubt not of equal ability, and possessed of every other qualifi cation for the office, by recommending him. It is true, that both he and myself fall, in the language of our calumniators, under the description of democrats, who are studiously represented as enemies to what is called government, both in England and here. What I have done to deserve that character, you well know, and Mr. Cooper has done very little more. In fact, we have both been persecuted for being friends to American liberty, and our preference of the government of this country has brought us both hither. However, were the accusations true, I think the appointment of a man of unquestionable ability and fidelity to his trust, for which I would make myself answerable, would be truly such a mark of supe. riority to popular prejudice as I should expect from you. I, therefore, think it no unfa vourable circumstance in the recommendation. That you will act according to your best judgment, I have no doubt, with respect to this and other affairs of infinitely more moment, through which I am persuaded you will bring the country with reputation to yourself, though in circumstances of such uncommon difficulty, perhaps with less ease and satisfaction than I could wish. With my earnest wishes for the honour and tranquillity of your presidency, I am, &c. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY.

This letter was accompanied by the following from myself. SIR:-On my expressing an inclination for the office which Mr. Hall has declined, Dr. Priestley was so good as to offer his services with you on my behalf.

Probably the office will be filled ere this letter can reach you: probably there may be objections to nominating a person not a native of the country: probably the objection mentioned by Dr. Priestley, may reasonably be deemed of weight in my instance. Be all this as it may, I see no impropriety in the present application to be appointed agent of American claims, for it is still possible I may suppose more weight in the objections than they will be found to deserve. If it should so happen that I am nominated to that office, I shall endeavour to merit the character the Doctor has given me, and your esteem.

[blocks in formation]

Is this the letter of a man, or not? I do not appeal to the cowardly propagator of anonymous falsehoods, but to the public. What is there in it of vanity or servility? Do not these letters take for granted that I am a democrat, though not a disturber of all government? and that what I am I shall remain, even though it be deemed a reasonable objection to my appointment? Is this, or is this not, adhering to my principle, whatever becomes of my interest?

Nor is it true that my address originated from any motives of revenge. Two years elapsed from the date of those letters, before I wrote anything on the politics of this country. Nor did I recollect them at the time.-Nor do I see the objection to taking any fair means of improving my situation. This is a duty incumbent on every prudent man who has a family to raise, and which I have already too much neglected from public motives: nor can any office to which I am eligible in this country, recompense me for the offers I rejected in its favour. But it is not in the power of promises or threats, of wealth or poverty, to extinguish the political enthusiasm which has actuated my conduct for these twenty years.-The prudence of middle age and the claims of duty may make me cautious of sacrificing my interest, but they cannot induce me to sacrifice my principle.

Nor do I see any impropriety in making this request of Mr. Adams. At that time he had just entered into office; he was hardly in the infancy of political mistake; even those who doubted his capacity, thought well of his intentions. He had not at that time given the public to understand that he would bestow no office but under implicit conformity to his political opinions. He had not declared that "a republican government may mean any. thing;" he had not yet sanctioned the abolition of trial by jury in the alien law, or entrenched his public character behind the legal barriers of the sedition law. Nor were we yet saddled with the expense of a permanent navy, or threatened under his auspices with the existence of a standing army. Our credit was not yet reduced so low as to borrow money at eight per cent. in time of peace, while the unnecessary violence of official expres

An application was made to the court to address a letter to the Speaker of the House, requesting him to have process served. This Judge Peters acceded to, as the proper course. It was refused, however, by Judge Chase, who ordered process to issue without such letter, saying, at the same time, that if it was necessary to compel the attendance of the members, the case would be continued until the session was over. The court at the same time refused to permit a subpoena to issue directed to the President of the United States.

The cause was then continued to April 19, in order to enable the defendant to procure documentary and other evidence which he considered material.

April 19, 1800. After some difficulty in obtaining the attendance of the members of Congress who were subpoenaed, which appears ultimately to have been given under a waiver of the supposed privilege; and after considerable altercation between Judge Chase and the defendant with. regard to the character of the evidence to be produced, the jury was sworn, and Mr. Rawle opened the case to the jury substantially as

follows:

The defendant stands charged with attempts which the practice and policy of all civilized nations have thought it right at all times to punish with severity, with having published a false, scandalous and malicious attack on the character of the President of the United States, with an intent to excite the hatred and contempt of the people of this country against the man of their choice.

It was much to be lamented that every person who had a tolerable facility at writing should think he had a right to attack and overset those authorities and officers whom the people of this country had thought fit to appoint. Nor was it to be endured that foul and infamous falsehoods should be uttered and published with impunity against the President of the United States, whom the people themselves had placed in that high office, and in which he has acted with so much credit to himself and benefit to them. Thomas Cooper stands charged in the indictment as follows-(here Mr. R. read the indictment:)—It was a sense of public duty that called for this prosecution. It was necessary that an example should be made to deter others from misleading the people by such false and defamatory publications. There was a peculiarity in the manner also of this publication: we generally observe that persons who take these liberties endeavour to avoid punishment by sheltering themselves under fictitious signatures, or by concealing their names; but the defendant acted very differently. Being of the profession of the law, a man of education and literature, he availed himself of those advantages for the purpose of

sions might justly have provoked a war. Nor had the political acrimony which still poi sons the pleasures of private society, been fostered by those who call themselves his friends and adherents; nor had the eminent services of Mr. Humphreys at that time received their reward. Mr. Adams had not yet projected his embassies to Prussia, Russia, and the Sublime Porte; nor had he yet interfered, as President of the United States, to influ ence the decisions of a court of justice. A stretch of authority which the monarch of Great Britain would have shrunk from; an interference without precedent, against law and against mercy! This melancholy case of Jonathan Robbins, a native citizen of America, forcibly impressed by the British, and delivered up, with the advice of Mr. Adams, to the mock trial of a British court martial, had not yet astonished the republican citizens of this free country. A case too little known, but which the people ought to be fully apprised be fore the election, and they shall be.

Most assuredly, had these transactions taken place in August, 1797, the President Adams would not have been troubled by any request from

NORTHUMBERLAND, Nov. 2, 1797.

THOMAS COOPER.

disseminating his dangerous productions in a remote part of the country where he had gained influence. Such conduct must have arisen from the basest motives. It would be proved to the jury that, at the time of this publication, the defendant went to a magistrate and acknowledged it to be his production, in the same formal manner as if it had been a deed.

A conduct so grossly improper had occurred in no instance within his recollection, and the manner constituted no slight aggravation of the offence. Indeed, it was high time for the law to interfere and restrain the libellous spirit which had been so long permitted to extend itself against the highest and most deserving characters.

To abuse the men with whom the public has entrusted the management of their national concerns, to withdraw from them the confidence of the people, so necessary for conducting the public business, was in direct opposition to the duties of a good citizen. Mischiefs of this kind were to be dreaded in proportion as the country around is less informed, and a man of sense and education has it more in his power to extend the mischief which he is inclined to propagate. Government should not encourage the idea, that they would not prosecute such atrocious conduct; for if this conduct was allowed to pass over, the peace of the country would be endangered.

Error leads to discontent, discontent to a fancied idea of oppression, and that to insurrection, of which the two instances which had already happened were alarming proofs, and well known to the jury.

That the jury, as citizens, must determine whether, from publications of this kind, the prosperity of the country was not endangered; and whether it was not their duty, when a case of this nature was laid before them and the law was applicable, to bring in such a verdict as the law and the evidence would warrant; and show, that these kinds of attacks on the government of the country were not to be suffered with impunity.

Mr. Rawle, after reading the section of the Sedition Act applicable to the case on trial,* proceeded to call John Buyers, who testified as follows:

I know this paper; Mr. Cooper brought it to me on the evening of the 6th of December, 1799, at my house at Sunbury. He came to me at the door of my house. Asked me to walk in. We walked in. This was between candle-light and day-light. He asked for a candle. He perused this paper which I have in my hand, pointed to his name, and said, "This is my name, and I am the author of this piece."

There was nothing further passed, only he said, "This may save you trouble another time." I knew very well what he meant by it.

Cross-examined by Mr. COOPER.-Had not you and I been in the habit of frequently joking with each other upon political subjects? Ans. O yes-very often.

Mr. RAWLE here read that part of the publication which is included in the indictment, for which reason it is omitted here.

Mr. COOPER then addressed the jury as follows:

If it were true, as it is not true, that, in the language of the attorney-general of the district, I have been guilty of publishing with the basest motives a foul and infamous libel on the character of the President; of exciting against him the hatred and contempt of the people of this country, by gross and malicious falsehoods-then, indeed, would it be his duty to bring me before this tribunal, it would be yours to convict, and the duty of the court to punish me.

See for act ante, p. 337.

« PreviousContinue »