This refpondent has now laid before this honourable court, as well as the time allowed him would permit, all the circumstances of this cafe. With an humble trust in Providence and a conciousness that he hath difcharged all his othicial duties with juftice and impartiality, to the beft of his knowledge and abilities; and that intentionally he hath committed no crime or mifdemeanour, or any violation of the conftitution or laws of his country-Confiding in the impartiality, independence, and integrity of his judges, and that they will patient ly hear and confcientiously determine this cafe, without being influenced by the spirit of party, by popular prejudice, or political motives, he cheerfully fub

aits himself to their decifion.

If it shall appear to this honourable court from the evidence produced, that he hath acted in his judicial character with wilful injuftice or partiality, he doth not with any favour, but expects that the whole extent of the punishment permitted in the constitution will be inflicted upon him.

If any part of his official conduct shall appear to this honourable court, fricti jaris, to have been illegal, or to have proceeded from ignorance or error in judgment; or if any part of his conduct fhall appear, although illegal, to have. been irregular or improper, but not to have flowed from a depravity of heart, or any unworthy motives, he feels confident that this court will make allow ance for the imperfections and frailties

incident to man. He is fatisfied that

every member of this tribunal will ob ferve the principles of humanity and juftice, will prefume him innocent, until his guilt fhall be eftablished by legal and credible witneffes; and will be governe ed in his decifion, by the moral and chriftian rule, of rendering that juftice to this refpondent, which he would with to receive.

This refpondent now ftands not merely before an earthly tribunal, but also be fore that awful Being, whofe prefence filis all space, and whofe all feeing eye more especially furveys the temples of juftice and religion. In a little time, his accufers, his judges, and himself must appear at the Bar of Omnipotence, where the fecrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, and every human being shalt answer for his deeds done in the body, and fhall be compelled to give evidence against himself in the prefence of affem

bled aniverse. To his Omnifcient Judge, at that awful hour, he now appeals for the rectitude and purity of his conduct, as to all the matters of which he is this day accused.

He hath now only to adjuté each member of this honourable court, by the living GOD, and in his holy name, to render impartial juftice to him, according to the conftitution and laws of the United States. He makes this folemn demand of each member, by all his hopes of happiness in the world to come, which he will have voluntarily renounc ed by the oath he has taken; if he fhalt wilfully do this refpondent injustice, or difregard the conftitution or laws of the United States, which he has folemnly

fworn to make the rule and standard of his judgment and decifion.

The object of the review of a book is to communicate to the publick information of its contents, and to pourtray its excellencies and defects.

Milton observes,

that it is of greatest concernment in the church and commonwealth, to have a vigilant eye how books demeane themselves, as well as men."

From regard to publick considerations, we always look on a new publication with jealousy, well assured, that if it is written for immortality, no wound, which it can receive from the severity of criticism, will be fatal to its existence. But if books inculcate evil and pernicious principles, either in taste or morals, since they doe contain a potencie of life in them to be as active as that soule whose progeny they are," they must, at the tribunal of criticism, be duly informed against, and prosecuted to conviction and punishment, as offenders against the peace and dignity of the commonwealth.

This trial, the course of the proceedings, the examination of the witnesses, and the arguments for and against the prosecution, are worthy the attention of all the citizens, but more particularly of the

law student. To him we recommend it, as an authoritative exhibition of correctness in judicial proceedings, displaying the application of principles to practice. But the book is printed on poor paper, and in a miserable style of execution. Frequent and scandalous errours occur in the orthography. It has all the marks of hurry, which no necessity will palliate, and for which the editors, considering the dignity of the subject, and the extensive patronage, which they had obtained, are inexcusable. We have seen the first volume of Smith's edition of the trial, which is executed, in point of typographical neatness, with much greater care, and in a superiour style. In Evans's report, the arguments of the counsel for the respondent, and in Smith's edition, the arguments of the managers were revised and corrected by them prior to their publication. So far as we able to judge, by comparing the speeches of the respective orators in the two editions, it is generally true, that in both they have been reported with fidelity. Where they have been revised and corrected by the orators, many of them are worthy of the occasion, and do honour to the taste and eloquence of our country. To those, who are conversant in courts of justice, it is well known, that to speak eloquently on important subjects, without deep premeditation, requires the highest efforts of the human intellect. The report of a speech is usually, though not necessarily, an abridgment of it. The reporter is solicitous to catch the sentiment. He is seldom able to exhibit the beauties of style and manner. He can preserve the bones and sinews. The anatomy may be perfect, but the delicate shades of complexion, and the

graces of form and gesture áre gone.

The managers on the part of the house of representatives, were, Messrs. John Randolph, Rodney, Nicholson, Early, Boyle, and G. W. Campbell. The counsel for the respondent were, Messrs. Harper, Martin, Hopkinson, Key, and C. Lee.

The replication to the answer of the respondent, filed by the managers, on behalf of the house of representatives, was framed from the form of the replication, which was filed in the celebrated case of Warren Hastings.

Mr. Randolph opened the cause on the part of the house of representatives in a speech, in which he took a general survey of the charges. We naturally expected, that Mr. R. would, in this speech, have exerted all his talents, to give the most clear and favourable appearance to the cause, which he supported. We expected, that after a brief and clear exhibition of the charges, he would have followed the respondent's plea, and dis played, what is styled in the replication," its evasive insinuations," and

its misrepresentation of facts:" and, since it was "utterly false and untrue," that he would have stript it of" its gloss and colouring." Much time having elapsed, since the subject had pressed on his attention, it would, we presume, have been easy for him; and, considering the novelty of the occasion, it would have been useful, briefly to have exposed the law of impeachment. But his speech is extremely barren of matter, and defective in argument. Even in its revised form, it has none of those qualities, which constitute eloquence. It is not recommended to us by the poor merit of splendid declamation, or of

We are prepared to prove, what the respondent has in part admitted, that he "restricted the counsel of Fries from citing such English authorities as they believed apposite, and certain statutes of the United States, which they deemed material to their defence;" that the prisoner was debarred by him from his constitutional privilege of addressing the jury, through his counsel, on the law, as well as the fact, involved in the verdict which they were required to give-and that he attempted to wrest from the jury their undeniable right to hear argument, and, consequently, to determine upon the question of law, which in a criminal case it was their sole and unquestionable province to decide. These last charges (except so far as relates to the laws of the United States) are impliedly admitted by the respondent. He confesses, that he would not permit the prisoner's counsel to cite certain cases, "because they could not inform but might deceive and mislead the jury." Mr. President, it is the noblest trait in this inestimable trial, that in criminal prosecutions, where the verdict is general, the jury are the sole judges, and, where they acquit the prisoner, the judges, without appeal, both of law and fact. And what is the declaration of the respondent but an admission, that he wished to take from the jury their indisputable privilege to hear argument and deter mine upon the law, and to usurp to himself that power, which belonged to them, and to them only? It is one of the most glorious attributes of jury trial, that in criminal cases (particularly such as are capital) the prisoner's counsel may (and they often do) attempt "to deceive and mislead the jury." It is essential to the fairness of the trial, that it should be conducted with perfect Vol. III. No. 1.

F

freedom. It is congenial to the gener ous spirit of our institutions to lean to the side of an unhappy fellow creature,

put in jeopardy, of limb, or life, or liberty. The free principles of our gov ernments, individual and federal, teach us to make every humane allowance in his favour, to grant him with a liberality, unknown to the narrow and tyindulgence not inconsistent with the rannous maxims of most nations, every due administration of justice. Hence a greater latitude is allowed to the accused, than is permitted to the prosecutor. The jury, upon whose verdict the event is staked, are presumed to be men capable of understanding what they are called upon to decide, and the attorney for the state, a gentleman learned in his posing the attempts of the opposite counprofession, capable of detecting and exmoreover the court, to which, in cases sel to mislead and deceive. There is what indeed is the difficulty arising from of difficulty, recourse might be had. But the law in criminal cases, for the most part? What is to hinder an honest jury from deciding, especially after the aid of an able discussion, whether such an act was a killing with malice prepense, or such other overt acts set forth in an indictment, constituted a levying war a gainst the United States-and to what purpose has treason been defined by the constitution itself, if overbearing,arbitrary judges are permitted to establish atrine of constructive treason? The acts mong us the odious and dangerous docof Congress which had been referred to spondent said he would not suffer to be on the former trial, but which the recited again, tended to shew that the of fence committed by Fries did not amount to treason. That it was a misdemeanor, only, already provided for by law and punishable with fine and imprisonment. of the charge, but he justifies it even (as The respondent indeed denies this part he says) if it be proved upon him. And are the laws of our own country (as well as foreign authorities) not to be suffered to be read in our courts, in justification of a man whose life is put in jeopardy!

The examination of the witnesses followed. In this intere ung part of the work, we observe great attention paid to those rules of evidence, and maxims of conduct,

which are justified by the authority of judicial tribunals. In the trial of Warren Hastings, the managers on the part of the Commons contended, with persevering obstinacy, that they ought not to be bound by the rules of legal proceeding, which are observed in other cases, and before inferiour tribunals. The Commons, said Mr. Burke, disclaim all knowledge of pleading as a science. They are not clerks, but plain, simple laymen. If they speak the language of reason and plain sense, they are not bound to plead technically, or to speak according to the terms of science. By the constitution,the Lords are not considered as learned in the law, but merely as Barons, Swordsmen, and Cavaliers, with whom are mixed the Bishops, and it would be proper for them therefore to judge according to the principles of natural justice, and not according to certain narrow rules laid down in other courts. But in the whole course of that trial, their Lordships acted on quite different principles, and demonstrated by their decisions, that there was not, in their opinion, one rule of evidence, which did not apply to the House of Lords, as much as to any inferiour court in the kingdom. Mr. Burke denied, that there was any such thing as rules of evidence, and contended that all evidence must vary in its matter and in its manner, as the nature of each case varied. But his idea was extremely incorrect for the rules of evidence result from the nature of things, and, like the laws of nature, are immutable. By these rules, it is not intended, that the same evidence will prove all cases: they respect rather the quality and degree of proof necessary to substantiate a fact. That oral

:

testimony, for instance, is inadmissible to prove the contents of a deed, or written instrument, which are in existence; that the copy of an instrument shall not be used, where the original can be produced; and that a witness shall not be permitted to testify, unless under the solemnities of an oath; are rules of evidence, which certainly are founded in nature, and can never vary with the varieties of legal occasions, or be dispensed with by any tribunal.

Mr. Early's speech follows the examination of the witnesses. It commences with the following observation, which we find, in its revised state, in Smith's edition."There is no attitude, in which the government of this nation carr be viewed, more completely demonstrative of the efficacy of its principles, than that, in which it is now placed." Whether Mr. E. thought that, at that time, the gov ernment was standing, or walking, or sitting, or sleeping, we know not; and how the attitude of a government should demonstrate its principles, is a little mysterious. It appears to us as difficult to comprehend, as it would be to ascertain, from a man's gait, whether he were a Roundhead or a Cavalier. Sallust remarks a peculiarity in Cataline's gait "citus modò, modò tardus incessus" : sometimes walking rapidly, then suddenly stopping and looking, as though he feared that he was pursued. This indicated a mind, haunted with the images of former crimes, and loaded with the consciousness of guilt. But the use of this rhetorical figure in the present instance is the first time that we have seen it applied to a body politick; and we leave it with this one observation, that its use has not yet been established by standard au

thority. Mr. E.'s speech abounds with hyperbolical expression and superlative epithet, which, like profane and idle oaths and imprecations in common discourse, indicate a poverty of invention as well as a corrupt taste. His view of the subject is very general. Something like an argument is attempted on the first article, but his manner throughout is loose and declamatory,

We are better pleased with Mr. Campbell's speech, as it appears

His

revised in Smith's edition. style is plain and impressive, with out an attempt at any great degree of elevation. He confines himself to an investigation of the conduct of the respondent at the trials of Fries and of Callender. His view is general, and executed with considerable ability. It is vastly superiour to the vapid performance of Mr. Early. Even the freedom, with which he treats the respondent, and the resentment, which he expresses at his conduct, are excusable, because they are the prerogative of animated debate.

This volume next presents us with the speeches of Messrs. Hopkinson, Key, Lee, Martin, and Harper. They are models of forensick eloquence. We have devoted so much attention to the answer of the respondent, that we must be content to give our opinion of the character of the arguments for and against the prose cution, without minutely analysing them, and without the insertion of copious extracts.

The defence was commenced by Mr. Hopkinson, the introduction to whose speech is truly eloquent and impressive. It is confined to a defence of the respondent on the first article, The language is

dignified, and the whole oration is not unworthy, for its excellent substance and elegant form, to be compared with some of the celebrated productions of the Roman bar.

Mr. Key's speech is confined to the second, third, and fourth articles of impeachment, and is, to use the language of Mr. Lee, in the style and manner of an "elegant advocate."

Mr. Lee's speech displays much judicial skill, united to an ease and simplicity of manner, which are highly pleasing.

Mr. Martin confines his particular attention to the fifth and sixth, after a survey of the preceding articles of impeachment. He discusses with great ability the relative duties of judges and counsel, and the respective rights of judges and jurors.

He incontestibly

proves, on the authority both of precedent and reason, that the right of the court to decide the law, is the same in criminal as in civil cases. He demonstrates, that the process, issued by the respondent in the case of Callender, was correct. "Two highly respectable legal characters in Virginia, who successively held the office of attorney general (Col. James and Gen. Brooke) were applied to by one of their deputies, and declared themselves incapable to decide, what ought to be the practice; or in other words, to decide in what cases a summons ought to be used, and in what cases a capias was the proper process." point, which had puzzled the Virginia lawyers, Mr. Martin, by his luminous investigation, has, we presume, settled; for which service the bar of that state ought to be very grateful. The style and manner of Mr. Hopkinson is very

This