{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_31298/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_31298","id":"gutenberg_31298","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31298","summary":null,"tags":["Antislavery movements -- Massachusetts -- Boston","Category: History - American","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","United States -- Fugitive slave law (1850)"],"text":"Produced by Meredith Bach, Linda Cantoni, and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's Note: A table of contents has been added for the\nreader's convenience. Errors listed in the Errata section have been\nnoted with a [Transcriber's Note]; other obvious printer errors have\nbeen corrected without note.]\n\n\n\n\nTHE TRIAL\n\nOF\n\nTHEODORE PARKER,\n\nFOR THE\n\n\"MISDEMEANOR\"\n\nOF\n\nA Speech in Faneuil Hall against Kidnapping,\n\nBEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,\n\nAT BOSTON, APRIL 3, 1855.\n\nWITH\n\nTHE DEFENCE,\n\n\nBY\n\nTHEODORE PARKER,\n\nMINISTER OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CONGREGATIONAL SOCIETY IN BOSTON.\n\n\nBOSTON:\nPUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR.\n1855.\n\nEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by\n\nTHEODORE PARKER,\n\nIn the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of\n  Massachusetts.\n\nCAMBRIDGE:\nALLEN AND FARNHAM, PRINTERS.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPREFACE\nINTRODUCTION\nDEFENCE\nERRATA\nOTHER WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR\n\n\n\n\nTO\n\nJOHN PARKER HALE\n\nAND\n\nCHARLES MAYO ELLIS,\n\nMAGNANIMOUS LAWYERS,\n\nFOR THEIR LABORS IN A NOBLE PROFESSION,\n\nWHICH HAVING ONCE IN ENGLAND ITS KELYNG, ITS SAUNDERS, ITS JEFFREYS,\nAND ITS SCROGGS, AS NOW IN AMERICA ITS SHARKEY, ITS GRIER, ITS CURTIS,\nAND ITS KANE, HAS YET ALSO SUCH GENEROUS ADVOCATES OF HUMANITY AS\nEQUAL THE GLORIES OF HOLT AND ERSKINE, OF MACKINTOSH AND ROMILLY,\n\nFOR THEIR ELOQUENT AND FEARLESS DEFENCE OF TRUTH, RIGHT, AND LOVE,\n\nTHIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED,\n\nBY THEIR CLIENT AND FRIEND,\n\nTHEODORE PARKER.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nTO THE PEOPLE OF THE FREE STATES OF AMERICA.\n\nFELLOW-CITIZENS AND FRIENDS,--\n\nIf it were a merely personal matter for which I was arraigned before\nthe United States Court, after the trial was over I should trouble the\npublic no further with that matter; and hitherto indeed, though often\nattacked, nay, almost continually for the last fourteen years, I have\nnever returned a word in defence. But now, as this case is one of such\nvast and far-reaching importance, involving the great Human Right to\nFreedom of Speech, and as the actual question before the court was\nnever brought to trial, I cannot let the occasion pass by without\nmaking further use of it.\n\nWhen Judge Curtis delivered his charge to the Grand-Jury, June 7th,\n1854, I made ready for trial, and in three or four days my line of\ndefence was marked out--the fortifications sketched, the place of the\nbatteries determined; I began to collect arms, and was soon ready for\nhis attack. When that Grand-Jury, summoned with no special reference\nto me, refused to find a bill and were discharged, I took public\nnotice of the conduct of Judge Curtis, in a Sermon for the Fourth of\nJuly.[1] But I knew the friends of the fugitive slave bill at Boston\nand Washington too well to think they would let the matter sleep; I\nknew what arts could be used to pack a jury and procure a bill. So I\nwas not at all surprised when I heard of the efforts making by the\nSlave Power in Boston to obtain an indictment by another grand-jury\nsummoned for that purpose. It need not be supposed that I was wholly\nignorant of their doings from day to day. The arrest was no\nastonishment to me. I knew how much the reputation of this Court and\nof its Attorney depended on the success of this prosecution. I knew\nwhat private malignity was at work.\n\n[Footnote 1: 2 Parker's Additional Speeches, 178-283.]\n\nAfter my arraignment I made elaborate preparation for my defence. I\nprocured able counsel, men needing no commendation, to manage the\ntechnical details which I knew nothing about and so could not meddle\nwith, while I took charge of other matters lying more level to my own\ncapacity. I thought it best to take an active part in my own\ndefence,--for the matter at issue belonged to my previous studies and\ngeneral business; my personal friends and the People in general,\nseemed to expect me to defend myself as well as I could.\n\nA great political revolution took place between the Judge's charge and\nmy arraignment, June 7th, and November 29th, 1854, and I thought the\nCourt would not allow the case to come to open argument. For\ncertainly, it would not be a very pleasant thing for Judge Sprague and\nJudge Curtis, who have taken such pains to establish slavery in\nMassachusetts, to sit there--each like a travestied Prometheus,\nchained up in a silk gown because they had brought to earth fire from\nthe quarter opposite to Heaven--and listen to Mr. Hale, and Mr.\nPhillips and other anti-slavery lawyers, day after day: there were\nfacts, sure to come to light, not honorable to the Court and not\npleasant to look at in the presence of a New England community then\ngetting indignant at the outrages of the Slave Power. I never thought\nthe case would come to the jury. I looked over the indictment, and to\nmy unlearned eye it seemed so looped and windowed with breaches that a\nskilful lawyer might drive a cart and six oxen through it in various\ndirections; and so the Court might easily quash the indictment and\nleave all the blame of the failure on the poor Attorney--whom they\nseemed to despise, though using him for their purposes--while they\nthemselves should escape with a whole reputation, and ears which had\nnot tingled under manly speech.\n\nStill, it was possible that the trial would come on. Of course, I knew\nthe trial would not proceed on the day I was ordered to appear--the\neighty-fifth anniversary of the Boston Massacre. It would be\n\"unavoidably postponed,\" which came to pass accordingly. The Attorney,\nvery politely, gave me all needed information from time to time.\n\nAt the \"trial,\" April 3d, it was optional with the defendant's counsel\nto beat the Government on the indictment before the Court; or on the\nmerits of the case before the Jury. The latter would furnish the most\npiquant events, for some curious scenes were likely to take place in\nthe examination of witnesses, as well as instruction to be offered in\nthe Speeches delivered. But on the whole, it was thought best to blow\nup the enemy in his own fortress and with his own magazine, rather\nthan to cut him to pieces with our shot in the open field. So the\ncounsel rent the indictment into many pieces--apparently to the great\ncomfort of the Judges, who thus escaped the battle, which then fell\nonly on the head of the Attorney.\n\nAt the time appointed I was ready with my defence--which I now print\nfor the Country. It is a Minister's performance, not a lawyer's. Of\ncourse, I knew that the Court would not have allowed me to proceed\nwith such a defence--and that I should be obliged to deliver it\nthrough the press. Had there been an actual jury trial, I should have\nhad many other things to offer in reference to the Government's\nevidence, to the testimony given before the grand-jury, and to the\nconduct of some of the grand-jurors themselves. So the latter part of\nthe defence is only the skeleton of what it otherwise might have\nbeen,--the geological material of the country, the Flora and Fauna\nleft out.\n\nIt would have been better to publish it immediately after the decision\nof the case: but my _brief_ was not for the printer, and as many\nduties occurred at that time, it was not till now, in a little\nvacation from severer toils, that I have found leisure to write out my\ndefence in full. Fellow-Citizens and Friends, I present it to you in\nhopes that it may serve the great cause of Human Freedom in America\nand the world; surely, it has seldom been in more danger.\n\nTHEODORE PARKER.\n\nBOSTON, _24th August_, 1855.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nOn Tuesday, the 23d of May, 1854, Charles F. Suttle of Virginia,\npresented to Edward Greeley Loring, Esquire, of Boston, Commissioner,\na complaint under the fugitive slave bill--Act of September 18th,\n1850--praying for the seizure and enslavement of Anthony Burns.\n\nThe next day, Wednesday, May 24th, Commissioner Loring issued the\nwarrant: Mr. Burns was seized in the course of the evening of that\nday, on the false pretext of burglary, and carried to the Suffolk\nCounty Court House in which he was confined by the Marshal, under the\nabove-named warrant, and there kept imprisoned under a strong and\narmed guard.\n\nOn the 25th, at about nine o'clock in the morning, the Commissioner\nproceeded to hear and decide the case in the Circuit Court room, in\nwhich were stationed about sixty men serving as the Marshal's guard.\nSeth J. Thomas, Esquire, and Edward Griffin Parker, Esquire, members\nof the Suffolk Bar, appeared as counsel for Mr. Suttle to help him and\nCommissioner Loring make a man a Slave. Mr. Burns was kept in irons\nand surrounded by \"the guard.\" The Slave-hunter's documents were\nimmediately presented, and his witness was sworn and proceeded to\ntestify.\n\nWendell Phillips, Theodore Parker, Charles M. Ellis, and Richard H.\nDana, with a few others, came into the Court room. Mr. Parker and some\nothers, spoke with Mr. Burns, who sat in the dock ironed, between two\nof the Marshal's guard. After a little delay and conference among\nthese four and others, Mr. Dana interrupted the proceedings and asked\nthat counsel might be assigned to Mr. Burns, and so a defence allowed.\nTo this Mr. Thomas, the senior counsel for the Slave-hunters,\nobjected. But after repeated protests on the part of Mr. Dana and Mr.\nEllis, the Commissioner adjourned the hearing until ten o'clock,\nSaturday, May 27th.\n\nOn the evening of Friday, May 26th, there was a large and earnest\nmeeting of men and women at Faneuil Hall. Mr. George R. Russell, of\nWest Roxbury, presided; his name is a fair exponent of the character\nand purposes of the meeting, which Dr. Samuel G. Howe called to order.\n\nSpeeches were made and Resolutions passed. Mr. Phillips and Mr.\nParker, amongst others, addressed the meeting; Mr. Parker's speech, as\nreported and published in the newspapers, is reprinted in this volume,\npage 199. While this meeting was in session there was a gathering of a\nfew persons about the Court House, the outer doors of which had been\nunlawfully closed by order of the Marshal; an attempt was made to\nbreak through them and enter the building, where the Supreme Court of\nMassachusetts was sitting engaged in a capital case; and the Courts of\nthis State must always sit with open doors. In the strife one of the\nMarshal's guard, a man hired to aid in the Slave-hunt, was killed--but\nwhether by one of the assailing party, or by the Marshal's guard, it\nis not yet quite clear. It does not appear from the evidence laid\nbefore the public or the three Grand-Juries, that there was any\nconnection between the meeting at Faneuil Hall and the gathering at\nthe Court House.\n\nSaturday, 27th, at ten o'clock, the Commissioner opened his Court\nagain, his prisoner in irons before him. The other events are well\nknown. Mr. Burns was taken away to Slavery on Friday, June 2d, by an\narmed body of soldiers with a cannon.\n\nThe May Term of the Circuit Court at Boston began on the 15th of that\nmonth, and the Grand-Jury for that term had already been summoned.\nHere is the list:--\n\nUNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, }\n  MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT.    }\n\nMay Term, 1854. ss. May 15, 1854.\n\n\nGRAND-JURY.\n\n 1 Sworn.      Isaac Tower,            Randolph,  Foreman.\n\n 2   \"         Elbridge G. Manning,    Andover.\n\n 3   \"         Asa Angier,                \"\n\n 4   \"         Ballard Lovejoy,           \"\n\n 5   \"         Levi Eldridge,          Chatham.\n\n 6   \"         Isaac B. Young,            \"\n\n 7   \"         Josiah Peterson,        Duxbury.\n\n 8   \"         James Curtis,              \"\n\n 9 Not Sworn.  William Amory,          Boston,    Excused first day.\n                                                  Member of the bar.\n\n10 Sworn.      James P. Bush,             \"       Absent June 28th.\n\n11   \"         John Clark,                \"\n\n12   \"         Charles H. Mills,          \"\n\n13   \"         William N. Tyler,          \"\n\n14   \"         Samuel Weltch,             \"\n\n15   \"         Reuben Nichols,         Reading.\n\n16   \"         Benjamin M. Boyce,         \"\n\n17   \"         Ephraim F. Belcher,     Randolph.\n\n18   \"         Thomas S. Brimblecome,  Fairhaven.\n\n19   \"         Obed F. Hitch,             \"\n\n20   \"         Lowell Claflin,         Hopkinton.\n\n21   \"         William Durant,         Leominster.\n\n22   \"         Charles Grant,             \"\n\n23   \"         Jeremiah B. Luther,     Douglas.\n\nOn the 7th of June, Judge Curtis gave to this Grand-Jury his\ncharge.[2] In that he spoke of the enforcement of the fugitive slave\nbill; and he charged the Jury especially and minutely upon the Statute\nof the United States of 1790, in relation to resisting officers in\nservice of process as follows.\n\n[Footnote 2: The charge is printed below, at page 170.]\n\nThat not only those who are present and actually obstruct, resist, and\noppose, and all who are present leagued in the common design, and so\nsituated as to be able in case of need, to afford assistance to those\nactually engaged; but all who, though absent, did procure, counsel,\ncommand, or abet others to commit the offence; and all who, by\nindirect means, by _evincing an express liking, approbation, or assent\nto the design, were liable as principals_. And he added, \"My\ninstruction to you is, that language addressed to persons who\nimmediately afterwards commit an offence, actually intended by the\nspeaker to incite those addressed to commit it, and adapted thus to\nincite them, is such a counselling, or advising to the crime as the\nlaw contemplates, and the person so inciting others is liable to be\nindicted as a principal,\" and _it is of no importance that his advice\nor directions were departed from in respect to the time, or place, or\nprecise mode, or means of committing it_.\n\nThat Jury remained in session a few weeks: pains were taken to induce\nthem to find bills against the speakers at Faneuil Hall; but they\nfound no indictment under the law of 1790, or that of 1850; they were\ndischarged.\n\nOn the 22d of September, _venires_ were issued by order of the Court\nfor a new Grand-Jury; and, on the 16th of October, twenty-three were\nreturned by Marshal Freeman, and impanelled. Here is the list of new\nGrand-Jurors:--\n\nUNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, }\n  MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT.    }\n\nOctober Term, 1854. ss. October 16, 1854.\n\nGRAND-JURY.\n\n 1 Sworn.      Enoch Patterson, Jr.,   Boston,     Foreman.\n\n 2   \"         David Alden,               \"\n\n 3   \"         Stephen D. Abbott,      Andover.\n\n 4   \"         Isaac Beal,             Chatham.\n\n 5   \"         John Burrill,           Reading.\n\n 6   \"         Mathew Cox,             Boston.\n\n 7   \"         Richard B. Chandler,    Duxbury.\n\n 8   \"         Charles L. Cummings,    Douglas.\n\n 9   \"         Charles Carter,         Leominster.\n\n10   \"         Warren Davis,           Reading.\n\n11   \"         William W. Greenough,   Boston.\n\n12   \"         George O. Hovey,           \"\n\n13   \"         John M. Howland,        Fairhaven.\n\n14 Sworn.      Manson D. Haws,         Leominster.\n\n15   \"         John Holbrook,          Randolph.\n\nExcused.       Nathaniel Johnson,      Hopkinton,  Excused first day,\n                                                   October 16th, for\n                                                   the term.\n\n16 Sworn.      George Londen,          Duxbury.\n\n17   \"         Nathan Moore,           Andover.\n\n18   \"         Samuel P. Ridler,       Boston.\n\n19   \"         Christopher Ryder,      Chatham.\n\n20   \"         John Smith,             Andover.\n\n21   \"         Appollos Wales,         Randolph.\n\n22   \"         Samuel L. Ward,         Fairhaven.\n\nThis Grand-Jury was not charged by the Judge upon the statute of 1790,\nor 1850, but was referred to Mr. Hallett, the Attorney, for the\ninstructions previously given to the Jury that had been discharged,\nnamely, for his charge of June 7th, already referred to. Mr. William\nW. Greenough, brother-in-law of Judge Curtis, was one of the Jury.\nThey found the following indictment against Mr. Parker:--\n\n     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.\n\n     _Circuit Court of the United States of America, for the\n     District of Massachusetts._\n\n     At a Circuit Court of the United States of America, for the\n     District of Massachusetts, begun and holden at Boston, the\n     aforesaid District, on the sixteenth day of October, in the\n     year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four\n     (the fifteenth day of said October being Sunday).\n\n     The Jurors of the United States within the aforesaid\n     District, on their oath, present.\n\n     1st. That heretofore to wit,--on the twenty-fourth day of\n     May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and\n     fifty-four, a certain warrant and legal process directed to\n     the Marshal of the said District of Massachusetts, or either\n     of his Deputies, was duly issued under the hand and seal of\n     Edward G. Loring, Esquire, who was then and there a\n     Commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States, for\n     said District, which said warrant and legal process was duly\n     delivered to Watson Freeman, Esquire, who was then and there\n     an officer of the United States, to wit, Marshal of the\n     United States, for the said District of Massachusetts, at\n     Boston, in the District aforesaid, on the said twenty-fourth\n     day of May in the year aforesaid, and was of the purport and\n     effect following, that is to say:--\n\n     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.\n\n     MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT, SS.\n\n     To the Marshal of our District of Massachusetts, or either\n     of his Deputies, _Greeting_:\n\n     In the name of the President of the United States of\n     America, you are hereby commanded forthwith to apprehend\n     Anthony Burns, a negro man, alleged now to be in your\n     District, charged with being a fugitive from labor, and with\n     having escaped from service in the State of Virginia, if he\n     may be found in your precincts, and have him forthwith\n     before me, Edward G. Loring, one of the Commissioners of the\n     Circuit Court of the United States for the said District,\n     then and there to answer to the complaint of Charles F.\n     Suttle, of Alexandria, in the said State of Virginia,\n     Merchant, alleging under oath that the said Anthony Burns on\n     the twenty-fourth day of March last, did and for a long time\n     prior thereto had, owed service and labor to him the said\n     Suttle, in the said State of Virginia, under the laws\n     thereof, and that, while held to service there by said\n     Suttle, the said Burns escaped from the said State of\n     Virginia, into the State of Massachusetts; and that the said\n     Burns still owes service and labor to said Suttle in the\n     said State of Virginia, and praying that said Burns may be\n     restored to him said Suttle in said State of Virginia, and\n     that such further proceedings may then and there be had in\n     the premises as are by law in such cases provided.\n\n     Hereof fail not, and make due return of this writ, with your\n     doings therein before me.\n\n     Witness my hand and seal at Boston, aforesaid, this\n     twenty-fourth day of May, in the year one thousand eight\n     hundred and fifty-four.\n\n     EDWARD G. LORING, _Commissioner_. [L.S.]\n\n     And the Jurors aforesaid do further present, that the said\n     warrant and legal process, being duly issued and delivered\n     as aforesaid, afterwards to wit, on the twenty-fifth day of\n     May, in the year aforesaid, at Boston in said District, the\n     said Watson Freeman then and there being an officer of the\n     said United States, to wit Marshal of the District\n     aforesaid, and in pursuance of said warrant and legal\n     process, did then and there arrest the said Anthony Burns\n     named therein, and had him before the said Edward G. Loring,\n     Commissioner, for examination--and thereupon the hearing of\n     the said case was adjourned by the said Commissioner until\n     Saturday the twenty-seventh day of May, in the year\n     aforesaid, at ten o'clock in the forenoon; and the said\n     Marshal, who had so made return of the said Warrant, was\n     duly ordered by the said Commissioner to retain the said\n     Anthony Burns in his custody, and have him before the said\n     Commissioner on the said twenty-seventh day of May in the\n     year aforesaid, at the Court House in said Boston, which\n     said last-mentioned legal process and order was duly issued\n     under the hand of the said Edward G. Loring, Commissioner,\n     and was of the purport and effect following, that is to say:\n\n     U.S. OF AMERICA, DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.\n\n     _Boston, May 25_, 1854.\n\n     And now the hearing of this case being adjourned to\n     Saturday, May 27, 1854, 10 A.M., the said Marshal, who has\n     made return of this warrant, is hereby ordered to retain the\n     said Anthony Burns in his custody, and have him before me at\n     the time last mentioned, at the Court House in Boston, for\n     the further hearing of the Complaint on which the warrant\n     was issued.\n\n     EDWARD G. LORING, _Commissioner_.\n\n     And the Jurors aforesaid do further present, that on the\n     twenty-sixth day of May, in the year aforesaid, in pursuance\n     of the warrant and legal process aforesaid, and of said\n     further legal process and order last mentioned, the said\n     Watson Freeman, Marshal as aforesaid, then and there, at the\n     said Court House in said Boston, had in his custody the\n     person of the said Anthony Burns, in the due and lawful\n     execution of the said warrant and legal process, and of the\n     said further legal process and order, in manner and form as\n     he was therein commanded--and one Theodore Parker, of\n     Boston, in said District, Clerk, then and there well knowing\n     the premises, with force and arms did knowingly and wilfully\n     obstruct, resist, and oppose the said Watson Freeman, then\n     and there being an officer of the said United States, to\n     wit, Marshal of the said District, in serving and attempting\n     to serve and execute the said warrant and legal process, and\n     the said further legal process and order in manner and form\n     as he was therein commanded, to the great damage of the said\n     Watson Freeman, to the great hinderance and obstruction of\n     Justice, to the evil example of all others, in like case\n     offending, against the peace and dignity of the said United\n     States, and contrary to the form of the Statute in such case\n     made and provided.\n\n     2d. And the Jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do\n     further present, that on the twenty-sixth day of May, in the\n     year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four,\n     at Boston, in said District, one Theodore Parker, of Boston,\n     in said District, Clerk, with force and arms, did knowingly\n     and wilfully obstruct, resist, and oppose one Watson\n     Freeman, who was then and there the Marshal of the United\n     States of America, for the District of Massachusetts, and an\n     officer of the said United States, in serving and attempting\n     to serve and execute a certain warrant and legal process,\n     which before that time, to wit, on the twenty-fourth day of\n     May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and\n     fifty-four, had been duly issued under the hand and seal of\n     Edward G. Loring, Esquire, a Commissioner of the Circuit\n     Court of the United States, for said District of\n     Massachusetts, and directed to the Marshal of the District\n     of Massachusetts, or either of his deputies, which said\n     warrant and legal process the said Freeman, in the due and\n     lawful execution of his said office, had then and there in\n     his hands and possession for service of the same, and which\n     he was then and there serving and attempting to serve and\n     execute; which said warrant commanded the said Freeman to\n     apprehend one Anthony Burns and to have him forthwith before\n     the said Commissioner, then and there to be dealt with\n     according to law. Against the peace and dignity of the said\n     United States, and contrary to the form of the Statute in\n     such case made and provided.\n\n     3d. And the Jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do\n     further present, that on the twenty-sixth day of May, in the\n     year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four,\n     at Boston, in said District, the said Theodore Parker, with\n     force and arms, did knowingly and wilfully obstruct, resist,\n     and oppose one Watson Freeman, who was then and there an\n     officer of the said United States, to wit, the Marshal of\n     the United States for the said District of Massachusetts, in\n     serving and attempting to serve and execute a certain legal\n     process which before that time, to wit, on the 25th day of\n     May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and\n     fifty-four, had been duly issued under the hand of Edward G.\n     Loring, who was then and there a Commissioner of the Circuit\n     Court of the United States, for the said District of\n     Massachusetts, and was then and there duly empowered to\n     issue said legal process, and which said legal process was\n     duly committed for obedience and execution to the said\n     Freeman, Marshal as aforesaid, wherein and whereby and in\n     pursuance of the command whereof the said Freeman was then\n     and there lawfully retaining, detaining, and holding one\n     Anthony Burns for the further hearing and determination of a\n     certain complaint, upon which a warrant before that time, to\n     wit, on the twenty-fourth day of said May, had been duly\n     issued under the hand and seal of the said Commissioner, by\n     force of which warrant the said Anthony Burns had been duly\n     arrested and apprehended by the said Freeman, and in\n     execution of the same, on the twenty-fifth day of said May\n     had been brought by the said Freeman before the said\n     Commissioner.\n\n     4th. And the jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do\n     further present, that on the twenty-sixth day of May, in the\n     year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four,\n     at Boston, in said district, the said Theodore Parker, with\n     force and arms, did knowingly and wilfully obstruct, resist,\n     and oppose one Watson Freeman, who was then and there an\n     officer of the said United States, to wit, Marshal of the\n     United States, for the District of Massachusetts, in serving\n     and attempting to serve and execute a certain warrant and\n     legal process, which before that time, to wit, on the\n     twenty-fourth day of May, in the year of our Lord one\n     thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, had been duly issued\n     under the hand and seal of Edward G. Loring, Esquire, a\n     Commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States, for\n     the District of Massachusetts, and directed to the Marshal\n     of the said District of Massachusetts or either of his\n     Deputies, which the said Freeman, in the due and lawful\n     execution of his said office, had then and there in his\n     hands and possession for service of the same, and which he\n     was then and there serving and attempting to serve and\n     execute; which warrant commanded the said Freeman to\n     apprehend one Anthony Burns, and to have him forthwith\n     before the said commissioner and that such further\n     proceedings might then and there be had in the premises, as\n     are by law in such cases provided,--and also in serving and\n     attempting to serve and execute a certain further legal\n     process which before that time, to wit, on the twenty-fifth\n     day of May, in the year aforesaid, had been duly issued\n     under the hand of the said Commissioner, and duly committed\n     for obedience and execution to the said Freeman, wherein and\n     whereby, and in pursuance of the command whereof, the said\n     Freeman was then and there lawfully retaining, detaining,\n     and holding the said Anthony Burns for the further hearing\n     and determination of a certain complaint upon which the\n     warrant aforesaid had been issued by the said Commissioner.\n\n     5th. And the Jurors aforesaid on their oath aforesaid, do\n     further present that one Theodore Parker, of Boston, in said\n     District, Clerk, on the 26th day of May, in the year of our\n     Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-four, at Boston,\n     in the said District of Massachusetts, with force and arms,\n     in and upon one Watson Freeman, then and there in the peace\n     of the said United States being, an assault did make, he the\n     said Freeman also then and there being an officer of the\n     said United States, to wit, Marshal of the United States,\n     for the said District of Massachusetts, and then and there\n     also being in the due and lawful discharge of his duties as\n     such officer. And so the jurors aforesaid, on their oath\n     aforesaid, do say and present that the said Theodore Parker,\n     at Boston aforesaid, on the said twenty-sixth day of said\n     May, with force and arms assaulted the said Freeman as such\n     officer, and knowingly and wilfully obstructed, resisted,\n     and opposed him in the discharge of his lawful duties in\n     manner and form aforesaid, against the peace and dignity of\n     the said United States, and contrary to the form of the\n     Statute in such cases made and provided. And the Jurors\n     aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do further present that\n     the said Theodore Parker was first apprehended in said\n     District of Massachusetts, after committing the aforesaid\n     offence, against the peace and dignity of the said United\n     States, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case\n     made and provided. A true bill.\n\n     ENOCH PATTERSON, JR., _Foreman_.\n\n     B.F. HALLETT, _United States Attorney for the District of\n     Massachusetts_.\n\nSimilar indictments were found against Mr. Phillips, Mr. Stowell, Rev.\nT.W. Higginson, John Morrison, Samuel T. Proudman, and John C. Cluer.\n\nMr. Parker was arraigned on Wednesday, November 29th, and ordered to\nrecognize in bonds of $1,500 for his appearance at that Court, on the\n5th of March, 1855. His bondsmen were Messrs. Samuel May, Francis\nJackson, and John R. Manley; his counsel were Hon. John P. Hale, and\nCharles M. Ellis, Esq. The other gentlemen were arraigned afterwards\nat different times.\n\nAfter considerable uncertainty about the engagements of Hon. Justice\nCurtis, Tuesday, April 3d, was fixed for the commencement of the\ntrials. At that time there appeared as counsel for the government,\nHon. Benjamin F. Hallett, District Attorney, and Elias Merwin, Esq.,\nformerly a law partner of Judge Curtis; on the other side were Hon.\nJohn P. Hale, and Charles M. Ellis, Esq., for Mr. Parker; Wm. L. Burt,\nEsq., John A. Andrew, Esq., and H.F. Durant, Esq., counsel for Messrs.\nPhillips, Higginson, Stowell, Bishop, Morrison, Proudman, and Cluer.\n\nMr. Hale, as senior counsel, stated to the court that the counsel for\nthe defendants in several of the cases had conferred, and\nconcluded--on the supposition that the Court and Government would\nassent to the plan as most for their own convenience, as well as that\nof the defendants' counsel--to file the like motion on the different\ncases; and, instead of each counsel going over the whole ground for\neach case, to divide the matter presented for debate, and for each to\ndiscuss some particular positions on behalf of them all. This was\nassented to; and motions, of which the following is a copy, were filed\nin the several cases:--\n\n     CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT,\n     SS.\n\n     _United States by Indictment_ v. _Theodore Parker._\n\n     And now said Theodore Parker comes and moves that the\n     indictment against him be quashed, because,\n\n     \"1. The writ of venire for the jury that found said\n     indictment was directed to and returned by Watson Freeman,\n     the Marshal, who was not an indifferent person, and it was\n     not served and returned as the law directs.\n\n     \"2. Because said Jury was not an impartial Jury of the\n     District, designated as the laws require, but the jury\n     Districts for this court embrace but a portion of the\n     District and of the population, and said jury was in fact\n     chosen and designated from but a fraction of the District\n     and contrary to law.\n\n     \"3. Because the matters and things alleged in said\n     indictment do not constitute any crime under the statute on\n     which said indictment is framed, the said statute not\n     embracing them, or being, so far as it might embrace them,\n     repealed by the statute of eighteen hundred and fifty.\n\n     \"4. Because said indictment does not allege and set forth\n     fully and sufficiently the authority and the proceedings\n     whereon the alleged warrant and order were based, or facts\n     sufficient to show that the alleged process and order were\n     lawfully issued by any person duly authorized, and his\n     authority and jurisdiction, and that the same were within\n     such jurisdiction, and issued by the authority of the law,\n     and originated, issued, and directed as the law prescribes;\n     said warrant and order not being alleged to have issued from\n     any court or tribunal of general or special jurisdiction,\n     but by a person vested with certain specific statute\n     authority.\n\n     \"5. Because said indictment and the several counts thereof\n     are bad on the face of them, as follows, viz.:--\n\n     \"First, it nowhere appearing that the same were found by a\n     grand-jury, because the second and third counts do not\n     conclude, against the form of the statute, and have no\n     conclusion, because the third and fourth counts do not set\n     forth the estate, degree, or mystery of the person therein\n     charged.\n\n     \"Because said indictment and the counts thereof are\n     repugnant and inconsistent, the same being based on an\n     alleged obstruction, resistance, and opposition to the\n     service of an action, order, or warrant, which is therein\n     averred to have been already served, executed, and returned.\n\n     \"Because the first and fifth counts are double.\n\n     \"Because the alleged order of May 25th, referred to therein,\n     was a void and illegal, order.\n\n     \"Because, if the alleged warrant was served as therein\n     alleged, said Watson Freeman did not, and by law could not\n     thereafter, hold the person described therein, under any\n     process or order.\n\n     \"And because the same do not set forth and allege fully and\n     specifically the acts charged to be offences against the\n     statute, so as to inform said party charged, of the nature\n     and cause of the accusation.\n\n     \"6. Because the warrant set forth and referred to therein\n     was void on its face, and issued from and ran into a\n     jurisdiction not authorized by law, and directed the arrest\n     of a person without legal cause, and because said indictment\n     is otherwise bad, uncertain, and insufficient.\"\n\nMr. Wm. L. Burt commenced the argument of the motions, and presented\nseveral of the points. He was followed by Mr. C.M. Ellis, J.A. Andrew,\nand H.F. Durant, who severally discussed some of the grounds of the\nmotions.\n\nElias Merwin, Esquire, and Mr. Attorney Hallett, replied.\n\nThe Court stated that they did not wish to hear Hon. John P. Hale, who\nwas about to rejoin and close in support of the motion, and decided\nthat the allegation, on the indictment, that Edward G. Loring was a\nCommissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States for said\nDistrict, was not a legal averment that he was such a Commissioner as\nis described in the bill of 1850, and therefore the indictments were\nbad.\n\nThe Court said they supposed it to be true that Mr. Loring was such a\nCommissioner, and that his authority could be proved by producing the\nrecord of his appointment; that they did not suppose the absence of\nthis averment could be of any practical consequence to the defendants,\nso far as respected the substantial merits of the cases; and it was\ntrue the objection to the indictment was \"technical;\" but they held it\nsufficient, notwithstanding the averment that the warrant was \"_duly\nissued_,\" and ordered the indictment against Stowell to be quashed. On\nevery other point, save that that the Court could properly construct\nthe Jury _roster_ and return the Jury from a portion of the District,\nthe Judge said they would express no opinion.\n\nMr. Hallett insisted on his right to enter a _nolle prosequi_ in the\nother cases; and the Judges decided that, though all the cases had\nbeen heard upon the motion, yet as it could make no difference whether\nan entry were made that this indictment be quashed, or an entry of\n_nolle prosequi_, the Attorney might enter a _nolle prosequi_ if he\nchose to do so _then_, before the Court passed any order on the\nmotions.\n\nMr. Hallett accordingly entered a _nolle prosequi_ in all the other\ncases, and the whole affair was quashed.[3]\n\n[Footnote 3: See Law Reporter for June, 1855.]\n\n\n\n\nDEFENCE.\n\n\nMAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:\n\nGENTLEMEN OF THE JURY.--It is no trifling matter which comes before\nyou this day. You may hereafter decide on millions of money, and on\nthe lives of your fellow men; but it is not likely that a question of\nthis magnitude will ever twice be brought before the same jurymen.\nOpportunities to extend a far-reaching and ghastly wickedness, or to\ndo great service for mankind, come but seldom in any man's life. Your\nverdict concerns all the people of the United States; its influence\nwill reach to ages far remote, blessing or cursing whole generations\nnot yet born. The affair is national in its width of reach,--its\nconsequences of immense duration.\n\nIn addressing you, Gentlemen, my language will be more didactic than\nrhetorical, more like a lecture, less like a speech; for I am not a\nlawyer but a minister, and do not aim to carry a Measure, which with\nyou will go of its own accord, so much as to set forth a Principle\nthat will make such prosecutions as impossible hereafter, as a\nconviction now is to-day.\n\nGentlemen, I address you provisionally, as Representatives of the\nPeople. To them, my words are ultimately addressed,--to the People of\nthe Free States of America. I must examine many things minutely, not\noften touched upon in courts like this. For mine is a Political Trial;\nI shall treat it accordingly. I am charged with no immoral act--with\nnone even of selfish ambition. It is not pretended that I have done a\ndeed, or spoken a word, in the heat of passion, or vengeance, or with\ncalculated covetousness, to bring money, office, or honor, to myself\nor any friend. I am not suspected of wishing to do harm to man or\nwoman; or with disturbing any man's natural rights. Nay, I am not even\ncharged with such an offence. The Attorney and the two Judges are of\none heart and mind in this prosecution; Mr. Hallett's \"Indictment\" is\nonly the beast of burthen to carry to its own place Mr. Curtis's\n\"Charge to the Grand-Jury,\" fit passenger for fitting carriage! The\nsame tree bore the Judge's blossom in June, and the Attorney's fruit\nin October,--both reeking out the effluvia of the same substance. But\nneither Attorney nor Judge dares accuse me of ill-will which would\nharm another man, or of selfishness that seeks my own private\nadvantage. No, Gentlemen of the Jury, I am on trial for my love of\nJustice; for my respect to the natural Rights of Man; for speaking a\nword in behalf of what the Declaration of Independence calls the\n\"self-evident\" Truth,--that all men have a natural, equal, and\nunalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. I am\ncharged with words against what John Wesley named, the \"Sum of all\nVillanies,\" against a national crime so great, that it made\nfreethinking Mr. Jefferson, with all his \"French Infidelity,\"\n\"tremble\" when he remembered \"that God is just.\" I am on trial for my\nmanly virtue,--a Minister of the Christian Religion on trial for\nkeeping the Golden Rule! It is alleged that I have spoken in Boston\nagainst kidnapping in Boston; that in my own pulpit, as a minister, I\nhave denounced Boston men for stealing my own parishioners; that as a\nman, in Faneuil Hall, the spirit of James Otis, of John Hancock, and\nthree Adams's about me, with a word I \"obstructed\" the Marshal of\nBoston and a Boston Judge of Probate, in their confederated attempts\nto enslave a Boston man. When the Government of the United States has\nturned kidnapper, I am charged with the \"misdemeanor\" of appealing\nfrom the Atheism of purchased officials to the Conscience of the\nPeople; and with rousing up Christians to keep the golden rule, when\nthe Rulers declared Religion had nothing to do with politics and there\nwas no Law of God above the fugitive slave bill!\n\nSuch are the acts charged. Gentlemen of the Jury, you are summoned\nhere to declare them a Crime, and then to punish me for this\n\"offence!\" You are the Axe which the Government grasps with red hand\nto cleave my head asunder. It is a trial where Franklin Pierce,\ntransiently President of the United States, and his official\ncoadjutors,--Mr. Caleb Cushing, Mr. Benj. R. Curtis, and Mr. Benj. F.\nHallett,--are on one side, and the People of the United States on the\nother. As a Measure, your decision may send me to jail for twelve\nmonths; may also fine me three hundred dollars. To me personally it is\nof very small consequence what your verdict shall be. The fine is\nnothing; the imprisonment for twelve months--Gentlemen, I laugh at it!\nNay, were it death, I should smile at the official gibbet. A verdict\nof guilty would affix no stain to my reputation. I am sure to come out\nof this trial with honor--it is the Court that is sure to suffer\nloss--at least shame. I do not mean the Court will ever feel remorse,\nor even shame, for this conduct; I am no young man now, I know these\nmen,--but the People are sure to burn the brand of shame deep into\nthis tribunal. The blow of that axe, if not parried, will do me no\nharm.\n\nBut it is not I, merely, now put to trial. Nay, it is the unalienable\nRights of Humanity, it is truths self-evident. For on the back of that\ncompliant Measure, unseen, there rides a Principle. The verdict\nexpected of you condemns liberal institutions: all Religion but\npriestcraft--the abnegation of religion itself; all Rights but that to\nbondage--the denial of all rights. The word which fines me, puts your\nown purse in the hands of your worst enemies; the many-warded key\nwhich shuts me in jail, locks your lips forever--your children's lips\nforever. No complaint against oppression hereafter! Kidnapping will go\non in silence, but at noonday, not a minister stirring. Meeting-houses\nwill be shut; all court houses have a loaded cannon at their door,\nchains all round them, be stuffed with foreign soldiers inside, while\ncommissioners swear away the life, the liberty, and even the Estate of\nthe subjected \"citizens.\" All Probate Judges will belong to the family\nof man-stealers. Faneuil Hall will be shut, or open only for a \"Union\nMeeting,\" where the ruler calls together his menials to indorse some\nnew act of injustice,--only creatures of the Government, men like the\nmarshal's guard last June, allowed to speak words paid for by the\nPeople's coward sweat and miserable blood. The blow which smites my\nhead will also cleave you asunder from crown to groin.\n\nYour verdict is to vindicate Religion with Freedom of Speech, and\ncondemn the stealing of men; or else to confirm Kidnapping and condemn\nReligion with Freedom of Speech. You are to choose whether you will\nhave such men as Wendell Phillips for your advisers, or such as\nBenjamin F. Hallett and Benjamin R. Curtis for your masters, with the\nmarshal's guard, for their appropriate servants. Do you think I doubt\nhow you will choose?\n\nAlready a power of iniquity clutches at your children's throat; stabs\nat their life--at their soul's life. I stand between the living tyrant\nand his living victim; aye, betwixt him and expected victims not yet\nborn,--your children, not mine. I have none to writhe under the\nsuccessful lash which tyrants now so subtly braid therewith, one day,\nto scourge the flesh of well-descended men. I am to stand the champion\nof human Rights for generations yet unborn. It is a sad distinction!\nHard duties have before been laid on me,--none so obviously demanding\ngreat powers as this. Whereto shall I look up for inspiring aid? Only\nto Him who gave words to the slow tongue of Moses and touched with\nfire Esaias' hesitating lips, and dawned into the soul of tent-makers\nand fishermen with such great wakening light, as shining through them,\nbrought day to nations sitting in darkness, yet waiting for the\nconsolation. May such Truth and Justice enable me also, to speak a\ntestimony unto the Gentiles; He who chose the weak things, to bring to\nnought the mighty, may not despise such humble services as mine.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, my ministry deals chiefly with the Laws of God,\nlittle with the statutes of men. My manhood has been mainly passed in\nstudying absolute, universal truth, teaching it to men, and applying\nit to the various departments of life. I have little to do with courts\nof law. Yet I am not now altogether a stranger to the circuit court\nroom of the United States, having been in it on five several occasions\nbefore.\n\n1. A Polish exile,--a man of famous family, ancient and patrician\nbefore Christendom had laid eyes on America, once also of great\nindividual wealth, a man of high rank alike acquired and inherited,\nonce holding a high place at the court of the Czar,--became a fugitive\nfrom Russian despotism, seeking an asylum here; he came to the circuit\ncourt room to lecture on the Roman Law. I came to contribute my two\nmites of money, and receive his wealth of learning.\n\n2. The next time, I came at the summons of Thomas Sims. For a creature\nof the slave-power had spontaneously seized that poor and friendless\nboy and thrust him into a dungeon, hastening to make him a slave,--a\nbeast of burthen. He had been on his mock trial seven days, and had\nnever seen a Judge, only a commissioner, nor a Jury; no Court but a\nsolitary kidnapper. Some of his attendants had spoken of me as a\nminister not heedless of the welfare and unalienable rights of a black\nman fallen among a family of thieves. I went to the court house.\nOutside it was belted with chains. In despotic Europe I had seen no\nsuch spectacle, save once when the dull tyrant who oppressed Bavaria\nwith his licentious flesh, in 1844 put his capital in a brief state of\nsiege and chained the streets. The official servant of the kidnapper,\nclub in hand, a policeman of this city, goaded to his task by Mayor\nBigelow and Marshal Tukey,--men congenitally mingled in such\nappropriate work,--bade me \"Get under the chain.\" I pressed it down\nand went over. The Judges of our own Supreme Court, _they went\nunder_,--had gone out and in, beneath the chain! How poetry mingles\nwith fact! The chain was a symbol, and until this day remaineth the\nsame chain, untaken away in the reading of the fugitive slave bill;\nand when the law of Massachusetts is read, the chain is also upon the\nneck of that court! Within the court house was full of armed men. I\nfound Mr. Sims in a private room, illegally, in defiance of\nMassachusetts law, converted into a jail to hold men charged with no\ncrime. Ruffians mounted guard at the entrance, armed with swords,\nfire-arms, and bludgeons. The door was locked and doubly barred\nbesides. Inside the watch was kept by a horrid looking fellow, without\na coat, a naked cutlass in his hand, and some twenty others, their\nmouths nauseous with tobacco and reeking also with half-digested rum\npaid for by the city. In such company, I gave what consolation\nReligion could offer to the first man Boston ever kidnapped,--consolations\nwhich took hold only of eternity, where the servant is free from his\nmaster, for there the wicked cease from troubling. I could offer him\nno comfort this side the grave.\n\n3. I visited the United States court a third time. A poor young man\nhad been seized by the same talons which subsequently griped Sims in\ntheir poison, deadly clutch. But that time, wickedness went off\nhungry, defeated of its prey; \"for the Lord delivered him out of their\nhands,\" and Shadrach escaped from that Babylonish furnace, heated\nseven times hotter than its wont: no smell of fire had passed on him.\nBut the rescue of Shadrach was telegraphed as \"treason.\" The innocent\nlightning flashed out the premeditated and legal lie,--\"it is levying\nwar!\" What offence it was in that Fourth One who walked with the\nHebrew children, \"making their good confession,\" and sustained the old\nShadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, I know not. But the modern countrymen\nof the African Shadrach, charged with some great crime, were haled\ninto this court to be punished for their humanity! I came to look on\nthese modern Angels of the Deliverance, to hear counsel of Mr. Dana,\nthen so wise and humane, and to listen to the masterly eloquence which\nbroke out from the great human heart of my friend, Mr. Hale, and\nrolled like the Mississippi, in its width, its depth, its beauty, and\nits continuous and unconquerable strength.\n\n4. The fourth time, a poor man had been kidnapped, also at night, and\nforced into the same illegal jail. He sat in the dock--an innocent\nman, to be made into a beast. The metamorphosis had begun;--he was\nalready in chains and his human heart seemed dead in him; sixty\nruffians were about him, aiding in this drama, hired out of the\nbrothels and rum-shops for a few days, the lust of kidnapping serving\nto vary the continual glut of those other and less brutal appetites of\nunbridled flesh. While that \"trial\" lasted, whoredom had a Sabbath\nday, and brawlers rested from their toil. Opposite sat the Boston\nJudge of Probate, and the Boston District Attorney,--the Moses and\nElias of this inverted transfiguration; there sat the marshal, two\n\"gentlemen\" from Virginia, claiming that a Boston man was their beast\nof burthen, owing service and labor in Richmond; two \"lawyers,\"\n\"members of the Suffolk bar,\" pistols in their coats, came to support\nthe allegation and enforce the claim. Honorable men stood up to defend\nhim. There is one of them,--to defend me [Charles M. Ellis.] You know\nvery well the rest of that sad story,--the mock trial of Anthony Burns\nlasted from May 25th till June 2d. I was here in all the acts of that\nTragedy. My own life was threatened; friend and foe gave me public or\nanonymous warning. I sat between men who had newly sworn to kill me,\nmy garments touching theirs. The malaria of their rum and tobacco was\nan offence in my face. I saw their weapons, and laughed as I looked\nthose drunken rowdies in their coward eye. They touch me!\n\n5. The fifth time I came here at the summons of an officer of this\ncourt,--very politely delivered, let me say it to his credit,--indicted\nand arrested for a \"misdemeanor.\" I gave bail and withdrew.\n\n6. The sixth time,--Gentlemen,--it is the present, whereof I shall\nerelong have much to say.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAt the first visit I found only scholarly and philanthropic gentlemen,\ncoming out of sympathy with a Polish exile, a defeated soldier of\nfreedom, from his broken English to learn sound Roman Law. On each of\nthe other visits I have been in quite different company. I have\ninvariably met this Honorable Court, its kinsfolk and its most\nintimate friends,--some member of the family of the distinguished\nJudge, now fitly presiding over this trial.\n\n1. It was Mr. George T. Curtis, the only brother of the honorable\nJustice now on the bench,--born of the same mother and father,--who\nhad the glory of kidnapping Mr. Sims; it was he who seized Shadrach,\nand gave such witness against one of the Angels of the Deliverance,\nand then came back and enlarged his testimony; it was he who declared\nthe rescue an act of \"treason;\" he who hung the court house in chains,\nand brought down the pliant neck of the Massachusetts Judges beneath\nthat symbolic line of linked fetters long drawn out. To what weak\nforces will such necks bow when slavery commands!\n\n2. It was the honorable Judge now on the distinguished bench who tried\nmen for the rescue of Shadrach. How he tried them is well known.\n\n3. It was Edward G. Loring, another of this family so distinguished,\nwho kidnapped Mr. Burns and held him in irons; he whose broom swept up\ntogether the marshal's guard; he who advised Mr. Burns's counsel to\nmake no defence,--\"put no obstructions in the way of his going back,\nas he probably will;\" he who, in the darkness of midnight, sought to\nsell his victim, before he had examined the evidence which might prove\nhim a free man; he who delivered him up as a slave, against evidence\nas against law.\n\n4. Another of the same family, William W. Greenough, brother-in-law of\nHon. Judge Curtis, was one of the grand-jury which found the\nindictment against me, and \"the most active of all in that work.\"\n\n5. When I came here on the 29th of last November, the Hon. Judge\nCurtis sat on the bench and determined the amount of my bail, and the\nsame eye which had frowned with such baleful aspect on the rescuers of\nShadrach, quailed down underneath my look and sought the ground.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn thus mentioning my former visits to the court, I but relate the\nexploits of the Hon. Justice Curtis, of his kinsfolk and friends,\nadding to their glory and their renown. Their chief title to\ndistinction rests on their devotion to the fugitive slave bill. It and\ntheir honor are \"one and inseparable.\" Once only humanity and good\nletters brought me here, I met only scholars and philanthropists; on\nfive other occasions, when assaults on freedom compelled my\nattendance, I have been confronted and surrounded with the loyalty of\nthe distinguished Judge and his kinsfolk and friends, valiantly and\ndisinterestedly obeying the fugitive slave bill \"with alacrity;\"\npatriotically conquering their prejudices against man-stealing--if\nsuch they ever had;--and earning for themselves an undying reputation\nby \"saving the Union\" from Justice, Domestic Tranquillity, general\nWelfare, and the Blessings of Liberty.\n\nIf I am to be arraigned for any act, I regard it as a special good\nfortune that I am charged with such deeds, with seeking to arouse the\nnoblest emotions of Human Nature; and by means of the grandest Ideas\nwhich Human History has brought to light. I could not have chosen\nnobler deeds in a life now stretching over nearly half a hundred\nyears. I count it an honor to be tried for them. Nay, it adds to my\nhappiness to look at the Court which is to try me--for if I were to\nsearch all Christendom through, nay, throughout all Heathendom, I know\nof no tribunal fitter to try a man for such deeds as I have done. I am\nfortunate in the charges brought; thrice fortunate in the judges and\nthe attorney,--the Court which is to decide;--its history and\ncharacter are already a judgment.\n\n6. For my sixth visit, I was recognized to appear on the fifth of\nMarch, 1855--the eighty-fifth anniversary of the Boston Massacre. I\nmight have been bound over to any other of the great days of American\nhistory--22d of December, 19th of April, 17th of June, or the 4th of\nJuly. But as I am the first American ever brought to trial for a\nspeech in Faneuil Hall against kidnapping; as I am the first to be\ntried under the act of 1790 for \"obstructing an officer\" with an\nargument, committing a \"misdemeanor\" by a word which appeals to the\nnatural justice of mankind, so there could not perhaps be a fitter\ntime chosen. For on the fifth of March, 1770, British despotism also\ndelivered its first shot into the American bosom. Not far from this\nplace the hand of George III. wounded to death five innocent citizens\nof Boston,--one of them a negro. It was the first shot Britain ever\nfired into the body of the American people, then colonial subjects of\nthe king-power. That day the fire was not returned,--only with ringing\nof bells and tumult of the public, with words and resolutions. The\nnext day that American blood lay frozen in the street. Soon after the\nBritish government passed a law exempting all who should aid an\nofficer in his tyranny from trial for murder in the place where they\nshould commit their crime. Mr. Toucey has humbly copied that precedent\nof despotism. It was very proper that the new tyranny growing up here,\nshould select that anniversary to shoot down freedom of thought and\nspeech among the subjects of the slave-power. I welcomed the omen. The\nFifth of March is a red-letter day in the calendar of Boston. The\nCourt could hardly have chosen a better to punish a man for a thought\nand a word, especially a Boston man, for such a word in Faneuil\nHall--a word against man-stealing. But I knew the case would never\ncome to trial on that day--of course it was put off.\n\nMr. Sims and Mr. Burns were accused of no crime but birth from a\nmother whom some one had stolen. They had only a mock trial, without\ndue process of law, with no judge, no jury, no judicial officer. But\nI, accused of a grave offence, am to enjoy a trial with due process of\nlaw. It is an actual judge before me and another judge at his side,\nboth judicial officers known to the constitution. I know beforehand\nthe decision of the court--its history is my judgment. Justice\nCurtis's Charge of last June, would make my daily talk a\n\"misdemeanor,\" my public preaching and my private prayers a \"crime,\"\nnay, my very existence is constructively an \"obstruction\" to the\nmarshal. On that side my condemnation is already sure.\n\nBut there is another element. Gentlemen of the Jury, the judges and\nattorney cannot lay their hand on me until you twelve men with one\nvoice say, \"Yes! put him in jail.\" In the mock trial of Sims and Burns\nit was necessary to convince only a single official of the United\nStates Court, a \"ministerial\" officer selected and appointed to do its\ninferior business, a man who needed no conviction, no evidence but the\noath of a slave-hunter and the extorted \"admission\" of his victim, an\nofficial who was to have ten dollars for making a slave, five only for\nsetting free a man! But you are a Massachusetts Jury, not of purchased\nofficials, but of honest men. I think you have some \"prejudices\" to\nconquer in favor of justice. It has not appeared that you are to be\npaid twice as much for sending me to jail, as for acquitting me of the\ncharge. I doubt that you have yet advised my counsel to make no\ndefence, \"put no obstructions in the way\" of my being sent to jail as\n\"he probably will.\"\n\nGentlemen, a United States Commissioner has his place on condition\nthat he performs such services as his masters \"require.\" These United\nStates Judges have their seat in consequence of services rendered to\nthe ruling power of America, and for others of like sort yet to be\npaid to the stealers of men. Other rewards shine before them alluring\nto new service,--additional salary can pay additional alacrity. But\nyou, Gentlemen, are not office-holders nor seekers of office, not\nhoping to gain money, or power, or honor, by any wickedness. You are\nto represent the unsophisticated Conscience of the People,--not the\nslave-power, but the power of Freedom.\n\nIt is to you I shall address my defence! MY defence? No, Gentlemen,\nYOUR defence, the defence of your own Rights, inherent in your\nnational Institutions as Americans, ay, in your Nature as Men. It is a\nsingular good fortune that to you, as judges, I am pleading your own\ncause. You have more interest at stake than I. For at death my name\nwill perish, while children and children's children, I trust, will\ngently mingle your memories in that fair tide of human life which\nnever ends.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo much have I said by way of introduction, treating only of the\naccidents pertaining to this case. I will now come to the Primary\nQualities and Substance thereof.\n\nThis is a Political Trial. In _form_, I am charged with violating a\ncertain statute never before applied to actions like mine; never meant\nto apply to such actions; not legally capable of such application. But\nin _fact_, my offence is very different from what the indictment\nattempts to set forth. The judges know this; the attorney knows it,\nand \"never expected to procure a conviction.\" It is your cause, even\nmore than mine, that I plead. So it concerns you to understand the\nwhole matter thoroughly, that you may justly judge our common cause.\nTo make the whole case clear, I will _land_ it out into four great\nparcels of matter, which your mind can command at once, and then come\nto the details of each, ploughing it all over before your face, furrow\nby furrow. I shall speak,\n\nI. Of the State of Affairs in America which has led to this\nprosecution,--the Encroachments of a Power hostile to Democratic\nInstitutions.\n\nII. Of the Mode of Operation pursued by this Encroaching Power, in\nother times and in our own,--of Systematic Corruption of the\nJudiciary.\n\nIII. Of the great Safeguard which has been found serviceable in\nprotecting Democratic Institutions and the Rights of Man they are\ndesigned to defend,--of the Trial by Jury.\n\nIV. Of the Circumstances of this special case, UNITED STATES _versus_\nTHEODORE PARKER.\n\nI shall speak of each in its order, and begin at the head.\n\n\nI. OF THE STATE OF AFFAIRS IN AMERICA, WHICH HAS LED TO THIS\nPROSECUTION--THE ENCROACHMENTS OF A POWER HOSTILE TO DEMOCRATIC\nINSTITUTIONS.\n\nIn a republic where all emanates from the People, political\ninstitutions must have a Basis of Idea in the Nation's Thought, before\nthey can acquire a Basis of Fact in the Force of the Nation. Now in\nAmerica there are two diverse Ideas recognized as principles of\nAction--the Idea of Freedom and the Idea of Slavery. Allow me to read\nmy analysis and description of each.\n\n     The Idea of Freedom first got a national expression on the\n     Fourth of July, 1776. Here it is. I put it in a philosophic\n     form. There are five points to it.\n\n     First, All men are endowed by their Creator with certain\n     natural rights, amongst which is the right to life, liberty,\n     and the pursuit of happiness.\n\n     Second, These rights are unalienable; they can be alienated\n     only by the possessor thereof; the father cannot alienate\n     them for the son, nor the son for the father; nor the\n     husband for the wife, nor the wife for the husband; nor the\n     strong for the weak, nor the weak for the strong; nor the\n     few for the many, nor the many for the few; and so on.\n\n     Third, In respect to these, all men are equal; the rich man\n     has not more, and the poor less; the strong man has not\n     more, and the weak man less:--all are exactly equal in these\n     rights, however unequal in their powers.\n\n     Fourth, It is the function of government to secure these\n     natural, unalienable, and equal rights to every man.\n\n     Fifth, Government derives all its divine right from its\n     conformity with these ideas, all its human sanction from the\n     consent of the governed.\n\n     That is the Idea of Freedom. I used to call it \"the American\n     Idea;\" that was when I was younger than I am to-day. It is\n     derived from human nature; it rests on the immutable Laws of\n     God; it is part of the natural religion of mankind. It\n     demands a government after natural Justice, which is the\n     point common between the conscience of God and the\n     conscience of mankind; it is the point common also between\n     the interests of one man and of all men.\n\n     Now this government, just in its substance, in its form must\n     be democratic: that is to say, the government of all, by\n     all, and for all. You see what consequences must follow from\n     such an idea, and the attempt to reenact the Law of God into\n     political institutions. There will follow the freedom of the\n     people, respect for every natural right of all men, the\n     rights of their body and of their spirit--the rights of mind\n     and conscience, heart and soul. There must be some\n     restraint--as of children by their parents, as of bad men by\n     good men; but it will be restraint for the joint good of all\n     parties concerned; not restraint for the exclusive benefit\n     of the restrainer. The ultimate consequence of this will be\n     the material and spiritual welfare of all--riches, comfort,\n     noble manhood, all desirable things.\n\n     That is the Idea of Freedom. It appears in the Declaration\n     of Independence; it reappears in the Preamble to the\n     American Constitution, which aims \"to establish Justice,\n     insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common\n     defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the\n     blessings of Liberty.\" That is a religious idea; and when\n     men pray for the \"Reign of Justice\" and the \"Kingdom of\n     Heaven\" to come on earth politically, I suppose they mean\n     that there may be a Commonwealth where every man has his\n     natural rights of mind, body, and estate.\n\n            *       *       *       *       *\n\n     Next is the Idea of Slavery. Here it is. I put it also in a\n     philosophic form. There are three points which I make.\n\n     First, There are no natural, unalienable, and equal rights,\n     wherewith men are endowed by their Creator; no natural,\n     unalienable, and equal right to life, liberty, and the\n     pursuit of happiness.\n\n     Second, There is a great diversity of powers, and in virtue\n     thereof the strong man may rule and oppress, enslave and\n     ruin the weak, for his interest and against theirs.\n\n     Third, There is no natural law of God to forbid the strong\n     to oppress the weak, and enslave and ruin the weak.\n\n     That is the Idea of Slavery. It has never got a national\n     expression in America; it has never been laid down as a\n     Principle in any act of the American people, nor in any\n     single State, so far as I know. All profess the opposite;\n     but it is involved in the Measures of both State and Nation.\n     This Idea is founded in the selfishness of man; it is\n     atheistic.\n\n     The idea must lead to a corresponding government; that will\n     be unjust in its substance,--for it will depend not on\n     natural right, but on personal force; not on the\n     Constitution of the Universe, but on the compact of men. It\n     is the abnegation of God in the universe and of conscience\n     in man. Its form will be despotism,--the government of all,\n     by a part, for the sake of a part. It may be a single-headed\n     despotism, or a despotism of many heads; but whether a\n     Cyclops or a Hydra, it is alike \"the abomination which\n     maketh desolate.\" Its ultimate consequence is plain to\n     foresee--poverty to a nation, misery, ruin.\n\n            *       *       *       *       *\n\n     These two Ideas are now fairly on foot. They are hostile;\n     they are both mutually invasive and destructive. They are in\n     exact opposition to each other, and the nation which\n     embodies these two is not a figure of equilibrium. As both\n     are active forces in the minds of men, and as each idea\n     tends to become a fact--a universal and exclusive fact,--as\n     men with these ideas organize into parties as a means to\n     make their idea into a fact,--it follows that there must not\n     only be strife amongst philosophical men about these\n     antagonistic Principles and Ideas, but a strife of practical\n     men about corresponding Facts and Measures. So the quarrel,\n     if not otherwise ended, will pass from words to what seems\n     more serious; and one will overcome the other.\n\n     So long as these two Ideas exist in the nation as two\n     political forces, there is no national unity of Idea, of\n     course no unity of action. For there is no centre of gravity\n     common to Freedom and Slavery. They will not compose an\n     equilibrious figure. You may cry \"Peace! Peace!\" but so long\n     as these two antagonistic Ideas remain, each seeking to\n     organize itself and get exclusive power, there is no peace;\n     there can be none.\n\n     The question before the nation to-day is, Which shall\n     prevail--the Idea and Fact of Freedom, or the Idea and the\n     Fact of Slavery; Freedom, exclusive and universal, or\n     Slavery, exclusive and universal? The question is not\n     merely, Shall the African be bond or free? but, Shall\n     America be a Democracy or a Despotism? For nothing is so\n     remorseless as an idea, and no logic is so strong as the\n     historical development of a national idea by millions of\n     men. A measure is nothing without its Principle. The Idea\n     which allows Slavery in South Carolina will establish it\n     also in New England. The bondage of a black man in\n     Alexandria imperils every white woman's daughter in Boston.\n     You cannot escape the consequences of a first Principle more\n     than you can \"take the leap of Niagara and stop when\n     half-way down.\" The Principle which recognizes Slavery in\n     the Constitution of the United States would make all America\n     a Despotism, while the Principle which made John Quincy\n     Adams a free man would extirpate Slavery from Louisiana and\n     Texas. It is plain America cannot long hold these two\n     contradictions in the national consciousness. Equilibrium\n     must come.[4]\n\n[Footnote 4: See this statement in Mr. Parker's Additional Speeches,\nAddresses, and Occasional Sermons. Boston, 1855, vol. ii. p. 250, _et\nseq._]\n\nThese two ideas are represented by two parties which aim at the\nultimate organization of their respective doctrines, the party\nindicating the special tendency towards Democracy or Despotism. The\nParty of Freedom is not yet well organized; that of Slavery is in\nadmirable order and discipline. These two parties are continually at\nwar attended with various success.\n\n1. In the individual States of the North, since the Revolution, the\nParty of Freedom has gained some great victories; it has abolished\nPersonal Slavery in every northern State, and on a deep-laid\nfoundation has built up Democratic Institutions with well proportioned\nbeauty. The Idea of Freedom, so genial to the Anglo-Saxon, so welcome\nto all of Puritanic birth and breeding, has taken deep root in the\nconsciousness of the great mass of the People at the North. In the\nsevere simplicity of national deduction they will carry it to logical\nconclusions not yet foreseen by human providence. The free States are\nprogressively democratic.\n\nBut in all the Northern States, and more especially in its\ncities,--and here chiefly among the men of exclusive intellectual\nculture and the votaries of commerce and its riches,--there are\nexceptional men who embrace the Idea of Slavery and belong to its\nParty. They know no law higher than the transient interest of their\npolitics or their commerce, their ease or ambition. They may not\ntheoretically hate the People, but they so love their own money, their\nown ease or pleasure, that practically they oppose what promotes the\nwelfare of mankind, and seek their own personal advancement to the\ninjury of the human race. These are Northern men with Southern\n\"Principles.\" They have their Journals too well known in Boston to\nneed mention here.\n\n2. In the individual States of the South, the Idea and Party of\nSlavery has also gained great victories and been uniformly successful;\nit has extended and strengthened personal slavery, which has now a\nfirmer hold in the minds of the controlling classes of Southern\nmen,--the rich and \"educated,\"--than in 1776, or ever before. The\nSouthern States are progressively despotic.\n\nStill, in all the Southern States there are exceptional men, hostile\nto slavery,--the intelligent and religious from conviction, others\nfrom mere personal interest. These are Southern men with Northern\nPrinciples. They are much oppressed at home--kept from political\nadvancement or social respectability, as much as democrats would be at\nRome or Naples,--have no journals and little influence.\n\n3. In the Federal Government, the warfare goes on, each party seeking\nfor mastery over the whole United States--the contest is carried on in\nCongress, in all the local legislatures; newspapers, speeches, even\nsermons, resound with the din of battle. See what forces contend and\nwith what results.\n\nThe nation lives by its productive industry, whereof there are these\nfive chief departments:--Hunting and Fishing, the appropriation of the\nspontaneous live products of the land and sea; Agriculture, the use of\nthe productive forces of the earth's surface; Mining, the\nappropriation of the metallic products of her bosom; Manufactures, the\napplication of toil and thought to the products of Hunting and\nFishing, Mining and Agriculture; Commerce, the exchange of value,\ndistribution of the products of these four departments of industry,\ndirectly productive.\n\nHunting and Fishing, Mining, Manufactures, Commerce, are mainly in the\nhands of Northern men--the South is almost wholly Agricultural. Her\nwealth consists of land and slaves. In 1850 the fifteen slave States\nhad not fourteen hundred millions of other property. In the South\nproperty, with its consequent influence, is in few hands--in the North\nit is wide spread.\n\nNow the few controlling men of the South, the holders of land and\nslaves, have Unity of pecuniary Interest--the support of Slavery as a\nlocal measure,--for it is the source of their material wealth, and\nalso a consequent Unity of political Idea, the support of Slavery as a\nuniversal Principle, for it is the source likewise of their political\npower. Accordingly the South presents against the North an even and\nwell-disciplined front of veteran soldiers, is always hostile to\nFreedom, and as her \"best educated\" men devote much time to politics,\nmaking it the profession of their whole lives, it is plain they become\nformidable antagonists.\n\nBut the North has a great variety of conflicting interests, a great\namount of intellectual activity, where education and its consequent\nhabits of reading and thinking are so wide spread, and therefore a\ngreat variety of opinion. Accordingly there is not the same Unity of\npecuniary Interest and of political Idea, which distinguishes the\nSouth. Besides, in the North the ablest and best educated men do not\ndevote their time to the thankless and stormy calling of politics;\nVirginia cares for nothing but Negroes and Politics, her loins and her\nbrains gender but this twofold product: Massachusetts and New York\ncare for much beside. So the North does not present against the South\nan even and well-disciplined front of veteran soldiers, but a ragged,\ndiscordant line of raw recruits, enlisting for a short time with some\nspecial or even personal local interest to serve.\n\nWhat makes the matter yet worse for us, Gentlemen of the Jury, is\nthis: While the great mass of the people at the North, engrossed in\ndirect productive industry, are really hostile to slavery, those\nabsorbed in the large operations of commerce, taken as a whole class,\nfeel little interest in the Idea of Freedom; nay, they are positively\nopposed to it. Before the African Slave-trade was treated like other\nkindred forms of piracy, as a capital crime, they had their ships in\nthat felonious traffic; and now their vessels engage in the American\nSlave-trade and their hand still deals in the bodies of their fellow\nmen. In all the great commercial cities, like Philadelphia, New York\nand Boston these men prevail, and are the \"eminent citizens,\"\noverslaughing the press, the pulpit, the bar, and the court, with the\nIdeas of their lower law, and sweeping along all metropolitan and\nsuburban fashion and respectability in their slimy flood. Hence the\ngreat cities of the North, governed by the low maxims of this class,\nhave become the asylum of Northern men with Southern \"Principles,\" and\nso the strong-hold of Slavery. And hitherto these great cities have\ncontrolled the politics of the Northern States, crowding the Apostles\nof Freedom out from the national board, and helping the party of\nslavery to triumph in all great battles.\n\nThus aided, for many years the South has always elected her candidate\nfor the Presidency by the vote of the people. But the American\nExecutive is twofold,--part Presidential, part Senatorial. Sometimes\nthese two Executives are concordant, sometimes discordant. The\nSenatorial Executive has always carried the day against the less\npermanent Presidential power, except in the solitary case where\nGeneral Jackson's unconquerable will and matchless popularity enabled\nhim to master the senate itself, who \"registered\" his decrees, or\n\"expunged\" their own censure, just as the iron ruler gave orders.\n\nNow by means of the control which the Northern Cities have over the\nNorthern States, and such Commercial Men over those cities, it has\ncome to pass that not only the Presidential, but also the Senatorial\nExecutive, has long been hostile to the Idea of Freedom.\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, the direct consequence is obvious,--the Party\nof Slavery has long been the conqueror in the field of Federal\npolitics. In the numerous and great conflicts between the two, Freedom\nhas prevailed against Slavery only twice since the close of the\nRevolutionary War,--in prohibiting involuntary servitude in the\nNorth-west Territory in 1787, and in the abolition of the African\nSlave-trade in 1808. Her last triumph was forty-seven years ago,--nay,\neven that victory was really achieved twenty years before at the\nadoption of the constitution. In this warfare we have not gained a\nbattle for freedom since 1788!\n\nFor a time it seemed doubtful which would triumph, though Slavery\ngained Kentucky and Tennessee, and Louisiana was purchased as slave\nsoil in 1803. But in 1820 slavery became the obvious and acknowledged\nmaster in the Federal Territory, marched victorious over the\nMississippi, planted itself in Missouri, and has subsequently taken\npossession of Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas, all slave States; has\npurchased Florida; \"reannexed\" Texas; conquered Utah, New Mexico and\nCalifornia, all slave soil; and from Freedom and the North has just\nnow reconquered Kansas and Nebraska. Ever since the Missouri\nCompromise in 1820 Slavery has been really the master, obviously so\nsince the annexation of Texas in 1845. The slave-power appoints all\nthe great national officers, executive, diplomatic, judicial, naval\nand military,--it controls the legislative departments. Look at this\nHonorable Court, Gentlemen, and recognize its power!\n\nThe idea of Slavery must be carried out to its logical consequence, so\nour masters now meditate two series of Measures, both necessary to the\ndevelopment of Slavery as a Principle.\n\n(I.) African Slavery is to be declared a Federal Institution, national\nand sectional, and so extended into all the Territories of the United\nStates. New soil is to be bought or plundered from Hayti, Spain,\nMexico, South America \"and the rest of mankind,\" that slavery may be\nplanted there; that is the purpose of all the Official Fillibustering\nof the Government, and the Extra-official Fillibustering which it\nstarts, or allows; Quitman \"Enterprises,\" Kinney \"Expeditions,\" Black\nWarrior and El Dorado \"difficulties,\" all point to this; the \"Ostend\nConference\" is a step in that direction; Slavery is to be restored to\nthe so called \"Free States,\" reestablished in all the North. That is\nthe design of the fugitive slave bill in 1850, and the kidnapping of\nnorthern men consequent thereon for the last five years; of President\nPierce's inaugural declarations in behalf of slavery in 1853; of Mr.\nToombs's threat in 1854, that \"soon the master with his slaves will\nsit down at the foot of Bunker Hill Monument;\" of Mr. Toucey's Bill in\n1855, providing that when a kidnapper violates the local laws of any\nState, he shall be tried by the fugitive slave bill court. Then the\nAfrican Slave-trade is to be restored by federal enactments, or\njudicial decisions of the \"Supreme Court of the United States.\" All\nthese steps belong to Measure number One. The Supreme Court is ready\nto execute the commands of its lord. Soon you will see more\n\"decisions\" adverse to humanity.\n\n(II.) The next movement is progressively to weaken and ultimately to\ndestroy the Democratic Institutions of the North,--yes, also of the\nSouth. This design is indicated and sustained by some of the measures\nalready mentioned as connected with the first purpose.\n\nTo this point tend the words of President Pierce addressed to the\nsoldiers of 1812 on the 8th of January 1855, in which he speaks of\nsuch as \"disseminate political heresies,\" that is, the Idea of\nFreedom; \"revile the government,\"--expose its hostility against the\nunalienable Rights of man; \"deride our institutions,\"--to wit, the\npatriarchal institution of Slavery; \"sow political dissensions,\"--advise\nmen not to vote for corrupt tools of the government; \"set at defiance\nthe laws of the land,\"--meaning the fugitive slave bill which commands\nkidnapping.\n\nThere belong the attempts of the Federal courts to enlarge their\njurisdiction at the expense of State Rights; the cry, \"Union first and\nLiberty afterwards;\" the shout \"No higher law,\" \"Religion nothing to\ndo with Politics.\"\n\nThence come the attacks made on the freedom of the pulpit, of the\npress, and all freedom of speech. The Individual State which preserves\nfreedom must be put down,--the individual person who protests against\nit must be silenced. No man must hold a federal office,--executive,\ndiplomatic, judicial, or \"ministerial,\"--unless he has so far\nconquered his \"prejudices\" in favor of the natural Rights of man that\nhe is ready to enslave a brother with alacrity. All these steps belong\nto Measure number Two.\n\nThis latter Measure advances to its execution, realizing the Idea of\nSlavery, with subtle steps, yet creeps on rapid-moving feet. See how\nit has gained ground latterly. Obviously the fugitive slave bill\nstruck only at the natural Rights of Colored men--as valuable as those\nof white men, but the colored are few and the white many,--the\nexperiment must be made on the feebler body. But this despotism cannot\nenslave a black girl without thereby putting in peril the liberty of\nevery white man. At first our masters only asked of Boston a little\npiece of chain, but just long enough to shackle the virtuous hands of\nEllen Craft, a wife and mother, whom her Georgian \"owner\" wished to\nsell as a harlot at New Orleans! A meeting was summoned at Faneuil\nHall, and Boston answered, \"Yes, here is the chain. Let the\nwoman-hunter capture Ellen Craft, make her a Prostitute at New\nOrleans. She is a virtuous wife and mother,--but no matter. Slavery is\nking and commands it. Let the 'owner' have his chain.\"\n\nThere is no escaping the consequence of a first Principle. Soon that\nlittle chain lengthened itself out, and coiled itself all round the\ncourt house, and how greedily your judges stooped to go under! This\nAnaconda of the Dismal Swamp wound its constricting twists about the\nneck of all your courts, and the Judges turned black in the face, and\nwhen questioned of law, they could not pronounce \"Habeas Corpus,\"\n\"Trial by Jury,\" nor utter a syllable for the Bible or the\nMassachusetts Constitution, but only wheeze and gurgle and squeak and\ngibber out their defences of Slavery! No, Boston could not bewray a\nwoman wandering towards freedom, without chaining the court house and\nits judges, putting the town in a state of siege,--insolent soldiers\nstriking at the people's neck. Now the attempt is making by this\nHonorable Court to put the same chain round Faneuil Hall, so that the\nold Cradle of Liberty shall no more rock to manhood the noble sons of\nfreedom, but only serve as a nest that the spawn of Bondage may\nhibernate therein.\n\nI am on trial because I hate Slavery, because I love freedom for the\nblack man, for the white man, and for all the human Race. I am not\narraigned because I have violated the statute on which the indictment\nis framed--no child could think it--but because I am an advocate of\nFreedom, because my Word, my Thoughts, my Feelings, my Actions, nay,\nall my Life, my very Existence itself, are a protest against Slavery.\nDespotism cannot happily advance unless I am silenced. It is very\nclear logic which indicts me. Private personal malice, deep, long\ncherished, rancorous, has doubtless jagged and notched and poisoned\ntoo the public sword which smites at my neck. Still it is the public\nsword of Slavery which is wielded against me. Against ME? Against YOU\nquite as much--against your children. For as Boston could not venture\nto kidnap a negro woman, without bringing down that avalanche of\nconsequences connected with the Principle of Slavery,--without chains\non her Judges, falsehood in her officers, blood in her courts, and\ndrunken soldiers in her streets, and hypocrisy in her man-hunting\nministers,--no more can she put me to silence alone. The thread which\nis to sew my lips together, will make your mouths but a silent and\nugly seam in your faces. Slavery is Plaintiff in this case; Freedom\nDefendant. Before you as Judges, I plead your own cause--for you as\ndefendant. I will not insult you by the belief or the fear that you\ncan do other than right, in a matter where the law is so plain, and\nthe Justice clear as noonday light. But should you decide as the\nwicked wish, as the court longs to instruct you, you doom your mouths\nto silence; you bow your manly faces to the ground, destine your\nmemories to shame, and your children to bondage worse than negro\nslavery.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch, Gentlemen of the Jury, is the state of affairs leading to this\nProsecution--such the past, present, and prospective Encroachments of\na Power hostile to Democratic Institutions and the unalienable Rights\nthey were designed to protect. Such also are the two Measures now in\ncontemplation,--the Extension of African Bondage, and the Destruction\nof American Freedom.\n\n\nII. LOOK NEXT AT THE MODE OF OPERATION HITHERTO PURSUED BY THIS\nENCROACHING POWER, IN OTHER TIMES AND NATIONS, AND IN OUR OWN,\nSYSTEMATIC CORRUPTION OF THE JUDICIARY.\n\nHere I shall show the process by which that Principle of Slavery\nbecomes a Measure of political ruin to the People.\n\nIn substance Despotism is always the same, Spanish or Carolinian, but\nthe form varies to suit the ethnologic nature and historical customs\nof different people. I shall mention two forms--one to illustrate, the\nother to warn.\n\n(I.) The open Assumption of Power by military violence. This method is\nfollowed in countries where love of Individual Liberty is not much\ndeveloped in the consciousness of the people, and where democratic\ninstitutions are not fixed facts in their history; where the nation is\nnot accustomed to local self-government, but wonted to a strong\ncentral power directed by a single will. This form prevails in Russia,\nTurkey, and among all the Romanic tribes in Europe, and their\ndescendants in America. Military usurpation, military rule is\nindigenous in France,--where two Napoleons succeed thereby,--in Italy,\nin Spain, and most eminently in Spanish America. But no people of the\nTeutonic family for any length of time ever tolerated a usurping\nsoldier at the head of affairs, or submitted to martial arbitrary\nrule, or military violence in the chief magistrate. It is against our\nhabit and disposition.\n\nNeither Cromwell nor William of Orange could do with the Anglo-Saxon\nwhat it would have been impossible not to do with Spaniards or\nItalians. Even warlike Swiss--Teutonic tribes--will have a government\nwith due process of law, not by the abrupt violence of the soldier.\nWashington could not have established a military monarchy in America\nhad he been so wickedly disposed. Even William the Conqueror must rule\nthe Saxons by Saxon law.\n\n(II.) The corruption of the acknowledged safeguards of public\nsecurity. This is attempted in nations who have a well-known love of\nindividual liberty, and institutional defences thereof, the habit of\nLocal Self-government by Democratic Law-making and Law-administering.\nFor example, this experiment has been repeatedly made in England. The\nmonarch seeking to destroy the liberty of the people, accomplishes\nhis violent measure by the forms of peaceful law, by getting the\njudicial class of men on the side of despotism. Then all the\nwickedness can be done in the name, with the forms, and by \"due\nprocess\" of law, by regular officers thereof--done solemnly with the\nassistance of slow and public deliberation.\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, this is a matter of such importance to the\nPeople of America just now, that I must beg you to bear with me while\nI explain this subtle operation. I will select examples from the\nhistory of England which are easy to understand, because her blood is\nkindred to our own, and the institutions of the two countries are\nrelated as parent and child. And besides, her past history affords\nalike warning and guidance in our present peril.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n(I.) The first step in this process of political iniquity is, to\nappoint men for judges and other officers of the court, who know no\nlaw higher than the selfish will of the hand that feeds them, mere\ncreatures of the rest [Transcriber's Note: for 'rest' read\n'government'; see Errata].\n\nI will select instances of this from the reign of the Stuart kings and\none of their successors, from a period full of melancholy warning to\nAmerica.\n\nI will begin with James I. (1603-1625), the first King of New England.\nAt his very accession he had high notions of his royal Prerogative,\nand maintained that all the privileges of the House of Commons were\nderived from his royal grant. \"I am your King,\" said he, \"I am placed\nto govern you, and I shall [must] answer for your errors.\" It was\nquite enough to answer for his own,--poor man. \"Let me make the\nJudges,\" said he, \"and I care not who makes the laws.\"\n\nAccordingly for judicial officers he appointed such men as would\nexecute his unlawful schemes for the destruction of public liberty. To\nsuch considerations was Francis Bacon mainly indebted for his\nelevation from one legal rank to another, until he reached the seat of\nthe Lord Chancellor. A man whom Villers declared, \"of excellent parts,\nbut withal of a base and ungrateful temper, and an arrant knave, yet a\nfit instrument for the purposes of the government.\" He did not receive\nhis appointment for that vast, hard-working genius which makes his\nname the ornament of many an age, but only for his sycophantic\ndevotion to the royal will. Sir Edward Coke was promoted rapidly\nenough, whilst wholly subservient to the despotic court, but\nafterwards, though a miracle of legal knowledge, not equalled yet\nperhaps, he must not be appointed Lord Chancellor on account of \"his\noccasional fits of independence.\" Chief Justice Ley was one of the\nright stamp, but it was thought \"his subserviency might prove more\nvaluable by retaining him to preside over the Court of King's Bench.\"\n\"For in making the highest judicial appointments the only question\nwas, what would suit the arbitrary schemes of governing the\ncountry.\"[5] Hobart had resisted some illegal monopolies of the\nall-powerful Buckingham, and he was \"unfit for promotion.\"\n\n[Footnote 5: 2 Campbell, 372, 374.]\n\nJames thought the Prerogative would be strengthened by the appointment\nof clergymen of the national church, perhaps the only class of men not\nthen getting fired with love of liberty,--and made Williams, Bishop of\nLincoln, Lord Keeper, a \"man of rash and insolent, though servile\ntemper, and of selfish, temporizing, and trimming political conduct,\"\nwho at that time had never acted as \"a judge except at the Waldegrave\nPetty Sessions in making an order of bastardy or allowing a rate for\nthe Parish poor,\" and was \"as ignorant of the questions coming before\nhim as the door-keepers of his court.\" But he was subservient, and had\npleased the King by preaching the courtly doctrine that \"subjects hold\ntheir liberties and their property at the will of the Sovereign whom\nthey are bound in every extremity passively to obey.\"[6] Men like\nFleming and other creatures of the throne, sanctioning the King's\nabundant claim to absolute power, were sure of judicial distinction;\nwhile it was only the force of public opinion which gave the humblest\nplace of honor to such able and well-studied lawyers as would respect\nthe constitutional Rights of the People and the just construction of\nthe laws, and at all hazards maintain their judicial independence.\nEcclesiastics who taught that the King \"is above the laws by his\nabsolute power,\" and \"may quash any law passed by Parliament,\" were\nsure of rapid preferment. Thus Bancroft was promoted; thus Abbot was\npushed aside; and for his mean, tyrannical and subservient disposition\nRev. William Laud was continually promoted in expectation of the\nservices which, as Archbishop, he subsequently performed in the\noverthrow of the Liberty of the People. But time would fail me to read\nover the long dark list of men whose personal shame secured them\n\"official glory.\"\n\n[Footnote 6: 2 Campbell, 368, 374; 3 Howell State Trials, 824.]\n\nIn his address to the Judges in the Star-Chamber in 1616 James gave\nthem this charge, \"If there falls out a question which concerns any\nPrerogative or mysterie of State, _deale not with it till you consult\nwith the King_ or his Council, or both; for they are Transcendent\nMatters, and must not be slibberly carried with over rash\nwilfullnesse.\" \"And this I commend unto your special care, as some of\nyou of late have done very much, to _blunt the edge and vaine popular\nhumor of some lawyers at the Barre_, that think they are not eloquent\nand bold-spirited enough, except they _meddle with the King's\nPrerogative_.\" \"_That which concerns the mysterie of the King's Power\nis not lawful to be disputed._\"[7] Gentlemen, that was worthy of some\njudicial charges which you and I have heard.\n\n[Footnote 7: Speache in the Starre-Chamber, London, 1616.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCharles I. (1625-1659,) pursued the same course of tyranny by the same\nsteps. Coventry could be implicitly relied on to do as commanded, and\nwas made Lord Keeper in 1625. When the question of Ship-money was to\nbe brought forward in 1636, Chief Justice Heath was thought not fit to\nbe trusted with wielding the instrument of tyranny, and accordingly\nremoved; \"and Finch, well known to be ready to go all lengths, was\nappointed in his place.\" For he had steadfastly maintained that the\nKing was absolute, and could dispense with law and parliament,--a fit\nperson to be a Chief Justice, or a Lord Chancellor, in a tyrant's\ncourt, ready to enact iniquity into law. His compliance with the\nKing's desire to violate the first principle of Magna Charta,\n\"endeared him to the Court, and secured him further preferment as soon\nas any opportunity should occur.\" So he was soon made Lord Chancellor\nand raised to the peerage. Littleton had once been on the popular\nside, but deserted and went over to the Court--he was sure of\npreferment; and as he became more and more ready to destroy the\nliberties of the People, he was made Chief Justice, and finally Lord\nChancellor in 1641. Lane was a \"steady friend of the prerogative,\" and\nso was made Attorney-General to the Prince of Wales, and thence\ngradually elevated to the highest station.\n\nOther Judicial appointments were continually made in the same spirit.\nThus when Sir Randolf Crewe was Chief Justice of the King's Bench, the\ngovernment questioned him to ascertain if he were \"sound,\" and were\nshocked to hear him declare that the King had no right to levy taxes\nwithout consent of Parliament, or imprison his subjects without due\nprocess of law. He was \"immediately dismissed from his office,\"\n(1626,) and Sir Nicolas Hyde appointed in his place. By such means the\ncourts were filled with tools of the King or his favorites, and the\npit digged for the liberties of the People, into which at last there\nfell--the head of the King!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nCharles II. and James II., (1655-1686,) did not mend the evil, but\nappointed for judges \"such a pack as had never before sat in\nWestminster Hall.\" Shaftesbury and Guildford had the highest judicial\nhonors. Lord Chancellor Finch, mentioned already, had been accused by\nthe Commons of High Treason and other misdemeanors, but escaped to the\ncontinent, and returned after the Restoration. He was appointed one of\nthe Judges to try the Regicides. Thus he \"who had been accused of high\ntreason twenty years before by a full parliament, and who by flying\nfrom their justice saved his life, was appointed to judge some of\nthose who should have been his Judges.\"[8] He declared in Parliament\nthat Milton, for services rendered to the cause of liberty while Latin\nSecretary to Cromwell, \"deserved hanging.\"[9]\n\n[Footnote 8: Ludlow, quoted in 2 Campbell, 470.]\n\n[Footnote 9: 4 Parl. Hist. 162.]\n\nIn these reigns such men as Saunders, Wright, and Scroggs, were made\nJudges, men of the vilest character, with the meanest appetites,\nlicentious, brutal, greedy of power and money, idiotic in the moral\nsense, appointed solely that they might serve as tools for the\noppression of the People. Among these infamous men was George\nJeffreys, of whom Lord Campbell says,--\"He has been so much abused\nthat I began my critical examination of his history in the hope and\nbelief that I should find that his misdeeds had been exaggerated, and\nthat I might be able to rescue his memory from some portion of the\nobloquy under which it labors; but I am sorry to say that in my\nmatured opinion his cruelty and his political profligacy have not been\nsufficiently exposed or reprobated; and that he was not redeemed from\nhis vices by one single solid virtue.\"[10] But in consequence of his\nhaving such a character, though not well-grounded in law, he was made\na Judge, a Peer, and a Lord Chancellor! Wright, nearly as infamous,\nmiraculously stupid and ignorant, \"a detected swindler, knighted and\nclothed in ermine, took his place among the twelve judges of\nEngland.\"[11] He also was made Chief Justice successively of the\nCommon Pleas and the King's Bench! Lord Campbell, himself a judge, at\nthe end of his history of the reign of Charles and James, complains of\n\"the irksome task of relating the actions of so many men devoid of\npolitical principle and ready to suggest or to support any measures,\nhowever arbitrary or mischievous, for the purpose of procuring their\nown advancement.\"[12] It was the practice of the Stuarts \"to dismiss\njudges without seeking any other pretence, who showed any disposition\nto thwart government in political prosecutions.\"[13] Nor was this\ndismissal confined to cases where the judge would obey the law in\nmerely Political trials. In 1686 four of the judges denied that the\nking had power to dispense with the laws of the land and change the\nform of religion: the next morning they were all driven from their\nposts, and four others, more compliant, were appointed and the\njudicial \"opinion was unanimous.\" Hereupon Roger Coke says well,--\"the\nking ... will make the judges in Westminster Hall to murder the common\nlaw, as well as the king and his brother desired to murder the\nparliament by itself; and to this end the king, when he would make any\njudges would make a bargain with them, that they should declare the\nking's power of dispensing with the penal laws and tests made against\nrecusants, out of parliament.\"[14]\n\n[Footnote 10: 3 Campbell, 394.]\n\n[Footnote 11: 2 Campbell Chief Justices, 86.]\n\n[Footnote 12: 3 Campbell, 473.]\n\n[Footnote 13: 3 Hallam, 142.]\n\n[Footnote 14: 8 St. Tr. 195, note.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHere, Gentlemen of the Jury, I must mention three obscure judges who\nreceived their appointments under Stuart kings. Before long I shall\nspeak of their law and its application, and now only introduce them to\nyou as a measure preliminary to a more intimate acquaintance\nhereafter.\n\n1. The first is Sir William Jones, by far the least ignoble of the\nthree. He was descended from one of the Barons who wrung the Great\nCharter from the hands of King John in 1618 [Transcriber's Note: for\n'1618' read '1215'; see Errata], and in 1628 dwelt in the same house\nwhich sheltered the more venerable head of his Welsh ancestor. In 1628\nhe was made judge by Charles I. He broke down the laws of the realm to\nenable the king to make forced loans on his subjects, and by his\nspecial mandate (Lettre de Cachet) to imprison whom he would, as long\nas it pleased him, and without showing any reason for the commitment\nor the detention! Yes, he supported the king in his attempt to shut up\nmembers of parliament for words spoken in debate in the house of\ncommons itself; to levy duties on imports, and a tax of ship-money on\nthe land. He was summoned before parliament for his offences against\npublic justice, and finally deprived of office, though ungratefully,\nby the king himself.[15]\n\n[Footnote 15: Account of him in Preface to his Reports, (1675); 3 St.\nTr. 162, 293, 844, 1181; 2 Parl. Hist. 869; 1 Rushworth, 661, _et\nal._; Whitlocke, 14, _et al._]\n\n2. Thomas Twysden was counsel for George Coney in 1655, a London\nmerchant who refused to pay an illegal tax levied on him by\nCromwell--who followed in the tyrannical footsteps of the king he\nslew. Twysden was thrown into the Tower for defending his client--as\nMr. Sloane, at Sandusky, has just been punished by the honorable court\nof the United States for a similar offence,--but after a few days made\na confession of his \"error,\" defending the just laws of the land,\npromised to offend no more, and was set at liberty, ignominiously\nleaving his client to defend himself and be defeated. This Twysden was\nmade judge by Charles II. The reporters recording his decisions put\ndown \"_Twysden in furore_,\" thinly veiling the judicial wrath in\nmodest Latin. He was specially cruel against Quakers and other\ndissenters, treating George Fox, Margarett Fell, and John Bunyan with\nbrutal violence.[16]\n\n[Footnote 16: 6 St. Tr. 634; 1 Campbell Justices, 442.]\n\n3. Sir John Kelyng is another obscure judge of those times. In the\ncivil war he was a violent cavalier, and \"however fit he might be to\n_charge_ the Roundheads under Prince Rupert, he was very unfit to\n_charge_ a jury in Westminster Hall.\" In 1660 he took part in the\ntrial of the Regicides and led in the prosecution of Colonel Hacker,\nwho in 1649 had charge of the execution of Charles I. In 1662 he took\npart in the prosecution of Sir Henry Vane, and by his cruel subtlety\nin constructing law, that former governor of Massachusetts,--one of\nthe most illustrious minds of England, innocent of every crime, was\nconvicted of high treason and put to death.[17] For this service, in\n1663 Kelyng was made a judge; and then, by loyal zeal and judicial\nsubserviency, he made up \"for his want of learning and sound sense.\"\nBut he was so incompetent that even the court of Charles II. hesitated\nto make him more than a puny judge. But he had been a \"valiant\ncavalier,\" and had done good service already in making way with such\nas the king hated, and so after the death of Sir Nicolas Hyde, he was\nmade Lord Chief Justice in his place. \"In this office,\" says Judge\nCampbell, he \"exceeded public expectation by the violent, fantastical,\nand ludicrous manner in which he conducted himself.\"[18] But I will\nnot now anticipate what I have to say of him in a subsequent part of\nthis defence.\n\n[Footnote 17: 6 St. Tr. 161.]\n\n[Footnote 18: 1 Campbell Justices, 401.]\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, we shall meet these three together again before\nlong, and I shall also speak of them \"singly or in pairs.\" In the mean\ntime I will mention one similar appointment in the reign of George the\nIII.--the last king of New England.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn 1770 Sergeant Glynn, in Parliament, moved for an inquiry into the\nadministration of criminal justice. Edmund Thurlow, a rough venal man,\nthen recently appointed solicitor-general, proposed that a severe\ncensure should be passed on him for the motion. Thurlow wanted the\ntrial by jury abolished in all cases of libel, so that the liberty of\nthe people should be in the exclusive care of government attorneys and\njudges appointed by the crown. Hear him speak on the 6th of December,\n1770.\n\n     \"In my opinion no man should be allowed with impunity to\n     make a wanton attack upon such venerable characters as the\n     judges of the land. We award costs and damages to the\n     aggrieved party in the most trifling actions. By what\n     analogy, then, can we refuse the same justice in the most\n     important cases, to the most important personages? If we\n     allow every pitiful patriot thus to insult us with\n     ridiculous accusations, without making him pay forfeit for\n     his temerity, we shall be eternally pestered with the\n     humming and buzzing of these stingless wasps. Though they\n     cannot wound or poison, they will tease and vex. They will\n     divert our attention from the important affairs of State to\n     their own mean antipathies, and passions, and prejudices.\n     Did they not count upon the spirit of the times and imagine\n     that the same latitude which is taken by the libellers is\n     here allowable, they would not have dared to offer so gross\n     an outrage. I hope we shall now handle them so roughly as to\n     make this the last of such audacious attempts. They are\n     already ridiculous and contemptible. To crown their\n     disgrace, let us inflict some exemplary punishment. Else\n     none of us is safe. Virtue and honor, you see from this\n     instance, are no safeguard from their attacks.\"\n\n     \"The nature, the direct effect, and the remote consequences\n     of a State libel, are so complicated and involved with\n     various considerations of great pith and moment, that few\n     juries can be adequate judges. So many circumstances are at\n     once to be kept in view, so many ponderous interests are to\n     be weighed, so many comparisons to be made, and so many\n     judgments formed, that the mind of an ordinary man is\n     distracted and confounded, and rendered incapable of coming\n     to any regular conclusion. None but a judge, a man that has\n     from his infancy been accustomed to decide intricate cases,\n     is equal to such a difficult task. If we even suppose the\n     jury sufficiently enlightened to unravel those knotty\n     points, yet there remains an insuperable objection. In State\n     libels, their passions are frequently so much engaged, that\n     they may be justly considered as parties concerned against\n     the crown.\"\n\n     \"In order, therefore, to preserve the balance of our\n     constitution, _let us leave to the judges_, as the most\n     indifferent persons, _the right of determining the malice or\n     innocence of the intention_.\"\n\n     \"It is not that I think the intention a matter of fact; no,\n     in the sense put upon it by the judges, it is a matter of\n     law.\"\n\n     \"Much dust has been raised about civil and criminal actions.\n     But to what purpose? Is not reparation to be made to the\n     public for any injury which it may have sustained, as much\n     as to an individual? Is the welfare of the nation in\n     general, of less consequence than that of a single person?\n     Where then is the propriety of making such a bustle about\n     the malice or innocence of the intention? The injury done is\n     the only proper measure of the punishment to be inflicted,\n     as well as of the damage to be assessed. Since you cannot\n     plead the intention as a mitigation in the latter case,\n     neither can you in the former.\"[19]\n\n[Footnote 19: 16 Parl. Hist. 1291, 1292, 1293.]\n\nWhat followed? On the 23d of July, 1771, he was made Attorney-General.\nHis subsequent history did not disappoint the prophecy uttered above\nby his former conduct and his notorious character. \"In truth his\nsuccess was certain, with the respectable share he possessed of real\ntalents and of valuable requirements--strongly marked features,\npiercing eyes, bushy eyebrows, and a sonorous voice, all worked to the\nbest effect by an immeasurable share of self-confidence--he could not\nfail.\"[20] He hated America with the intense malignity of a low but\nstrong and despotic nature, and \"took a most zealous part and uttered\nvery violent language against the colonists. He scorned the very\nnotion of concession or conciliation; he considered 'sedition' and\n'treason,' (like _tobacco_ and _potatoes_,) the peculiar plants of the\nAmerican soil. The natives of these regions he thought were born to be\ntaxed.\"[21] He favored the Stamp Act, the Coercion Bill,--quartering\nsoldiers upon us, sending Americans beyond seas for trial,--the Boston\nPort Bill, and all the measures against the colonies. \"To say that we\nhave a right to tax America and never exercise that right, is\nridiculous, and a man must abuse his understanding very much not to\nallow of that right;\" \"the right of taxing was never in the least\ngiven up to the Americans.\"[22] On another occasion he said, that \"as\nattorney-general he had a right to set aside every charter in\nAmerica.\"[23] What followed? Notwithstanding his youthful profligacy,\nthe open profanity of his public and private speech, and his living in\npublic and notorious contempt of matrimony,--he was made Lord\nChancellor and elevated to the peerage in 1778! Him also we shall meet\nagain.\n\n[Footnote 20: 5 Campbell, 398.]\n\n[Footnote 21: 5 Campbell, 410.]\n\n[Footnote 22: 17 Parl. Hist. 1313.]\n\n[Footnote 23: 18 St. Tr. 999.]\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, I might as well try to bale all the salt water\nout of the sea as to mention every glaring and notorious instance\nwhere an oppressive government has appointed some discarder of all\nHigher Law for its servant in crushing the People. Come therefore to\nthe next point.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n(II.) The next step is by means of _such Judges to punish and destroy\nor silence men who oppose the wickedness of the party in power, and\nthe encroachments of despotism_. Let me describe the general mode of\nprocedure, and then illustrate it by special examples.\n\n1. In the Privy Council, or elsewhere, it is resolved to punish the\nobnoxious men,--and the business is intrusted to the law-officers of\nthe crown, appointed for such functions.\n\n2. They consult and agree to pervert and twist the law--statute or\ncommon--for that purpose. By this means they gratify their master, and\nprepare future advancement for themselves.\n\n3. The precedent thus established becomes the basis for new operations\nin the future, and may be twisted and perverted to serve other cases\nas they occur.\n\nNow, Gentlemen, look at some examples taken from British history, in\ntimes of the same Kings mentioned before.\n\n1. In 1610 two Puritans for refusing the _ex officio_ oath, were\nclapped in Jail by the commissioners. They were brought on _habeas\ncorpus_ before a court, and Mr. Fuller, their counsel, a learned\nlawyer, insisted that they were imprisoned without due process of law.\nFor this \"contempt of court\" he was thrown into jail by Archbishop\nBancroft, whence he was rescued only by death.[24]\n\n[Footnote 24: Peirce's Vindication, (1717,) 174.]\n\n2. In 1613 there were many murmurs among the People of England at the\ntyranny of James. Fine and imprisonment did not quell the disturbance;\nso a more dreadful example was thought needful. The officials of\nGovernment broke into the study of Rev. Edmund Peacham, a Protestant\nminister, sixty or seventy years old. In an uncovered cask they found\na manuscript sermon, never preached, nor designed for the pulpit or\nthe press, never shown to any one. It contained some passages which\nmight excite men to resist tyranny. He was arrested, and thrown into\nJail, all his papers seized. The Government resolved to prosecute him\nfor high treason. Francis Bacon, the powerful and corrupt\nAttorney-General, managed the prosecution. Before trial was ventured\nupon, he procured an extrajudicial opinion of the Judges appointed for\nsuch services,--irregularly given, out of court, that they would\ndeclare such an act high treason.\n\nBut a manuscript sermon, neither preached nor designed for the public,\nwas hardly evidence enough of treason even for such Judges--so\npurchased, for such an Attorney--so greedy of preferment, with such a\nCabinet and such a King. For all those, like the Pharisees of old,\n\"feared the People.\" So their victim was tortured on the rack, and\ntwelve leading questions prepared by the Government officials, were\nput to him there. I quote Secretary Winwood's record--still extant in\nhis own handwriting--\"He was this day examined before torture, in\ntorture, between torture, and after torture; notwithstanding nothing\ncould be drawn from him, he still persisting in his obstinate and\ninsensible denials and former answers.\" Bacon was present at the\ntorture, which took place in the Tower, Jan. 19, 1614, O.S. (30th Jan.\n1615, N.S.). In August he was tried for high treason--\"compassing and\nimagining the King's death\"--before a packed jury; against law, and\nwithout legal evidence. He was of course found guilty under the ruling\nof the Court! But public opinion, even then making tyrants \"tremble in\ntheir capitals,\" was so indignant at the outrage that the execution\nwas not ventured on, and he was left to languish in Jail, till on the\n27th of March, 1616, a King more merciful took the old minister where\nthe wicked cease from troubling.[25]\n\n[Footnote 25: 2 St. Tr. 869; 16 Montagu's Bacon, clxvi.; 2 Campbell,\n291.]\n\nIn this case, Gentlemen of the Jury, you will notice three violations\nof the law.\n\n(1.) The opinion of the Judges before the trial was extrajudicial and\nillegal.\n\n(2.) The application of torture was contrary to law.\n\n(3.) The statute of Treason was wrested to apply to this case--and a\ncrime was constructed by the servants of the court.\n\nIt is curious to read the opinion of James himself. \"The British\nSolomon\" thus wrote:--\n\n     \"So the only thing the Judges can doubt of is of the\n     delinquent's intention, on his bare denial to clear him\n     [himself], since nature teaches every man to defend his life\n     as he may; and whether in case there was a doubt herein, the\n     Judges should not rather incline to that side [namely, the\n     side of the Government,] wherein all probability lies: but\n     if Judges will needs trust rather the bare negative of an\n     _infamous delinquent_--then all the probabilities, or rather\n     infallible consequences upon the other part, caring more for\n     the safety of _such a monster_ than the preservation of a\n     crown in all ages following, whereupon depend the lives of\n     many millions, happy then are all _desperate and seditious\n     knaves_, but the fortune of this crown is more than\n     miserable. Which God forefend.\"[26]\n\n[Footnote 26: 2 St. Tr. 879.]\n\n3. In 1633, Laud, a tyrannical, ambitious man, and a servile creature\nof the King, mentioned before, was made Archbishop of Canterbury,\ncontinuing Bishop of London at the same time. Charles I. was strongly\ninclined to Romanism, Laud also leaned that way, aiming to come as\nnear as possible to the Papal and not be shut out of the English\nChurch. He made some new regulations in regard to the Communion Table\nand the Lord's Supper. John Williams, before mentioned, Dean of\nWestminster and Bishop of Lincoln, who had been Lord Keeper under King\nJames, wrote a book against those innovations; besides, in his\nepiscopal court he had once spoken of the Puritans as \"good subjects,\"\nand of his knowing \"that the King did not wish them to be harshly\ndealt with.\" In 1637 Laud directed that he should be prosecuted in the\nStar-Chamber for \"publishing false news and tales to the scandal of\nhis Majesty's government;\" and \"for revealing counsels of State\ncontrary to his oath of a Privy Counsellor.\" He was sentenced to pay a\nfine of L10,000,--equal to $50,000, or thrice the sum in these times;\nto be suspended from all offices, and kept a close prisoner in the\nTower during the King's pleasure--whence the Revolution set him at\nliberty. Besides he wrote private letters to Mr. Osbalderston, and\ncalled Laud \"the little great man,\" for this he, in 1639, was fined\nL5,000 to the King, and L3,000 to the Archbishop. Osbalderston in his\nletters had spoken of the \"great Leviathan\" and the \"little Urchin,\"\nand was fined L5,000, to the King, and the same to the Archbishop, and\nsentenced also to stand in the pillory with his ears nailed to it![27]\n\n[Footnote 27: 3 St. Tr. 769; 2 Campbell, 400.]\n\n4. In 1629 Richard Chambers, a merchant of London, complained to the\nPrivy Council of some illegal and unjust treatment, and declared \"that\nthe merchants in no part of the world are so screwed and wrung as in\nEngland; that in Turkey they have more encouragement.\" Laud, who hated\nfreedom of speech and liberal comments on the government as much as\n\"eminent citizens\" nowadays, is said to have told the king, \"If your\nmajesty had many such Chambers, you would soon have no Chamber left to\nrest in.\" The merchant was tried before the \"commissioners\" at the\nStar-Chamber, and fined L2,000, and condemned to make a \"submission\nfor his great offence,\"[28] which the stout Puritan refused to do, and\nwas kept in prison till the Court of King's Bench, faithful to the\nlaw, on Habeas Corpus, admitted him to bail: for which they were\nreprimanded. Laud and all the ecclesiastical members of the\n\"commission\" wished his fine L3,000.\n\n[Footnote 28: 3 St. Tr. 373; Franklyn, 361; 2 Hallam (Paris, 1841), 6\n_ac etiam_ 13; 2 Mrs. Macaulay, 16, 45, 65.]\n\n5. In his place in Parliament in 1629, Sir John Eliot, one of the\nnoblest men in England's noblest age, declared that \"the Council and\nJudges had all conspired to trample underfoot the liberties of the\nsubject.\" Gentlemen, the fact was as notorious as the advance of the\nSlave Power now is in America. But a few days after the king (Charles\nI.) had dismissed his refractory Parliament, Eliot, with Hollis, Long,\nSelden, Strode, and Valentine, most eminent members of the commons,\nand zealous for liberty and law, was seized by the king's command and\nthrown into prison. The Habeas Corpus was demanded--it was all in\nvain, for Laud and Strafford were at the head of affairs, and the\npriests and pliant Judges in Westminster Hall--Jones was one of\nthem--clove down the law of the land just as their subcatenated\nsuccessors did in Boston in 1851. The court decreed that they should\nbe imprisoned during the king's pleasure, and not released until\nmaking submission and giving security for good behavior. Eliot was\nfined L2,000, Hollis and Valentine in smaller sums. Eliot--the brave\nman--refused submission, and died in the Tower. Thus was the attack\nmade on all freedom of speech in Parliament![29]\n\n[Footnote 29: 3 St. Tr. 293; 1 Rushworth; 2 Hallam, 2; 2 Parl. Hist.\n488, 504; Foster's Eliot, 100; 2 Mrs. Macaulay, ch. i. ii.]\n\n6. In 1630, the very year of the first settlement of Boston, on the\n4th of June, Rev. Dr. Alexander Leighton was brought before the Court\nof High Commission, in the Star-Chamber, to be tried for a seditious\nlibel. He had published \"An Appeal to the Parliament, or a Plea\nagainst Prelacy,\" a work still well known, remonstrating against\ncertain notorious grievances in church and State, \"to the end the\nParliament might take them into consideration and give such redress as\nmight be for the honor of the king, the quiet of the people, and the\npeace of the church,\" the court of commissions accounted it \"a most\nodious and heinous offence, deserving the most serious punishment the\ncourt could inflict, for framing a book so full of such pestilent,\ndevilish, and dangerous assertions.\" The two Chief Justices declared\nif the case had been brought to their courts, they would have\nproceeded against him for Treason, and it was only \"his majesty's\nexceeding great mercy and goodness\" which selected the milder\ntribunal. His sentence was a fine of L10,000, to be set in the\npillory, whipped, have one ear cut off; one side of his nose slit, one\ncheek branded with S.S., Sower of Sedition, and then at some\nconvenient time be whipped again, branded, and mutilated on the other\nside, and confined in the Fleet during life! Before the punishment\ncould be inflicted he escaped out of prison, but was recaptured and\nthe odious sentence fully executed. Those who \"obstructed\" the officer\nin the execution of that \"process\" were fined L500 a piece.[30]\nGentlemen of the Jury, which do you think would most have astonished\nthe Founders of Massachusetts, then drawing near to Boston, that trial\non the 4th of June, 1630, or this trial, two hundred and twenty-five\nyears later? At the court of Charles it was a great honor to mutilate\nthe body of a Puritan minister.\n\n[Footnote 30: 3 St. Tr. 383; Laud's Diary, 4th November; 2 Hallam,\n28.]\n\nBut not only did such judges thus punish the most noble men who wrote\non political matters, there was no freedom of speech allowed--so\nlogical is despotism!\n\n7. William Prynn, a zealous Puritan and a very learned lawyer, wrote a\nfolio against theatres called \"a Scourge for Stage-Players,\" dull,\nlearned, unreadable and uncommon thick. He was brought to the\nStar-Chamber in 1632-3, and Chief Justice Richardson--who had even\nthen \"but an indifferent reputation for honesty and veracity\"--gave\nthis sentence: \"Mr. Prynn, I do declare you to be a Schism-Maker in\nthe Church, a Sedition-Sower in the Commonwealth, a wolf in sheep's\nclothing; in a word 'omnium malorum nequissimus'--[the wickedest of\nall scoundrels]. I shall fine him L10,000, which is more than he is\nworth, yet less than he deserveth; I will not set him at liberty, no\nmore than a plagued man or a mad dog, who though he cannot bite, yet\nwill he foam; he is so far from being a sociable soul that he is not a\nrational soul; he is fit to live in dens with such beasts of prey as\nwolves and tygers like himself; therefore I do condemn him to\nperpetual Imprisonment, as those monsters that are no longer fit to\nlive among men nor to see light.\" \"I would have him branded in the\nforehead, slit in the nose, and his ears cropped too.\" The sentence\nwas executed the 7th and 10th of May, 1633.[31] But nothing\nintimidated, the sturdy man committed other offences of like nature,\n\"obstructing\" other \"officers,\" and was punished again, and banished.\nBut on the summoning of Parliament returned to England, and became\npowerful in that Revolution which crushed the tyrants of the time.\n\n[Footnote 31: 3 St. Tr. 561; 2 Hallam, 28, and his authorities. See\nalso 2 Echard, 109, _et seq._, 124, _et seq._, 202, 368, 510; the\nremarks of Hume, Hist. ch. lii., remind me of the tone of the fugitive\nslave bill Journals of Boston in 1850-54.]\n\n8. In 1685, James II. was in reality a Catholic. He wished to restore\nRomanism to England and abolish the work of the Reformation, the\nbetter to establish the despotism which all of his family had sought\nto plant. He was determined to punish such as spoke against the Papal\nChurch, though no law prohibited such speaking. Judge Jeffreys, a\nmember of the cabinet and favorite of the king, was at that time chief\njustice--abundantly fit for the work demanded of him. The pious and\nvenerable Richard Baxter was selected for the victim. Let Mr. Macaulay\ntell the story.\n\n     \"In a Commentary on the New Testament, he had complained,\n     with some bitterness, of the persecution which the\n     Dissenters suffered. That men, who, for not using the\n     Prayerbook, had been driven from their homes, stripped of\n     their property, and locked up in dungeons, should dare to\n     utter a murmur, was then thought a high crime against the\n     State and Church. Roger Lestrange, the champion of the\n     government, and the oracle of the clergy, sounded the note\n     of war in the Observator. An information was filed. Baxter\n     begged that he might be allowed some time to prepare for his\n     defence. It was on the day on which Oates was pilloried in\n     Palace Yard that the illustrious chief of the Puritans,\n     oppressed by age and infirmities, came to Westminster Hall\n     to make this request. Jeffreys burst into a storm of rage.\n     'Not a minute,' he cried, 'to save his life. I can deal with\n     saints as well as with sinners. There stands Oates on one\n     side of the pillory; and if Baxter stood on the other, the\n     two greatest rogues in the kingdom would stand together.'\"\n\n     \"When the trial came on at Guildhall, a crowd of those who\n     loved and honored Baxter, filled the court. At his side\n     stood Doctor William Bates, one of the most eminent\n     Non-conformist divines. Two Whig barristers of great note,\n     Pollexfen and Wallop, appeared for the defendant.\"\n\n     \"Pollexfen had scarce begun his address to the jury, when\n     the chief justice broke forth: 'Pollexfen, I know you well.\n     I will set a mark on you. You are the patron of the faction.\n     This is an old rogue, a schismatical knave, a hypocritical\n     villain. He hates the Liturgy. He would have nothing but\n     longwinded cant without book;' and then his lordship turned\n     up his eyes, clasped his hands, and began to sing through\n     his nose in imitation of what he supposed to be Baxter's\n     style of praying, 'Lord, we are thy people, thy peculiar\n     people, thy dear people.' Pollexfen gently reminded the\n     court that his late majesty had thought Baxter deserving of\n     a bishopric. 'And what ailed the old blockhead then,' cried\n     Jeffreys, 'that he did not take it?' His fury now rose\n     almost to madness. He called Baxter a dog, and swore that it\n     would be no more than justice to whip such a villain through\n     the whole city.\"\n\n     \"Wallop interposed, but fared no better than his leader.\n     'You are in all these dirty causes, Mr. Wallop,' said the\n     judge. 'Gentlemen of the long robe ought to be ashamed to\n     assist such factious knaves.' The advocate made another\n     attempt to obtain a hearing, but to no purpose. 'If you do\n     not know your duty,' said Jeffreys, 'I will teach it you.'\n\n     \"Wallop sat down, and Baxter himself attempted to put in a\n     word; but the chief justice drowned all expostulation in a\n     torrent of ribaldry and invective, mingled with scraps of\n     Hudibras. 'My lord,' said the old man, 'I have been much\n     blamed by Dissenters for speaking respectfully of bishops.'\n\n     \"'Baxter for bishops!' cried the judge; 'that's a merry\n     conceit indeed. I know what you mean by bishops--rascals\n     like yourself, Kidderminster bishops, factious, snivelling\n     Presbyterians!'\n\n     \"Again Baxter essayed to speak, and again Jeffreys bellowed,\n     'Richard, Richard, dost thou think we will let thee poison\n     the court? Richard, thou art an old knave. Thou hast written\n     books enough to load a cart, and every book as full of\n     sedition as an egg is full of meat. By the grace of God,\n     I'll look after thee. I see a great many of your brotherhood\n     waiting to know what will befall their mighty Don. And\n     there,' he continued, fixing his savage eye on Bates, 'there\n     is a doctor of the party at your elbow. But, by the grace of\n     God Almighty, I will crush you all!'\n\n     \"Baxter held his peace. But one of the junior counsel for\n     the defence made a last effort, and undertook to show that\n     the words of which complaint was made, would not bear the\n     construction put on them by the information. With this view\n     he began to read the context. In a moment he was roared\n     down. 'You sha'n't turn the court into a conventicle!' The\n     noise of weeping was heard from some of those who surrounded\n     Baxter. 'Snivelling calves!' said the judge.\"[32]\n\n[Footnote 32: 1 Macaulay, (Harper's Ed.) 456-8.]\n\nHe was sentenced to pay a fine of 500 marks, to lie in prison till he\npaid it, and be bound to good behavior for seven years. Jeffreys, it\nis said, wished him also to be whipped at the tail of a cart.[33] But\nthe King remitted his fine.\n\n[Footnote 33: 1 Macaulay, 456; 11 St. Tr. 493.]\n\nThroughout the reign of James II. the courts of law became more and\nmore contemptible in the eyes of the people. \"All the three common law\ncourts were filled by incompetent and corrupt Judges.\"[34] But their\npower to do evil never diminished.\n\n[Footnote 34: 2 Campbell's Justices, 87.]\n\n9. James II. wished to restore the Catholic form of religion, rightly\nlooking on Protestantism as hostile to his intended tyranny; so he\nclaimed a right to dispense with the laws relating thereto, put a\nJesuit into his Privy Council, expelled Protestants from their\noffices, and filled the vacancy thus illegally made with Papists; he\nappointed Catholic bishops.[35] In 1688 he published a proclamation.\nIt was the second of the kind,--dispensing with all the laws of the\nrealm against Catholicism; and ordered it to be read on two specified\nSundays during the hours of service in all places of public worship.\nThis measure seemed to be a special insult to the Protestants. The\ndeclaration of indulgence was against their conscience, and in\nviolation of the undisputed laws of the land, but Chief Justice Wright\ndeclared from the bench his opinion that it was \"legal and\nobligatory,\" and on the day appointed for reading the decree attended\nchurch \"to give weight to the solemnity,\" and as it was not read--for\nthe clerk \"had forgot to bring a copy,\"--he \"indecently in the hearing\nof the congregation abused the priest, as disloyal, seditious, and\nirreligious.\"\n\n[Footnote 35: See 2 Brewster's Newton, 108.]\n\nBut the clergy thought differently from the Chief\nJustice--Episcopalians and Dissenters agreeing on this point. Seven\nbishops petitioned the King that they might not be obliged to violate\ntheir conscience, the articles of their religion, and the laws of the\nrealm, by reading the declaration. They presented their petition in\nperson to the King, who treated it and them with insolence and wrath.\n\n     \"The king, says Kennet, was not contented to have this\n     declaration published in the usual manner, but he was\n     resolved to have it solemnly read in all churches as the\n     political gospel of his reign. The bishops and clergy were,\n     of all others the most averse to the subject-matter of the\n     declaration, as being most sensible of the ill design and\n     ill effects of it; and therefore the court seemed the more\n     willing to mortify these their enemies, and make them become\n     accessory to their own ruin; and even to eat their own dung,\n     as father Petre proudly threatened, and therefore this order\n     of council was made and published.\"[36]\n\n[Footnote 36: 12 St. Tr. 239.]\n\nThe petition was printed and published with great rapidity, the\nbishops were seized, thrown into the Tower, and prosecuted in the\ncourt for a \"false, feigned, malicious, pernicious, and seditious\"\nlibel.\n\nJudge Allybone thus addressed the Jury.\n\n     \"And I think, in the first place, that _no man can_ take\n     upon him to _write against the actual exercise of the\n     government, unless he have leave from the government_, but\n     he makes a libel, be what he writes true or false; for if\n     once we come to impeach the government by way of argument,\n     it is the argument that makes it the government, or not the\n     government. So that I lay down that, in the first place,\n     _the government ought not to be impeached by argument_, nor\n     the exercise of the government shaken by argument; because I\n     can manage a proposition, in itself doubtful, with a better\n     pen than another man; this, say I, is a libel.\n\n     \"Then I lay down this for my next position, that _no private\n     man can take upon him to write concerning the government at\n     all_; for _what has any private man to do with the\n     government_, if his interest be not stirred or shaken? It is\n     the business of the government to manage matters relating to\n     the government; it _is the business of subjects to mind only\n     their own properties and interests_. If my interest is not\n     shaken, _what have I to do with matters of government_? They\n     are not within my sphere. If the government does come to\n     shake my particular interest, the law is open for me, and I\n     may redress myself by law; and when I intrude myself into\n     other men's business that does not concern my particular\n     interest, I am a libeller.\n\n     \"These I have laid down for plain propositions; now, then,\n     let us consider further, whether, if I will take upon me to\n     contradict the government, any specious pretence that I\n     shall put upon it, shall dress it up in another form and\n     give it a better denomination? And truly I think it is the\n     worse, because it comes in a better dress; for by that rule,\n     every man that can put on a good vizard, may be as\n     mischievous as he will, to the government at the bottom, so\n     that, whether it be in the form of a supplication, or an\n     address, or a petition, if it be what it ought not to be,\n     let us call it by its true name, and give it its right\n     denomination--it is a libel.\"\n\n     \"The government here has published such a declaration as\n     this that has been read, relating to matters of government;\n     and _shall_, or ought _anybody_ to come and _impeach that as\n     illegal, which the government has done_? Truly, in my\n     opinion, I do not think he should, or ought; for by this\n     rule may every act of the government be shaken, when there\n     is not a parliament _de facto_ sitting.\n\n     \"When the house of lords and commons are in being, it is a\n     proper way of applying to the king; there is all the\n     openness in the world for those that are members of\n     parliament, to make what addresses they please to the\n     government, for the rectifying, altering, regulating, and\n     making of what law they please; but if every private man\n     shall come and interpose his advice, I think there can never\n     be an end of advising the government.\n\n     \"_We are not to measure things from any truth they have in\n     themselves, but from that aspect they have upon the\n     government; for there may be every tittle of a libel true,\n     and yet it may be a libel still_; so that I put no great\n     stress upon that objection, that the matter of it is not\n     false; and for sedition, it is that which every libel\n     carries in itself: and as every trespass implies _vi and\n     armis_, so every libel against the government carries in it\n     sedition, and all the other epithets that are in the\n     information. This is my opinion as to law in general. I will\n     not debate the prerogatives of the king, nor the privileges\n     of the subject; but as this fact is, I think these venerable\n     bishops did meddle with that which did not belong to them;\n     they took upon them, in a petitionary, to contradict the\n     actual exercise of the government, which I think no\n     particular persons, or singular body, may do.\"[37]\n\n[Footnote 37: 12 St. Tr. 427, 428, 429.]\n\nListen, Gentlemen of the Jury, to the words of Attorney-General\nPowis:--\n\n     \"And I cannot omit here to take notice, that _there is not\n     any one thing that the law is more jealous of_, or does more\n     carefully provide for the prevention and punishment of,\n     _than all accusations and arraignments of the government. No\n     man is allowed to accuse even the most inferior magistrate\n     of any misbehavior in his office_, unless it be in a legal\n     course, _though the fact is true_. No man may say of a\n     justice of the peace, to his face, that he is unjust in his\n     office. _No man may tell a judge, either by word or\n     petition, you have given an unjust, or an ill judgment_, and\n     I will not obey it; _it is against the rules and laws of the\n     kingdom, or the like_. No man may say of the great men of\n     the nation, much less of the great officers of the kingdom,\n     that they do act unreasonably or unjustly, or the like;\n     least of all may any man say any such thing of the king; for\n     these matters tend to possess the people, that the\n     government is ill administered; and the consequence of that\n     is, to set them upon desiring a reformation; and what that\n     tends to, and will end in, we have all had a sad and too\n     dear bought experience.\"[38]\n\n[Footnote 38: 12 St. Tr. 281.]\n\nHearken to the law of Solicitor-General Williams:--\n\n     \"If any person have slandered the government in writing, you\n     are _not to examine the truth of that fact_ in such writing,\n     but the slander which it imports to the king or government;\n     and _be it never so true_, yet if slanderous to the king or\n     the government, _it is a libel and to be punished_; in that\n     case, _the right or wrong_ is _not to be examined, or if\n     what was done by the government be legal, or no_; but\n     whether the party have done such an act. If the king have a\n     power (for still I keep to that), to issue forth\n     proclamations to his subjects, and to make orders and\n     constitutions in matters ecclesiastical, if he do issue\n     forth his proclamation, and make an order upon the matters\n     within his power and prerogative; and if any one would come\n     and bring that power in question otherwise than in\n     parliament, that the matter of that proclamation be not\n     legal, I say that is sedition, and you are not to examine\n     the legality or illegality of the order or proclamation, but\n     the slander and reflection upon the government.\"\n\n     \"If a person do a thing that is libellous, you shall not\n     examine the fact, but the consequence of it; whether it\n     tended to stir up sedition against the public, or to stir up\n     strife between man and man, in the case of private persons;\n     as if a man should say of a judge, he has taken a bribe, and\n     I will prove it.\n\n     \"They tell the king it is inconsistent with their honor,\n     prudence, and conscience, to do what he would have them to\n     do. And if these things be not reflective upon the king and\n     government, I know not what is.\n\n     \"I'll tell you what they should have done, Sir. If they were\n     commanded to do any thing against _their consciences, they\n     should have acquiesced till the meeting of the parliament_.\n     [At which some people in the court hissed.]\n\n     \"_If the king will impose upon a man what he cannot do, he\n     must acquiesce_; but shall he come and fly in the face of\n     his prince? Shall he say it is illegal? and the prince acts\n     against prudence, honor, or conscience, and throw dirt in\n     the king's face? Sure that is not permitted; that is\n     libelling with a witness.\"[39]\n\n[Footnote 39: 12 St. Tr. 415, 416, 417.]\n\nHere, however, there was a JURY--the seven bishops were acquitted amid\nthe tumultuous huzzas of the people, who crowded all the open spaces\nin the neighborhood of Westminster Hall, and rent the air with their\nshouts, which even the soldiers repeated.[40]\n\n[Footnote 40: See 2 Campbell's Justices, 95.]\n\nTwo of the Judges--Sir John Powell and Sir Richard Holloway--stood out\nfor law and justice, declaring such a petition to the King was not a\nlibel. They were presently thrust from their offices.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, the Stuarts soon filled up the measure of their\ntime as of their iniquity, and were hustled from the throne of\nEngland. But, alas, I shall presently remind you of some examples of\nthis tyranny in New England itself. Now I shall cite a few similar\ncases of oppression which happened in the reign of the last King of\nNew England.\n\nI just now spoke of Edmund Thurlow, showing what his character was and\nby what means he gained his various offices, ministerial and judicial.\nI will next show you one instance more of the evil which comes from\nputting in office such men as are nothing but steps whereon despotism\nmounts up to its bad eminence.\n\n10. On the 8th of June, 1775,--it will be eighty years on the first\nanniversary of Judge Curtis's charge to the grand-jury,--John Horne,\nbetter known by his subsequent name John Horne Tooke, formerly a\nclergyman but then a scholarly man devoting himself to letters and\npolitics--published the following notice in the _Morning Chronicle and\nLondon Advertiser_, as well as other newspapers:--\n\n     \"King's-Arms Tavern, Cornhill, June 7, 1775. At a special\n     meeting this day of several members of the Constitutional\n     Society, during an adjournment, a gentleman proposed that a\n     subscription should be immediately entered into by such of\n     the members present who might approve the purpose, for\n     raising the sum of L100, to be applied to the relief of the\n     widows, orphans, and aged parents of our beloved American\n     fellow-subjects, who, faithful to the character of\n     Englishmen, preferring death to slavery, were for that\n     reason only inhumanly murdered by the king's troops at or\n     near Lexington and Concord, in the province of\n     Massachusetts, on the 19th of last April; which sum being\n     immediately collected, it was thereupon resolved that Mr.\n     Horne do pay to-morrow into the hands of Mess. Brownes and\n     Collinson, on account of Dr. Franklin, the said sum of\n     100_l._ and that Dr. Franklin be requested to apply the same\n     to the above-mentioned purpose.\"\n\nAt that time Thurlow, whom I introduced to you a little while ago, was\nAttorney-General, looking for further promotion from the Tory\nGovernment of Lord North. Mansfield was Chief Justice, a man of great\nability, who has done so much to reform the English law, but whose\nhostility to America was only surpassed by the hatred which he bore to\nall freedom of speech and the rights of the Jury. The Government was\neager to crush the liberty of the American Colonies. But this was a\ndifficult matter, for in England itself there was a powerful party\nfriendly to America, who took our side in the struggle for liberty.\nThe city of London, however, was hostile to us, wishing to destroy our\nmerchants and manufacturers, who disturbed the monopoly of that\ncommercial metropolis. The government thought it necessary to punish\nany man who ventured to oppose their tyranny and sympathize with\nAmerica. Accordingly it was determined that Mr. Horne should be\nbrought to trial. But as public opinion, stimulated by Erskine, Camden\nand others, favored the rights of the Jury, it seems to have been\nthought dangerous to trust the case to a Grand-Jury. Perhaps the Judge\nhad no brother-in-law to put on it, or the Attorney-General--though\nfamous also for his profanity,--doubted that any _swearing_ of his\nwould insure a bill; nay, perhaps he did not venture to \"bet ten\ndollars that I will get an indictment against him.\" Be that as it may,\nthe Attorney-General dispensed with the services of the Grand-Jury and\nfiled an information _ex officio_ against Mr. Horne, therein styling\nhim a \"wicked, malicious, seditious, and ill-disposed person;\"\ncharging him, by that advertisement, with \"wickedly, maliciously, and\nseditiously intending, designing, and venturing to stir up and excite\ndiscontents and sedition;\" \"to cause it to be believed that divers of\nhis Majesty's innocent and deserving subjects had been inhumanly\nmurdered by ... his Majesty's troops; and unlawfully and wickedly to\nencourage his Majesty's subjects in the said Province of Massachusetts\nto resist and oppose his Majesty's Government.\" He said the\nadvertisement was \"a false, wicked, malicious, scandalous, and\nseditious libel;\" \"full of ribaldry, Billingsgate, scurrility,\nbalderdash, and impudence;\" \"wicked is a term too high for this\nadvertisement;\" \"its impudence disarmed its wickedness.\" In short, Mr.\nHorne was accused of \"resisting an officer,\" obstructing the execution\nof the \"process\" whereby the American Provinces were to be made the\nslave colonies of a metropolitan despotism. The usual charge of doing\nall this by \"force and arms,\" was of course thrown in. The publication\nof the advertisement was declared a \"crime of such heinousness and of\nsuch a size as fairly called for the highest resentment which any\ncourt of justice has thought proper to use with respect to crimes of\nthis denomination;\" \"a libel such that it is impossible by any\nartifice to aggravate it;\" \"It will be totally impossible for the\nimagination of any man, however shrewd, to state a libel more\nscandalous and base in the fact imputed, more malignant and hostile to\nthe country in which the libeller is born, more dangerous in the\nexample if it were suffered to pass unpunished, than this:\" \"It is in\nlanguage addressed to the lowest and most miserable mortals, ... it is\naddressed to the lowest of the mob, and the bulk of the people, who it\nis fit should be otherwise taught, who it is fit should be otherwise\ngoverned in this country.\"\n\nMr. Horne was brought to trial on the 4th of July, 1777. He defended\nhimself, but though a vigorous writer, he was not a good speaker, and\nwas in a strange place, while \"Thurlow fought on his own dunghill,\"\nsays Lord Campbell, \"and throughout the whole day had the advantage\nover him.\" There was a special jury packed for the purpose by the\nhireling sheriff,--a \"London jury\" famous for corruption,--a\ntyrannical and powerful judge, ready to turn every weapon of the court\nagainst the defendant and to construct law against the liberty of\nspeech. Of course Mr. Horne was convicted.\n\nBut how should he be punished? Thurlow determined.\n\n     \"My Lords, the punishments to be inflicted upon misdemeanors\n     of this sort, have usually been of three different kinds;\n     fine, corporal punishment by imprisonment, and infamy by the\n     judgment of the pillory. With regard to the _fine_, it is\n     impossible for justice to make this sort of punishment,\n     however the infamy will always fall upon the offender;\n     because it is well known, that men who have more wealth, who\n     have better and more respectful situations and reputations\n     to be watchful over, employ men in desperate situations both\n     of circumstances and characters, in order to do that which\n     serves their party purposes; and when the punishment comes\n     to be inflicted, this court must have regard to the apparent\n     situation and circumstances of the man employed, that is, of\n     the man convicted, with regard to the punishment.\n\n     \"With regard to _imprisonment_, that is a species of\n     punishment not to be considered alike in all cases, but ...,\n     that it would be proper for the judgment of the court to\n     state circumstances which will make the imprisonment fall\n     lighter or heavier, ... that would be proper, if I had not\n     been spared all trouble upon that account, by hearing it\n     solemnly avowed ... by the defendant himself, that\n     imprisonment was no kind of inconvenience to him; for that\n     certain employments, ... would occasion his confinement in\n     so close a way, that it was mere matter of circumstance\n     whether it happened in one place or another; and that the\n     longest imprisonment which this court could inflict for\n     punishment, was not beyond the reach of accommodation which\n     those occasions rendered necessary to him. In this respect,\n     therefore, imprisonment is not only, ... not an adequate\n     punishment to the offence, but the public are told, ... that\n     it will be _no punishment_.\n\n     \"I stated in the third place to your Lordships, _the pillory\n     to have been the usual punishment for this species of\n     offence_. I apprehend it to have been so, in this case, for\n     above two hundred years before the time when prosecutions\n     grew rank in the Star-Chamber ... the punishment of the\n     pillory was inflicted, not only during the time that such\n     prosecutions were rank in the Star-Chamber, but it also\n     continued to be inflicted upon this sort of crime, and that\n     by the best authority, after the time of the abolishing the\n     Star-Chamber, after the time of the Revolution, and while my\n     Lord Chief Justice Holt sat in this court.\n\n     \"I would desire no better, no more pointed, nor any more\n     applicable argument than what that great chief justice used,\n     when it was contended before him that an abuse upon\n     government, upon the administration of several parts of\n     government, amounted to nothing, because there was no abuse\n     upon any particular man. That great chief justice said, they\n     amounted to much more; they are _an abuse upon all men_.\n     Government cannot exist, if the law cannot restrain that\n     sort of abuse. Government cannot exist, unless ... the full\n     punishment is inflicted which the most approved times have\n     given to offences of much less denomination than these, of\n     much less. I am sure it cannot be shown, that in any one of\n     the cases that were punished in that manner, the\n     aggravations of any one of those offences were any degree\n     adequate to those which are presented to your Lordship now.\n     If offences were so punished then, which are not so punished\n     now, they lose that expiation which the wisdom of those ages\n     thought proper to hold out to the public, as a restraint\n     from such offences being committed again.\n\n     \"I am to judge of crimes in order to the prosecution; your\n     lordship is to judge of them ultimately for punishment. I\n     should have been extremely sorry, if I had been induced by\n     any consideration whatever, to have brought a crime of the\n     magnitude which this was (of the magnitude which this was\n     when I first stated it) into a court of justice, if I had\n     not had it in my contemplation also that it would meet with\n     an adequate restraint, which I never thought would be done\n     without affixing to it the _judgment of the pillory_; I\n     should have been very sorry to have brought this man here,\n     after all the aggravations that he has superinduced upon the\n     offence itself, if I had not been persuaded that those\n     aggravations would have induced the _judgment of the\n     pillory_.\"[41]\n\n[Footnote 41: 20 St. Tr. 780-783.]\n\nBut Mansfield thought otherwise, and punished him with a fine of L200\nand imprisonment for twelve months.[42]\n\n[Footnote 42: 20 St. Tr. 651; 5 Campbell, 415.]\n\n\"Thus,\" says Lord Brougham, \"a bold and just denunciation of the\nattacks made upon our American Brethren, which nowadays would rank\namong the very mildest and tamest effusions of the periodical press,\ncondemned him to prison for twelve months.\"[43]\n\n[Footnote 43: Statesmen, 2 Series, 109.]\n\nThurlow was a man of low intellect, of a fierce countenance, a saucy,\nswaggering, insolent manner, debauched in his morals beyond the\ngrossness of that indecent age,--ostentatiously living in public\nconcubinage,--a notorious swearer in public and private. But he knew\nno law above the will of the hand that fed and could advance him, no\njustice which might check the insolence of power. And in less than a\nmonth after Mr. Horne was sent to jail, Thurlow was made Lord\nChancellor of England, and sat on the woolsack in the House of Lords.\nHis chief panegyrist can only say, \"in worse times there have been\nworse chancellors.\" \"But an age of comparative freedom and refinement\nhas rarely exhibited one who so ill understood, or at least so ill\ndischarged, the functions of a statesman and legislator.\"\n\nI will enrich this part of my argument with an example of the opinions\nof this Judge, which would endear him to the present administration\nin America, and entitle him to a high place among southern\npoliticians. In 1788 a bill was brought into Parliament to mitigate\nthe horrors of the African slave-trade. The Lord Chancellor, Thurlow,\nopposed it and said:--\n\n     \"It appears that the French have offered premiums to\n     encourage the African [slave] trade, and that they have\n     succeeded. The natural presumption therefore is, that _we\n     ought to do the same_. For my part, my Lords, I have no\n     scruple to say that if the 'five days' fit of philanthropy'\n     [the attempt to abolish the slave-trade] which has just\n     sprung up, and which has slept for twenty years together,\n     were allowed to sleep one summer longer, it would appear to\n     me rather more wise than thus to take up a subject\n     piecemeal, which it has been publicly declared ought not to\n     be agitated at all till next session of Parliament. Perhaps,\n     by such imprudence, the slaves themselves may be prompted by\n     their own authority, to proceed at once to a 'total and\n     immediate abolition of the trade.' One witness has come to\n     your Lordship's bar with a face of woe--his eyes full of\n     tears, and his countenance fraught with horror, and said,\n     '_My Lords, I am ruined if you pass this bill! I have risked\n     L30,000 on the trade this year! It is all I have been able\n     to gain by my industry, and if I lose it I must go to the\n     hospital!_' I desire of you to think of such things, my\n     Lords, in your _humane phrensy, and to show some humanity to\n     the whites as well as to the negroes_.\"[44]\n\n[Footnote 44: 5 Campbell, 460; 27 Parl. Hist. 638.]\n\nOne measure of tyranny in the hands of such Judges is Constructive\nCrime, a crime which the revengeful, or the purchased judge distils\nout of an honest or a doubtful deed, in the alembic he has made out of\nthe law broken up and recast by him for that purpose, twisted, drawn\nout, and coiled up in serpentine and labyrinthine folds. For as the\nsweet juices of the grape, the peach, the apple, pear, or plumb may be\nfermented, and then distilled into the most deadly intoxicating\ndraught to madden man and infuriate woman, so by the sophistry of a\nState's Attorney and a Court Judge, well trained for this work, out of\ninnocent actions, and honest, manly speech, the most ghastly crimes\ncan be extorted, and then the \"leprous distilment\" be poured upon the\ninnocent victim,\n\n     \"And a most instant tetter barks about,\n     Most lazar-like, with vile and loathsome crust,\n     All his smooth body!\"\n\nHere is an example. In 1668 some London apprentices committed a riot\nby pulling down some houses of ill-fame in Moorfields, which had\nbecome a nuisance to the neighborhood; they shouted \"Down with Bawdy\nHouses.\" Judge Kelyng had them indicted for High Treason. He said it\nwas \"an accroachment of royal authority.\" It was \"levying war.\" He\nthus laid down the law. \"The prisoners are indicted for levying war\nagainst the King. By levying war is not only meant when a body is\ngathered together as an army, but if a _company of people will go\nabout any public reformation, this is high treason_. These people do\npretend their design was against brothels; now let men to go about to\npull down brothels, with a captain [an apprentice \"walked about with a\ngreen apron on a pole\"] and an ensign and weapons,--if this thing be\nendured, _who is safe_? It is high treason because it doth betray the\npeace of the nation, and _every subject is as much wronged as the\nKing_; for if every man may reform what he will, no man is safe;\ntherefore the thing is of desperate consequence, and we must make this\nfor a public example. There is reason why we should be very cautious;\nwe are but recently delivered from rebellion [Charles I. had been\nexecuted nineteen years before, and his son had been in peaceable\npossession of the throne for eight years], and we know that that\nrebellion first began under the pretence of religion and the law; for\nthe Devil hath always this vizard upon it. We have great reason to be\nvery wary that we fall not again into the same error. Apprentices for\nthe future shall not go on in this manner. It proved that Beasly went\nas their captain with his sword, and flourished it over his head [this\nwas the \"weapons,\"] and that Messenger walked about Moorfields with a\ngreen apron on the top of a pole [this was the \"ensign\"]. What was\ndone by one, was done by all; in high treason all concerned are\nprincipals.\"[45]\n\n[Footnote 45: 1 Campbell's Justices, 404-5; Kelyng's Reports, 70.]\n\nThereupon thirteen apprentices who had been concerned in a riot were\nfound guilty of high treason, sentenced, and four hanged. All of the\neleven Judges--Twysden was one of them--concurred in the sentence,\nexcept Sir Matthew Hale. He declared there was no treason committed;\nthere was \"but an unruly company of apprentices.\"[46]\n\n[Footnote 46: 6 St. Tr. 879, note 911.]\n\nThis same Judge Kelyng, singularly thick-headed and ridiculous, loved\nto construct crimes where the law made none. Thus he declares, \"in\ncases of high treason, if any one do any thing by which he showeth his\n_liking_ and _approbation_ to the Traitorous Design, this is in him\nHigh Treason. For all are Principals in High Treason, who contribute\ntowards it by Action or Approbation.\"[47] He held it was an overt act\nof treason to print a \"treasonable proposition,\" such as this, \"The\nexecution of Judgment and Justice is as well the people's as the\nmagistrates' duty, and if the magistrates pervert Judgment, the people\nare bound by the law of God to execute judgment without them and upon\nthem.\"[48] So the printer of the book, containing the \"treasonable\nproposition,\" was executed. A man, by name Axtell, who commanded the\nguards which attended at the trial and execution of Charles I., was\nbrought to trial for treason. He contended that he acted as a soldier\nby the command of his superior officer, whom he must obey, or die. But\nit was resolved that \"that was no excuse, for his superior was a\nTraitor and all that joined with him in that act were Traitors, and\ndid by that approve the Treason, and when the command is Traitorous,\nthen the Obedience to that Command is also Traitorous.\" So Axtell must\ndie. The same rule of course smote at the head of any private soldier\nwho served in the ranks![49]\n\n[Footnote 47: Kelyng's Reports, 12.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Ibid. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 49: Kelyng's Reports, 13.]\n\nThese wicked constructions of treason by the court, out of small\noffences or honest actions, continued until Mr. Erskine attacked them\nwith his Justice, and with his eloquence exposed them to the\nindignation of mankind, and so shamed the courts into humanity and\ncommon sense.[50] Yet still the same weapon lies hid under the\nJudicial bench as well of England as of America, whence any malignant\nor purchased Judge, when it suits his personal whim or public\nambition, may draw it forth, and smite at the fortune, the reputation,\nor the life of any innocent man he has a private grudge against, but\ndares not meet in open day. Of this, Gentlemen of the Jury, in due\ntime.\n\n[Footnote 50: See his Defence of Hardy, 24 St. Tr. 877.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe mass of men, busy with their honest work, are not aware what power\nis left in the hands of judges--wholly irresponsible to the people;\nfew men know how they often violate the laws they are nominally set to\nadminister. Let me take but a single form of this judicial\niniquity--the Use of Torture, borrowing my examples from the history\nof our mother country.\n\nIn England the use of torture has never been conformable either to\ncommon or to statute law; but how often has it been practised by a\ncorrupt administration and wicked judges! In 1549 Lord Seymour of\nSudley, Admiral of England, was put to the torture;[51] in 1604 Guy\nFawkes was \"horribly racked.\"[52] Peacham was repeatedly put to\ntorture as you have just now heard, and that in the presence of Lord\nBacon himself in 1614.[53] Peacock was racked in 1620, Bacon and Coke\nboth signing the warrant for this illegal wickedness,--\"he deserveth\nit as well as Peacham did,\" said the Lord Chancellor, making his own\n\"ungodly custom\" stand for law.[54] In 1627 the Lord Deputy of Ireland\nwanted to torture two priests, and Charles I. gave him license, the\nprivy council consenting--\"all of one mind that he might rack the\npriests if he saw fit, and hang them if he found reason!\"[55] In 1628\nthe judges of England solemnly decided that torture was unlawful; but\nit had always been so,--and Yelverton, one of the judges, was a member\nof the commission which stretched Peacham on the rack.[56] Yet, spite\nof this decision, torture still held its old place, and a warrant from\nthe year 1610 still exists for inflicting this illegal atrocity on a\nvictim of the court.[57] Yet even so late as 1804, when Thomas Pictou,\ngovernor of Trinidad, put a woman to tortures of the most cruel\ncharacter, by the connivance of the court he entirely escaped from all\njudicial punishment.[58] Yes, torture was long continued in England\nitself, though not always by means of thumbscrews and Scottish boots\nand Spanish racks; the monstrous chains, the damp cells, the perpetual\nirritation which corrupt servants of a despotic court tormented their\nvictims withal, was the old demon under another name.[59] Nay, within\na few months the newspapers furnish us with examples of Americans\nbeing put to the torture of the lash to force a confession of their\nalleged crime--and this has been done by the power which this court\nhas long been so zealous to support--the Slave Power of America.\n\n[Footnote 51: See 2 St. Tr. 774, note.]\n\n[Footnote 52: 1 Jardine, Crim. Tr. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 53: 2 St. Tr. 871.]\n\n[Footnote 54: 1 Jardine, 19.]\n\n[Footnote 55: Ibid.]\n\n[Footnote 56: 3 St. Tr. 371. See 30 St. Tr. 892.]\n\n[Footnote 57: 1 Jardine, 20. See Emlyn, Preface to St. Tr. in 1\nHargrave, p. iii.]\n\n[Footnote 58: 30 St. Tr. 225.]\n\n[Footnote 59: See case of Huggins in 17 St. Tr. 297, 309.]\n\nIt has been well said:--\n\n     \"It must be owned that the Guards and Fences of the law have\n     not always proved an effectual security for the subject. The\n     Reader will ... find many Instances wherein they who hold\n     the sword of Justice did not employ it as they ought to in\n     punishment of Evil-Doers, but to the Oppression and\n     Destruction of Men more righteous than themselves. Indeed it\n     is scarce possible to frame a Body of Laws which a\n     tyrannical Prince, influenced by wicked Counsellors and\n     corrupt Judges, may not be able to break through.... The Law\n     itself is a dead letter. Judges are the interpreters of it,\n     and if they prove men of no Conscience nor Integrity, they\n     will give what sense they will to it, however different from\n     the true one; and when they are supported by superior\n     authority, will for a while prevail, till by repeated\n     iniquities they grow intolerable and throw the State into\n     convulsions which may at last end in their own ruin. This\n     shows how valuable a Blessing is an upright and learned\n     Judge, and of what great concern it is to the public that\n     none be preferred to that office but such whose Ability and\n     Integrity may be safely depended on.\"[60]\n\n[Footnote 60: 1 Hargrave's St. Tr. 6.]\n\nThus, Gentlemen of the Jury, is it that judges who know no law but the\nwill of \"the hand that feeds them,\" appointed for services rendered to\nthe enemies of mankind and looking for yet higher rewards, have sought\nto establish the despotism of their masters on the ruin of the People.\nBut the destruction of obnoxious individuals is not the whole of their\nenormity; so I come to the next part of the subject.\n\n(III.) The next step is for such judges to interpret, wrest, and\npervert the laws so as to prepare for prospective Acts of Tyranny.\n\nHere, Gentlemen of the Jury, I shall have only too many examples to\nwarn you with.\n\nEarly in his reign James I. sought to lay burthensome taxes on the\npeople without any act of Parliament; this practice was continued by\nhis successors.\n\n1. In 1606 came \"the great Case of Impositions,\" not mentioned in the\nordinary histories of England. The king assumed the right to tax the\nnation by his own prerogative. He ordered a duty of five shillings on\nevery hundred pounds of currants imported into the kingdom to be\nlevied in addition to the regular duty affixed by Act of Parliament.\nThis was contrary to law, nay, to the Constitution of England, her\nMagna Charta itself provided against unparliamentary taxation. Sir\nJohn Bates, a London merchant, refused to pay the unlawful duty, and\nwas prosecuted by information in the Star-Chamber. \"The courts of\njustice,\" says Mr. Hallam, \"did not consist of men conscientiously\nimpartial between the king and the subject; some corrupt with hopes of\npromotion, many more fearful of removal, or awe-struck by the fear of\npower.\" On the \"trial\" it was abundantly shown that the king had no\nright to levy such a duty. \"The accomplished but too pliant judges,\nand those indefatigable hunters of precedents for violations of\nconstitutional government, the great law-officers of the crown,\"\ndecided against the laws, and Chief Justice Fleming maintained that\nthe king might lay what tax he pleased on imported goods! The corrupt\ndecision settled the law for years--and gave the king absolute power\nover this branch of the revenue, involving a complete destruction of\nthe liberty of the people,--for the Principle would carry a thousand\nmeasures on its back.[61] The king declared Fleming a judge to his\n\"heart's content.\" Bacon's subserviency did not pass unrewarded. Soon\nafter James issued a decree under the great seal, imposing heavy\nduties on almost all merchandise \"to be for ever hereafter paid to the\nking and his successors, on pain of his displeasure.\"[62] Thus the\nMeasure became a Principle.\n\n[Footnote 61: 2 St. Tr. 371, and 11 Hargrave, 29; 1 Campbell's\nJustices, 204.]\n\n[Footnote 62: 1 Hallam, 231. See 1 Parl. Hist. 1030, 1132, 1150;\nBaker's Chronicle, 430.]\n\n2. James, wanting funds, demanded of his subjects forced contributions\nof money,--strangely called \"Benevolences,\" though there was no\n\"good-will\" on either side. It was clearly against the fundamental\nlaws of the kingdom. Sir Oliver St. John refused to pay what was\ndemanded of him, and wrote a letter to the mayor of Marlborough\nagainst the illegal exaction. For this he was prosecuted in the\nStar-Chamber in 1615 by Attorney-General Bacon. The court, with Lord\nChancellor Ellesmere at its head, of course decided that the king had\na right to levy Benevolences at pleasure. St. John was fined five\nthousand pounds, and punished by imprisonment during the king's\npleasure. This decision gave the king absolute power over all property\nin the realm,--every private purse was in his hands![63] With such a\ncourt the king might well say, \"Wheare any controversyes arise, my\nLordes the Judges chosene betwixte me and my people shall discide and\nrulle me.\"[64]\n\n[Footnote 63: 2 St. Tr. 899; 1 Hallam, 251; 2 Campbell, 291.]\n\n[Footnote 64: 1 Parl. Hist. 1156.]\n\n3. Charles I. proceeded in the steps of his father: he levied forced\nloans. Thomas Darnel and others refused to pay, and were put in prison\non a General Warrant from the king which did not specify the cause of\ncommitment. They brought their writs of _habeas corpus_, contending\nthat their confinement was illegal. The matter came to trial in 1627.\nSir Randolf Crewe, a man too just to be trusted to do the iniquity\ndesired, was thrust out of office, and Sir Nicolas Hyde appointed\nchief justice in his place. The actual question was, Has the king a\nright to imprison any subject forever without process of law? It was\nabundantly shown that he had no such right. But the new chief justice,\nput in power to oppress the people, remembering the hand that fed him,\nthus decreed,--\"Mr. Attorney hath told you that the _king hath done\nit, and we trust him in great matters_, and he is bound by law, and he\nbids us proceed by law; ... and we make no doubt but _the king_, if\nyou look to him, he knowing the cause why you are imprisoned, _he will\nhave mercy_; but that we believe that ... he cannot deliver you, but\n_you must be remanded_.\" Thus the judges gave the king absolute power\nover the liberties of any subject.[65]\n\n[Footnote 65: 3 St. Tr. 1. See also 2 Parl. Hist. 288; 1 Rushworth and\n1 Mrs. Macaulay, 341.]\n\nBut the matter was brought up in Parliament and discussed by men of a\ndifferent temper, who frightened the judge by threats of impeachment,\nand forced the king to agree to the PETITION OF RIGHT designed to put\nan end to all such illegal cruelty. Before Charles I. would sign that\nfamous bill, he asked Judge Hyde if it would restrain the king \"from\ncommitting or restraining a subject _without showing cause_.\" The\ncrafty judge answered, \"_Every law_, after it is made, _hath its\nexposition, which is to be left to the courts of justice to\ndetermine_; and although the Petition be granted _there is no fear of\n[such a] conclusion as is intimated in the question_!\" That is, the\ncourt will interpret the plain law so as to oppress the subject and\nplease the king! As the judges had promised to annul the law, the\nking signed it.[66] Charles dissolved Parliament and threw into jail\nits most noble and powerful members--one of whom, Eliot, never left\nthe prison till death set him free.[67] The same chief justice gave an\nextrajudicial opinion justifying the illegal seizure of the\nmembers,--\"that a parliament man committing an offence against the\nKing in Parliament not in a parliamentary course, may be punished\nafter the Parliament is ended;\" \"that by false slanders to bring the\nLords of the Council and the Judges, not in a parliamentary way, into\nthe hatred of the people and the government into contempt, was\npunishable out of Parliament, in the Star-Chamber, as an offence\ncommitted in Parliament beyond the office, and beside the duty of a\nparliament man.\"[68] Thus the judges struck down freedom of speech in\nParliament.\n\n[Footnote 66: 1 Campbell, Justices, 311; 2 Parl. Hist. 245, 350, 373,\n408, _et al._; 3 St. Tr. 59.]\n\n[Footnote 67: See above, p. 29.]\n\n[Footnote 68: 1 Campbell's Justices, 315.]\n\n4. In 1634 Charles I. issued a writ levying ship-money, so called, on\nsome seaport towns, without act of Parliament. London and some towns\nremonstrated, but were forced to submit, all the courts being against\nthem. Chief Justice Finch, \"a servile tool of the despotic court,\"\ngeneralized this unlawful tax, extending it to inland towns as well as\nseaboard, to all the kingdom. All landholders were to be assessed in\nproportion to their property, and the tax, if not voluntarily paid,\ncollected by force. The tax was unpopular, and clearly against the\nfundamental law of the kingdom. But if the government could not get\nthe law on its side it could control its interpreters, for \"every law\nhath its exposition.\" So the Judges of Assize were ordered in their\ncircuits to tell the people to _comply with the order and pay the\nmoney_! The King got all extrajudicial opinion of the twelve Judges\ndelivered irregularly, out of court, in which they unanimously\ndeclared that in time of danger the _King might levy such tax as he\nsaw fit, and compel men to pay it_. He was the sole judge of the\ndanger, and of the amount of the tax.[69]\n\n[Footnote 69: 3 St. Tr. 825. See the opinion of the Judges with their\ntwelve names, 844, and note [dagger symbol].]\n\nJohn Hampden was taxed twenty shillings--he refused to pay, though he\nknew well the fate of Richard Chambers a few years before. The case\ncame to trial in 1637, in the Court of Exchequer before Lord\nChancellor Coventry, a base creature, mentioned before. It was \"the\ngreat case of Ship-money.\" The ablest lawyers in England showed that\nthe tax was contrary to Magna Charta, to the fundamental laws of the\nrealm, to the Petition of Right and to the practice of the kingdom.\nHampden was defeated. Ten out of the twelve Judges sided with the\nKing. Croke as the eleventh had made up his mind to do the same, but\nhis noble wife implored him not to sacrifice his conscience for fear\nof danger, and the Woman, as it so often happens, saved the man.[70]\nAttorney-General Banks thus set forth the opinion of the Government,\nand the consequent \"decision\" of the Judges. He rested the right of\nlevying Ship-money on the \"intrinsic, absolute authority of the King.\"\nThere was no Higher Law in Old England in 1634! Banks said, \"this\npower [of arbitrary and irresponsible taxation] is innate in the\nperson of an absolute King, and in the persons of the Kings of\nEngland. All-magistracy it is of nature; and obedience and subjection\n[to] it is of nature. This power is not anyways derived from the\npeople, but reserved unto the King when positive laws first began. For\nthe King of England, he is an absolute monarch; nothing can be given\nto an absolute prince but what is inherent in his person. He can do no\nwrong. He is the sole judge and we ought not to question him, whom the\nlaw trusts we ought not to distrust.\" \"The Acts of Parliament contain\nno express words to take away so high a prerogative; and the King's\nprerogative, even in lesser matters, is always saved, where express\nwords do not restrain it.\"[71]\n\n[Footnote 70: Whitelocke, Memor. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 71: 2 Hallam, 16.]\n\nIt required six months of judicial labor to bring forth this result,\nwhich was of \"infinite disservice to the crown.\" Thereupon Mr. Hallam\nsays:--\n\n     \"Those who had trusted to the faith of the judges were\n     undeceived by the honest repentance of some, and looked with\n     indignation on so prostituted a crew. That respect for\n     courts of justice which the happy structure of our Judicial\n     administration has in general kept inviolate, was exchanged\n     for distrust, contempt, and a desire of vengeance. They\n     heard the speeches of some of the Judges with more\n     displeasure than even their final decision. Ship-money was\n     held lawful by Finch and several other Judges, not on the\n     authority of precedents which must in their nature have some\n     bounds, but on principles subversive of every property or\n     privilege in the subject. Those paramount rights of\n     monarchy, to which they appealed to-day in justification of\n     Ship-money, might to-morrow serve to supersede other laws,\n     and maintain more exertions of despotic power. It was\n     manifest by the whole strain of the court lawyers that no\n     limitations on the King's authority could exist but by the\n     King's sufferance. This alarming tenet, long bruited among\n     the churchmen and courtiers, now resounded in the halls of\n     justice.\"[72]\n\n[Footnote 72: 2 Hallam, 18.]\n\nThus by the purchased vote of a corrupt Judiciary all the laws of\nParliament, all the customs of the Anglo-Saxon tribe, Magna Charta\nitself with its noble attendant charters, were at once swept away, and\nall the property of the kingdom put into the hands of the enemy of the\nPeople. These four decisions would make the King of England as\nabsolute as the Sultan of Turkey, or the Russian Czar. If the opinion\nof the Judges in the case of Impositions and Ship-money were accepted\nin law,--then all the Property of the People was the King's; if the\ncourts were correct in their judgments giving the King the power by\nhis mere will to imprison any subject, during pleasure, and also to do\nthe same even with members of Parliament and punish them for debates\nin the House of Commons, then all liberty was at an end, and the\nKing's Prerogative extended over all acts of Parliament, all property,\nall persons.\n\n5. One step more must be taken to make the logic of despotism perfect,\nand complete the chain. That work was delegated to clergymen purchased\nfor the purpose--Rev. Dr. Robert Sibthorpe and Rev. Dr. Roger\nMainwaring. The first in a sermon \"of rendering all their dues,\"\npreached and printed in 1627, says, \"the Prince who is the Head, and\nmakes his Court and Council, it is his duty to direct and make laws.\n'He doth whatsoever pleaseth him;' 'where the word of the King is\nthere is power, and who may say unto him, What doest thou?'\" And\nagain, \"If Princes command any thing which subjects may not perform,\nbecause it is against the Laws of God, or of Nature, or impossible;\nyet Subjects are bound to undergo the punishment, without either\nresisting, or railing, or reviling, and are to yield a Passive\nObedience where they cannot exhibit an Active one, ... but in all\nothers he is bound to active obedience.\"[73]\n\n[Footnote 73: Cited in Franklyn, 208; 1 Rushworth, 422, 436, 444.]\n\nMainwaring went further, and in two famous sermons--preached, one on\nthe 4th of July, 1628, the other on the 29th of the same\nmonth--declared that \"the King is not bound to observe the Laws of the\nRealm concerning the Subject's Rights and Liberties, but that his\n_Royal will and Command_, in imposing Loans, and Taxes, without\nconsent of Parliament, _doth oblige the subject's conscience upon pain\nof eternal damnation_. That those who refused to pay this Loan\noffended against the Law of God and the King's Supreme Authority, and\nbecame guilty of Impiety, Disloyalty, and Rebellion. And that the\nauthority of Parliament is not necessary for the raising of Aid and\nSubsidies; and that the slow proceedings of such great Assemblies were\nnot fitted for the Supply of the State's urgent necessities, but would\nrather produce sundry impediments to the just designs of Princes.\"\n\"_That Kings partake of omnipotence with God._\"[74]\n\n[Footnote 74: Franklyn, 208, 592. These two Sermons were published in\na volume with the title \"Religion and Allegiance.\"... \"Published by\nhis Majesty's special command.\" (London, 1628.) Prof. Stuart seems\ninspired by this title in giving a name to his remarkable\npublication--written with the same spirit as Dr. Mainwaring's--\"Conscience\nand the Constitution.\" (Andover, 1851.) See 3 St. Tr. 335; 1\nRushworth, 422, 436, 585, _et al._; 1 Hallam, 307; 2 Parl. Hist. 388,\n410.]\n\nThe nation was enraged. Mainwaring was brought before Parliament,\npunished with fine and imprisonment and temporary suspension from\noffice and perpetual disability for ecclesiastical preferment. But the\nKing who ordered the publication of the sermons, and who doubtless had\ninduced him to preach them, immediately made him Rector of Stamford\nParish, soon appointed him Dean of Worcester, and finally in 1645 made\nhim Bishop of St. David's. A few years ago such clerical apostasy\nwould seem astonishing to an American. But now, Gentlemen of the Jury,\nso rapid has been the downfall of public virtue, that men filling the\npulpits once graced and dignified by noblest puritanic piety, now\npublicly declare there is no law of God above the fugitive slave bill.\nNay, a distinguished American minister boldly proclaimed his readiness\nto send his own Mother (or \"Brother\") into eternal bondage! Thus\nmodern history explains the old; and the cheap bait of a republican\nbribe can seduce American dissenters, as the wealthy lure of royal\ngifts once drew British churchmen into the same pit of infamy. Alas,\nhypocrisy is of no sect or nation.\n\nGentlemen, the Government of England once decreed \"that every\nclergyman, four times in the year, should instruct his parishioners in\nthe Divine right of Kings, and the damnable sin of resistance.\"[75] No\nHigher Law! America has ministers who need no act of Parliament to\nteach them to do the same; they run before they are sent.\n\n[Footnote 75: 2 Campbell, 460; 1 Rushworth, 1205.]\n\n6. After the head of one Stuart was shorn off and his son had\nreturned, no wiser nor better than his father, the old progress of\ndespotism began anew. I pass over what would but repeat the former\nhistory, and take two new examples to warn the nation with, differing\nfrom the old only in form.\n\nIn 1672, Charles II. published a proclamation denouncing rigorous\npenalties against all such as _should speak disrespectfully of his\nacts_, or _hearing others thus speak should not immediately inform the\nmagistrates_! Nay, in 1675, after he had sold himself to the French\nking, and was in receipt of an annual pension therefrom, he had this\ntest-oath published for all to sign: \"I do solemnly declare that _it\nis not lawful upon any pretence whatever to take up arms against the\nking_, ... and that _I will not_, at any time to come, _endeavor the\nalteration of the government_, either in Church or State.\"[76]\n\n[Footnote 76: Carroll's Counter Revolution (Lond. 1846), 99, _et\nseq._]\n\nAn oath yet more stringent was enforced in Scotland with the edge of\nthe sword, namely, to defend all the prerogatives of the crown, \"_never\nwithout the king's permission to take part in any deliberations upon\necclesiastical or civil affairs; and never to seek any reform in\nChurch or State_.\"\n\nNotwithstanding all that the Charleses had done to break down the\nliberty of Englishmen, still the great corporate towns held out,\nintrenched behind their charters, and from that bulwark both annoyed\nthe despot and defended the civil rights of the citizen. They also\nmust be destroyed. So summons of _quo warranto_ were served upon them,\nwhich frightened the smaller corporations and brought down their\ncharters. Jeffreys was serviceable in this wicked work, and on his\nreturn from his Northern Circuit, rich with these infamous spoils, as\na reward for destroying the liberties of his countrymen, the king\npublicly presented him with a ring, in token of \"acceptance of his\nmost eminent services.\" This fact was duly blazoned in the Gazette,\nand Jeffreys was \"esteemed a mighty favorite,\" which, \"together with\nhis lofty airs, made all the charters, like the walls of Jericho, fall\ndown before him, and he returned, laden with surrenders, the spoil of\ntowns.\"[77]\n\n[Footnote 77: 8 St. Tr. 1038, and the quotations from North (Examen.)\nSprat, and Roger Coke, in note on p. 1041, _et seq._ See, too, Fox,\nJames II. p. 48, 54, and Appendix, Barillon's Letter of Dec. 7th,\n1684.]\n\nLondon still remained the strong-hold of commerce, of the Protestant\nReligion, and of liberal Ideas in domestic Government; for though\nsubsequently corrupted by lust of gain, which sought a monopoly, the\ngreat commercial estates and families of England were not then on the\nside of Despotism, as now strangely happens in America.\n\nWhen the king sought to ruin Shaftesbury,--a corrupt man doubtless,\nbut then on the side of liberty, the enemy of encroaching\ndespotism,--a London Grand-Jury refused to find a bill, and was warmly\napplauded by the city. Their verdict of IGNORAMUS was a \"personal\nliberty bill\" for that time, and therefore was the king's wrath\nexceeding hot, for \"Ignoramus was mounted in Cathedra,\" and there was\na stop put to such wickedness. So London must be brought down. She\nrefused to surrender her Charter. In 1682 the king proceeded to wrest\nit from her by the purchased hand of the courts of law. But even they\nwere not quite adequate to the work. So Chief Justice Pemberton was\ndisplaced, and Saunders,--a man as offensive in his personal habit of\nbody as he was corrupt in conduct and character--was put in his\noffice. Dolbin, too just for the crime demanded of him, was turned\nout, and Withins made to succeed him. For \"so great a weight was there\nat stake as could not be trusted to men of doubtful principles,\" says\nNorth. Saunders, who had plotted this whole matter, was struck with an\napoplexy when sentence was to be given, but sent his opinion in\nwriting. Thus on the judgment given by only two judges, who assigned\nno reasons for their decision, it was declared that the Charter of\nLondon was forfeit, and the liberties and franchises of the city\nshould \"be seized into the king's hands.\"[78]\n\n[Footnote 78: 2 Hallam, 333; Burnet, Own Times (London, 1838), 350; 8\nSt. Tr. 1039, 1081 note, 1267, _et seq._; 2 Campbell, Justices, 63;\nNorth's Examen. 626; Fox, 54.]\n\nThus fell the charter of London! Gentlemen of the Jury, the same sword\nwas soon to strike at the neck of New England; the charter of\nMassachusetts could not be safe in such a time.\n\nIn 1686 James II. wished to destroy Protestantism,--not that he loved\nthe Roman form of religion, but that tyranny which it would help him\nget and keep. So he claimed the right by his royal prerogative to\ndispense with any laws of the land. Of the twelve Judges of England\neight were found on his side, and the four unexpectedly proven\nfaithful were at once dismissed from office and their places filled\nwith courtiers of the king, and the court was unanimous that the king\nhad a constitutional right to destroy the constitution. Then he had\nnot only command of the purses of his subjects and their bodies, but\nalso of their mind and conscience, and could dictate the actual\nReligion of the People as well as the official \"religion\" of the\npriests.[79]\n\n[Footnote 79: 11 St. Tr. 1165; 12 Ibid. 358.]\n\nOne State-secret lay at the bottom of the Stuarts' plans,--to appoint\nbase men for judges, and if by accident a just man came upon the\nbench, to keep him in obscurity or to hustle him from his post. What\nnames they offer us--Kelyng, Finch, Saunders, Wright, Jeffreys,\nScroggs![80] infamous creatures, but admirable instruments to destroy\ngenerous men withal and devise means for the annihilation of the\nliberties of the people. Historians commonly dwell on the fields of\nbattle, recording the victories of humanity, whereof the pike and gun\nwere instruments; but pass idly over the more important warfare which\ngoes on in the court house, only a few looking on, where lawyers are\nthe champions of mankind, and the battle turns on a sentence; nay, on\na word which determines the welfare of a nation for ages to come. On\nsuch little hinges of law do the great gates hang, and open or shut to\nlet in the happiness or the ruin of millions of men! Naseby and\nWorcester are important places truly, venerable for great deeds.\nCromwell and Blake are names not likely to perish while men can\nappreciate the heroism which sheds blood. But Westminster Hall has\nrung with more important thunder than cannon ever spoke, and Pym and\nSelden, St. John and Hampden--nay, Penn, Bunyan, Fox, Lilburne--have\ndone great service for mankind. Gentlemen of the Jury, it is a matter\nof great magnitude which hinges on the small question of fact and law\nto-day. You are to open or shut for Humanity. If the People make\nthemselves sheep there will be wolves enough to eat you up.\n\n[Footnote 80: This last name is thought to be extinct in Great\nBritain, but I find one Thomas Scruggs _in Massachusetts_ in 1635 _et\npost_, 1 Mass. Records (1628-1641), index.]\n\nIt is difficult to calculate the amount of evil wrought by such\ncorrupt judges as I have spoken of; they poison the fountains of\nsociety. I need not speak of monsters like Scroggs and Jeffreys, whose\nnames rot in perpetual infamy, but creatures less ignoble, like\nWright, Saunders, Finch, Kelyng, Thurlow, Loughborough, and their\ncoadjutors, must be regarded as far more dangerous than thieves,\nmurderers, or pirates. A cruel, insolent Judge selecting the worst\ncustoms, the most oppressive statutes, and decisions which outrage\nhuman nature--what an amount of evil he can inflict on groaning\nhumanity!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, in this long sad history of judicial tyranny in\nEngland there is one thing particularly plain: such judges hate\nfreedom of speech, they would restrict the Press, the Tongue, yes, the\nThought of mankind. Especially do they hate any man who examines the\nactions of the government and its servile courts, and their violation\nof justice and the laws. They wish to take exemplary and malignant\nvengeance on all such. Let me freshen your knowledge of some examples.\n\n1. In 1410 the government made a decree \"that whatsoever they were\nthat should rede the Scriptures in the mother tongue, they should\nforfeit land, catel, body, lif, and godes from their heyres forever,\nand so be condempned for heretykes to God, enemies to the crowne, and\nmost errant traiters to the land.\" The next year, in _one day\nthirty-nine persons were first hanged and then burned for this\n\"crime.\"_[81]\n\n[Footnote 81: 1 St. Tr. 252.]\n\n2. In 1590, Mr. Udall, a Puritan minister, published a book,\n\"Demonstrations of Discipline,\" not agreeable to the authorities. He\nwas brought to a trial for a Felony,--not merely a \"misdemeanor.\" The\njury were ordered by the judge to find him guilty of that crime if\nthey were satisfied that he published the book,--for the court were to\njudge whether the deed amounted to that crime! He was found \"guilty,\"\nand died in jail after nearly three years of cruel confinement.[82]\n\n[Footnote 82: 1 St. Tr. 1271; 1 Neal's Puritans (N.Y. 1844), 190. See\n16 Parl. Hist. 1276, where Mr. Dunning says this is the first example\nof such a charge to a jury.]\n\n3. In 1619 one Williams of Essex wrote a book explaining a passage in\nthe book of Daniel as foretelling the death of James I. in 1621. He\ninclosed the manuscript in a box, sealed it, and secretly conveyed it\nto the king. For this he was tried for high treason, and of course\nexecuted. \"_Punitur Affectus, licet non sequatur Effectus_,\" said the\ncourt, for \"_Scribere est agere_,\" \"Punish the wish though the object\nbe not reached,\" for \"writing is doing!\"[83]\n\n[Footnote 83: 2 St. Tr. 1085.]\n\n4. In 1664 Mr. Keach, a Baptist, published a \"Childs' Instructer, or a\nNew and Easy Primmer,\" in which he taught the doctrines of his sect,\n\"that children ought not to be baptized\" but only adults; \"that laymen\nmay preach the gospel.\" He was brought before Lord Chief Justice Hyde,\nwho after insulting the prisoner, thus charged the grand-jury:--\"He is\na base and dangerous fellow; and if this be suffered, children by\nlearning of it will become such as he is, and therefore I hope you\nwill do your duty.\" Of course such a jury indicted him. The \"trial\"\ntook place before Judge Scroggs; the Jury were at first divided in\nopinion. \"But,\" said the Judge, \"you must agree!\" So they found him\nguilty. He was fined \"L20, twice set in the pillory, and bound to make\npublic submission.\"[84]\n\n[Footnote 84: 7 St. Tr. 687.]\n\n5. In 1679 George Wakeman and others were tried for high treason\nbefore Scroggs, whose conduct was atrocious, and several pamphlets\nwere published commenting on the ridiculous and absurd conduct of this\nfunctionary, \"Lord Chief Justice Scroggs.\" One Richard Radley in a\nbantering talk had bid another man \"Go to Weal Hall, to my Lord\nScroggs, _for he has received money enough of Dr. Wakeman_!\" Radley\nwas indicted for \"speaking scandalous words of Chief Justice Scroggs.\"\nWhereupon at the opening of the court that eminent officer, who did\nnot disdain to wreak public and judicial vengeance on heads that\nwrought his private and personal grief, made a speech setting forth\nhis magisterial opinions on the liberty of the press. Doubtless this\ncourt knows original authority for the opinions they follow; but for\nyour instruction, Gentlemen of the Jury, I will give you the chief\nthings in the judicial speech of Scroggs, Lord Chief Justice of the\nSupreme Court of England in 1679.[85]\n\n[Footnote 85: 6 St. Tr. 701; see Dunning in 16 Parl. Hist. 1276, _et\nseq._]\n\n     \"For these hireling scribblers who traduce it [the fairness\n     and equality of the trial in which he had been notoriously\n     unfair and unequal], who write to eat, and lie for bread, I\n     intend to meet with them another way; for they are only safe\n     while they can be secret; but so are vermin, so long as they\n     can hide themselves.... They shall know that the law wants\n     not the power to punish a libellous and licentious press,\n     nor I a resolution to exact it. And this is all the answer\n     is fit to be given (besides a whip) to these hackney\n     writers.\" \"However, in the mean time, the _extravagant\n     boldness of men's pens and tongues is not to be endured, but\n     shall be severely punished_; for if once causes come to be\n     tried with complacency to particular opinions, and shall be\n     innocently censured if they go otherwise, public causes\n     shall all receive the doom as the multitude happen to be\n     possessed; and at length any cause shall become public ...\n     at every session the Judges shall be arraigned, the Jury\n     condemned, and the verdicts overawed to comply with popular\n     wish and indecent shouts.\"\n\n     \"There are a set of men ... that too much approve and\n     countenance such vulgar ways, ... that embrace all sorts of\n     informations, true or false, likely or impossible, nay\n     though never so silly and ridiculous, they refuse none; so\n     shall all addresses be made to them, and they be looked on\n     as the only patrons of religion and government!\"\n\nHis associates chimed in with accordant howl. Puny Judge Jones\ndeclared,--\n\n     \"We have a particular case here before us, as a matter of\n     scandal against a great Judge, the _greatest Judge in the\n     kingdom_, in criminal causes [the Lord Chancellor Nottingham\n     was greater in _civil_ causes]; and it is a great and an\n     high charge upon him. And certainly there was never any age,\n     I think, more licentious than this in aspersing governors,\n     scattering of libels and _scandalous speeches against those\n     that are in authority_: and without all doubt _it doth\n     become the court to show their zeal in suppressing it_.\" [It\n     was 'resisting an officer.'] \"That trial [of Dr. Wakeman]\n     was managed with _exact justice and perfect integrity_. And\n     therefore I do think it very fit that this person be\n     proceeded against by an information, that he may be made _a\n     public example_ to all such as shall presume to scandalize\n     the government, and the governors, with any false aspersions\n     and accusations.\"\n\nAccordingly Mr. Radley, for that act, was convicted of speaking\n\"scandalous words against the Lord Chief Justice Scroggs\" and fined\nL200.[86]\n\n[Footnote 86: 7 St. Tr. 701.]\n\nMr. Hudson says of the Star-Chamber, \"So tender the court is of\nupholding the honor of the sentence, as they will punish them who\nspeak against it with great severity.\"[87]\n\n[Footnote 87: In 2 Collectanea Juridica, 228.]\n\n6. In 1680 Benjamin Harris, a bookseller, sold a work called \"An\nAppeal from the country to the city for the Preservation of his\nMajesty's Person, Liberty, Property, and the Protestant Religion.\" He\nwas brought to trial for a libel, before Recorder Jeffreys and Chief\nJustice Scroggs who instructed the jury they were only to inquire _if\nHarris sold the book_, and if so, find him \"guilty.\" It was for the\ncourt to determine what was a libel. He was fined five hundred pounds\nand placed in the pillory; the Chief Justice wished that he might be\nalso whipped.[88]\n\n[Footnote 88: 7 St. Tr. 925.]\n\n7. The same year Henry Carr was brought to trial. He published a\nperiodical--\"the Weekly Packet of advice from Rome, or the History of\nPopery\"--hostile to Romanism. Before the case came to court, Scroggs\nprohibited the publication on his own authority. Mr. Carr was\nprosecuted for a libel before the same authority, and of course found\nguilty. The character of that court also was judgment against natural\nright. Jane Curtis and other women were in like manner punished for\nspeaking or publishing words against the same \"great judge.\"[89] And\nit was held to be a \"misdemeanor\" to publish a book reflecting on the\njustice of the nation--the truer the book the worse the libel! It was\n\"obstructing an officer,\" and of course it was a greater offence to\n\"obstruct\" him with Justice and Truth than with wrong and lies. The\ngreater the justice of the act the more dangerous the \"crime!\" If the\nlanguage did not hit any one person it was \"malice against all\nmankind.\"\n\n[Footnote 89: 7 St. Tr. 1111, 959; 4 Parl. Hist. 1274.]\n\n8. In 1684 Sir Samuel Barnardiston was brought to trial charged with a\n\"High Misdemeanor.\" He had written three private letters to be\nsent--it was alleged--by post to his friend, also a private man. The\nletters do not appear designed for any further publication or use;\nthey related to matters of news, the events of the day and comments\nthereon, and spoke in praise of Algernon Sidney and Lord Russell who\nwere so wickedly beheaded about the time the letters were written. It\nwould require a microscopic eye to detect any evil lurking there.\nJeffreys presided at the trial, and told the jury:--\n\n     \"The letters are _factious, seditious, and malicious\n     letters, and as base as the worst of mankind could ever have\n     invented_.\" \"And if he be guilty of it--the greater the man\n     is the greater the crime, and the more understanding he has,\n     the more malicious he seems to be; for your little ordinary\n     sort of people, that are of common mean understanding, they\n     may be wheedled and drawn in, and surprised into such\n     things; but men of a public figure and of some value in the\n     world that have been taken to be men of the greatest\n     interest and reputation in a party, it cannot be thought a\n     hidden surprise upon them; no, it is a work of time and\n     thought, it is a thing fixed in his very nature, and it\n     _shows so much venom as would make one think the whole mass\n     of his blood were corrupt_.\" \"Here is the matter he is now\n     accused of, and here is in it malice against the king,\n     malice against the government, malice against both Church\n     and State, malice against any man that bears any share in\n     the government, indeed malice against all mankind that are\n     not of the same persuasion with these bloody miscreants.\"\n     \"Here is ... the sainting of two horrid conspirators! Here\n     is the Lord Russell sainted, that blessed martyr; Lord\n     Russell, that good man, that excellent Protestant, he is\n     lamented! And here is Mr. Sidney sainted, what an\n     extraordinary man he was! Yes, surely he was a very good\n     man--and it is a shame to think that such bloody miscreants\n     should be sainted and lamented who had any hand in that\n     horrid murder [the execution of Charles I.] and treason ...\n     who could confidently bless God for their being engaged in\n     that good cause (as they call it) which was the rebellion\n     which brought that blessed martyr to his death. It is high\n     time for all mankind that have any Christianity, or fear of\n     Heaven or Hell, to bestir themselves, to rid the nation of\n     such caterpillars, such monsters of villany as those are!\"\n\nOf course the packed jury found him guilty; he was fined L10,000.[90]\n\n[Footnote 90: 7 St. Tr. 1333.]\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, such judges, with such kings and cabinets, have\nrepeatedly brought the dearest rights of mankind into imminent peril.\nSad indeed is the condition of a nation where Thought is not free,\nwhere the lips are sewed together, and the press is chained! Yet the\nevil which has ruined Spain and made an Asia Minor of Papal Italy,\nonce threatened England. Nay, Gentlemen of the Jury, it required the\ngreatest efforts of her noblest sons to vindicate for you and me the\nright to print, to speak, to think. Milton's \"Speech for the Liberty\nof unlicensed Printing\" is one monument of the warfare which lasted\nfrom Wicliffe to Thomas Carlyle. But other monuments are the fines and\nimprisonment, the exile and the beheading of men and women! Words are\n\"sedition,\" \"rebellion,\" \"treason;\" nay, even now at least in New\nEngland, a true word is a \"Misdemeanor,\" it is \"obstructing an\nofficer.\" At how great cost has our modern liberty of speech been\npurchased! Answer John Lilburne, answer William Prynn, and Selden, and\nEliot, and Hampden, and the other noble men who\n\n     ----\"in the public breach devoted stood,\n     And for their country's cause were prodigal of blood.\"\n\nAnswer Fox and Bunyan, and Penn and all the host of Baptists,\nPuritans, Quakers, martyrs, and confessors--it is by your stripes that\nwe are healed! Healed! are we healed? Ask the court if it be not a\n\"misdemeanor\" to say so!\n\nA despotic government hates implacably the freedom of the press. In\n1680 the Lord Chief Justice of England declared the opinion of the\ntwelve judges \"indeed all subscribe that to _print or publish any\nnews-books, or pamphlets of news whatsoever, is illegal; that it is a\nmanifest intent to the breach of the peace_, and they may be proceeded\nagainst by law for an illegal thing.\" \"And that is for a public notice\nto all people, and especially printers and booksellers, that _they\nought to print no book or pamphlet of news whatsoever without\nauthority;\" \"they shall be punished if they do it without authority_,\nthough there is nothing reflecting on the government.\"[91] Judge\nScroggs was right--it was \"resisting an officer,\" at least\n\"obstructing\" him in his wickedness. In England, says Lord Campbell,\nthe name and family of Scroggs are both extinct. So much the worse for\nyou and me, Gentlemen. The Scroggses came over to America; they\nsettled in Massachusetts, they thrive famously in Boston; only the\nname is changed.\n\n[Footnote 91: 7 St. Tr. 1127.]\n\nIn 1731 Sir Philip Yorke, attorney-general, solemnly declared that an\neditor is \"_not to publish any thing reflecting on the character and\nreputation and administration of his Majesty or his Ministers_;\" \"if\nhe breaks that law, or exceeds that liberty of the press he is to _be\npunished for it_.\" Where did he get his law--in the third year of\nEdward I., in A.D. 1275! But that statute of the Dark Ages was held\ngood law in 1731; and it seems to be thought good law in 1855! And the\nattorney who affirmed the atrocious principle, soon became Chief\nJustice, a \"consummate judge,\" a Peer, Lord Hardwicke, and Lord\nChancellor![92] Lord Mansfield had not a much higher opinion of the\nliberty of the press; indeed, in all libel cases, he assumed it was\nexclusively the function of the judges to determine whether the words\npublished contained malicious or seditious matter, the jury were only\nto find the fact of publication.[93] Thus the party in power with\ntheir Loughboroughs, their Thurlows, their Jeffreys, their\nScroggs--shall I add also American names--are the exclusive judges as\nto what shall be published relating to the party in power--their\nLoughboroughs, their Thurlows, their Jeffreys and their Scroggs, or\ntheir analogous American names! It was the free press of\nEngland--Elizabeth invoked it--which drove back the \"invincible\nArmada;\" this which stayed the tide of Papal despotism; this which\ndyked the tyranny of Louis XIV. out from Holland. Aye, it was this\nwhich the Stuarts, with their host of attendants, sought to break down\nand annihilate for ever;[94] which Thurlow and Mansfield so formidably\nattacked, and which now in America--but the American aspect of the\nmatter must not now be looked in the face.\n\n[Footnote 92: 17 St. Tr. 674; 5 Campbell, 57; Hildreth's Despotism,\n199.]\n\n[Footnote 93: 20 St. Tr. 900. But see 28 St. Tr. 595, and 16 Parl.\nHist. 1211.]\n\n[Footnote 94: For the frequency of trials for words spoken in Charles\nII.'s reign of terror, see the extracts from Narcissus Luttrel's Brief\nHistorical Relation, 10 St. Tr. 125.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut spite of all these impediments in the way of liberty, the voice of\nhumanity could not be forever silenced. Now and then a virtuous and\nhigh-minded judge appeared in office--like Hale or Holt, Camden or\nErskine. Even in the worst times there were noble men who lifted up\ntheir voices. Let me select two examples from men not famous, but\nwhose names, borne by other persons, are still familiar to this court.\n\nIn 1627 Sir Robert Phillips, member for Somersetshire, in his place in\nParliament, thus spoke against the advance of despotism:[95]--\n\n[Footnote 95: 1 Rushworth, 502.]\n\n     \"I read of a custom among the old Romans, that once every\n     year they had a solemn feast for their slaves; at which they\n     had liberty, without exception, to speak what they would,\n     thereby to ease their afflicted minds; which being finished,\n     they severally returned to their former servitude. This may,\n     with some resemblance and distinction, well set forth our\n     present state; where now, after the revolution of some time,\n     and grievous sufferance of many violent oppressions, we\n     have, as those slaves had, a day of liberty of speech; but\n     shall not, I trust, be hereafter slaves, for we are free:\n     yet what new illegal proceedings our estates and persons\n     have suffered under, my heart yearns to think, my tongue\n     falters to utter. They have been well represented by divers\n     worthy gentlemen before me; yet one grievance, and the main\n     one, as I conceive, hath not been touched, which is our\n     Religion: religion, Mr. Speaker, made vendible by\n     commission, and men, for pecuniary annual rates, dispensed\n     withal; Judgments of law against our liberty there have been\n     three; each latter stepping forwarder than the former, upon\n     the Rights of the Subject; aiming, in the end, to tread and\n     trample underfoot our law, and that even in the form of\n     law.\"\n\n     \"The first was the Judgment of the Postnati, (the Scots,)\n     ... The second was the Judgment upon Impositions, in the\n     Exchequer Court by the barons; which hath been the source\n     and fountain of many bitter waters of affliction unto our\n     merchants.\" \"The third was that fatal late Judgment against\n     the Liberty of the Subject imprisoned by the king, argued\n     and pronounced but by one judge alone.\" \"I can live,\n     although another who has no right be put to live with me;\n     nay, I can live although I pay excises and impositions more\n     than I do; but to have my liberty, which is the soul of my\n     life, taken from me by power; and to have my body pent up in\n     a gaol, without remedy by law, and to be so adjudged: O\n     improvident ancestors! O unwise forefathers! To be so\n     curious in providing for the quiet possession of our lands,\n     and the liberties of Parliament; and to neglect our persons\n     and bodies, and to let them lie in prison, and that _durante\n     bene placito_, remediless! If this be law, why do we talk of\n     liberties? Why do we trouble ourselves with a dispute about\n     law, franchises, property of goods, and the like? What may\n     any man call his own, if not the Liberty of his Person? I am\n     weary of treading these ways.\"[96]\n\n[Footnote 96: 2 Parl. Hist. 232. See also 441, 471. He had been thrown\ninto the Tower by James in 1624. Cabbala (3d Ed.), 311.]\n\nIn 1641 Sir Philip Parker, Knight of the Shire for Suffolk, in his\nplace in Parliament, thus spoke:--\n\n     \"The cries of the people have come up to me; the voice of\n     the whole nation tingles in my ears.\" \"'Tis true, I confess,\n     we have tormented ourselves with daily troubles and\n     vexations, and have been very solicitous for the welfare of\n     the Commonwealth; but what have we performed, what have we\n     perfected? Mr. Speaker, excuse my zeal in this case; for my\n     mouth cannot imprison what my mind intends to let out;\n     neither can my tongue conceal what my heart desires to\n     promulge. Behold the Archbishop [Laud], that great\n     incendiary of this kingdom, lies now like a firebrand raked\n     up in the embers; but if ever he chance to blaze again I am\n     afraid that what heretofore he had but in a spark, he will\n     burn down to the ground in a full flame. Wherefore let us\n     begin, for the kingdom is pregnant with expectation on this\n     point. I confess there are many more delinquents, for the\n     judges and other knights walk _in querpo_; but they are only\n     thunderbolts forged in Canterbury's fire.\"[97]\n\n[Footnote 97: Parl. Hist. 867.]\n\nSix of the wicked judges were soon brought to trial.[98]\n\n[Footnote 98: 1 Rushworth, 502.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis same threefold experiment of despotism which was attempted in\nEngland, was tried also in America by the same tyrannical hand. Here,\nalso, the encroaching power put creatures of its arbitrary will in\njudicial offices; they then by perverting the laws, punished the\npatriots, and next proceeded to destroy the best institutions of the\nland itself. Here I shall take but a few examples, selected from the\ncolonial history of our own New England.\n\nAfter capturing the great fortress of freedom at home, by taking away\nthe charter of London, Charles proceeded to destroy the freedom of the\ncolonies; the Charter of Massachusetts was wrested from us on a _quo\nwarranto_ in 1683,[99] and the colony lay at the feet of the monarch.\nIn privy council it had already been determined that our rights should\nbe swept into the hands of some greedy official from the court.[100]\nIn 1686 James II. sent Sir Edmund Andros to New England as a\n\"Commissioner\" to destroy the liberty of the people. He came to Boston\nin the \"Kingfisher, a fifty gun ship,\" and brought two companies of\nBritish soldiers, the first ever stationed in this town to dragoon the\npeople into submission to an unrighteous law. Edward Randolph, the\nmost determined enemy of the colony, greedily caressing the despotic\nhands that fed him, was his chief coadjutor and assistant, his\nsecretary, in that wicked work. Andros was authorized to appoint his\nown council, and with their consent enact laws, levy taxes, to\norganize and command the militia. He was to enforce the hateful \"Acts\nof Trade.\" He appointed a council to suit the purpose of his royal\nmaster, to whom no opposition was allowed. Dudley, the new Chief\nJustice, told the people who appealed to Magna Charta, \"they must not\nthink the privileges of Englishmen would follow them to the end of the\nworld.\" Episcopacy was introduced; no marriages were to \"be allowed\nlawful but such as were made by the minister of the Church of\nEngland.\" Accordingly, all must come to Boston to be married, for\nthere was no Episcopal minister out of its limits. It was proposed\nthat the Puritan Churches should pay the Episcopal salary, and the\nCongregational worship be prohibited. He threatened to punish any man\n\"who gave two pence\" toward the support of a Non-conformist minister.\nAll fees to officers of the new government were made exorbitantly\ngreat. Only one Probate office was allowed in the Province, that was\nin Boston; and one of the creatures of despotic power was,\nprophetically, put in it. Andros altered the old form of oaths, and\nmade the process of the courts to suit himself.\n\n[Footnote 99: See the steps of the process in 1 Hutchinson, (Salem,\n1795,) 297; 8 St. Tr. 1068, note.]\n\n[Footnote 100: Barillon to Louis XIV. in Fox's Appendix, p. vii., _et\nseq._ In 1685 Halifax, who had been friendly to the rights of the\ncolonies, was dismissed from his office; Sunderland, their enemy, had\na pension from Louis XIV. of L5,000 or L6,000 a year; p. cxxvii.,\ncxxx. _et seq._, cxliii., cxlviii. Not the last instance of a high\nfunctionary pensioned by a foreign hand!]\n\nHe sought to wrest the charters from the Colonies; that of Rhode\nIsland fell into his hands; Connecticut escaped by a \"miracle:\"\n\n     \"The Charter-Oak--it was the tree\n     That saved our sacred Liberty.\"\n\nThe Charter government of Plymouth was suspended. Massachusetts was\nput under arbitrary despotism. Towns were forbidden to meet, except\nfor the choice of officers; there must be no deliberation; \"discussion\nmust be suppressed.\" He was to levy all the taxes; he assessed a\npenny in the pound in all the towns. Rev. John Wise, one of the\nministers of Ipswich, advised the people to resist the tax.\n\"Democracy,\" said he, \"is Christ's government in Church and State; we\nhave a good God and a good king; we shall do well to stand to our\nprivileges.\" One of the Council said, \"_You have no privileges left\nyou, but not to be sold as slaves._\" Even that was not likely to last\nlong. The town of Ipswich refused to pay the tax, because invalid; the\ngovernor having no authority to tax the people: \"they will petition\nthe King for liberty of an assembly before they make any rates.\" The\nminister and five others were arrested; they had \"obstructed an\nofficer.\" The Rev. Mr. Wise was guiltiest of all; he did it with a\nword, an idea. They were brought to Boston, and thrown into jail, \"for\ncontempt and high misdemeanors.\" They claimed the _habeas corpus_;\nChief Justice Dudley refused it, on the ground that it did not extend\nto America! They were tried before a packed jury, and such a court as\nJames II. was delighted to honor. The patriots plead the laws of\nEngland and Magna Charta. It was all in vain. \"I am glad,\" said the\njudge to his packed jury, \"there be so many worthy gentlemen of the\njury, so capable to do the king service; and we expect a good verdict\nfrom you, seeing the matter hath been so sufficiently proved against\nthe _criminals_.\" The jury of course found them guilty. They were\nfined from L15 to L50 a piece. The whole cost to the six was over\nL400. \"It is not for his majesty's interest that you should thrive,\"\nsaid one of those petty tyrants,--a tide-water of despotism.[101]\n\n[Footnote 101: 1 Hutch. 316; 2 Hildreth, Hist. 108; 2 Bancroft, 425;\nWashburn, Judicial Hist. of Mass. 105; Drake's Boston, ch. L.]\n\nAndros denied the colonial title to lands, claiming that as the\ncharter was declared void, all the lands held under its authority\nescheated to the crown,--\"The calf died in the cow's belly.\" A deed of\npurchase from the Indians was \"worth no more than the scratch of a\nbear's paw.\" \"The men of Massachusetts did much quote Lord Coke\" for\ntheir titles: but Rev. John Higginson, minister of the first church in\nSalem, the son of the first minister ever ordained in New\nEngland,--and ancestor of this noble-hearted man [Rev. T.W. Higginson]\nwho is now also indicted for a \"misdemeanor,\"--found other laws for\ntheir claim, and insisted on the citizens' just and natural right to\nthe lands they had reclaimed from the wilderness.[102] Andros said,\n\"You are either subjects, or else you are rebels;\" and in either case,\ntheir lands would be forfeit.\n\n[Footnote 102: 1 Felt's Salem, 24; 2 Ib. 542; Felt's Ipswich, 123, _et\nseq._; Gage's Rowley, 157, _et seq._; Sullivan's Land Titles, 54.]\n\nAndros hated freedom of speech and of thought. He was to allow no\nunlicensed printing. Randolph was appointed censor of the press, and\nordered the printer to publish nothing without his approbation, nor\n\"any almanac whatever.\" There must be but one town meeting in a year,\nand no \"deliberation\" at that; no \"agitation,\" no discussion of\ngrievances. There must be no preaching on the acts of the government.\nRev. Dr. Increase Mather, one of the ablest men in the Colonies, was\nthe special object of his hate. Randolph advised the authorities to\nforbid any non-conformist minister to land in New England without the\nspecial consent of the governor, and that he should restrain such as\nhe saw fit to silence. The advice was not lost on such willing ears.\nJohn Gold, of Topsfield, was tried for \"treasonable words,\" and fined\nfifty pounds--a great deal more at Topsfield in 1687, than \"three\nhundred dollars\" is now in Boston. Rev. Increase Mather had opposed\nthe surrender of the Charter of Massachusetts, and published his\nreasons; but with such prudence, for he was careful how he \"evinced an\nexpress liking\" for justice, that it was difficult to take hold of\nhim. So the friends of government forged a letter with his name, to a\nperson in Amsterdam. Randolph showed the letter to persons whom he\nwished to prejudice against the alleged writer. When Mr. Mather\nlearned the facts, he wrote a letter to a friend, clearing himself,\nand charging the forgery on Randolph or his brother. Randolph brought\nhis action for a libel, claiming L500 damages. But it came to\nnothing--then. Now times are changed!\n\nCol. Pynchon, of Springfield, one of the officers in this new state of\nthings, was empowered to bind over all persons suspected of riots,\n\"outrageous or abusive _reflecting words and speeches against the\ngovernment_.\" \"The spirit of justice was banished from the courts that\nbore the name.\"[103]\n\n[Footnote 103: Hutch. 327; Washburn, ibid.]\n\nBut notwithstanding the attempt to stifle speech, a great tall\nminister at Rowley, called Andros \"a wicked man!\" For that offence he\nwas seized and put in prison! He, also, like Higginson, is represented\nin this court by one of his own name; and the same inextinguishable\nreligious fire which burned in the bosom of Robert in Old England, and\nfrom Samuel in New England flashed into the commissioned face of\nAndros, now lightens at this bench from the eyes of WENDELL PHILLIPS,\nwho confers new glory on his much-honored ancestor.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, you know how this wickedness was brought to an\nend. If the courts would not decree Justice, there was a rougher way\nof reaching it, and having it done. Civil war, revolution by violence,\ncame in place of the simple forms of equity, which the judges had set\nat nought. William of Orange, a most valiant son-in-law, drove the\nfoul tyrant of Old England from that Island, where the Stuarts have\never since been only \"Pretenders;\" and on the 19th of April, 1689, the\npeople of Massachusetts had the tyrant of New England put solemnly in\njail! We were rid of that functionary for ever, and all such\n\"commissioners\" have been held odious in New England ever since the\ndays of Andros. Eighty-six years later came another 19th of April,\nalso famous. Well said Secretary Randolph, \"Andros has to do with a\nperverse people,\"--they would not bow to such tyranny in 1689. But he\nafterwards became a quite acceptable governor in Virginia,--where, I\ndoubt not, he has descendants in African bondage at this day.\n\nCatholic James II. sought to establish arbitrary power in America, as\nin England, by his prerogative--the Omnipotence of the King; he\nfailed; the high-handed despotism of the Stuarts went to the ground.\nThe next attempt at the same thing was by the legislature--the\nOmnipotence of Parliament--for a several-headed despotism took the\nplace of the old, and ruled at home with milder sway. It tried its\nhand in America; there were no more requisitions from a king hostile\nto the Colonies, but acts of Parliament took their place. After the\nFrench power in North America had given way, the British government\nsought to tame down and break in the sturdy son, who had grown up in\nthe woods so big and rough, as obstinate as his father. Here are three\nmeasures of subjugation, all flowing from the same fountain of\nPrinciple--vicarious government by a feudal superior.\n\n1. All the chief colonial officers were to be appointed by the king,\nto hold office during his pleasure, to receive their pay from him.\nSuch was the tenure of the executive officers who had a veto on all\ncolonial legislation, and of the judicial officers. Thus the power of\nmaking and administering the laws fell from the people distributed\neverywhere, into the hands of the distant government centralized in\nthe King.\n\n2. A standing army of British soldiers must be kept in the Colonies to\noverawe the people, and enforce the laws thus made and administered.\n\n3. A revenue was to be raised from the Colonies themselves--from which\nthe King would pay his officers and provide for his army that enforced\nhis laws. The eagle is to feather the arrow which shoots him in mid\nheaven.\n\nThus law was a threefold cord wherewith to bind the strong Puritan.\nBut his eyes were not put out--not then. Blindness came at a later\nday--when he had laid his head in the lap of a not attractive\nDelilah. With such judges and governors, backed by a standing army of\nhirelings--how soon would her liberty go down, and the Anglo-American\nStates resemble Spanish America!\n\nIn 1760 Francis Bernard was made governor of Massachusetts, and thus\nofficially put at the head of the Judiciary, a man wholly devoted to\nthe Crown, expecting to be made a baronet! He did not wish an annual\nelection of councillors, but wanted the sovereign power to enforce its\ndecrees by violent measures. Thus Thomas Hutchinson was made Chief\nJustice in 1760, and afterwards Lieutenant-Governor,--continually\nhostile to the constitution of his native land. Thus Andrew\nOliver--\"Governor Oliver,\" \"hungry for office and power,\" was\nappointed Secretary, Commissioner of Stamps and Lieutenant-Governor;\nand Peter Oliver--\"Judge Oliver\"--though not bred a lawyer, was made\nChief Justice, the man who refused to receive his salary from the\ntreasury of Massachusetts, preferring the money of the crown which\nowned him. In the revolutionary times of the _five Judges of\nMassachusetts four were Tories_!\n\nAccordingly, when the Stamp Act was passed--22d March, 1765--there\nwere Judicial officers in the Colonies ready to declare it\n\"constitutional;\" executive magistrates ready to carry out any\nmeasures intrusted to them. \"I will cram the stamps down their throat\nwith the end of my sword,\" said an officer at New York. Governor\nBernard wanted soldiers sent to Boston to enforce submission; so did\nHutchinson and \"Governor Oliver.\" The Governor of New York thought,\n\"if _Judges be sent from England_, with an able attorney-general and\nsolicitor-general to _make examples of some very few_, the Colony will\nremain quiet.\"[104]\n\n[Footnote 104: 5 Bancroft, 358.]\n\nIn 1768 John Hancock was arrested at Boston--for a \"misdemeanor;\" I\nsuppose, \"obstructing an officer,\" or some such offence.[105] The\ngovernment long sought to procure indictments against James Otis--who\nwas so busy in fencing out despotism--Samuel Adams, and several other\nleading friends of the colony. But I suppose the judge did not succeed\nin getting his brother-in-law put on the grand-jury, and so the scheme\nfell through. No indictment for that \"misdemeanor\" then. Boston had\nthe right men to do any thing for the crown, but they did not contrive\nto get upon the grand-jury.\n\n[Footnote 105: 6 Bancroft, 213.]\n\nThe King, it was George III., in his parliament, spoke of the Patriots\nof Boston, as \"those turbulent and seditious persons.\" In the House of\nCommons, Stanley called Boston an \"insolent town;\" its inhabitants\n\"must be treated as aliens;\" its \"charter and laws must be so changed\nas to give the King the appointment of the Council, and to the\n_sheriffs the sole power of returning jurors_;\" then the Stamp Act\ncould be carried out, and a revenue raised without the consent of the\npeople. The plan was admirably laid; an excellent counsel! Suppose, as\na pure conjecture, an hypothesis of illustration--that there were in\nBoston a fugitive slave bill court, eager to kidnap men and so gain\nfurther advancement from the slave power, which alone distributes the\nfederal offices; suppose the court should appoint its creatures,\nrelatives, nay, its uterine brother--its brother in birth--as fugitive\nslave bill commissioners to hunt men; and then should get its\nmatrimonial brother--its brother-in-law--on the grand-jury to indict\nall who resisted the fugitive slave bill! You see, gentlemen, what an\nadmirable opportunity there would be to accomplish most manifold and\natrocious wickedness. This supposed case exactly describes what was\ncontemplated by the British authorities in the last century! Only,\nGentlemen, it was so unlucky as not to succeed; nay, Gentlemen, as to\nfail--then! Such accidents will happen in the best of histories!\n\nIt was moved in Parliament to address the king \"to bring to condign\npunishment\" such men as Otis and Adams and Hancock. Chief Justice\nHutchinson declared Samuel Adams \"_the greatest incendiary in the\nking's dominions_.\" Hutchinson was right for once. Samuel Adams lit a\nfire which will burn on Boston Common on the Fourth day of next July,\nGentlemen, and on many other commons besides Boston. Aye, in the heart\nof many million men--and keep on burning long after Hutchinson ceases\nto be remembered with hate, and Adams with love. \"The greatest\nincendiary!\" so he was. Hutchinson also thought there must be \"an\nAbridgment of what are called English Liberties,\" doubtless the\nliberty of speaking in Faneuil Hall, and other meeting-houses was one\n\"of what are called English Liberties\" that needed speedy abridgment.\nHe wished the law of treason to be extended so that it might catch all\nthe patriots of Boston by the neck. He thought it treasonable to deny\nthe authority of Parliament.[106] Men suspected of \"misdemeanors\" were\nto be sent to England for trial! What a \"trial\" it would have\nbeen--Hancock and Adams in Westminster Hall with a jury packed by the\ngovernment; Thurlow acting as Attorney-General, and another Thurlow\ngrowling on the bench and expecting further office as pay for fresh\ninjustice! Truly there would have been an \"abridgment of English\nLiberties.\" Gentlemen of the Jury, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Higginson in\nthis case are charged with \"obstructing an officer.\" Suppose they were\nsent to South Carolina to be tried by a jury of Slaveholders, or\nstill worse, without change of place, to be tried by a court deadly\nhostile to freedom,--wresting law and perverting justice and\n\"enlarging testimony,\" personally inimical to these gentlemen; suppose\nthat the Slave-hunter whose \"process\" was alleged to be resisted, was\nkinsman to the court, and the judge had a near relation put on the\njury--what opportunity would there be for justice; what expectation of\nit? Gentlemen of the Jury, that is the state of things which the\ndespots of England wanted to bring about by sending Hancock and Adams\nover seas for trial! Bernard, Oliver, and Hutchinson were busy in\ngetting evidence against the Patriots of New England, especially\nagainst Adams. Affidavits were sent out to England to prove that he\nwas a fit subject to be transported for \"trial\" there. And an old\nstatute was found from the enlightened reign of Henry VIII.\nauthorizing that mode of trial in case of such \"misdemeanor.\"\nCommissary Chew wished that two thirds of the lawyers and printers\nwere shipped off to Africa \"for at least seven years.\" Edes and Gill,\npatriotic printers in Boston, and \"all the authors of numberless\ntreasonable and seditious writings,\" were to go with them.[107] They\nwere all guilty, very guilty! Gentlemen of the Jury, they committed\n\"misdemeanors,\" they \"obstructed officers,\" they resisted the process\nof despotism! But alas--\n\n     \"The Dog it was that died.\"\n\n[Footnote 106: 6 Bancroft, 250, 251, 291; Sabine's Loyalists, 207, _et\nal._]\n\n[Footnote 107: 6 Bancroft, 250, 251, 291; Sabine's Loyalists, 207, _et\nal._]\n\nEdes and Gill never saw Africa; the patriotic lawyers and printers\nmade no reluctant voyage to England.\n\n     \"The Dog it was that died.\"\n\nBernard, Hutchinson, Oliver, and their coadjutors went over the seas\nfor punishment after being tried at home by a Law older than the\nstatute of Henry VIII.; a law not yet repealed, Gentlemen, the Higher\nLaw which God wrote ineffaceably in the hearts of mankind; and\nindignant America pronounced sentence--Tories, Traitors! Commissary\nChew learned a lesson at Saratoga in 1777. And the Franklins, the\nMayhews, the Hancocks, the Adamses, they also were tried at home, and\nnot found wanting; and the verdict! Gentlemen of the Jury, you know\nwhat verdict America has pronounced on these men and their kinsfolk!\nThere is only one spot in the United States where the Hutchinsons, the\nOlivers, the Bernards are honored,--that is where the Adamses, the\nHancocks, the Mayhews, and the Franklins, with the principles of\njustice they gave their lives to, are held in contempt! Where is the\none spot, that speck of foreign dirt in the clean American garden? It\nis where the Democratic Herod and the Whig Pilate are made friends\nthat they may crucify the Son of Man, the Desire of all nations, the\nSpirit of Humanity--it is the court of the Fugitive Slave Bill judges,\nthe Gabbatha of the Kidnappers. Look there!\n\nIn 1765 it was too late to conquer America. What Andros and Randolph\ncould accomplish in 1686 with their sixty soldiers, could not be done\nin 1768 with all the red coats Britain could send out: nor in 1778\nwith all the Hessians she could purchase. The 19th of April, 1689,\nforetold another 19th of April--as that many to-morrows after to-day!\nIn the House of Lords Camden and Pitt thought Parliament not\nomnipotent.[108] Samuel Adams declared \"Acts of Parliament against\nnatural equity are void;\" prayed that \"Boston might become a Christian\nSparta,\" and looked to the Law of an Omnipotence somewhat higher than\na king or a court. He not only had Justice, but also the People on his\nside. What came of that last attempt of the last king of New England\nto establish a despotism here? The same, Gentlemen, which will\nultimately come of all such attempts.\n\n[Footnote 108: 16 Parl. Hist. 168, 195, 658.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, there is one great obstacle which despotism has\nfound in Anglo-Saxon lands, steadily opposing its steady attempts to\ndestroy the liberties of the People. It is easy for the controlling\npower, which represents the Centripetal Tendency of the Nation, to\nplace its corrupt and servile creatures in judicial offices, vested\nwith power to fine, to imprison, and to kill; it is then easy for them\nto determine on the destruction of all such friends of Justice and\nHumanity as represent the Centrifugal Tendency of the Nation; and with\nsuch judicial instruments it is not difficult to wrest and pervert law\nin order to crush the Patriots, and construct a word into \"Treason,\"\nor \"evincing express approbation\" into a \"Misdemeanor,\" \"resisting an\nofficer.\" And if the final decision rested with such a court, it would\nbe exceeding easy to make way with any man whom the judge's private\nmalignity or the public vengeance of his master, wished to smite and\nkill. But in the Anglo-Saxon people there is one institution, old,\nvenerable, and well-beloved, which has stood for two thousand years,\nthe great Fortress of Freedom. Thank God, Gentlemen, it still stands.\nNeither British Kings nor American Slave-drivers have yet brought it\nto the ground. Of this I must now say a word.\n\n\nIII. OF THE GREAT SAFEGUARD WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND SERVICEABLE IN\nPROTECTING DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND THE RIGHTS OF MAN THEY ARE\nDESIGNED TO DEFEND.--OF THE TRIAL BY JURY.\n\nThis is an invaluable protection against two classes of foes to the\nwelfare of mankind.\n\n1. Against such as would commit offences upon the property or persons\nof men, without law and contrary to the form of law,--against common\ncriminals of all denominations. Against such it is a sword--to resist\nand punish.\n\n2. Against such as would commit offences upon the property or persons\nof men, with the form of law and by means of its machinery,--against\nunjust legislators, corrupt Judges, and wicked magistrates; against\nsuch it is a shield defending the public head.\n\nIn all the States of Anglo-Saxon origin there are two great popular\ninstitutions--Democratic Legislation and Democratic Administration of\nLaw.\n\nIn the process of its historical development the first has come to the\nrepresentative form of democratic legislation,--popular law-making by\na body of sworn delegates met in an Assembly, local or federal,\nsubject to a constitution, written or only traditional, which is the\nPeople's Power of Attorney, authorizing them to do certain matters and\nthings pertinent to law-making. These are a Jury of general\nLaw-makers.\n\nIn its process of historical development, the second has also come to\na representative form, that of democratic application of law, popular\nlaw-applying, by a body of sworn delegates, that is a Court, subject\nto a constitution and laws, written or only traditional, which are the\nPeople's Power of Attorney authorizing them to do certain matters and\nthings pertinent to law-applying. These are a Jury of special\nLaw-appliers.\n\nNeither of them as yet has reached its perfect and ultimate form; both\nare still in a state of transition. These two are the most valuable\ninstitutional safeguards against unorganized selfishness in the\ncommunity,--against thieves, robbers, murderers, traitors, and the\nlike; against the organized selfishness which gets into places of\ndelegated power, and would misuse the Form of law so as to prevent the\nPeople from attaining the Purpose of law.\n\nThere is also a body of men intermediate between the two,--the\nLaw-Explainers, the Judges. Speaking theoretically they are not\nultimately either Law-makers or Law-appliers, yet practically, in\ntheir legitimate function, they certainly have much to do with both\nthe making and applying of laws. For it is their business, not only\nto preside at all trials, and determine many subordinate questions of\nmere form to expedite the process, but also from the whole mass of\nlaws, oral or written, statutes and customs, to select such particular\nlaws as they think require special attention,--this is like the work\nof law-makers; and also, in their charges to the grand and petty\nJuries, to suggest the execution thereof in such cases as the times\nmay bring,--this like the work of the law-appliers.\n\nThe good judge continually modifies the laws of his country to the\nadvantage of mankind. He leaves bad statutes, which aim at or would\npromote injustice, to sleep till themselves become obsolete, or\nparries their insidious thrusts at humanity; he selects good statutes\nwhich enact natural Justice into positive law; and mixes his own fresh\ninstincts of humanity with the traditional institutions of the age.\nAll this his official function requires of him--for his oath to keep\nand administer the laws binds him to look to the Purpose of Law--which\nis the Eternal Justice of God,--as well as to each special statute.\nBesides, after the Jury declares a man guilty, the Judge has the power\nto fix the quantity and sometimes the quality of his punishment. And\nthe discretion of a great noble man will advance humanity.\n\nIn this way a good Judge may do a great service to mankind, and\ncorrect the mistakes, or repel the injustice of the ultimate makers\nand appliers of law, and supply their defects. Thus in England those\neminent Judges, Hale, Somers, Hobart, Holt, Camden, Mansfield, and\nBrougham, have done large service to mankind. Each had his personal\nand official faults, some of them great and glaring faults of both\nkinds, but each in his way helped enact natural Justice into positive\nlaw, and so to promote the only legitimate Purpose of human\nlegislation, securing Natural Rights to all men. To such Judges\nmankind owes a quite considerable debt.\n\nBut in America the Judge has an additional function; he is to\ndetermine the Constitutionality of a law. For while the British King\nand Parliament claim to be legislatively omnipotent, supreme, the\nUltimate human source of law, the Living Constitution of the realm,\nand therefore themselves the only Norm of law,--howsoever ill-founded\nthe claim may be,--in America it is the People, not their elected\nservants, who are the Ultimate human source of law, the Supreme\nLegislative power. Accordingly the People have prepared a written\nConstitution, a Power of Attorney authorizing their servants to do\ncertain matters and things relating to the government of the nation.\nThis constitution is the human Norm of law for all the servants of the\npeople. So in administering law the Judge is to ask, Is the statute\nconstitutional? does it square with the Norm of law which the People\nhave laid down; or have the legislative servants exceeded their Power\nof Attorney, and done matters and things which they were not empowered\nto do? In deciding this question, the Judge is to consider not merely\nthe Provisional Means which the Constitution designates, but also the\nUltimate Purpose thereof, the Justice and Liberty which, as its\npreamble declares, it expressly aims at, and which are also the ideal\nEnd of all sound legislation.\n\nThere is no country in the world where a great man has so noble a\nplace and opportunity to serve mankind as in America.\n\nBut a wicked Judge, Gentlemen, may do great harm to mankind, as I have\nalready most abundantly shown. For we have inherited a great mass of\nlaws,--customary or statutory; the legislature repeals, modifies, or\nadds to them; the Judge is to expound them, and suggest their\napplication to each special case. The Jury is to apply or refuse to\napply the Judge's \"law.\" In all old countries, some of these laws have\ncome from a barbarous, perhaps even from a savage period; some are the\nwork of tyrants who wrought cruelly for their own advantage, not\njustly, or for the good of mankind; some have been made in haste and\nheat, the legislature intending to do an unjust thing. Now an unjust\nJudge has great power to select wicked statutes, customs, or\ndecisions; and in no country has he more power for evil than in the\nfederal courts of the United States. For as in England, when the\nKing-power makes a wicked law, the Judge, who is himself made by that\nsame power, may declare it just, and execute the heinous thing; so in\nAmerica, when the Slave power enacts a wicked statute, contrary to the\npurpose of the constitution and to the natural justice of God, the\nJudge, who is the creature of that same power, may declare it\nconstitutional and binding on all the People who made the constitution\nas their Power of Attorney. Thus all the value of the constitution to\ncheck despotism is destroyed, and the Fortress of Freedom is betrayed\ninto the hands of the enemies of liberty!\n\nBut barbarous laws must not be applied in a civilized age; nor unjust\nlaws enforced by righteous men. While left unrepealed, a fair and\nconscientious Jury will never do injustice, though a particular\nstatute or custom demand it, and a wicked Judge insist upon the wrong;\nfor they feel the moral instinct of human nature, and look not merely\nto the letter of a particular enactment, but also to the spirit and\ngeneral purpose of law itself, which is justice between man and man.\nThe wicked Judge, looking only to the power which raised him to his\nplace, and may lift him higher still,--not to that other Hand which is\nover all,--or consulting his own meanness of nature, selects the\nwicked laws, and makes a wicked application thereof. Thus in America,\nunder plea of serving the people, he can work most hideous wrong.\n\nBesides, the Judges are lawyers, with the technical training of\nlawyers, with the disposition of character which comes from their\nspecial training and profession, and which marks the manners, the\nlanguage and looks of a lawyer. They have the excellence of the\nlawyer, and also his defects. Commonly they are learned in their\nprofession, acute and sharp, circumspect, cautious, skilful in making\nnice technical distinctions, and strongly disposed to adhere to\nhistorical precedents on the side of arbitrary power, rather than to\nobey the instinctive promptings of the moral sense in their own\nconsciousness. Nay, it seems sometimes as if the moral sense became\nextinct, and the legal letter took the place of the spirit of Justice\nwhich gives life to the People. So they look to the special statute,\nits technical expositions and applications, but not to Justice, the\nultimate Purpose of human law; they preserve the means and miss the\nend, put up the bars in the nicest fashion, and let the cattle perish\nin their pen. Like the nurse in the fable, they pour out the baby, and\ncarefully cherish the wooden bath-tub! The Letter of the statute is\nthe Idol of the Judicial Den, whereunto the worshipper offers\nsacrifices of human blood. The late Chief Justice Parker, one of the\nmost humane and estimable men, told the Jury they _had nothing to do\nwith the harshness of the statute_! but must execute a law, however\ncruel and unjust, because somebody had made it a law! How often Juries\nrefuse to obey the statute and by its means to do a manifest\ninjustice; but how rarely does a Judge turn off from the wickedness of\nthe statute to do Justice, the great Purpose of human law and human\nlife! Gentlemen, I once knew a democratic judge--a man with a noble\nmind, and a woman's nicer sense of right--who told the Jury, \"Such is\nthe law, such the decisions; such would be its application to this\nparticular case. But it is unjust;--it would do a manifest and\noutrageous wrong if thus applied. You as Jurors are to do Justice by\nthe law, not injustice. _You will bring in a verdict according to your\nconscience._\" They did so. Gentlemen, I should not dare tell you that\nJudge's name. It would greatly injure his reputation. God knows\nit--for there is a Higher Law.\n\nWhen the New York Convention assembled in 1846 to revise the\nconstitution of that State, some powerful men therein felt the evil of\nhaving the Court of last Appeal consist wholly of lawyers. Mr. Ruggles\nthought the judges who reexamine the decisions and pronounce the final\njudgment in disputed cases, and determine the constitutionality of\nlaws, should be men who are \"brought into direct contact with the\npeople and their business.\" He wished that of the eight judges of this\nappellate Court, four should be Justices of the Supreme Court, and\nfour more should be elected by the people on a general ballot, thus\nsecuring a popular element in that highest Court. By this popular\nelement, representing the instinctive Justice of Humanity, he hoped to\ncorrect that evil tendency of professional men which leads them away\n\"from the just conclusions of natural reason into the track of\ntechnical rules inapplicable to the circumstances of the case, and at\nvariance with the nature and principles of our social and political\ninstitutions.\"[109] \"Such judges,\" said another lawyer, \"would retain\nmore of the great general principles of moral justice, ... the\nimpulses of natural equity, such as ... would knock off the rough\ncorners of the common law and loosen the fetters of artificial and\ntechnical equity.\"[110]\n\n[Footnote 109: Debates in New York Convention, 371, _et al._]\n\n[Footnote 110: Jordan's Speech, _ibid._, 447, _et al._ See also Mr.\nStow's Remarks, 473, and Mr. Stephens', 474, _et al._ Yet all these\nfour speakers were lawyers.]\n\nCommonly in America, as in England, for judges the Federal Government\nappoints lawyers who have done some party service, or are willing to\nexecute the designs of the great ruling Power, the Slaveholders,\nregardless alike of the interests of the People and the protestations\nof the Conscience of Mankind.[111] You know how Hardwicke and Thurlow\ngot their office in England, how they filled it, and what additional\nrecompense followed each added wickedness. Need I mention the name of\nAmericans with a similar history? Gentlemen, I pass it by for the\npresent.\n\n[Footnote 111: Hildreth's Despotism in America (1854), 263, _et al._]\n\nStill further, these judges thus appointed become familiar with fraud,\nviolence, cruelty, selfishness,--refined or brutal,--which comes\nbefore them; they study the technicalities of the statutes, balance\nthe scruples of advocates; they lose their fresh intuitions of\njustice, becoming more and more legal, less and less human, less\nnatural and more technical; their eye is microscopic in its niceness\nof discrimination, microscopic also in its narrowness of range. They\nforget the universality of justice,--the End which laws should aim at;\nthey direct their lynx-eyed attention to the speciality of the\nstatutes which is only the Means, of no value save as conducing to\nthat end. Their understanding is sharp as a mole's eye for the minute\ndistinctions of the technicalities of their craft; but, as\nshort-sighted as the mole, they cannot look at justice. So they come\nto acknowledge no obligation but the legal, and know no law except\nwhat is written in Black Letter on parchment, printed in\nstatute-books, reported in decisions; the Law written by God on the\nsoul of man they know not, only the statute and decision bound in pale\nsheepskin. In the logic of legal deduction--technical inference--they\nforget the intuition of conscience: not What is right? but What is\nlaw? is the question, and they pay the same deference to a wicked\nstatute as a just one. So the true Mussulman values the absurdities\nof the Koran as much as its noblest wisdom and tenderest humanity.\n\nSuch a man so appointed, so disciplined, will administer the law\nfairly enough in civil cases between party and party, where he has no\nspecial interest to give him a bias--for he cares not whether John Doe\nor Richard Roe gain the parcel of ground in litigation before him. But\nin criminal cases he leans to severity, not mercy; he suspects the\nPeople; he reverences the government. In political trials he never\nforgets the hand that feeds him,--Charles Stuart, George Guelph, or\nthe Slave Power of America.\n\nThese things being so, in such trials you see the exceeding value of\nthe jury, who are not Office-holders, under obligation to the hand\nthat feeds them; not Office-seekers, willing to prostitute their\nfaculties to the service of some overmastering lust; not lawyers\nwonted to nice technicalities; not members of a class, with its\nspecial discipline and peculiar prejudices; but men with their moral\ninstincts normally active, and unsophisticated humanity in their\nhearts. Hence the great value of the jury in criminal trials.\n\nGentlemen, you are the jurors in this case, to decide between me and\nthe government. Between the government and ME! no, Gentlemen, between\nthe Fugitive Slave Bill and Humanity. You know the Function of the\ncourt--the manner of the Judges' appointment--the services they are\nexpected to render in cases like this, the services they have already\nrendered.\n\nLet me speak of the Function of the Jury. To do that, I must say a few\nwords of its Historical Development. I must make it very brief and\nsketchy. Here I shall point out six several steps in the successive\ndevelopment of popular Law-making and Law-applying.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n1. In the barbarous periods of the Teutonic Family,[112] it seems the\n\"whole People\" came together at certain regular seasons to transact\nthe business of the nation. There was also a meeting of the\ninhabitants of each district or neighborhood at stated times,--a\n\"regular meeting;\" and sometimes a special meeting to provide for some\nemergency--a \"called meeting.\" If one man had wronged another the\nmatter was inquired into at those popular meetings. One man\npresided--chosen for the occasion. In the early age it appears he was\na priest, afterwards a noble, or some distinguished man, selected on\nthe spot. The whole people investigated the matter, made the\nlaw--often an _ex post facto_ law,--applied it to the special case,\nand on the spot administered the punishment--if corporeal, or decreed\nthe recompense--if pecuniary. The majority carried the day. Thus at\nfirst the Body of People present on the occasion were the law-makers,\nthe law-appliers, and law-executors. Each law was special--designed\nfor the particular case in hand, retrospective for vengeance more than\nprospective for future welfare.\n\n[Footnote 112: By this term I mean all the nations with language akin\nto the German.]\n\n2. Then in process of time, there came to be a body of laws--fixed and\nunderstood by the People. Partly, these came from the customs of the\nPeople, and represented past life already lived; but partly, also,\nfrom the decrees of the recognized authorities--theocratic, monarchic,\naristocratic, democratic--representing the desire for a better life, a\nrule of conduct for the future. Then at their meetings, to punish an\noffender the people did not always make a new law, they simply used\nwhat they found already made. They inquired into the fact, the deed\ndone, the law, and applied the general law to the special fact, made\ntheir decree and executed it. Thus extemporaneous Making of law for\nthe particular case, gradually passed away, and was succeeded by the\nextemporaneous Declaration of the law previously made, and its\nApplication to the matter in hand.\n\n3. By and by it was found inconvenient for a multitude to assemble and\nmake the laws, so a body of select men took a more special charge of\nthat function. Sometimes a chief, or king, usurped this for himself;\nor men were chosen by the people, and took an oath for the faithful\ndischarge of their trust. Thus came popular law-making by sworn\ndelegates, representatives of the people, who had a certain special\npower of attorney, authorizing them to make laws. These might be\nPriests--as at the beginning; or Nobles of priestly stock, as at the\nnext stage; or Military Chiefs--as in all times of violence; or\npowerful Private men,--summoned from the nation, of their own accord\nundertaking the task, or chosen by the various neighborhoods,--the\nwhole process seems to have been irregular and uncertain, as indeed it\nmust be amongst rude people.\n\nSo at that time there were two sources of law-making.\n\n(1.) The unorganized People--the primary source, whose unconscious\nlife flows in certain channels and establishes certain customs, rules\nof conduct, obeyed before they are decreed, without any formal\nenactment. These were laws _de facto_.\n\n(2.) The organized Delegates--priestly, kingly, nobilitary, or\nwarlike--the secondary source. These made statute laws. As this was a\nself-conscious and organized body, having an object distinctly set\nbefore its mind and devising means for its purposes, it easily\nappropriated to itself the chief part of the business of law-making.\nStatute laws became more and more numerous and important; they were\nthe principal--the customs were only subsidiary, laws _de Jure_,\nenacted before they are obeyed by the People. Still new customs\ncontinued to flow from the primitive source of legislation, the\nPeople, and of course took new forms to suit the conditions of\nnational life.\n\n4. Still the people came together to apply the laws--customary or\nenacted,--to the special cases which occurred. There were fixed\nperiods when they assembled without notice given,--\"regular law-days;\"\nand if an emergency occurred, they were summoned on \"extraordinary\nlaw-days.\" Here wrongs between party and party, and offences against\nthe public, were set right by the \"Country,\" the \"Body of the county,\"\nthat is, by the bulk of the population. The majority carried the day.\n\n5. At length it was found inconvenient for so large a body to\ninvestigate each particular case, or to determine what cases should be\npresented for investigation.\n\n(1.) So this preliminary examination was delegated to a smaller body\nof men, sworn to discharge the trust faithfully, who made inquiry as\nto offences committed, and reported the criminals for trial to the\nfull meeting, the actual \"Body of the country.\" Here, then, is the\nfirst organized and sworn \"Jury;\" \"the grand inquest;\"--here is\npopular Indictment by delegates.\n\n(2.) Then it was found inconvenient for a large body--the whole\ncountry--to investigate the cases presented. Men were busy with their\nown work, and did not wish to appear and consume their time. So a\nsmaller body of men was summoned to attend to any special case which\nwas presented by the Grand Inquest. These also were sworn to do their\nduty. They were to try the men indicted. Here is Trial by sworn\ndelegates, who represent the Body of the People. They were still\ncalled the \"Country,\" as any spot of the Atlantic is the \"Ocean.\" Here\nis the \"Trial by Jury.\" They must be taken from the neighborhood of\nthe parties concerned--for at this stage the jurors were also the\nwitnesses, and other sworn witnesses were not then known. All the\nJurors must concur in the vote of condemnation before the magistrate\ncould hurt a hair of the accused's head.\n\nStill after the people had delegated their law-making to one body of\nsworn representatives, and the twofold function of law-applying, by\nIndictment and Trial, to other sworn representatives, there was yet a\ngreat concourse of people attending the court on the \"law-days;\"\nespecially when important matters came up for adjudication; then the\ncrowd of people took sides with Plaintiff or Defendant; with the\nauthorities which accused, or with the man on trial, as the case might\nbe. Sometimes, when the Jury acquitted, the people tore the suspected\nman to pieces; sometimes when the Jury condemned, they showed their\nindignation--nay, rescued the prisoner. For the old tradition of\nactual trial by the \"Body of the Country\" still prevailed.\n\n6. At length the Jurors are no longer the witnesses in the case.\nOthers testify before them, and on the evidence which is offered, the\nGrand-Jury indict or not, and the Trial Jury acquit or condemn. Then\nthe Jurors are no longer taken from the immediate neighborhood of the\nparty on trial, only from his district or county. But sworn witnesses\nfrom the neighborhood, depose to the facts. There is no longer a great\nconcourse of people in the open air, but the trial is carried on in a\nsmall court house, yet with open doors, in the face of the people,\n_coram populo_--public opinion still influences the Jury.\n\nAs most of the Jurors were unlearned men, not accustomed to intricate\nquestions, it became necessary for the presiding judge, a man of nicer\nculture, to prepare rules of evidence which should prevent the matter\nfrom becoming too complicated for the rustic judgment. Thence came the\ncurious and strange \"rules of evidence\" which prevail in all countries\nwhere trial by Jury is established, but are unknown in lands where the\ntrial is conducted solely by experts, educated men. But as the mass of\nthe people, as in America, become well informed, the old rules appear\nridiculous, and will perish.\n\nThe number of sworn judges varies in different tribes of the Teutonic\nfamily, but as twelve has long been a sacred number with the\nAnglo-Saxons, that was gradually fixed for the Jury. Twelve consenting\nvoices are indispensable for the indictment or the condemnation.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSuch is the form of the Jury as we find it at this day. The other\nofficers have also undergone a change. So, Gentlemen, let me give you\na brief sketch of the Historical Formation of the Function of the\nJudge in nations of the same ethnological origin. Here I shall mention\nfour steps.\n\n1. At the meetings of the people to make, apply, and execute the law,\nsome one must preside to keep order, put the question, and declare the\nvote. He was the Moderator of the meeting. At first it would seem that\nsome important man, a priest, or a noble, or some other wise,\ndistinguished, or popular man, performed that function. The business\nover, he dropped into his private place again. A new one was chosen at\neach meeting.\n\n2. If the former moderator had shown skill and aptness, he was chosen\nthe next time; again and again; at length it was a matter of course\nthat he should preside. He studied the matter, and became \"expert in\nall the manners and customs of his nation.\" This happens in most of\nthe New England towns, where the same man is Moderator at the\ntown-meetings for many years in succession. Men love to walk in the\npath they have once trodden, even if not the shortest way to their\nend.\n\n3. When the nation is organized more artificially and the laws chiefly\nproceed from the secondary source, the government,--elective or\nusurpatory--a judge is appointed by the central authority to visit\nthe districts (counties) and assist at the administration of justice.\nAs the law is now made by the distant delegates, the judge they send\ndown declares and explains it to the people, for they have not made it\nas before directly, nor found it ready-made, an old inherited custom,\nbut only receive it as the authorities send it down from the Capitol.\nThe law is _written_--the officer can read while they have no copy of\nthe law, or could not read it had they the book. Hence the necessity\nof a judge learned in the law. Still the people are to apply the\nwritten law or apply it not.\n\nBesides, the old customs remain, the unwritten laws of the people,\nwhich the judge does not understand so well as they. He represents the\nwritten law, the assembly the unwritten custom or tradition. The judge\nis appointed that he may please the central power; the people are only\nto satisfy such moral convictions as they have. There is often a\nconflict between the statute and the custom, a conflict of laws; and\nstill more between the judge and the jury--a conflict in respect to\nthe application of the law.\n\n4. Then comes the critical period of the Trial by Jury. For the\ndeputed judge seeks to enlarge his jurisdiction, to enforce his law,\noften against the customs and the consciences of the People, the jury,\nwho only seek to enlarge Justice. He looks technically at the statute,\nthe provisional Means of law, not at Justice the ultimate Purpose of\nlaw. To the \"Country,\" the \"Body of the People,\" or to the jury of\ninquest and of trial, he assumes not to suggest the law and its\napplication, but absolutely to _dictate_ it to them. He claims the\nexclusive right to decide on the Law and its Application; the jury is\nonly to determine the Fact--whether the accused did the deed charged\nor not.\n\nIf the judge succeeds in this battle, then tyranny advances step by\nstep; the jury is weakened; its original function is curtailed;\ncertain classes of cases are taken from its jurisdiction; it becomes\nonly the tool of the government, and finally is thrown aside. Popular\nlaw-making is gone; popular law-applying is also gone; local\nself-government disappears and one homogeneous centralized tyranny\ntakes the place of the manifold Freedom of the people. So the trial by\njury faded out of all the South-Teutonic people, and even from many\nregions of the German and Scandinavian North. But the Anglo-Saxon,\nmixing his blood with Danes and Normans, his fierce kinsfolk of the\nsame family, has kept and improved this ancient institution. When King\nor Parliament made wicked laws, or appointed corrupt and cruel men for\njudges, the People have held this old ancestral shield between the\ntyrant and his victim. Often cloven through or thrust aside, the Saxon\nBriton never abandons this. The Puritan swam the Atlantic with this on\nhis arm--and now all the Anglo-Saxon tribe reverences this defence as\nthe Romans their twelve AONCILIA [Transcriber's Note: for 'AONCILIA'\nread 'ANCILIA'; see Errata], the mythic shield which \"fell from\nHeaven.\"[113]\n\n[Footnote 113: In this brief sketch I do not refer to the authorities,\nbut see, who will, the classic passages and proof-texts in the\nwell-known works of Grimm, Rogge, Biener, Michelsen, Moeser, Phillips,\nEichhorn, Maurer, and others.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAfter so much historic matter, Gentlemen, it is now easy to see what\nis--\n\nTHE FUNCTION OF THE JURY AT THIS TIME. Here I make three points.\n\nI. They are to decide the QUESTION OF FACT, the matter charged, and\ndetermine whether the accused did the deed alleged to be done. That is\nthe first step--to determine the Fact.\n\nII. They are to decide the QUESTION OF LAW, the statute or custom\nsupposed to apply to the Deed done, and determine whether there is\nsuch a statute or custom, and whether it denounces such a Deed as a\nCrime assigning thereto a punishment. That is the second step--to\ndetermine the Law.\n\nIII. They are to decide the QUESTION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO\nTHE FACT, and to determine whether that special statute shall be\napplied to the particular person who did the deed charged against him.\nThat is the third step--to determine the Application of the Law.\n\nGentlemen, I shall speak a few words on each of these points, treating\nthe matter in the most general way. By and by I shall apply these\ngeneral doctrines to this special case.\n\nI. The jury is to DECIDE THE QUESTION OF FACT; to answer, Did the\naccused do the deed alleged, at the time and place alleged, with the\nalleged purpose and producing the alleged result? The answer will be\ncontrolled by the Evidence of sworn witnesses, who depose under a\nspecial oath to \"tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the\ntruth.\" Their Evidence is the Testimony as to the Fact,--the sole\ntestimony; the jury is the ultimate arbiter to decide on the\ncredibility of the evidence, part by part, and its value as a whole.\n\nSometimes it is an easy matter to answer this Question of Fact;\nsometimes exceedingly difficult. If there be doubts they must weigh\nfor the accused, who is held innocent until proven guilty.\n\nWith us the theory that the jury is the exclusive judge of the\nQuestion of Fact is admitted on all sides. But in England it has often\nhappened that the judge instructs the jury to \"_find the facts_\" so\nand so; that is--he undertakes to decide the Question of Fact. In\nlibel cases it is very common for New England judges to undertake to\ndetermine what constitutes a libel, and to decide on the intentions of\nthe accused; that is to decide the most important part of the complex\nand manifold Question of Fact. For it is as much a question of fact to\ndetermine what constitutes a libel, as what constitutes theft, the\n_animus libellandi_ as much as the _animus furandi_. Sometimes juries\nhave been found so lost to all sense of manhood, or so ignorant of\ntheir duties, as to submit to this judicial insolence and usurpation.\n\nIf the Jury decide the Question of Fact in favor of the accused, their\ninquiry ceases at that step, they return their verdict, \"NOT GUILTY;\"\nand the affair is ended. But if they find he did the deed as charged,\nthen comes the next function of the Jury.\n\nII. The Jury are to DECIDE THE QUESTION OF LAW. Is there a statute or\ncustom denouncing a penalty on that special deed? is the statute\nconstitutional? To determine this matter, there are three sources of\nevidence external to their own knowledge.\n\n1. _The Testimony of the Government's Attorney._ The Government itself\nis his client, and he gives such a statement of the law as suits the\nspecial purposes of the rulers and his own private and particular\ninterest, selects such statutes, customs, and decisions, as will serve\nthis purpose, and declares, Such is the law. Nay, he makes inferences\nfrom the law, and thereby infers new customs, and constructs new\nstatutes, invents new crimes. He treats the law as freely as he treats\nthe facts--making the most that is possible against the party accused.\nYou have seen already what tricks Government attorneys have played,\nhow they pervert and twist the law--making it assume shapes never\ndesigned by its original makers. He gives his opinion as to the law,\nas he gave an opinion as to the fact. This is not necessarily his\npersonal and actual, but only his official and assumed opinion--what\nhe wishes the Jury to think is law in this particular case.\n\n2. _The Testimony of the Defendant's Attorney._ The accused is his\nclient. He is to do all he can to represent the law as favorable as\npossible to the man on trial. He gives an opinion of the law, not his\npersonal and actual, but his official and assumed opinion--what he\nwishes the Jury to think is law in this particular case.\n\n3. _The Testimony of the Judge on the Bench._ But in the English\ncourts, and the Federal courts of the United States, he is commonly no\nmore than a government attorney in disguise; I speak only of the\ngeneral rule, not the exceptions to it. He has received his office as\nthe reward for party services--was made a judge because he was\none-sided as a lawyer. In all criminal cases he is expected to twist\nthe law to the advantage of the hand that feeds him. Especially is\nthis so in all Political trials--that is, prosecutions for opposition\nto the party which the judge represents. The judge may be impartial,\nor partial, just or unjust, ignorant or learned. He gives an opinion\nof the law,--not his personal and actual, but his official and assumed\nopinion--what he wishes the jury to think is law in this particular\ncase. For the court also is a stage, and the judges, as well as the\nattorneys, may be players,\n\n     \"And one man in his time play many parts.\"\n\nOf these three classes of witnesses, no one gives evidence under\nspecial oath to tell the law, the whole law, and nothing but the\nlaw--or if it be so understood, then all these men are sometimes most\ngrossly and notoriously perjured; but each allows himself large\nlatitude in declaring the law. The examples I have already cited, show\nthat the judge often takes quite as wide a range as the\nattorney-general, or the prisoner's counsel.\n\nAs the jury hears the manifold evidence as to the facts, and then\nmakes up its mind thereon and decides the Question of Fact, often\nrejecting the opinion of various witnesses, as ignorant, partial,\nprejudiced, or plainly false and forsworn; so will the jury hear the\nmanifold and often discrepant evidence as to the law, and then make up\ntheir mind thereon and decide the Question of Law, often rejecting the\nopinion of various witnesses thereupon ignorant, partial, prejudiced,\nor plainly false and forsworn.\n\nIn regard to the Fact, the jury is limited to the evidence adduced in\ncourt. What any special juror knows from any other source is not\nrelevant there to procure conviction. But in regard to the Law there\nis no such restriction; for if the jury know the law better than these\nthree classes of witnesses for it in court, then the jury are to\nfollow their better knowledge. At any rate, the jury are to make up\ntheir minds on this question of Law, and for themselves determine what\nthe special Law is.\n\nEvery man is to be held innocent until proved guilty--until the\nspecial Deed charged is proved against him, and until that special\ndeed is proved a Crime. The jury is not to take the government\nattorney's opinion of the Fact, nor the prisoner's counsel's opinion\nof the Fact, nor yet the judge's opinion thereon; but to form their\nown opinion, from the evidence offered to make up their own judgment\nas to the Fact. So likewise they are not to take the government\nattorney's opinion of the Law, or the prisoner's counsel's opinion of\nthe Law, nor yet the judge's opinion thereon; but from all the\nevidence offered, not [Transcriber's Note: for 'not' read 'or'; see\nErrata] otherwise known to them, to make up their own judgment as to\nthe Law. After they have done so--if they decide the Law in favor of\nthe accused, the process stops there. The man goes free; for it does\nnot appear that his deed is unlawful. But if the jury find the Law\nagainst the deed, they then proceed to their third function.\n\nIII. The jury is to decide the QUESTION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW\nTO THE FACT. Here is the question: \"Ought the men who have done this\ndeed against the form of Law to be punished thereby?\" The government\nattorney and the judge are of the opinion that the law should be thus\napplied to this case, but they cannot lay their finger on him until\nthe jury, specially sworn \"well and truly to try and true deliverance\nmake,\" have unanimously come to that opinion, and say, \"Take him and\napply the law to him.\"\n\nThe Deed may be clear and the Statute clear, while the Application\nthereof to the man who did the deed does not follow, and ought not to\nfollow. For\n\n1. It is not designed that the full rigor of every statute shall be\napplied to each deed done against the letter thereof. The statute is a\ngreat sleeping Lion, not to be roused up when everybody passes that\nway. This you see from daily practice of the courts. It remains in the\nDiscretion of the Attorney to determine what offences he will present\nto the Grand-Jury,--he passes by many, and selects such as he thinks\nought to be presented. It remains in the Discretion of the Grand-Jury\nto determine whom they will indict, for sometimes when the Fact and\nLaw are clear enough to them, they yet find \"no bill\" or _ignore_ the\nmatter. And after the man is indicted, it still remains in the\nDiscretion of the Attorney to determine whether he will prosecute the\naccused, or pass him by. Indeed I am told that the very Grand-Jury who\nfound the bills which have brought you and me face to face, hesitated\nto indict a certain person on account of some circumstances which\nrendered his unlawful act less deserving of the legal punishment: the\nAttorney told them he thought they had better find a bill, and he\nwould enter a _nolle prosequi_ in court,--plainly admitting that while\nthe Law and the Fact were both clear, that the Grand-Jury were to\ndetermine in their Discretion whether they would apply the law to that\nman, whether they would indict or not; and the Attorney whether he\nwould prosecute or forbear. It remains equally in the Discretion of\nthe Trial Jury to determine whether the man who did the unlawful deed\nshall be punished--whether the spirit of that statute and the Purpose\nof Law requires the punishment which it allows.\n\n2. Besides, in deciding this question--the jurors are not only to\nconsider the one particular statute brought against the prisoner, but\nthe whole Complex of Customs, Statutes, and Decisions, making up the\nBody of Law, and see if that requires the application of this special\nstatute to this particular deed. Here are two things to be\nconsidered.\n\n(1.) The general Purpose of the whole Body of Laws, the Object aimed\nat; and\n\n(2.) The Means for attaining the end. Now the Purpose of Law being the\nmain thing, and the statute only subsidiary to that purpose, the\nquestion comes--\"Shall we best achieve that Purpose by thus applying\nthe statute, or by not applying it?\" This rests with the Jury in their\nDiscretion to determine.\n\n3. Still more, the Jury have consciences of their own, which they must\nbe faithful to, which no official position can ever morally oblige\nthem to violate. So they are to inquire, \"Is it right in the sight of\nGod, in the light of our consciences, to apply this special statute to\nthis particular case and thus punish this man for that unlawful deed?\"\nThen they are to ask, also, \"Was the deed _naturally wrong_; done from\na wrong motive, for a wrong purpose?\" If not, then be the statute and\nthe whole complex of laws what they may, it can never be right for a\njury to punish a man for doing a right deed, however unlawful that\ndeed may be. No oath can ever make it right for a man to do what is\nwrong, or what he thinks wrong--to punish a man for a just deed!\n\nBut if the twelve men think that the Law ought not to be applied in\nthis case--they find \"not guilty,\" and he goes free; if otherwise,\n\"guilty,\" and he is delivered over to the judges for sentence and its\nconsequences, and the judge passes such sentence as the Law and his\nDiscretion point out.\n\nThe judge commonly, and especially in political trials, undertakes to\ndecide the two last Questions himself, determining the Law and the\nApplication thereof, and that by his Discretion. He wishes to leave\nnothing to the Discretion of the jury, who thus have only the single\nfunction of deciding the Question of Fact, which is not a Matter of\nDiscretion--that is, of moral judgment,--but only a logical deduction\nfrom evidence, as the testimony compels. He would have no moral\nelement enter into their verdict. The judge asks the jury to give him\na deed of the ground on which he will erect such a building as suits\nhis purpose, and then calls the whole thing the work of the jury, who\nonly granted the land!\n\nBut this assumption of the judges ultimately and exclusively to decide\nthe question of Law and its Application, is a tyrannous usurpation.\n\n(1.) It is contrary to the fundamental Idea of the Institution of\nTrial by jury.\n\n(2.) It leads to monstrous tyranny by putting the Property, Liberty,\nand Life of every man at the mercy of the government officers, who\ndetermine the Law and its Application, leaving for the jury only the\nbare question of Fact, which the judge can so manage in many cases as\nto ruin most virtuous and deserving men.\n\n(3.) Not only in ancient times did the jury decide the three questions\nof Fact, of Law, and of its special Application, but in cases of great\nmagnitude they continue to do so now, in both America and England, and\nsometimes in direct contradiction to the commands of the judges.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, if you perform this threefold function, then\nyou see the exceeding value of this mode of trial,\n\n1. For the punishment of wrong deeds done against the law, done by the\nunorganized selfishness of thieves, housebreakers, murderers, and\nother workers of unrighteousness;\n\n2. And also for the prevention of wrong deeds attempted in the name of\nlaw, by the organized selfishness of the makers and officers thereof.\n\nFor in each special case brought to trial, the jury are judges of the\nLaw and of its Application. They cannot make a law--statute or\ncustom--nor repeal one; but in each particular case they must demand\nor forbid its execution. These Tribunes of the Saxon People have no\ngeneral veto on law-making, and can efface no letter from the\nstatute-book, but have a special and imperative veto on each case for\nthe Application of the law.\n\nJustice, the point common to the interests of all men, yes, the point\ncommon to God and our Conscience, is the Aim and Purpose of Law in\ngeneral; if it be not that the law is so far unnatural, immoral, and\nof no obligation on the conscience of any man. The special Statute,\nCustom, or Decision, is a provisional Means to that end; if just, a\nmoral means and adequate in kind; if unjust, an immoral means,\ninadequate in kind, and fit only to defeat the attainment of that\nJustice which is the Purpose of all Law. Accordingly, if by an\naccident, a special statute is so made that its application in a\nparticular case would do injustice and so defeat the Design and\nPurpose of Law itself, then the function of the jury under their oath\nrequires them to preserve the End of law by refusing to apply the\nprovisional statute to an unjust use. And if by design a statute is\nmade in order to do injustice to any man--as it has very often\nhappened in England as well as America,--then the jury will accomplish\ntheir function by refusing to apply that statute to any particular\ncase. So will they fulfil their official oath, and conserve the great\nultimate Purpose of Law itself.\n\nGentlemen, you will ask me where shall the jury find the Rule of\nRight, and how know what is just, what not? In your own Conscience,\nGentlemen; not in the conscience of the Attorney for the\nPlaintiff-Government, or the accused Defendant; not in the conscience\nof the community; still less in the technical \"opinion\" of the\nlawyers, or the ambition, the venality, the personal or purchased rage\nof the court. Of course you will get such help as you can find from\njudges, attorneys, and the public itself, but then decide as you must\ndecide--each man in the light of his own conscience, under the\nterrible and beautiful eyes of God. How does the juror judge of the\nCredibility of Evidence? By the \"opinion\" of the lawyers on either\nside? by the judge's \"opinion,\" or that of the community? No one would\ndare determine thus. He decides personally by his own common sense,\nnot vicariously by another's opinion. And as you decide the Matter of\nFact by your own Discretion of Intellect, so will you decide the\nMatter of Right by your own Discretion of Conscience.\n\nGentlemen, when the jury do their official duty it becomes impossible\nto execute a statute, or custom, or to enforce a decision which the\njury--\"the country\"--think unjust and not fit to be applied.\n\nBut if the judge usurps these two functions of the jury, and himself\ndecides the Question of Law and its Application, you see what\nfollows--consequences the most ghastly, injustice in the name of Law,\nand with the means of Law! Yes, tyranny spins and weaves with the\nmachinery of Freedom, and a Nessus-shirt of bondage is fixed on the\ntortured body of the People. The power of the judge will be especially\ndangerous in times of political excitement, and in political trials.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen, this matter is so important, and the danger now so imminent\nthat you will pardon me a few words while I set forth the mode by\nwhich this wickedness goes to work, and what results it brings to\npass. Follow me in some details.\n\nI. As to the judges dealing with the Grand-Jury.\n\nHere let me take the examples from the circuit court of the United\nStates in a supposed case where a man is to be tried for violating the\nfugitive slave bill. You will see this is a case which may actually\nhappen.\n\n1. The judge challenges the whole body summoned as grand-jurors and\ncatechizes them after this fashion.\n\n(1.) \"Have you formed an opinion that the law of the United States,\nknown as the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, is Unconstitutional, so that\nyou cannot indict a person under it for that reason, although the\ncourt holds the statute to be Constitutional?\"\n\nThis is riddling No. 1. Such as think the fugitive slave bill\nunconstitutional are at once set aside. The judge proceeds to ask such\nas have no doubt that it is constitutional,\n\n(2.) \"Do you hold any opinions on the subject of Slavery in general,\nor of the Fugitive Slave Law in special, which would induce you to\nrefuse to indict a man presented to you for helping his brother to\nfreedom?\"\n\nThis is riddling No. 2; other \"good men and true\" are rejected, but\nsome are found \"faithful\" to the purposes of the court; and the judge\nputs his next question,\n\n(3.) \"Will you accept for Law whatever the court declares such?\"\n\nThis is riddling No. 3. Still the judge finds three-and-twenty men\nsmall enough to pass through all these sieves. They are to be \"the\njury.\" All the men who deny the constitutionality of the wicked\nstatute; all who have such reverence for the unalienable Rights of man\nand for the Natural Law of God that they would not prevent a Christian\nfrom aiding his brother to escape from bondage; all who have such\nrespect for their own manhood that they will not swear to take a\njudge's word for law before they hear it--are shut out from the \"grand\ninquest;\" they are no part of the \"Country,\" or the \"Body of the\ncounty,\" are not \"good men and true.\"\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, consider the absurdity of swearing to take for\nlaw what another man will declare to be law, and before you hear it!\nSuppose the judge should be drunk and declare the fugitive slave bill\nin perfect harmony with the Sermon on the Mount, those noble words\n\"Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto\nthem,\"--are jurors to believe him? What if the judge should be sober,\nand declare it a \"misdemeanor\" to call the fugitive slave bill a\nwicked and hateful statute, and all who thus offended should be put in\njail for twelve months! Are honest men to take such talk for American\nlaw?\n\nThe jurors then take this oath which the clerk reads them:--\n\n\"You, as a member of this Inquest for the District of Massachusetts,\nshall diligently inquire and true presentment make of all such matters\nand things as shall be given you in charge; the counsel of the United\nStates, your fellows', and your own you shall keep secret; you shall\npresent no man for envy, hatred, or revenge; neither shall you leave\nany man unpresented--for love, fear, favor, affection, or hope of\nreward; but you shall present things truly as they come to your\nknowledge, according to the best of your understanding. So help you\nGod!\"[114]\n\n[Footnote 114: See other forms of Oath in 8 St. Tr. 759, 772.]\n\nThen the judge appoints the most pliant member of the jury as\n\"foreman\"--selecting, if possible to find him, some postmaster or\nother official of the government, or some man marked for his injustice\nor venality, who may have the desirable influence with his fellows.\n\n2. The next thing is to moisten this material thus trebly sifted, and\nmould it into such vessels of tyranny as he can fill with his private\nor judicial wrath and then empty on the heads of his personal foes or\nsuch as thwart his ambitious despotism or the purposes of his\ngovernment. So he delivers his CHARGE TO THE GRAND-JURY.\n\nBy way of introduction, he tells them--\n\n(1.) That they are not the Makers of Law. Legislation is the function\nof Congress and the President; even the COURT, the \"SUPREME COURT OF\nTHE UNITED STATES\" itself cannot make a law, or repeal one!\n\n(2.) That they are not the Declarers, or Judges of Law. To know and\nset forth the Law is the function of the COURT. It is true every man\nin his personal capacity, as private citizen, is supposed to know the\nlaw, and if he violates it, of his own presumption, or by the\npersuasion of some others who falsely tell him about the law, he must\nbe punished; for \"_ignorantia nemini excusat_,\" ignorance excuseth\nnone; the private advice of the full bench of judges would be held no\nexcuse. But in their official capacity of jurors they are supposed to\nknow nothing of the Law whatsoever.\n\nIt seems taken for granted that though one of the Jurors may be an old\njudge of the Supreme Court of the United States, and have sat on the\nbench for twenty years; nay, though he may be also an old legislator\nof twenty years' standing, and as legislator have made the very\nstatute in question, and also as judge subsequently have explained and\ndeclared it, yet the moment he takes the oath as Grand-Juror, all this\nknowledge is \"gone from him\" as completely Nebuchadnezzar's dream. The\ncourt is the assembly of magicians, astrologers, sorcerers, and\nChaldeans to restore it. Congress might pass a law compelling\nex-judges, ex-senators, and ex-representatives--who are so numerous\nnowadays, and continually increasing and likely to multiply yet\nmore,--to serve as grand-jurors; soon as they take their oath, they\nare in law held and accounted to be utterly ignorant of law, and bound\nto accept as law whatsoever the court declares such. The acting judge\nmay be young, blind, ignorant, ambitious, drunk with brandy or rage,\nhe may have a personal interest in promoting [Transcriber's Note: for\n'promoting' read 'perverting'; see Errata] the law, and may\nnotoriously twist it so as to gratify his peculiar or familistic\nspleen, still the jury to accept the court's opinion for the nation's\nlaw. Any political ignoramus, if hoisted to the \"bench,\" has judicial\nauthority to declare the law,--it is absolute. If he errs, \"he is\nresponsible to the proper authorities--he may be removed by\nimpeachment;\" but the jury must not question the infallibility of his\nopinion. For though the grand-jury is \"the country,\" the judge is not\nonly all that, and more so; but is \"the rest of mankind\" besides.\n\nThen the judge goes further--talks _solemnly_, yet familiar; to\nwheedle jurors the better, he mixes himself with them, his \"WE\"\nembracing both judge and jury. I shall now quote actual language used\nin this very court, by the late Hon. Judge Woodbury:--\n\n     \"One of the peculiar dangers ... to which jurors, as well as\n     judges, are exposed, is the _unpopularity, or obnoxiousness_\n     ... of any particular law, which has been violated, leading\n     _us_ ... to be timid or unfaithful in enforcing it ... the\n     subject-matter being a delicate or offensive one.\" \"While we\n     ... are holding the scales as well as the sword of Justice,\n     in _humble imitation of the Divine Judge_ on high,\" it is\n     our duty to \"_let law, as law_, [that is, whether it is just\n     or unjust] _reign supreme_, reign equally over all, and as\n     to _all things_, no less than persons; and till it is\n     changed by the proper authorities, _not to interpose our\n     individual caprices or fancies or speculations_ [that is,\n     our _convictions of justice_] _to defeat its due course and\n     triumph_.\" We must _not_ \"_disregard laws_, when disliked,\n     _because we can_, under the universal suffrage enjoyed here,\n     _otherwise help_ legally _to change or annul them_ by our\n     votes.\" \"As jurors _you have sworn to obey them till so\n     changed_, and ought to stand by them faithfully, to the last\n     moment of their existence.\" \"We are safest in our capacity\n     of public officers ... to execute the laws as they are\n     [right or wrong], _while others_ who may make or retain bad\n     laws in the statute-book, _are answerable for their own\n     wrong_. If they preserve laws on the statute-book, which are\n     darkness rather than light and life to the people, theirs is\n     the fault, [that is, if a blacksmith make a dagger, and tell\n     us to stab an innocent man with it, we must obey, and the\n     blame will rest on the blacksmith who made the dagger, not\n     on the assassin who murdered with it!] In some cases, also,\n     when we think the _existing laws and punishments are wrong_,\n     and hence venture to encourage others in disobedience by\n     neglecting to indict and punish offenders, it should make us\n     pause and halt when it is remembered, it may turn out that\n     _we_ ourselves _may not be exactly Solons or Solomons_ in\n     these respects, nor quite so much wiser than the laws\n     themselves, as sometimes we are hastily induced to suppose.\"\n     \"Miserable must be the fate of that community where the\n     ministers of the law are themselves disposed to disregard\n     it;\" \"government will become a curse;\" \"and this whether\n     such a _betrayal of public trust_ springs from the\n     _delusions of false philanthropy or fanatical prejudices, no\n     less than when it comes from unbridled licentiousness_.\"\n\n     \"We must not lay the flattering unction to our souls, that\n     because by some _possibility there may not be guilt_, we can\n     rightfully discharge as if there were no guilt.\" \"It is\n     sometimes urged against agreeing to indict, convict, or\n     punish, that we have _conscientious scruples on the\n     subject_;\" \"if sincere tenderness of conscience presses on\n     the heart and mind against executing some of the laws, _it\n     should lead us to decline office or resign_; not to neglect\n     or disobey, while in office, what we have promised and sworn\n     to perform;\" [as if the juror swore to do injustice!] \"or if\n     a majority prove unaccommodating or inflexible against us,\n     then it behooves those differing from them ... _to withdraw\n     entirely from such a government, and emigrate_.\" [So the\n     juror must not try to do justice at home, but seek it in\n     exile.] \"But in all such cases we must take special care not\n     to indulge ourselves in considering an act as a sin which\n     _is only disagreeable_, or the result of only some\n     _prejudice or caprice_.\" \"_The presumptions are that all\n     laws_, sanctioned by such intelligent, numerous, and\n     respectable members of society as compose our legislative\n     bodies, _are constitutional_, and until pronounced otherwise\n     by the proper tribunal, the judiciary, _it is perilous for\n     jurors to disobey them_,\" [that is, to refuse to execute\n     them] \"and it is trifling with their solemn obligations to\n     _disregard them in any way and on any occasion, from\n     constitutional doubts_, unless of the clearest and strongest\n     character.\"[115]\n\n[Footnote 115: The above extracts are from Judge Woodbury's charge to\nthe Grand-Jury, in Circuit Court of United States, at Boston, taken\nfrom the _Evening Traveller_, copying the reprint of Boston Daily\nAdvertiser, of October 25, 1850.]\n\nHe then tells them that _no feeling of Humanity_ must be allowed to\nprevent them from executing any law which the court declares to them,\n\"whether the statute is a harsh one, is not for us to determine.\"[116]\n_A cruel law is to be enforced as vigorously as a humane one_; an\n_unjust law_ as a _just one_; a statute which aims to defeat the\npurpose of Law itself, just as readily as one which aims to secure the\ndearest rights of humanity. If the statute is notoriously wicked, as\nin the case supposed, then the Judge says: \"It is to be observed that\nthis statute [the fugitive slave bill] subjects no person to arrest\nwho was not before liable to be seized and carried out of the State;\"\n\"Congress has enacted this law. _It is imperative, and it will be\nenforced._ Let no man mistake the mildness and forbearance with which\nthe criminal code is habitually administered, [as in cases of engaging\nin the slave-trade] for weakness or timidity. _Resistance [to the\nfugitive slave bill] must make it sternly inflexible._\" \"As great\nefforts have been made to convince the public that the recent law [the\nfugitive slave bill] cannot be enforced with a good conscience, but\nmay be conscientiously resisted ... I deem it proper to advert,\nbriefly, to _the moral aspects_ of the subject.\" \"The States without\nthe constitution would be to each other foreign nations.\" \"Those,\ntherefore, who have the strongest convictions of the _immorality of\nthe institution of slavery_, are not thereby authorized to conclude\nthat the _provision for delivering up fugitive slaves is morally\nwrong_, [that is, if it be wrong to hold man in bondage, it is also\nnot wrong,] or that our Fathers ... did not act wisely, justly, and\nhumanely in acceding to the compacts of the Constitution.\" \"Even those\nwho go to the extreme of condemning the Constitution and the laws made\nunder it, as _unjust and immoral_, cannot ... justify resistance. In\ntheir view, such laws are inconsistent with the justice and\nbenevolence and against the will of the Supreme Lawgiver, and they\nemphatically ask, '_Which shall we obey, the law of man, or the Will\nof God?_' I answer, 'OBEY BOTH!' The _incompatibility_ which the\nquestion assumes [between _Right and Wrong, or Good and Evil, or God\nand the Devil_] _does not exist_! Unjust and oppressive laws _may\nindeed be passed_ by human governments. But if _Infinite and\nInscrutable Wisdom permits political society_, having the power of\nhuman legislation, _to establish such laws, may not the same Infinite\nand Inscrutable Wisdom permit and require an individual_, who has no\nsuch power, _to obey them_?\" [So \"if Infinite and Inscrutable Wisdom\npermits\" a Blacksmith \"having the power\" to forge steel and temper\nit, to make daggers, \"may not the same Infinite and Inscrutable Wisdom\npermit and require the individual\" carpenter or tailor, who has no\nsuch power, to use the dagger for the purpose intended!] \"Conscience,\nindeed, is to be reverenced, and obeyed; but still we must remember\nthat it is _fallible_, especially when the rights of others are\nconcerned, [that is, the right to kidnap men] _and may lead us to do\ngreat injustice_, [by refusing to punish a man who helps his brother\nenjoy his self-evident, natural, and unalienable right to life,\nliberty, and the pursuit of happiness]. The annals of the world abound\nwith enormities committed by a narrow and darkened conscience.\" A\n_statute_ \"is the moral judgment, the _embodied conscience of the\npolitical community_, [the fugitive slave bill the 'embodied\nconscience' of New England]. To this not only is each individual bound\nto submit, [right or wrong,] but it is a new and _controlling element\nin forming his own moral judgment_;\" [that is, he must _think_ the\nstatute is just]. \"Obedience is a _moral duty_, [no matter how immoral\nthe law may be]. _This is as certain as that the Creator made man a\nsocial being_;\" \"to _obey the laws of the land_ [no matter what laws,\nor how wicked soever] _is, then, to obey the Will of God_!\"\n\n[Footnote 116: Words of Chief Justice Parker, in _Commonwealth_ vs.\n_Griffith_, 2 Pickering's Reports, 19, cited with approbation by Chief\nJustice Shaw, in the Sims case, 7 Cushing's Reports, 705, and also\ncited from him and acted on by fugitive slave bill Commissioner\nLoring, in the Burns case.]\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, you think I have imagined and made up this\nlanguage out of my own fancy. No, Gentlemen, I could not do it. I have\nnot the genius for such sophistry. I only quote the words of the Hon.\nJudge Peleg Sprague delivered to the grand-jury of this Circuit Court\nof United States at Boston, March 18, 1851.[117] Gentlemen, I showed\nyou what Thurlow could say at Horne Tooke's trial on the 4th of July,\n1777. Nay, I quoted the words of Powis and Allybone, and Scroggs and\nJeffreys.[118] But, Gentlemen, the judge of New England transcends the\njudges of Old England.\n\n[Footnote 117: See _Boston Daily Advertiser_ of March 19, 1851.]\n\n[Footnote 118: See above, p. 33, 37, _et al._]\n\n3. Having made this general preparation for his work and shaped his\nvessel to the proper form, he proceeds to fill it with the requisite\nmatter.\n\n(1.) He practically makes the Law just as he likes, so as to suit the\ngeneral purpose of the government, or the special purpose of his\nprivate vengeance or ambition. Thus,\n\na. Out of the whole complex of law--statutes, decisions, customs,\ncharges, opinions of judicial men, since the Norman conquest or before\nit,--he selects that special weapon which will serve his present turn.\nAnd tells the jury, \"that is the law which you are sworn to enforce. I\nhave not made it--it is the _Lex terrae_, the Law of the Land.\" Or if\nin such an arsenal, so copious, he finds no weapon ready made, then\n\nb. Out of that pile of ancient instruments he selects something which\nhe forges over anew, and thus constructs a new form of law when he\ncould not find one ready for his hand. If a straight statute will not\ncatch the intended victims he perverts it to a hook and therewith lays\nhold. He thus settles the law.\n\n(2.) He next practically determines what Deed constitutes the\n\"offence\" forbidden by the law he has just made. So he selects some\nact which it is notorious was done by the man he strikes at, and\ndeclares it is the \"offence,\" the \"crime.\" Here too he is aided by\nancient precedent; whereof if our brief Republican annals do not\nfurnish examples, he hies to the exhaustless treasury of Despotism in\nthe English common law. He opens the \"Reports,\" the \"Statutes of the\nRealm,\" or goes back to the \"Year-books.\" Antiquity is rich in\nexamples of tyranny. \"He readily finds a stick who would beat a dog.\"\n\"Such are the opinions,\" quoth he, \"of the venerable Chief Justice\nJones,\" or \"my Lord Chancellor Finch,\" or \"Baron Twysden,\" or \"my Lord\nChief Justice Kelyng.\"\n\nThus the Judge constructs the Jury--out of such men as he wishes for\nhis purpose; constructs the Law, constructs the Offence, the Crime:\nnay, he points out the particular Deed so plain that he constructs the\nIndictment. All that is left for the \"Grand Inquest\" is the mechanical\nwork of listening to the \"evidence\" and signing the Bill--\"_Billa\nVera_,\" a true bill. That they may accomplish this work he delivers\nthem over to the District Attorney; he may be also an agent of the\ngovernment, appointed for his party services, looking for his reward,\nexpecting future pay for present work, extra pay for uncommon zeal and\n\"discretion.\" Gentlemen of the Jury, this _may_ be the case--humanity\nis fallible, and it sometimes may happen even in the Circuit Court of\nthe United States that such a man should hold the office of District\nAttorney. For it is not to be expected, nay, it is what we should not\neven ask--that this place should always be filled by such conspicuous\ntalent, such consummate learning, and such unblemished integrity as\nthat of the present attorney (Hon. Mr. Hallett). No, Gentlemen of the\nJury, as I look round these walls I am proud of my country! Such a\nDistrict Attorney, so bearing \"his great commission in his look;\" his\npolitical course as free from turning and winding as the river\nMissouri; high-minded, the very Caesar's wife of democratic\nvirtue,--spotless and unsuspected; never seeking office, yet alike\nfaithful to his principles and his party; and with indignant foot\nspurning the Administration's bootless bribe,--the fact outtravels\nfancy. Nay, Gentlemen, it is something to be an American--I feel it\nas I look about me. For the honorable Attorney is perfectly suited to\nthis Honorable Court;--yea, to the Administration which gives them\nboth their dignity and their work and its pay. Happy country with such\nan Attorney, fortunate with such a Court, but thrice and four times\nfortunate when such several stars of justice unite in such a\nconstellation of juridic fire!\n\nBut, Gentlemen, it is too much to ask of human nature that it should\nbe always so. In my supposed case, the judge delivers the persons\naccused to the officers, restless, bellowing, and expecting some\nfodder to be pitched down to them from the national mow, already\nlicking their mouths which drool with hungry anticipation. They will\nswear as the court desires. Then the Attorney talks with the most\npliant jurors, coaxes them, wheedles them, stimulates them to do what\nhe wants done. Some he threatens with the \"displeasure of the\ngovernment;\" he swears at some. After all, if the jury refuse to find\na bill,--a case, Gentlemen, which has happened,--they are discharged;\nand a new jury is summoned; some creature of the government is put on\nit, nay, perhaps some kinsman of the anxious judge, at least a\nBrother-in-Law, and at last twenty-three men are found of whom twelve\nconsent to a \"True Bill.\" Then great is the joy in the judge's\nheart,--it is corrupt judges I am speaking of, Gentlemen of the Jury,\nnot of upright and noble men, may it please your Honors! There is\ngreat joy in the judge's heart, and great rejoicing _amongst his\nkinsfolk and intimate friends_ who whinney and neigh over it in the\npublic journals, and leer at the indicted man in the street, lolling\nout their tongues greedy for his [Transcriber's Note: omit 'his'; see\nErrata] vengeance!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nII. Now, Gentlemen, look next at the judge's dealing with the\nTrial-Jury. He proceeds as before.\n\n1. He sifts the material returned to him, through those three sieves\nof questioning, and gets a Jury with no hard individual lumps of solid\npersonal independence. They take the oath which you have just taken,\nGentlemen: \"You shall well and truly try the issue between the United\nStates and the Defendant at the Bar, according to the law, and the\nevidence given you, so help you God!\"\n\nThe facts are then presented, and the case argued on both sides.\n\n2. The Judge sums up, and charges the Jury. He explains their oath; to\ntry the issue _according to the law_ does not mean (a) according to\nthe whole complex which is called \"_Law_,\" or \"_The Law_,\" but\naccording only to that particular statute which forbids the deed\ncharged,--for otherwise the Jury must judge of the Purpose of Law,\nwhich is Justice, and inquire into the rightfulness of the deed and of\nthe statute which forbids it. Nor does it mean (b) by the Jurors'\nnotion of that statute, but only by the Judge's opinion thereof. He\ntells them--if they proceed to inquire into the natural Justice of the\ndeed, or into the law which forbids it, then they transcend their\noffice, and are guilty of \"Perjury,\" and reads them the statute for\nthe punishment of that offence, and refers to examples--from the times\nof the Stuarts, though he does not mention that--when Jurors were\nfined and otherwise severely dealt with for daring to resist a judge.\n\nThen out of the facts testified to by the government witnesses, he\nselects some one which is best supported, of which there is no doubt.\nHe then declares that the question of \"Guilty or not guilty\" turns on\nthat point. If the accused did that deed--then he is Guilty. So the\nmoral question, \"Has the man done a wrong thing?\" is taken from their\nconsideration; the intellectual question, \"Has he done a deed which\namounts to the crime forbidden?\" is not before them; only the\nmechanical question, \"Did he do that particular act?\" They are not to\ninquire as to the Justice of the law, its Constitutionality, or its\nLegality; nor the Justice or the Criminality of the deed--only of its\nActuality, Did he do this deed? Nay, sometimes the Judge treats them\nas cattle, and orders them to _find the facts for the government_. If\nthey refuse, he threatens them with punishment.\n\nThus he constructs the Trial-Jury, the Law, the Evidence, the Crime,\nand the Fact.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow, Gentlemen, when this is done and done thoroughly, the Judge has\nkept all the Forms, Presentment by the Grand-Jury, and Trial by a\nPetty Jury; but the substance is all gone; the Jury is only a stalking\nhorse, and behind it creeps the Judicial servant of Tyranny, armed\nwith the blunderbuss of law,--made and loaded by himself,--and\ndelivers his shot in the name of law, but against Justice, that\npurpose of all law. Thus can tyranny be established--while all the\nforms of law are kept.[119]\n\n[Footnote 119: See 1 Jardine, Criminal Trials, 110. 2 Parker's\nSermons, 266 and note.]\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, let me make this more clear by a special case\nwholly fictitious.--Thomas Nason, a \"Non-Resistant\" and a Quaker, is a\ncolored citizen of Boston, the son and once the slave of Hon. James\nNason of Virginia, but now legally become a free man by self-purchase;\nhe has the bill of sale of himself in his pocket, and so carries about\nhim a title deed which would perhaps satisfy your Honors of his right\nto liberty. But his mother Lizzie (Randolph) Nason, a descendant of\nboth Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison,--for Virginia, I am told, can\nboast of many children descended from two Presidents, perhaps from\nthree, who\n\n     \"Boast the pure blood of an illustrious race,\n     In quiet flow from Lucrece to Lucrece\"--\n\nfrom Saxon master to African slave,--is still the bondwoman of the\nHon. James, the father of her son Thomas. From the \"Plantation\nmanners\" of her master, the concubine, \"foolishly dissatisfied with\nslavery,\" flies to Boston, and takes refuge with her Quaker son, who\nconceals his mother, and shelters her for a time. But let me suppose\nthat his Honor Judge Curtis, while at Washington, fired with that\npatriotism which is not only habitual but natural and indigenous to\nhis Honor, informs Mr. Nason of the hiding-place of his female slave,\nthus betraying a \"mistress\" to her master, no longer, alas, her\n\"keeper.\" It is no injurious imputation--it is an imaginary honor I\nattribute to the learned and honorable Judge. Mr. Nason sends the\nproper agent to Boston to save the Union of States by restoring the\nunion of master and slave. Mr. George Ticknor Curtis, fugitive slave\nbill commissioner, and brother to the Hon. Judge, issues his warrant\nfor kidnapping the mother; his coadjutor and friend, Mr. Butman,\nattempts to seize her in her son's house. Thomas, unarmed, resists the\nintruder, and with a child's pop-gun drives that valiant officer out\nof the house, and puts the mother in a place of safety,--beneath the\nflag of England, or the Pope, or the Czar. Commissioner Curtis\ntelegraphs the news to Washington,--announcing a \"NEW CASE OF\nTREASON--more 'levying war!'\" The Secretaries of State and of War\nwrite dreadful letters, breathing fire and slaughter, and President\nPierce, a man of most heroic courage, alike mindful of his former\nactual military exploits at Chapultepec, of his delegated triumph at\nGreytown, and of the immortal glory of Mr. Fillmore, issues his\nProclamation, calling on all good citizens, and especially on the\npoliticians of his party, to \"Save the Union\" from the treason of this\nterrible Thomas Nason, who will blow up the Constitution with a\npop-gun!\n\nAt the next session of the Honorable Circuit Court of the United\nStates in and for the first District, his Honor the Hon. Benjamin\nRobbins Curtis, Judge, constructs and charges the Grand-Jury in the\nmanner already set forth. He instructs them that if any man, by force\nand arms, namely, with a pop-gun, does resist a body of United States\nofficers, attempting to kidnap a woman, his own mother, that he\nthereby levies war against the United States, and accordingly commits\nthe crime of \"Treason\" which consists in levying war against the\nUnited States--the \"_amount_ of force is not material.\" And it is\ntheir duty to indict all persons in that form offending. The Attorney,\nthe Hon. Benjamin Franklin Hallett, offers to \"bet ten dollars that I\nwill get\" Nason \"indicted,\" and urges the matter. But no bill is\nfound, the Jury is discharged, a new Jury is summoned, and Mr. William\nW. Greenough, the Brother-in-law of the Judge is put on it, \"drawn as\nJuror\"--and then a \"true bill\" is found, Mr. Hallett actually making\nan indictment that cannot be quashed!\n\nOn the day before Thanksgiving Thomas Nason is arraigned; and is\nbrought to trial for this new Boston Massacre on the anniversary of\nthe old one--on the Fifth of March. The judge constructs a Trial-Jury\nas before. Mr. Hallett, assisted by Mr. Thomas, Mr. George T. Curtis,\nand Commissioner Loring, manage the case for the government, bringing\nout the whole strength of the kidnapping party, and directing this\nMacedonian phalanx of Humanity and Law and Piety against a poor\nfriendless negro. Mr. Hale, Mr. Ellis, and Mr. Dana defend him.\nOfficer Butman and his coadjutors--members of the \"Marshal's\nguard\"--testify that Mr. Nason attacked them with the felonious weapon\nabove named, putting them in mortal bodily fear greater than that\nwhich in Mexico once overthrew the (future) President of all this\nland! Mr. Herrman, the dealer in toys, testifies that he sold the\nmurderous weapon for twenty-five cents to Mr. Nason who declared that\nhe \"could frighten Butman with it;\" that it is of German manufacture,\nand is called a Knallbuechse!\n\nJudge Curtis sums up the matter. He tells the jury, (1.) That they are\nnot to judge of the Law punishing treason, but to take it from the\nCourt. (2.) Not to judge what Act constitutes the Crime of Treason,\nbut take that also from the Court, and if the Court decides that\noffering a pop-gun at a rowdy's breast constitutes the crime of\ntreason, they are to accept the decision as constitutional law. (3.)\nThey are not to ask if it be just to hang a man for thus resisting a\nbody of men who sought to kidnap his mother, for even if it be unjust\nand cruel it is none of their concern, for they must execute a cruel\nand unjust law with even more promptitude than a just and humane one,\nand in the language of the \"Defender of the Constitution,\" \"conquer\ntheir prejudices,\" and \"do a disagreeable duty.\" (4.) If they think\nthe Law commands one thing and the Will of God exactly the opposite,\nin the well-known words of Judge Sprague, they must \"obey both\" by\nkeeping the law of man when it contradicts the law of God, for they\ncan never be good Christians so long as they scruple to hang a Quaker\nfor driving off a kidnapper; and obedience to the law is a moral duty,\nno matter how immoral the law may be, and \"to obey the law of the land\nis to obey the will of God.\" (5.) But they have a simple question of\nfact to determine; namely, Did the Defendant resist officer Butman in\nthe manner set forth? If satisfied of that, they must find him guilty.\nNo mistaken notions of Justice must induce them to refuse their\nverdict--for they are not to make the law, but only help execute it;\nand their conscience is so \"fallible, especially when the rights of\nothers are concerned, and may lead them to do great injustice,\" for\n\"the annals of the world abound with enormities committed by a narrow\nand darkened conscience.\" They must not ask if it be \"religious\" to do\nso--for to use the words of the most religious of all Americans, a man\nof most unspotted life in public and private, \"Religion has nothing to\ndo with politics,\" and this is a political trial. If there be any\ninjustice in the law and its execution the blame lies with the makers\nthereof not with the jurors, and they may wash their hands as clean as\nPilate's from the blood of Christ. Besides, if there be injustice the\nPresident can pardon the offender, and from his well-known religious\ncharacter--which rests on the unbiased testimony of his _own minister_\nand the statement of several partisan newspapers published in the very\nheat of the election, when men, and especially politicians looking for\noffice, never exaggerate,--he doubtless \"will listen to petitions for\na commutation of punishment!\"\n\nBut there is no injustice in it--for slavery is part of the _lex\nterrae_, the law of the land, protected by the Constitution itself,\nwhich is the _Lex Suprema_--the Supreme Law of the Land, and nearly\neighty years old! Besides, \"Slavery is not immoral,\" not contrary to\nthe public policy of Massachusetts; and, moreover, the \"mother\" whom\nthe criminal actually rescued, was a \"foreigner\" and \"whatever rights\nshe had, she had no right _here_.\"[120]\n\n[Footnote 120: See Hon. Judge Curtis's Speech at the Union Meeting in\nFaneuil Hall, November 26, 1850.]\n\nBut it is not a cruel or an unchristian thing to require a negro\nlayman to allow his mother to be kidnapped in his own house--especially\nif she were a born slave, and so by the very law \"a chattel personal\nto all uses, intents, and purposes whatever,\" and of course wholly\ndivested of all natural rights, even if a colored person ever had\nany--for an eminent American minister, of one of the most enlightened\nsects in Christendom, has publicly offered to send his own freeborn\nmother into bondage for ever!\n\nMoreover, if the jurors do not find a verdict of guilty, then they\nthemselves are guilty of PERJURY!\n\nSo the jury, without leaving their seats, find him guilty; the judge\nsentences; the President signs the Death-warrant, and Marshal Freeman\nhangs the man--to the great joy of the Commissioner's and the\nMarshal's guard who vacate the brothels once more and attend on that\noccasion and triumph over the murdered Quaker.\n\nBut the mischief does not stop there; the Boston slave-hunters are not\nyet satisfied with blood; the judge constructs another grand-jury as\nbefore, only getting more of his kinsfolk thereon, and taking his law\nfrom the impeached Judges Kelyng and Chase, charges that all persons\nwho _advise_ to an act of levying war, or evince an \"_express liking_\"\nfor it, or \"_approbation_\" of it, are also guilty of treason; and \"in\ntreason all are Principals.\" Accordingly the jury must indict all who\nhave evinced an \"express liking\" of the rescue, though they did not\nevince approval of the rescue by such means. It appears that Rev. Mr.\nGrimes in the meeting-house the Sunday before the treason was\nconsummated, had actually prayed that God would \"break the arm of the\noppressor and let the oppressed go free;\" that he read from a book\ncalled the Old Testament, \"Bewray not him that wandereth,\" \"Hide the\noutcast,\" and other paragraphs and sentences of like seditious nature.\nNay, that from the New Testament he had actually read the Sermon on\nthe Mount, especially the Golden Rule and the summing of the Law and\nthe Prophets in one word, Love,--and had applied this to the case of\nfugitive slaves; moreover, that he had read the xxvth chapter of\nMatthew from the 31st to the 46th verse, with dreadful emphasis.\n\nNay, anti-slavery men--in lectures--and in speeches in the Music Hall,\nwhich was built by pious people--and in Faneuil Hall, which was the\nold Cradle of Liberty, had actually spoken against man-stealing,--and\neven against some of the family of kidnappers in Boston!\n\nStill further, he adds, with great solemnity, a woman--a negro\nwoman,--the actual wife of the criminal Nason--had brought\nintelligence--to her husband--that Mr. George T. Curtis,--the brother\nof the judge,--had issued his warrant--and Mr. Butman--\"with a\nmonstrous watch\"--was coming to execute it--she told her\nhusband,--and--incited him to his dreadful crime! If you find these\nfacts you must convict the prisoners.\n\nSo thirty or forty more are hanged for treason.\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, these fictitious cases doubtless seem\nextravagant to you. I am glad they do. In peaceful times, in the\nmajority of cases there is no disagreement between the law, the judge,\nand the jurors; the law is just, or at least is an attempt at justice,\nthe judge wishes to do justice by means thereof, and the jurors aim at\nthe same thing. In such cases there is no motive for doing wrong to\nany person: so the judge fairly interprets the righteous and wholesome\nlaw, the jurors willingly receive the interpretation and apply it to\nthe special case, and substantial justice is done. This happens not\nonly in civil suits between party and party, but also in most of the\ncriminal cases between the Public and the Defendant. But in times of\ngreat political excitement, in a period of crisis and transition, when\none party seeks to establish a despotism and deprive some other class\nof men of their natural rights, cases like those I have imagined\nactually happen. Then there is a disagreement between the judge and\nthe jury; nay, often between the jury and the special statute\nwherewith the government seeks to work its iniquity. It is on such\noccasions that the great value of this institution appears,--then the\njury hold a shield over the head of their brother and defend him from\nthe malignity of the government and the Goliath of injustice,\nappointed its champion to defy the Law of the living God, is smote in\nthe forehead by the smooth stone taken from a country brook, and lies\nthere slain by a simple rustic hand; for in such cases the jury fall\nback on their original rights, judge of the Fact, the Law, and the\nApplication of the Law to the Fact, and do justice in spite of the\ncourt, at least prevent injustice.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow, Gentlemen of the Jury, I will mention some examples of this kind,\npartly to show the process by which attempts have been made to\nestablish despotism, that by the English past you may be warned for\nthe American present and future; and partly that your function in this\nand all cases may become clear to you and the Nation. The facts of\nhistory will show that my fancies are not extravagant.\n\n1. In April, 1554, just three hundred and one years ago this very\nmonth, in England, Sir Nicolas Throckmorton, a gentleman of\ndistinguished family, was brought to trial for high treason. He had\nheld a high military office under Henry VIII. and Edward VI., but\n\"made himself obnoxious to the Papists, by his adherence to some of\nthe persecuted Reformers.\" With his two brothers he attended Anne\nAskew to her martyrdom when she was burnt for heresy, where they were\ntold to \"take heed to your lives for you are marked men.\" He was\nbrought to trial April 17th, 1554, the first year of Bloody Mary. Of\ncourse he was allowed no counsel; the court was insolent, and demanded\nhis condemnation. But the jury acquitted him; whereupon the _court\nshut the twelve jurors in prison_! Four of them made their peace with\nthe judges, and were delivered: but eight were kept in jail till the\nnext December, and then fined,--three of them L60 apiece, and five\nL225 apiece.\n\nThis is one of the earliest cases that I find, where an English jury\nin a political trial refused to return such a verdict as the tyrant\ndemanded.[121]\n\n[Footnote 121: See the case in 1 St. Tr. 869, and 1 Jardine, 40, also\n115. The great juridical attacks upon English Liberty were directed\nagainst the Person of the Subject, and appear in the trials for\nTreason, but as in such trials the defendant had no counsel, the great\nlegal battle for English Liberty was fought over the less important\ncases where only property was directly concerned. Hence the chief\nquestions seem only to relate to money.]\n\n2. In September, 1670, William Penn, afterwards so famous, and William\nMead, were brought to trial before the Lord Mayor of London, a\ncreature of the king, charged with \"a tumultuous assembly.\" For the\nQuaker meeting-house in Grace Church Street, had been forcibly shut by\nthe government, and Mr. Penn had preached to an audience of Dissenters\nin the street itself. The court was exceedingly insolent and\noverbearing, interrupting and insulting the defendants continually.\nThe jury found a special verdict--\"guilty of speaking in Grace Church\nStreet.\" The judge sent them out to return a verdict more suitable to\nthe desire of the government. Again they substantially found the same\nverdict. \"This both Mayor and Recorder resented at so high a rate that\nthey exceeded the bounds of all reason and civility.\" The Recorder\nsaid, \"You shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict that the\ncourt will accept; you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire,\nand tobacco; you shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have\na verdict by the help of God, or you shall starve for it!\" When Penn\nattempted to speak, the Recorder roared out, \"Stop that prating\nfellow's mouth or put him out of court.\" The jury were sent out a\nthird time, and kept all night, with no food, or drink, or bed. At\nlast they returned a verdict of \"not guilty,\" to the great wrath of\nthe court. _The judge fined the jurors forty marks apiece_, about\n$140, _and put them in jail_ until they should pay that sum. The\nforeman, Edward Bushel, refused to pay his fine and was kept in jail\nuntil he was discharged on _Habeas Corpus_ in November. Here the\nattempt of a wicked government and a cruel judge was defeated by the\nnoble conduct of the jurors, who dared be faithful to their duty.[122]\n\n[Footnote 122: 6 St. Tr. 951; Dixon's Life of Penn; 22 St. Tr. 925.]\n\n3. In 1681 an attempt was made to procure an indictment against the\nEarl of Shaftesbury, for High Treason. The Bill was presented to the\nGrand-Jury at London; Chief Justice Pemberton gave them the charge, at\nthe king's desire--it was Charles II. They were commanded to _examine\nthe evidence in public_ in the presence of the court, in order that\nthey might thus be overawed and forced to find a bill, in which case\nthe court had matters so arranged that they were sure of a conviction.\nThe court took part in examining the witnesses, attempting to make out\na case against the Earl. But the jury returned the bill with IGNORAMUS\non it, and so found no indictment. The spectators rent the air with\ntheir shouts. The court was in great wrath, and soon after the king\nseized the Charter of London, as I have already shown you, seeking to\ndestroy that strong-hold of Liberty. Shaftesbury escaped--the jury was\ndischarged. Why did not the court summon another jury, and the chief\njustice put his brother-in-law on it? Roger Coke says, \"But as the\nknights of Malta could make knights of their order for eight pence a\npiece, yet could not make a soldier or seaman; so these kings [the\nStuarts] though _they could make what judges they pleased_ to do their\nbusiness, _yet could not make a grand-jury_.\" For the grand-juries\nwere returned by the Sheriffs, and the sheriffs were chosen by the\nLivery, the corporation of London. This fact made the king desire to\nseize the charter, _then he could make a grand-jury to suit himself_,\nout of the kinsfolk of the judge.[123]\n\n[Footnote 123: 8 St. Tr. 759, see the valuable matter in the notes,\nalso 2 Hallam, 330 and notes.]\n\n4. Next comes the remarkable case of the Seven Bishops, which I have\nspoken of already.[124] You remember the facts, Gentlemen. The king,\nJames II., in 1688, wishing to overturn Protestantism--the better to\nestablish his tyranny--issued his notorious proclamation, setting\naside the laws of the land and subverting the English Church. He\ncommanded all Bishops and other ministers of religion to read the\nillegal proclamation on a day fixed. Seven Bishops presented to him a\npetition in most decorous language, remonstrating against the\nProclamation, and asking to be excused from reading it to their\ncongregations. The king consulted with Father Petre,--a Jesuit, his\nconfessor--on the matter, and had the bishops brought to trial for a\nmisdemeanor, for publishing \"a seditious libel in writing against his\nmajesty and his government.\" It was \"obstructing an officer.\"\n\n[Footnote 124: See above, p. 32.]\n\nThen the question before the trial-jury was, Did the seven bishops, by\npresenting a petition to the king--asking that they might not be\nforced to do an act against the laws of England and their own\nconsciences--commit the offence of publishing a seditious libel; and,\nShall they be punished for that act? All the judges but two, Holloway\nand Powell, said \"Yes,\" and the jury were so charged. But the jury\nsaid, \"Not guilty.\" The consequence was this last of the Stuarts was\nfoiled in his attempt to restore papal tyranny to England and\nestablish such a despotism as already prevailed in France and Spain.\nHere the jury stood between the tyrant and the Liberties of the\nPeople.\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, let me show you how that noble verdict was\nreceived. Soon as the verdict was given, says Bishop Burnet, \"There\nwere immediately very loud acclamations throughout Westminster Hall,\nand the words 'Not guilty,' 'Not guilty,' went round with shouts and\nhuzzas; thereat the King's Solicitor moved very earnestly that such as\nhad shouted in the court might be committed. But the shouts were\ncarried on through the cities of Westminster and London and flew\npresently to Hounslow Heath, where the soldiers in the camp echoed\nthem so loud that it startled the king.\"[125] \"Every man seemed\ntransported with joy. Bonfires were made all about the streets, and\nthe news going over the nation, produced the like rejoicings all\nEngland over. The king's presence kept the army in some order. But he\nwas no sooner gone out of the camp, than he was followed with an\nuniversal shouting, as if it had been a victory obtained.\"[126] \"When\nthe Bishops withdrew from the court, they were surrounded by countless\nthousands who eagerly knelt down to receive their blessing.\" Of course\nthe two judges who stood out for the liberties of the citizens, were\nremoved from office!\n\n[Footnote 125: 12 St. Tr. 430.]\n\n[Footnote 126: Burnet's Own Times, 470. See also 2 Campbell, Justices,\n89, _et seq._]\n\n5. Here is another remarkable case, that of William Owen, in 1752.\nThese are the facts. In 1750 there was a contested election of a\nmember of Parliament for Westminster. Hon. Alexander Murray, an\nanti-ministerial member of the Commons, was denounced to the House for\nhis conduct during the election, and it was ordered that he should be\nconfined a close prisoner in Newgate, and that he receive his sentence\non his knees. He refused to kneel, and was punished with great cruelty\nby the bigoted and intolerant House. Mr. Owen, who was a bookseller,\npublished a pamphlet, entitled \"The Case of Alexander Murray, Esq.,\"\ndetailing the facts and commenting thereon. For this an information\nwas laid against him, charging him with publishing a \"wicked, false,\nscandalous, seditious, and malicious libel.\"\n\nOn the trial, the Attorney-General, Ryder, thus delivered himself:--\n\n     \"What!--shall a person appeal from that Court, who are the\n     only judges of things belonging to them, the House of\n     Commons I mean. An appeal! To whom? To a mob? Must Justice\n     be appealed from? To whom? To injustice? Appeal to 'the good\n     people of England,' 'particularly the inhabitants of\n     Westminster'! The House of Commons are the good people of\n     England, being the representatives of the people. The rest\n     are--what? Nothing--unless it be a mob. But the clear\n     meaning of this libel was an _appeal to violence_, in fact,\n     and to stigmatize the House.\" \"Then he charges the House\n     with sinking material evidence; which in fact is accusing\n     the House of injustice. This is a charge the most shocking;\n     the most severe, and the most unjust and virulent, against\n     the good, the tender House of Commons; that safeguard of our\n     liberty, and guardian of our welfare.\"\n\n     \"This libel ... will be found the most powerful invective\n     that the skill of man could invent. I will not say the\n     skill, but the wit, art, and false contrivance of man,\n     instigated by Satan;\" \"to say that this is not a libel, is\n     to say that there is no justice, equity, or right in the\n     world.\"\n\nThe Solicitor-General told the Jury that they were only to inquire _if\nMr. Owen published the pamphlet_, \"_the rest follows of course_;\" \"you\nare upon your oaths; you judge of the facts ... and _only them_.\"\nChief Justice Lee summed up the evidence \"and delivered it as his\nopinion, that the _Jury ought to find the defendant guilty;_ for he\nthought the _fact of publication was fully proved; and if so they\ncould not avoid bringing in the defendant guilty_.\"\n\nThe jury returned, \"Not guilty;\" but Ryder, the Attorney-General, put\nthis question, Do you think the evidence is not sufficient to convince\nyou that _Owen did sell the book_? The foreman stuck to his general\nverdict, \"Not guilty,\" \"Not guilty;\" and several of the jurymen said,\n\"that is our verdict, my lord, and we abide by it.\" \"Upon which the\ncourt broke up, and there was a prodigious shout in the hall.\" Then\n\"the Jury judged as to facts, law, and justice of the whole, and\ntherefore did not answer the leading question which was so artfully\nput to them.\"[127] Of course the insolent Attorney-General was soon\nmade \"Lord Chief Justice,\" and _rode_ the bench after the antiquated\nroutine.\n\n[Footnote 127: 18 St. Tr. 1203; 14 Parl. Hist. 888, 1063; 3 Hallam,\n200; 2 Campbell, Justices, 198.]\n\nThis was the third great case in which the Jury had vindicated the\nright of speech.\n\n6. Here is another case very famous in its day, and of great value as\nhelping to establish the rights of juries, and so to protect the\nnatural right of the citizens--the Trial of John Miller for reprinting\nJunius's Letter to the King, in 1770.\n\nHere are the facts. Mr. Miller was the publisher of a newspaper called\nthe _London Evening Post_, and therein, on December 19, 1769, he\nreprinted Junius's celebrated Letter to the King. For this act, an\ninformation _ex officio_ was laid against him, wherein he was charged\nwith publishing a false, wicked, seditious, and malicious libel. A\nsuit had already been brought against Woodfall, the publisher of the\n_Public Advertiser_, in which the letter originally appeared, but the\nprosecution had not turned out to the satisfaction of the government,\nnor had the great question been definitely settled. So this action was\nbrought against Mr. Miller, who reprinted the original letter the day\nof its first appearance.[128]\n\n[Footnote 128: 20 St. Tr. 803, 895, 869; Woodfall's Junius (Bohn,\n1850), Preface, p. 94, Appendix, p. 471; 2 Campbell, Justices, 363; 5\nMahon.]\n\nSolicitor-General Thurlow,--whom you have met before,\nGentlemen,--opened the case for the Crown, and said:--\n\n     \"I have not of myself been able to imagine ... that there is\n     a serious man of the profession in the kingdom who has the\n     smallest doubt whether this ought to be deemed a libel or\n     not;\" \"for I neither do, nor ever will, attempt to lay\n     before a jury, a cause, in which I was under the necessity\n     of stating a single principle that went to intrench, in the\n     smallest degree, upon the avowed and acknowledged liberty of\n     the subjects of this country, even with regard to the press.\n     The complaint I have to lay before you is that that liberty\n     has been so abused, so turned to licentiousness, ... that\n     under the notion of arrogating liberty to one man, that is\n     the writer, printer, and publisher of this paper, they do\n     ... annihilate and destroy the liberty of all men, more or\n     less. Undoubtedly the man that has indulged the _liberty of\n     robbing upon the highway_, has a very considerable portion\n     of it allotted to him.\" The defendant \"has published a\n     paper, in which, concerning the King, concerning the House\n     of Commons, and concerning the great officers of State,\n     concerning the public affairs of the realm, there are\n     uttered things of such tendency and application as ought to\n     be punished.\" \"When we are come to that situation, when it\n     shall be lawful for any men in this country to speak of the\n     sovereign [George III.] in terms attempting to fix upon him\n     such contempt, abhorrence, and hatred, there is an end of\n     all government whatsoever, and then liberty is indeed to\n     shift for itself.\" He quotes from the paper: \"'He [the king]\n     has taken a decisive personal part against the subjects of\n     America, and those subjects know how to distinguish the\n     sovereign and a venal Parliament, upon one side, from the\n     real sentiments of the English nation upon the other.' For\n     God's sake is that no libel? To _talk of the king as taking\n     a part of an hostile sort against one branch of his\n     subjects_, and at the same time to _connect him ... with the\n     parliament which he calls a venal parliament_; is that no\n     libel?\"\n\nLord Mansfield,--the bitterest enemy of the citizens' right of speech\nand of the trial by jury,--charged upon the jury, \"The question for\nyou to try ... is, whether the _defendant did print_, or publish, or\nboth, a _paper of the tenor_, and of the meaning, so _charged by the\ninformation_.\" \"If it is of the tenor and meaning set out in the\ninformation, the next consideration is, whether he _did print and\npublish it_.\" \"If you ... find the defendant not guilty, the fact\nestablished by that verdict is, _he did not publish a paper of that\nmeaning_;\" \"the fact finally established by your verdict, if you find\nhim guilty, is, that _he printed_ and published a _paper, of the\ntenor_ and of the meaning set _forth in the information_;\" \"but you do\n_not give an opinion ... whether it is or not lawful to print a paper_\n... of the tenor and meaning in the information;\" \"if in point of fact\nit is innocent, it would be an innocent thing.\"\n\nThus practically the judge left the jury only one thing to determine,\nDid Mr. Miller print Junius's letter to the king? That was a fact as\nnotorious as it now is in Boston that the _Daily Advertiser_ supported\nthe fugitive slave bill, and helped its execution, for the letter to\nthe king was there in Mr. Miller's journal as plainly as those\ndefences of the fugitive slave bill were in the _Advertiser_. If the\njury said \"guilty,\" the court had the defendant in their claws,--and\nall the wrath of the most malignant tories would fall on him and rend\nhim in pieces. But the jury fell back on their legitimate function to\ndetermine the Fact, the Law, and the Application of the law to the\nfact, and returned a verdict, Not Guilty, which a great multitude\nrepeated with loud acclaim!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n7. Next, Gentlemen, I will relate a few cases in which the government\nset all justice at defiance and clove down the right of speech,\ncommonly packing submissive juries. In 1790 and following years, while\nthe French Revolution was in progress, the thoughtful eyes of England\nfell on the evils of her own country. America was already a Republic,\njust recovering from the shock of violent separation from her\nmother,--young, poor, but not unprosperous, and full of future promise\ntoo obvious to escape the sagacious politicians who there saw a\ncause--\n\n         \"----with fear of change,\n     Perplexing Kings.\"\n\nThe people of France, by a few spasmodic efforts, broke the threefold\nchain of Priest, King, and Noble, and began to lift up their head. But\nSaxon England is sober, and so went to work more solemnly than her\nmercurial neighbor. And besides, the British people had already a\nfirm, broad basis of personal freedom to stand on. Much was thought,\nwritten, and spoken about reform in England, then most desperately\nneeding it. The American Revolution had English admirers whom no\ncourts could silence. Nay, at first the French Revolution delighted\nsome of the ablest and best men in Britain, who therein beheld the\ncarrying out of the great Principles which Aristotle and Machiavelli\nhad laid down as the law of the historical development and social\nevolution of mankind. They wished some improvement in England itself.\nBut of course there was a strong opposition made to all change.\nParliament refused to relieve the evils which were made obvious. The\nupper House of Nobles was composed of the Elder Sons of the families\nwhich had a social and pecuniary interest in oppressing the people,\nand the lower House \"consisted mainly of the Younger Sons of the same\nfamilies, or still worse the purchased dependents\" of their families.\nSocieties were organized for Reform, such as the \"London Corresponding\nSociety,\" \"the Friends of the People,\" etc., etc. The last mentioned\ncontained many literary, scientific, and political men, and about\nthirty members of Parliament. Great complaints were made in public at\nthe inequality of Representation in Parliament. Stormy debates took\nplace in Parliament itself--such as we have not yet heard in America,\nbut which wicked and abandoned men are fast bringing upon us. Pitt and\nFox were on opposite sides.\n\n           \"----and such a frown\n     Each cast at the other, as when two black clouds,\n     With Heaven's artillery fraught, come rattling on\n     Over the Caspian, then stand front to front,\n     Hovering a space, till winds the signal blow\n     To join their dark encounter in mid air.\"\n\nAt that time the House of Commons was mainly filled with creatures of\na few powerful men; thus 91 commoners elected 139 members of the\ncommons, and 71 peers also elected 163; so 302 British members of\nParliament, besides 45 more from Scotland,--347 in all,--were returned\nby 162 persons. This was called \"Representation of the People.\" From\nthe party who feared to lose their power of tyranny, there went out\nthe decree, \"Discussion on the subject of national grievances must be\nsuppressed, in Parliament and out of Parliament.\" Violent attempts\nwere made to suppress discussion. In short, the same efforts were made\nin England which were attempted in New York and Boston in 1850 and the\ntwo following years, till they were ended by a little sprinkling of\ndust. But in Britain the public mind is harsher than ever in America,\nand the weapons which broke in the hand of Old England were much more\nformidable than that which here so suddenly snapped, and with such\ndamage to the assassinating hand.\n\n(1.) In 1792, John Lambert and two others published an advertisement\nin the London Morning Chronicle, with which they were connected as\nprinters or proprietors, addressed \"to the friends of free inquiry and\nthe general good,\" inviting them in a peaceful, calm, and unbiased\nmanner to endeavor to improve the public morals in respect to law,\ntaxation, representation, and political administration. They were\nprosecuted, on _ex officio_ information, for a \"false, wicked,\nscandalous, and seditious libel.\" The government made every effort to\nsecure their conviction. But it failed.[129]\n\n[Footnote 129: 22 St. Tr. 923.]\n\n(2.) The same year, Duffin and Lloyd, two debtors in the Fleet Prison,\none an American citizen, wrote on the door of the prison chapel \"this\nhouse to let; peaceable possession will be given by the present\ntenants on or before the first day of January, 1793, being the\ncommencement of liberty in Great Britain. The republic of France\nhaving rooted out despotism, their glorious example and success\nagainst tyrants renders infamous Bastiles no longer necessary in\nEurope.\" They also were indicted for a \"wicked, infamous, and\nseditious libel,\" and found guilty. Lloyd was put in the pillory![130]\n\n[Footnote 130: 2 St. Tr. 1793.]\n\n(3.) In 1793, Rev. William Frend, of the University of Cambridge,\npublished a harmless pamphlet entitled \"Peace and Union recommended to\nthe associated bodies of Republicans and anti-Republicans.\" He was\nbrought to trial, represented as a \"heretic, deist, infidel, and\natheist,\" and by sentence of the court banished from the\nuniversity.[131]\n\n[Footnote 131: 22 St. Tr. 523.--So late as 1820, the chief justice\npunished an editor with a fine of L500, for publishing an account of a\ntrial for high treason. See 33 St. Tr. 1564, also 22 St. Tr. 298; 2\nCampbell, Justices, 363, 371 _et al._]\n\n(4.) The same year, John Frost, Esq., \"a gentleman\" and attorney, when\nslightly intoxicated after dinner, and provoked by others, said, \"I am\nfor equality. I see no reason why any man should not be upon a footing\nwith another; it is every man's birthright.\" And when asked if he\nwould have no king, he answered, \"Yes, no king; the constitution of\nthis country is a bad one.\" This took place in a random talk at a\ntavern in London. He was indicted as a person of a \"depraved, impious,\nand disquiet mind, and of a seditious disposition, and contriving,\npractising, and maliciously, turbulently, and seditiously intending\nthe peace and common tranquillity of our lord the king and his laws to\ndisturb,\" \"to the evil example of all others in like case offending.\"\nHe was sentenced to six months in Newgate, and one hour in the\npillory! He must find sureties for good behavior for five years,\nhimself in L500, two others in L100 each, be imprisoned until the\nsureties were found, and be struck from the list of attornies![132]\n\n[Footnote 132: 22 St. Tr. 471.]\n\n(5.) Rev. William Winterbotham, the same year, in two sermons, exposed\nsome of the evils in the constitution and administration of England,\nand for that was fined L200, and sentenced to jail for four years,--a\ngood deal more than $300 and twelve months' imprisonment.[133]\n\n[Footnote 133: Ibid. 823.]\n\n(6.) The same year, Thomas Briellat, a London pump-maker, in a private\nconversation said, \"A reformation cannot be effected without a\nrevolution; we have no occasion for kings; there never will be any\ngood time until all kings are abolished from the face of the earth; it\nis my wish that there were no kings at all.\" \"I wish the French would\nland 500,000 men to fight the government party.\" He was tried, found\nguilty, and sentenced to a fine of L100, and sent to jail for a\nyear.[134]\n\n[Footnote 134: Ib. 909.]\n\n(7.) Richard Phillips, afterwards Sheriff of London, was sent to jail\nfor eighteen months for selling Paine's Rights of Man; for the same\noffence two other booksellers were fined and sent to Newgate _for four\nyears_! A surgeon and a physician were sent to Newgate for two years\nfor having \"_seditious libels in their possession_.\" Thirteen persons\nwere indicted at once.[135]\n\n[Footnote 135: Ibid. 471. Wade, Brit. Hist. (1847), 582, _et seq._]\n\n(8.) In 1793 a charge was brought against the Rev. Thomas Fyshe\nPalmer, formerly a Senior Fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge, and\nthen a Unitarian minister at Dundee. Mr. Palmer wrote an Address which\nwas adopted at a meeting of the Friends of Liberty and published by\nthem, which, in moderate language, called on the People \"to join us in\nour exertions for the preservation of our perishing liberty, and the\nrecovery of our long lost rights.\" He distributed copies of this\naddress. He was prosecuted for \"Leasing-making,\" for publishing a\n\"seditious and inflammatory writing.\" The (Scotch) jury found him\nguilty, and the judges sentenced him to _transportation for seven\nyears_. The sentence was executed with rigorous harshness.[136]\n\n[Footnote 136: 23 St. Tr. 237; Belsham's History of George III.]\n\n(9.) The same year Thomas Muir, Esq., was brought to trial for\nLeasing-making or public Libel at Edinburgh. He was a promising young\nlawyer, with liberal tendencies in politics, desiring the education of\nthe great mass of the people and a reform in Parliament. He was a\nmember of various Reform societies, and sometimes spoke at their\nmeetings in a moderate tone recommending only legal efforts--by\ndiscussion and petition--to remedy the public grievances. His Honor\n(Mr. Curtis) who belongs to a family so notoriously \"democratic\" in\nthe beginning of this century, and so eager in its denunciations of\nthe Federalists of that period, knows that the law even of\nEngland--which they so much hated--allows all that. It appeared that\nMr. Muir also lent a copy of Thomas Paine's \"Rights of Man\" to a\nmechanic who asked the loan as a favor. For these offences he was\nindicted for sedition, charged with instituting \"a Society for\nReform,\" and with an endeavor \"to represent the government of this\ncountry as oppressive and tyrannical, and the legislative body as\nvenal and corrupt.\" It was alleged in the indictment that he\ncomplained of the government of England as \"costly,\" the monarchy as\n\"useless, cumbersome, and expensive,\" that he advised persons to read\nPaine's Rights of Man, and circulated copies of a periodical called\n\"the _Patriot_,\" which complained of the grievances of the people. On\ntrial he was treated with great insolence and harshness, reprimanded,\ninterrupted, and insulted by the agents of the government--the court.\nAn association of men had offered a reward of five guineas for the\ndiscovery of any person who circulated the writings of Thomas Paine.\nFive of the fifteen jurors were members of that association,--and in\nScotland a bare majority of the jurors convicts. Mr. Muir defended\nhimself, and that ably. Lord Justice Clark charged his packed jury:--\n\n     \"There are two things which you should attend to, which\n     require no proof. The first is that the British Constitution\n     is the _best in the world_!\" \"Is not every man _secure in\n     his life, liberty, and property? Is not happiness in the\n     power of every man?_ 'Does not every man sit safely under\n     his own vine and fig-tree' and none shall make him afraid?\"\n     \"The other circumstance ... is the state of the country\n     during last winter. _There was a spirit of sedition and\n     revolt going abroad._\" \"I leave it for you to judge whether\n     it was perfectly innocent or not in Mr. Muir ... to go about\n     ... among _the lower classes of the people ... inducing them\n     to believe that a reform was absolutely necessary, to\n     preserve their safety and their liberty_, which, had it not\n     been for him, they never would have suspected to have been\n     in danger.\" \"He ran a parallel between the French and\n     English Constitutions, and _talked of their respective\n     taxes_ ... and gave a preference to the French.\" \"He has\n     brought many witnesses to prove his general good behavior,\n     and his recommending peaceable measures, and petitioning to\n     Parliament.\" \"Mr. Muir might have known that _no attention\n     could be paid to such a rabble, what right had they to\n     representation_? He could have told them the _Parliament\n     would never listen to their petition_! How could they think\n     of it? A government in any country should be just like a\n     corporation; and in this country it is _made up of the\n     landed interest, which alone has a right to be\n     represented_.\"\n\nGentlemen, you might think this speech was made by the \"Castle Garden\nCommittee,\" or at the Boston \"Union Meeting\" in 1850, but it comes\nfrom the year 1793.\n\nOf course the jury found him guilty: the judges sentenced him to\n_transportation for fourteen years_! Lord Swinton quoted from the\nRoman law, that the punishment for sedition was _crucifixion_, or\nexposure _to be torn to pieces by wild beasts_, or transportation. \"We\nhave chosen the _mildest of these punishments_.\" This sentence was\nexecuted with great cruelty. But Mr. Pitt, then in the high places of\npower, declared these punishments were dictated by a \"sound\ndiscretion.\"[137]\n\n[Footnote 137: 23 St. Tr. 117; 30 Parl. Hist. 1486, for Adams' Speech\nin Commons.]\n\nFor like offences several others underwent the same or similar\npunishment. But these enormities were perpetrated by the government in\nScotland--where the Roman Law had early been introduced and had\naccustomed the Semi-Saxons to forms of injustice foreign to the\nethnologic instinct and historic customs of the parent tribe. But\nbegun is half done. Emboldened by their success in punishing the\nfriends of Humanity in Scotland, the ministry proceeded to attempt the\nsame thing in England itself. Then began that British Reign of Terror,\nwhich lasted longer than the French, and brought the liberties of the\nPeople into such peril as they had not known since William of Orange\nhurled the last of the Stuarts from his throne. Dreadful laws were\npassed, atrocious almost as our own fugitive slave bill. First came\n\"the Traitorous correspondence Bill;\" next the \"Habeas Corpus\nSuspension Act;\" and then the \"Seditious Practices Act,\" with the\n\"Treasonable Attempts Bill\" by legislative exposition establishing\nconstructive treason! All these iniquitous measures were brought\nforward in Parliament by Sir John Scott--then Attorney-General, one of\nthose North Britons who find the pleasantest prospect in Scotland is\nthe road to London. He also was vehemently active in defending the\ntyranny of the Scotch judges just referred to, as indeed all judicial\ninsolence and legal wrong.[138] He opposed all attempts to reform the\nlaw which punished with death a theft of five shillings. In two years\nthere were more prosecutions for seditious libel than in twenty\nbefore. But Scott had his reward, and was made Lord Chancellor in\n1801, and elevated to the peerage as Lord Eldon.[139]\n\n[Footnote 138: 30 Parl. Hist. 581; 31 Parl. Hist. 520, 929, 1153, _et\nal._; 32 Parl. Hist. 370.]\n\n[Footnote 139: 7 Campbell, 119; 1 Townsend's Judges; Life of Vic.\nGibbs.]\n\n8. Then came that series of trials for high treason which disgraced\nthe British nation and glutted the sanguinary vengeance of the court.\nThe government suborned spies to feign themselves \"radicals,\" join the\nvarious Reform Societies, worm themselves into the confidence of\npatriotic and philanthropic or rash men, possess themselves of their\nsecrets, catch at their words, and then repeat in court what they were\npaid for fabricating in their secret haunts. A ridiculous fable was\ngot up that there was a plot to assassinate the King! Many were\narrested, charged with treason--\"constructive treason.\" On the\nevidence of spies of the government, hired informers--such men,\nGentlemen of Jury, as Commissioner Loring and Marshal Freeman jointly\nmade use of last year to kidnap Mr. Burns--estimable men were seized\nand locked up in the most loathsome dungeons of the kingdom, with\nintentional malignity confined amongst the vilest of notorious\ncriminals. The judges wrested the law, constructing libels, seditions,\n\"misdemeanors,\" treasons--any crime which it served their purpose to\nforge out of acts innocent, or only rash or indiscreet. Juries were\npacked by bribed sheriffs, and purchased spies were brought in\nevidence to swear away the liberty or the life of noble men. One of\nthe government witnesses was subsequently convicted of ten perjuries!\nNo man was safe who dared utter a serious word against George III. or\nMr. Pitt.\n\nHere, Gentlemen, I shall mention two cases of great importance in\nwhich the jury did their duty and turned the stream of ministerial and\njudicial tyranny.\n\n(1.) In 1794 in a bill suspending the Habeas Corpus, Parliament\ndeclared \"that a treacherous and detestable conspiracy had been formed\nfor subverting the existing laws and constitution, and for introducing\nthe system of anarchy and violence which had lately prevailed in\nFrance.\" Soon after the grand-jury for Middlesex indicted twelve men\nfor high treason; they were members of some of the Societies mentioned\njust now. \"The overt act charged against them was, that they had\nengaged _in a conspiracy to call a convention_, the object of which\nwas to bring about a revolution in the country,\" but it was not\nalleged that there was any plot against the King's life, or any\npreparation for force.[140] Thomas Hardy, a shoemaker, was first\nbrought to trial. The trial began October 28, 1794, just sixty years\nbefore Mr. Curtis's grand-jury found a bill against me. Sir John\nScott, the attorney-general, in opening the Prosecution, made a\n_speech nine hours' long_, attempting to construct treason out of\nbelonging to a society. All who belonged to it were to be considered\nguilty of \"compassing the death of our Lord the King.\" Chief Justice\nEyre, in addressing the grand-jury, referred to the act of Parliament\nas _proof of a conspiracy_.[141] Mr. Erskine defended Hardy in a\nspeech which \"will live forever.\" Seldom had English Liberty been in\nsuch peril; never did English lawyers more manfully defend it. The\njury, a London jury, returned \"NOT GUILTY.\"[142] Gentlemen, the report\nof the trial occupies more than twelve hundred pages in this\nvolume,[143] and it shook the nation. The British juries for a long\ntime had slept on their post, and allowed the enemy to enter the camp\nand murder its inmates. But the trial of Hardy woke up those heedless\nsentinels, and Liberty was safe--in England, I mean.\n\n[Footnote 140: 6 Campbell, 366.]\n\n[Footnote 141: 34 George III. c. 54.]\n\n[Footnote 142: 24 St. Tr. 199; Annual Register, 1794, p. 274; 31 Parl.\nHist. 1062, _et al._]\n\n[Footnote 143: 24 St. Tr.]\n\n(2.) Still the infatuated government went on, not conscious of the\nspirit of Anglo-Saxon liberty it had at last roused from long, heavy\nand deathlike sleep, and eleven days after brought Mr. John Horne\nTooke to trial. You remember, Gentlemen, that on the first anniversary\nof the Declaration of Independence, he was tried for publishing a\nnotice of a meeting which raised L100 for the widows and orphan\nchildren of our citizens who fell at Lexington on the 19th of April,\n1775, and for that offence was punished with fine and imprisonment.[144]\nAfter the acquittal of Hardy, the government brought Mr. Tooke to\ntrial, relying on the same evidence to convict him which had so\nsignally failed a fortnight before. The overt act relied on to convict\nhim of \"levying war\" and \"compassing the death of our Lord the King,\"\nwas membership of a Reform society! Mr. Erskine defended him: \"I\n_will_ assert the freedom of an Englishman; I will maintain the\ndignity of man, I will vindicate and glory in the principles which\nraised this country to her preeminence among the nations of the earth;\nand as she shone the bright star of the morning to shed the light of\nliberty upon nations which now enjoy it, so may she continue in her\nradiant sphere to revive the ancient privileges of the world which\nhave been lost, and still to bring them forward to tongues and people\nwho have never known them yet, in the mysterious progression of\nthings.\"[145]\n\n[Footnote 144: See above, p. 35.]\n\n[Footnote 145: 25 St. Tr. 1.]\n\nGentlemen, Horne Tooke was acquitted--the government routed and\noverwhelmed with disgrace, gave up the other prosecutions, and the\ntreason trials ended. Even George III. had wit enough left to see the\nblunder which his ministers--the Slave Power of England in 1794--had\ncommitted, and stammered forth, \"You have got us into the wrong box my\nLord [Loughborough]; you have got us into the wrong box. Constructive\ntreason won't do my Lord; constructive treason won't do.\" By and by,\nGentlemen, other men, wiser than poor feeble-minded George III., will\nfind out that \"constructive _misdemeanors_ won't do.\"\n\nOf these trials, Mr. Campbell, himself a Judge, declares, \"This [the\nconduct of the government] was more exceptionable in principle than\nany thing done during the reign of Charles II.; for then the\nfabricators of the Popish Plot did not think of corroborating the\ntestimony of Oates and Bedloe by a public statute; and then, if the\nfacts alleged had been true, they would have amounted to a plain case\nof actual treason; whereas here, admitting the truth of all the facts\nalleged, there was no pretence for saying that any treason\ncontemplated by the legislature had been committed. If this scheme had\nsucceeded, not only would there have been a sacrifice of life contrary\nto law, but all political 'agitation' must have been extinguished in\nEngland, as there would have been a precedent for holding that the\neffort to carry a measure by influencing public opinion through the\nmeans openly resorted to in our days, is a 'compassing the death of\nthe sovereign.' The only chance of escaping such servitude would have\nbeen civil war. It is frightful to think of the perils to which the\nnation was exposed.... But Erskine and the crisis were framed for each\nother.... His contemporaries, who without him might have seen the\nextinction of freedom among us, saw it, by his peculiar genius, placed\non an imperishable basis.\"[146] But Erskine without a Jury, Gentlemen,\nwhat could he have done? He could only wail, O Jerusalem,\nJerusalem--when she would not!\n\n[Footnote 146: 5 Campbell, 367.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow, Gentlemen, let us come over to this side of the water. I shall\nmention some cases in which the Jury have manfully done their duty,\nsome others in which they have allowed themselves to be browbeaten and\nbullied by a judge, and so have done the greatest wrong.\n\n1. First look at the famous case of John Peter Zenger.[147] Here are\nthe facts. In 1733, Mr. Zenger established a newspaper in New\nYork--there was only one there before--called the \"New York Weekly\nJournal,\" \"containing the freshest Advices foreign and domestic.\" In\nsome numbers of this he complained, modestly enough, of various\ngrievances in the administration of the Province, then ruled by\nGovernor Cosby. He said, \"as matters now stand their [the People's]\nliberties and properties are precarious, and that Slavery is likely\nto be entailed on them and their posterity, if some past things be not\namended.\" He published the remarks of some one who said he \"should be\nglad to hear that the Assembly would exert themselves, as became them,\nby showing that they have the interest of their country more at heart\nthan the gratification of any private view of any of their members, or\nbeing at all affected by the smiles or frowns of a Governor, both\nwhich ought equally to be despised when the interest of the country is\nat stake.\" \"We see men's deeds destroyed, judges arbitrarily\ndisplaced, new courts erected without consent of the legislature, by\nwhich, it seems to me, trials by juries are taken away when a Governor\npleases.\" \"Who, then, in that province can call any thing his own, or\nenjoy any liberty longer than those in the administration will\ncondescend to let him do it?\"\n\n[Footnote 147: 3 Doc. Hist. N.Y. p. 340, 341.]\n\nIn October, 1734, Chief Justice de Lancey gave a charge to the\nGrand-Jury, urging them to indict Mr. Zenger for a libel. He says, \"It\nis a very high aggravation of a libel that it tends to scandalize the\ngovernment by _reflecting on those who are intrusted with the\nadministration of public affairs_, which ... has a direct tendency to\nbreed in the public a dislike of their Governors.\" \"If he who hath\neither read a libel himself, or hath heard it read by another, _do\nafterwards_ maliciously _read or report any part of it in the presence\nof others_, or _lend or show it to another, he is guilty of an\nunlawful publication of it._\"\n\nBut the Judge had not packed the Grand-Jury with sufficient care, and\nso no bill was found. Thereupon the Governor's Council sent a message\nto the General Assembly of New York, complaining of Mr. Zenger's\nJournal as tending \"to alienate the affections of the people of this\nprovince from his majesty's government,\" and asking them to inquire\ninto the said papers and the authors thereof; the Council required\nthat the obnoxious numbers might \"be _burned by the hands of the\ncommon hangman or whipper, near the pillory_.\" The Assembly let them\nlie on the table. The Court of Quarter-sessions was applied to to burn\nthe papers; but as that body refused, the sheriff \"delivered them unto\nthe hands of _his own negro_, and ordered him to put them into the\nfire, which he did.\"\n\nMr. Zenger was imprisoned by a warrant from the Governor, a _lettre de\ncachet_, and \"for several days denied the use of pen, ink, and paper,\nand the liberty of speech with any person.\" An _ex officio_\ninformation was brought against him, charging him with \"malicious and\nseditious libel.\" His counsel, Messrs. Alexander and Smith, took\nexceptions to the proceedings. The Chief Justice would neither hear\nnor allow the exceptions, \"for\" said he, \"you thought to have gained a\ngreat deal of applause and popularity by opposing this court ... but\nyou have brought it to that point, that either we must go from the\nbench or you from the bar, therefore we exclude you.\" So \"for contempt\nof court\" their names were struck from the list of attorneys. The case\ncame on for trial. The clerk of the Court sought to pack his jury, and\ninstead of producing the \"Freeholders' book\" to select the Jury from,\npresented a list of forty-eight persons which he said he had taken\nfrom that book. This Honorable Court knows how easy it is to violate\nthe law in summoning jurors; none knew it better a hundred and twenty\nyears ago. Of the 48 some were not freeholders at all; others held\ncommissions and offices at the Governor's pleasure; others were of the\nlate displaced magistrates who had a grudge against Mr. Zenger for\nexposing their official conduct; besides, there were the governor's\nbaker, tailor, shoemaker, candle-maker, and joiner. But it does not\nappear that this Judge had any Brother-in-law on the list; corruption\nhad not yet reached that height. But that wicked list was set aside\nafter much ado, and a Jury summoned in the legal manner. It may\nastonish the Court but it was really done--and a Jury summoned\naccording to law. The trial went on. Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia\ndefended Mr. Zenger with law, wit, learning, and eloquence. He\nadmitted the fact of printing and publishing the documents, and rested\nthe defence on the truth of their assertions. The Attorney-General,\nMr. Bradley, said, \"supposing they were true, the law says that they\nare not the less libellous for that: nay, indeed, the law says, _their\nbeing true is an aggravation of the crime_.\" He \"did not know what\ncould be said in defence of a man that had so notoriously scandalized\nthe governor and principal magistrates ... by _charging them with\ndepriving the people of their rights and liberties, and taking away\ntrials by juries, and in short putting an end to the law itself_. If\nthis was not a libel, he did not know what was one. Such persons as\ndid take these liberties ... ought to suffer for stirring up sedition\nand discontent among the people.\"\n\nThe Chief Justice declared, \"It is far from being a justification of a\nlibel that the contents thereof are true ... since the _greater\nappearance there is of truth, so much the more provoking is it_!\" \"The\njury may find that Mr. Zenger printed and published these papers, and\n_leave it to the court to judge whether they are libellous_!\"\n\nThat would be to put the dove's neck in the mouth of the fox, and\nallow him to decide whether he would bite it off. Mr. Hamilton\nreplied:--\n\n     \"This of leaving it to the judgment of the court whether the\n     words are libellous or not, in effect renders Juries useless\n     (to say no worse), in many cases.\" \"If the faults, mistakes,\n     nay even the vices of such a person be private and personal,\n     and don't affect the peace of the public, or the liberty or\n     property of our neighbor, it is unmanly and unmannerly to\n     expose them, either by word or writing. But, when a ruler of\n     the people brings his personal failings, but much more his\n     vices, into his administration, and the people find\n     themselves affected by them, either in their liberties or\n     properties, that will alter the case mightily; and all the\n     high things that are said in favor of rulers and of\n     deputies, and upon the side of power, will not be able to\n     stop people's mouths when they feel themselves oppressed, I\n     mean in a free government. It is true _in times past it was\n     a crime to speak truth_; and in that terrible court of\n     Star-Chamber many worthy and brave men suffered for so\n     doing; and yet even in that court, and in those bad times, a\n     great and good man durst say, what I hope will not be taken\n     amiss of me to say in this place, namely, 'The practice of\n     informations for libels is a sword in the hands of a wicked\n     king, and an arrant coward, to cut down and destroy the\n     innocent; the one cannot because of his high station, and\n     the other dares not, because of his want of courage, redress\n     himself in another manner.'\n\n     \"It is a right which all persons claim and are entitled to,\n     to complain when they are hurt; they have a right publicly\n     to remonstrate against the abuses of power, in the strongest\n     terms; to put their neighbors upon their guard against the\n     craft or open violence of men in authority; and to assert\n     with courage the sense they have of the blessings of\n     liberty, the value they put upon it, and their resolution at\n     all hazards to preserve it as one of the greatest blessings\n     Heaven can bestow.\" \"It is a duty which all good men owe to\n     their country, to guard against the unhappy influence of ill\n     men when intrusted with power, and especially against their\n     creatures and dependants, who as they are generally more\n     necessitous, are surely more covetous and cruel.\"\n\nAccording to the Judge the Jury had only one question before them,\n\"Did Zenger publish the words charged in the information?\" That fact\nwas clear; nay, he did not himself deny it. He confessed it in court.\nBut the jury fell back on their rights and duties to decide the\nQuestion of Fact, of Law, and of the Application of the Law to the\nFact, and returned \"NOT GUILTY,\" \"upon which there were three huzzas\nin the Hall.\" Had this Honorable Court been then in existence I\nsuppose it would have talked of indicting the jurors for \"perjury,\"\nand would doubtless have had its labor for its pains. For the Common\nCouncil of New York presented Mr. Hamilton with a costly gold box and\nthe freedom of the city. Gentlemen, this took place one hundred and\ntwenty years ago. Forty years before the Revolution, Andrew Hamilton\nhelped lay the \"brilliant foundation of liberty,\" whereon another\nHamilton was also to raise up noble walls of freedom. Gentlemen of the\nJury, by Wisdom is a house builded, but the foolish plucketh it down\nwith her own hands. Will you allow that to be done? What if the jury\nin 1735 had been faithless? The axe which smote down Zenger in New\nYork, bloody and cruel, would have shorn off the heads of Otis and\nQuincy, and Adams and Hancock at Boston; the family of Scroggs alone\nwould be held in honor in New England.[148]\n\n[Footnote 148: 17 St. Tr. 675.]\n\nGentlemen, it once happened in New York that Governor Nicholson was\noffended with one of the clergymen of the Province. He met him on the\nroad one day, and \"as it was usual with him (under the protection of\nhis commission) used the poor minister with the worst of language,\nthreatened to cut off his ears, slit his nose, and at last to shoot\nhim through the head.\" The minister, \"being a reverend man, continued\nall this time uncovered in the heat of the sun, until he found an\nopportunity to fly for it, and coming to a neighbor's house fell ill\nof a fever and wrote for a doctor,\" relating the facts and concluding\nthat the governor was crazy, for no man in his right mind would behave\nso ill. The doctor showed the letter; the governor brought a\nprosecution against the minister for publishing a \"scandalous, wicked,\nand seditious libel.\" No doubt he could have found a judge even then\nwho would twist the law so as to make the letter \"sedition\" and\n\"libel;\" nay, perhaps he could construct a jury so as to secure a\nconviction, but before it reached trial the prosecution was stopped by\nthe order of Queen Anne.\n\n2. In 1816, in Massachusetts, there occurred the celebrated case of\nCommonwealth _vs._ Bowen, to which I shall again refer in a subsequent\npart of this defence. These are the facts. In September, 1815,\nJonathan Jewett was convicted of murder in Hampshire county,\nMassachusetts, and sentenced to be hanged on the 9th of the following\nNovember. He was confined at Northampton, and hung himself in his cell\non the night preceding the morning appointed for his public execution.\nGeorge Bowen was confined in the same jail, in an apartment adjacent\nto Jewett's, and in such a situation that they could freely converse\ntogether. Bowen repeatedly and frequently advised and urged Jewett to\ndestroy himself and thus disappoint the sheriff and the expectant\npeople. He did so, and the coroner's jury returned that he committed\nsuicide. But nevertheless, Bowen was indicted for the wilful murder of\nJewett. It was charged that he \"feloniously, wilfully, and of his\nmalice aforethought, did counsel, hire, persuade, and procure the said\nJewett the said felony and murder of himself to do and commit;\" or\nthat he himself murdered the said Jewett by hanging him.\n\nAt the trial Attorney-General Perez Morton contended that Bowen \"was\nguilty of _murder as principal_;\" and he cited and relied chiefly on\nthe following authority from the Reports of our old friend Kelyng.\n\n     \"Memorandum, that my brother _Twisden_ showed me a report\n     which he had of a charge given by Justice _Jones_ to the\n     grand-jury, at the King's Bench barre, _Michaelmas Term_, 9\n     _Car._ 1, in which he said, that poisoning another was\n     murder at common law. And the statute of 1 _Ed._ 6, was but\n     declaratory of the common law, and an affirmation of it. If\n     one drinks poison by the provocation of another, and dieth\n     of it, this is murder in the person that persuaded it. And\n     he took this difference. If A. give poison to J.S. to give\n     to J.D., and J.S. knowing it to be poison, give it to J.D.\n     who taketh it in the absence of J.S., and dieth of it; in\n     this case J.S., who gave it to J.D., is principal; and A.\n     who gave the poison to J.S., and was absent when it was\n     taken, is but accessory before the fact. But if A. buyeth\n     poison for J.S., and J.S., in the absence of A., taketh it\n     and dieth of it, in this case A., though he be absent, yet\n     he is principal. So it is if A. giveth poison to B. to give\n     unto C.; and B., not knowing it to be poison, but believing\n     it to be a good medicine, giveth it to C., who dieth of it;\n     in this case A., who is absent, is principal, or else a man\n     should be murdered, and there should be no principal. For\n     B., who knoweth nothing of the poison, is in no fault,\n     though he gave it to C. So if A. puts a sword into the hands\n     of a madman, and bids him kill B. with it, and then A. goeth\n     away, and the madman kills B. with the sword, as A.\n     commanded him, this is murder in A., though absent, and he\n     is principal; for it is no crime in the madman, who did the\n     fact by reason of his madness.\"[149]\n\n[Footnote 149: See the case in Kelyng's Reports (London, 1708), p. 52.\nThe opinion of Justice _Jones_ was only the charge of an inferior\njudge given to the grand-jury in 1634.]\n\nMr. Morton also laid down this as law, \"_the adviser of one who\ncommits a felony of himself is a murderer_.\" He might have added, \"the\nadviser of one who breaks into his own house is a burglar.\"\n\nChief Justice Parker--who once declared that the jury had nothing to\ndo with the harshness of a law--charged the jury that the important\nquestion for them was, Did Bowen's advice induce Jewett to kill\nhimself? if so, they were to find him guilty of wilful murder! \"The\ncommunity has an interest _in the public execution_ of criminals [the\ncrowd having an _interest in the spectacle_] and to take such an one\nout of the reach of the law [by advising him to self-destruction] is\nno trivial offence.\" \"_You are not to consider the atrocity of this\noffence in the least degree diminished by the consideration that\njustice was thirsting for its sacrifice_; and that but a small portion\nof Jewett's earthly existence could, in any event, remain to\nhim.\"[150]\n\n[Footnote 150: 13 Mass. Rep. 356.]\n\nThere was no doubt that Bowen advised Jewett to commit suicide; but\nthe jury, in defiance of the judge's charge and Mr. Kelyng's law,\nnevertheless returned \"NOT GUILTY.\"\n\nHere, Gentlemen, is a remarkable instance of a judge, in private a\nbenevolent man, perverting his official power, and constructing the\ncrime of murder out of advice given to a man to anticipate a public\nexecution by privately hanging himself! The law relied on was the\nMemorandum of the charge to a grand-jury made by a judge who\nnotoriously broke the fundamental laws of England, by declaring that\nthe king had a constitutional right to imprison, at will and as long\nas he liked, any of his subjects without trial, even members of\nParliament for words uttered in public debate; and also the right to\nlevy ship-money contrary to the Acts of Parliament. This charge was\nmade in the tyrannical reign of Charles I. in 1634, by a tyrannical\njudge. There was no report, only _a memorandum_ of it, and that not\nprinted till seventy-four years after! It had not the force of law\neven then: it was only the memorandum of the \"opinion\" of a single\njudge, not even the \"opinion\" of the full court. The memorandum is\ncontained in Kelyng's Book, which Lord Campbell calls \"a folio volume\nof decisions in criminal cases, which are of no value whatever, except\nto make us laugh at some of the silly egotisms with which they\nabound.\"[151] On such authority in 1816 would even a Massachusetts\ncourt, with a judge who was a kindly man in private, dash away the\nlife of a fellow-creature,--with such mockery of law! But, Gentlemen,\nthe jury at that time did not slumber; they set the matter right, and\ndid justice spite of Judge Kelyng and his \"law.\" They made nothing of\nthe judge's charge!\n\n[Footnote 151: 2 Campbell, Judges, 406.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, I will now mention some cases of gross\ninjustice perpetrated by the Federal Courts of the United States.\n\nThe tenth article of amendments to the Constitution provides that\n\"powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor\nprohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States\nrespectively, or to the People.\" The Constitution itself confers no\nCommon Law Jurisdiction on the Government. Neither the People nor\ntheir Representatives had ever decreed the Common Law of England to be\na part of the law of the United States. Yet, spite of the absence of\npositive enactment and the express words of the above amendment to the\nConstitution, the Supreme Court at once assumed this jurisdiction. In\n1799, Chief Justice Ellsworth said, \"the Common Law of this country\nremains the same as it was before the Revolution;\"[152] and proceeded\non that supposition to exercise the powers of English Judges of Common\nLaw, undertaking to punish men for offences which no Act of Congress\nforbid. You see at once what monstrous tyranny would follow from that\nusurpation. Had the English Common Law power of punishing for\n\"seditious libel,\" for example, been allowed to the Federal court,\nGentlemen, you know too well what would follow. But this monstrous\nassumption was presently brought to an ignominious end; and strange as\nit may appear, by one of the judges of the court itself. Samuel Chase\nof Maryland, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence,\nhad been an Anti-Federalist and a strong State-Right's man, as such\ninsisting on a strict construction of the Constitution. Singular as it\nmay appear he was made a Judge in 1796, and what is yet more\nsurprising, in 1798, declared \"the United States as a Federal\ngovernment, had no Common Law,\" and thus ended this claim.[153] But\ntyranny did not end; nay, he himself, a man of uncommon powers and\nlegal attainments, became a most atrocious example of Judicial\ndespotism.\n\n[Footnote 152: Wharton, State Trials, 653. See too Virginia\nResolutions (Richmond, 1850), Preface, xiii. _et seq._; Virginia\nResolutions by Madison, and his Report thereon; Kentucky Resolutions\nby Jefferson, in 4 Eliot's Debates (1836).]\n\n[Footnote 153: Wharton, 197; 3 Dallas, 384; see 5 Hildreth, 230.]\n\n1. In 1791 a direct tax was levied by Act of Congress on all lands and\nhouses; excise officers were to ascertain their value. The \"Alien and\nSedition Laws\" were also passed the same year. The execution of the\nlaw relative to the direct tax was resisted in Northampton county,\nPenn., and some prisoners rescued from an officer of the United\nStates. The President, Mr. Adams, issued his proclamation. In 1799\nJohn Fries was arrested on the charge of treason. The overt act\nalleged was resistance to that one special law of Congress. Judge\nIredell charged the Grand-Jury, \"You have heard the government as\ngrossly abused as if it had been guilty of the vilest tyranny.\" Had he\nread the private correspondence of the Cabinet, he might have found\nother specimens of \"abuse.\" He defended both the Alien and Sedition\nLaws.--They were \"constitutional\" and \"proper.\"[154]\n\n[Footnote 154: See a defence of them in 2 Gibbs's Administration, 74,\n78; also 162.]\n\nMr. Fries was indicted for treason. The Judiciary Act of Congress of\n1789 provides that \"in cases punishable with death the trial shall be\nhad in the county where the offence was committed; or when that cannot\nbe done without great inconvenience, twelve petit jurors at least\nshall be summoned from thence.\" The offence was committed in\nNorthampton county, and he was indicted and brought to trial in\nPhiladelphia county, nor could the court be induced to comply with the\nstatute!\n\nThe government laid down the law and constructed treason with the\nusual ingenuity of officials working by the job. Judge Kelyng's loose\nopinion that an attack on a brothel was high treason, was cited by Mr.\nRawle, the District Attorney, as good law.[155] What \"in England is\ncalled constructive levying of war, in this country must be called\ndirect levying of war.\" Judge Peters charged that though force was\nnecessary to constitute the crime of treason, yet \"the quantum of\nforce is immaterial,\" of course it may be wielding a wheat straw, or a\nword, I suppose. \"The doctrine of constructive treason has produced\nmuch real mischief in another country\" [England]. \"The _greater part\nof the objections to it are irrelevant here_.\"\n\n[Footnote 155: Wharton, 539; Kelyng, R. 70, 75.]\n\nFries was found guilty. His counsel moved for a new trial, on the\nground that before the trial one of the jurors had declared, \"Fries\nought to be hung;\" \"I myself shall be in danger unless we hang them\nall;\" that the jurors were irregularly drawn, and the trial was not\nheld in the county where the offence was committed. Judge Iredell\nruled that it was \"_a high contempt_ at this time _to call for a\nrenewal of an argument whereon a solemn, decisive opinion was\ndelivered_.\" Judge Peters declared the juror had \"said no more than\nall friends to the laws and the government were warranted in thinking\nand saying.\" Yet a new trial was granted.\n\nThe new trial was held before Judge Chase, who had, as Mr. Wharton\nsays, a \"singular instinct for tumults which scents it at a distance\n... and irresistibly impels a participation in it,\" \"moving\nperpetually with a mob at his heels.\" Yet \"apart from his criminal\njurisdiction he was reckoned a wise and impartial judge, a master of\nthe Common Law, and a thorough and indefatigable administrator of\npublic functions.\" \"It was this despotic ardor of temperament ...\nwhich made him, when a young man, employ with resolute audacity the\nengine of popular revolt, and which led him when older, and when in\npossession of that power against which he had so steadily warred, to\nwield with the same vigor the sword of constituted authority.\"[156]\nGentlemen, he was like many that this Honorable Court perhaps have\nknown, who were privateering Democrats in 1812, and Kidnapping Whigs\nin 1850. To him we are indebted for the invaluable decision that the\nUnited States courts have no Common Law jurisdiction.\n\n[Footnote 156: 4 Hildreth, 571; 1 Gibbs, 300; 2 Gibbs, 419.]\n\nAt this new trial he treated the defendants' counsel in such a manner\nthat they abandoned the case, and left the Prisoner without defence.\nThe District Attorney, taking his law from Kelyng and similar servants\nof British despots, laid it down that treason \"may consist in\n_assembling together in numbers_, and by actual force, or by terror,\n_opposing any particular law_;\" \"_Force need not be used_ to manifest\nthis spirit of rebellion.\" \"Even _if the matter made a grievance of\nwas illegal, the demolition of it_ in this way _was_, nevertheless,\n_treason_,\" \"a rising with intent by force to prevent the execution of\na law ... preventing the marshal executing his warrants, and\npreventing the other officers ... amounted to levying war.\" \"In short\nan opposition to the acts of Congress in whole or in part [that is to\n_any one law_] ... either by collecting numbers, or by a display of\nforce ... which should operate ... either throughout the United\nStates, or in _any part thereof to procure a repeal or a suspension_\nof the law ... this offence be considered to be _strictly_ treason.\"\n\nJudge Chase laid it down as law not to be questioned in his court,\n\"that any ... rising of any body of the people ... to attain by force\n... any object of a great public nature ... is a levying of war:\"\n\"any such ... rising to resist ... the execution of any statutes of\nUnited States ... or for any other object of a general nature or\nnational concern, under any pretence as that the statute was unjust\n... or unconstitutional is a levying war;\" \"_any force ... will\nconstitute the crime_ of levying war.\"\n\nIf that be law, then an old negro woman who, with a dishcloth,\nfrightens officer Butman away from kidnapping her granddaughter in\nSouthac street, does thereby levy war against the United States and\ncommits the crime of treason.\n\nThe jury, overborne by the assumptions of the judge, or ignorant of\ntheir duties and their rights, allowed this tyrannical court to have\nits way, surrendered the necks of the people, and brought in a verdict\nof guilty. Judge Chase made an insolent address to the prisoner and\nsentenced him to death. But Mr. Adams, with a remarkable degree of\njustice, gave him a full pardon, and drew down upon himself thereby\nthe wrath of his cabinet.[157]\n\n[Footnote 157: Wheaton, 458; 9 Adams's Works, 57; 2 Gibbs, 360; 5\nHildreth, 366; Chase's Trial, 18.]\n\n2. In 1788 Mathew Lyon, a native of Ireland, a Revolutionary soldier,\na member of congress, and editor of a newspaper in Vermont, was\nbrought to trial under the Sedition Law, for a false, malicious, and\nseditious libel. He had published in his newspaper a somewhat severe\nattack on the Federalists then in power. The article, alleged to be\n\"seditious,\" was a letter written and mailed at the seat of government\nseven days before, and published nine days after, the passage of the\nSedition Law itself. It was as much a political trial, Gentlemen, as\nthis--purely political. Judge Patterson--United States Circuit Judge\nof Vermont--charged that the jury had nothing whatever to do with the\nconstitutionality of the Sedition Law. \"Congress has said that the\nauthor and publisher of seditious libels is to be punished.\" \"The only\nquestion you are to determine is ... Did Mr. Lyon publish the\nwriting?... Did he do so seditiously, with the intent of making odious\nor contemptible the President and government, and bringing them both\ninto disrepute?\"\n\nMr. Lyon was found guilty, and punished by a fine of $1,000 and\nimprisonment for four months. The \"Seditious Libel\" would now be\nthought a quite moderate Editorial or \"Letter from our Correspondent.\"\nHis imprisonment was enforced with such rigor that his constituents\nthreatened to tear down the jail, which he prevented.[158]\n\n[Footnote 158: Wharton, 333; 4 Jefferson's Works (1853), 262.]\n\n3. In 1799 Thomas Cooper, a native of England, residing at\nNorthumberland, Pennsylvania, published a handbill reflecting severely\non the conduct of President Adams. He was prosecuted by an\nInformation _ex officio_, in the Circuit Court for Pennsylvania, and\nbrought to trial before Judge Chase, already referred to, charged with\na \"false, scandalous, and malicious attack\" on the President. Mr.\nChase charged the jury, \"A Republican government can only be destroyed\nin two ways: the introduction of luxury, or the licentiousness of the\npress. This latter is the more slow, but most sure and certain means\nof bringing about the destruction of the government.\" He made a fierce\nand violent harangue, arguing the case against the defendant with the\nspirit which has since become so notorious in the United States courts\nin that State. The pliant jury found Mr. Cooper guilty, and he was\nfined $400 and sent to jail for six months. He subsequently became a\njudge in Pennsylvania, as conspicuous for judicial tyranny as Mr.\nChase himself, and was removed by Address of the Legislature from his\nseat, but afterwards went to South Carolina where he became Professor\nat her college, and a famous nullifier in 1830.[159]\n\n[Footnote 159: Wharton, 659.]\n\n4. In 1799, or 1800, Mr. Callender, a native of England, then residing\nat Richmond, in Virginia--a base and mean fellow, as his whole history\nproved, depraved in morals and malignant in temper--published a\npamphlet called \"The Prospect before us,\" full of the common abuse of\nMr. Adams and his administration. He was indicted for a false,\nmalicious, and seditious libel, and brought to trial before Judge\nChase who pressed the Sedition Law with inquisitorial energy and\nexecuted it with intolerant rigor.[160] As he started for Richmond to\nhold the trial, he declared \"he would teach the lawyers in Virginia\nthe difference between the liberty and the licentiousness of the\npress.\" He told the marshal \"not to put any of those creatures called\nDemocrats on the jury,\"--it does not appear that he had his own\nBrother-in-Law on it however;--\"he likened himself to a schoolmaster\nwho was to turn the unruly boys of the Virginia courts over his knee\nand give them a little wholesome chastisement.\"\n\n[Footnote 160: Wharton, 45, 688; Chase's Trial, 33; 4 Jefferson, 445,\n447.]\n\nSome of the ablest lawyers in Virginia were engaged for the defence.\nBut they could not secure any decent regard to the common forms of\nlaw, or to the claims of justice. He would not grant the delay always\nusual in such cases, and indispensable to the defence. He refused to\nallow the defendants' counsel to examine their most important witness,\nand allowed them to put none but written questions approved of by him!\nThe defendant was not allowed to prove the truth of any statements,\nalleged to be libellous, by establishing the truth of one part through\none witness and of another through a different one. He would not allow\nhim to argue to the jury that the law was unconstitutional. \"We all\nknow that juries have the right to decide the law as well as the fact,\nand the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.\" \"Then,\" said\nMr. Wirt, \"since the jury have a right to consider the law, and since\nthe Constitution is law, it is certainly syllogistic that the jury\nhave a right to consider the Constitution;\" and the judge exclaimed,\n\"a _non sequitur_, Sir!\" \"Sit down, Sir!\" Mr. Wirt sat down. The judge\ndeclared \"a right is given to the jury to determine what the law is in\nthe case before them, and not to decide whether a statute is a law or\nnot, or whether it is void, under an opinion that it is\nunconstitutional.\" \"It appears to me the right now claimed has a\ndirect tendency to dissolve the Union.\" \"No citizen of knowledge and\ninformation ... will believe, without very strong and indubitable\nproof, that Congress will, intentionally, make any law in violation of\nthe Federal Constitution.\" \"If such a case should happen, the mode of\nredress is pointed out in the Constitution.\" It was obvious that\nCongress had made laws in violation of the Constitution, and he\ninsisted that the jury should enforce those laws against their own\nconscience. After all his violent injustice he of course declared \"the\ndecisions of courts of justice will not be influenced by political and\n_local_ principles and prejudices.\" The packed jury found the prisoner\nguilty. He was fined $200 and sent to jail for nine months.\n\nBut Virginia was too high-spirited to bear this. Nay, Gentlemen of the\nJury, the whole Nation then was too fond of justice and liberty to\nallow such wickedness to proceed in the name of law. \"Virginia was in\na flame;\" the lawyers \"throughout the country were stung to the\nquick.\" They had not been so long under the slave-power then as now.\nAt this day, Gentlemen, such conduct, such insolence, yet more\noppressive, rouses no general indignation in the lawyers. But then the\nAlien and Sedition Laws ruined the Administration, and sent Mr.\nAdams--who yet never favored them--from his seat; his successor, Mr.\nJefferson, says, \"_I discharged every person under punishment_, or\nprosecution, _under the Sedition Law, because I considered and now\nconsider, that law to be a nullity as absolute and as palpable as if\nCongress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden\nimage_.\"[161] Judge Chase was impeached by the House of\nRepresentatives, tried by the Senate, and only escaped condemnation by\nthe prejudice of the political partisans. As it was, a majority were\nin favor of his condemnation. But the Constitution, properly, requires\ntwo thirds. Judge Chase escaped by this provision. But his influence\nwas gone.\n\n[Footnote 161: 4 Jefferson, Correspondence in Wharton, 721.]\n\nThe Alien and Sedition Laws, which sought to gag the People, and make\na Speech a \"misdemeanor,\" soon went to their own place; and on the 4th\nof July, 1840, Congress passed a law to pay Mr. Lyon and others the\nfull amount of the fine and costs levied upon them, with interest to\nthe date of payment: a Committee of the House had made a report on\nLyon's case, stating that \"the law was unconstitutional, null, and\nvoid, passed under a mistaken exercise of undelegated power, and that\nthe mistake ought to be remedied by returning the fine so obtained,\nwith interest thereon.\"[162] Just now, Gentlemen, Judge Chase and the\nprinciples of the Sedition Law appear to be in high favor with the\nFederal Courts: but one day the fugitive slave bill will follow the\nAlien and Sedition Bill, and Congress will refund all the money it has\nwrenched unjustly from victims of the Court. There is a To-morrow\nafter to-day, and a Higher Law which crushes all fugitive slave bills\ninto their kindred dust.\n\n[Footnote 162: 2 Sess. 26th, Cong. Doc. 86, Ho. Rep.; Wharton, 344,\n679. See also Virginia Resolutions (1850), and the remarks in the\nDebates. Then Virginia was faithful to State Rights, and did a service\nto the cause of Liberty which no subsequent misconduct should make us\nforget.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen, allow me to vary this narrative of British and American\ndespotism by an example from a different nation. I will refresh you\nwith a case more nearly resembling that before you; it is an instance\nof German tyranny. In 1853, Dr. Gervinus, Professor of History in the\nUniversity of Heidelberg in Germany, published this little volume of\nabout 200 pages,[163] \"An Introduction to the History of the 19th\nCentury.\" Mr. Gervinus is one of the most enlightened men in the\nworld, a man of great genius for the philosophical investigation of\nhuman history, and enriched with such culture and learning as is not\ncommon even in that home of learned men. His book, designed only for\nscholars, and hardly intelligible to the majority of readers even in\nAmerica, sets forth this great fact,--The democratic tendency of\nmankind shown in all history.\n\n[Footnote 163: 2 Einleitung in die Geschichte des neunzehnten\nJahrhunderts; Leipzig, 1853. 8vo. pp. 181.]\n\nGervinus was seized and brought to trial on the 24th of February,\n1853, at Mannheim, charged with publishing a work against\nconstitutional monarchy, intending thereby to depose the lawful head\nof the State, the Grand Duke Charles Leopold, and with changing and\nendangering the constitution, \"disturbing the public tranquillity and\norder, and incurring the guilt of High Treason.\" In short he was\ncharged with \"obstructing an officer\" and attempting to \"dissolve the\nUnion,\" with \"levying war.\" For his trial the judge purposely selected\na small room, though four times larger than what now circumscribes the\ndignity of this Honorable Court; he did not wish the people to hear\nGervinus's defence. But I will read you some extracts from the preface\nto the English translation of his book:--\n\n     \"I offer nothing purely theoretical or speculative, and as\n     few opinions and conclusions as can possibly be given in a\n     historical narrative. The work finally reaches a period\n     when the Present and the Future become its subject, and when\n     therefore it can no longer relate any events of history\n     which have been completed; and is confined to the simple\n     statement of _the Fact_ that opposite opinions exist, and\n     may yet be advanced, concerning the problem of the Future.\n     These opinions are themselves weighed against one another,\n     but their value is not determined by dogmas, or phrases, or\n     declamations, but simply by facts. If the balance incline\n     towards a more liberal form of government, towards\n     democratic institutions, and therefore towards\n     self-government, and the participation of the many rather\n     than of the few in the affairs of the State, I am not to\n     blame, nor is it my ordinance, but that of History and of\n     Providence. My work is only (what all historical narrative\n     should be) a vindication of the decrees of Providence; and\n     to revolt against them appears to me neither pious in a\n     moral point of view, nor wise in a political. That which is\n     proved by the most remarkable facts of History, will not be\n     altered in the smallest degree by the suppression of my\n     work, or by my condemnation. The charge on this head is an\n     absurdity, since no rational end can be attained by it. It\n     aims at the suppression of a truth which, should _I_ not\n     tell it, will be ever louder and louder proclaimed by the\n     _Facts of History_.\n\n     \"To believe such a thing possible is a proof how limited an\n     idea exists of the eager inquiry going on after\n     knowledge--and truth, the source and origin of all\n     knowledge. There will always be so eager a demand for a\n     history of the Present time, that, even should _I_ be\n     prevented, ten others would arise, only to proclaim the\n     louder, and to repeat the oftener, the truth which is here\n     suppressed. To believe that the philosophy of History can be\n     silenced by persecution, argues an entire ignorance even of\n     the external mechanism of philosophy. A political pamphlet,\n     intended to serve a particular purpose at a particular\n     period, may be suppressed. The author of such a pamphlet,\n     bent on agitation, can easily console himself for its\n     suppression. It has cost him little time and trouble; it is\n     only a means to an end, one means out of many means, any of\n     which, when this is lost, will serve the author as well. But\n     it is not thus with philosophical works, it is not thus with\n     the work before me. This book is deeply rooted in the\n     vocation of my whole life, and is the end of my\n     philosophical research; I have prepared myself for it by the\n     labor of years, and the labor of years will be necessary for\n     its completion. I have reached a time of life when I can\n     neither change my vocation, nor even cease to labor in this\n     vocation. I am also so imbued with my philosophy, that even\n     if I could change I would not. I may be hindered in the\n     prosecution of this work for four months, but in the fifth I\n     shall return to it. For a judicial sentence cannot arrest\n     (like a mere pamphlet) the philosophical scheme interwoven\n     into a whole existence.\"\n\n     \"If it is possible that this 'Introduction' can be condemned\n     in Germany, that it can be prohibited, that by these means\n     the work should be strangled in its birth, then the\n     philosophy of history has no longer a place in Germany. The\n     tribunal of Baden will have given the first blow, in\n     pronouncing judgment on a matter which is purely\n     philosophical, and Germany, whose freedom of philosophical\n     research has been her pride and her boast, of which even the\n     various administrations of the nation have never been\n     jealous, will receive a shock such as she never before\n     sustained.\"\n\n     \"My book is on so strictly a philosophical plan, and treats\n     of such comprehensive historical questions, that, properly,\n     no judgment of any value could be pronounced upon it but by\n     the professed historian, of whom there are not two dozen in\n     all Germany. Among them there has not, to this hour, been\n     found one competent to give an opinion in a few weeks on a\n     book which is the fruit of half a life. On the other hand,\n     there was soon a whole set of fanatical partisans and\n     obstreperous bunglers in a neighboring press, who in eight\n     days had condemned this work, in some instances, by calling\n     it an historical commonplace, and in others, a political\n     pamphlet with '_destructive tendencies_.' At the same time,\n     and in a manner easily accounted for, under the influence\n     of such an expression of public opinion, and almost before\n     any other could make itself heard, accusations were made\n     against the book, and it was confiscated. Let no one take it\n     amiss if, in the urgency of my defence, _I_ for a moment lay\n     aside modesty, as far as such modesty might prove injurious\n     to my cause. My work demonstrates a law of historical\n     development, which I do not claim as my property, or as\n     originating in me, but which has been demonstrated more than\n     two thousand years ago by the greatest thinker of all ages,\n     derived from observations on the history of the Grecian\n     State. To repeat a law which has been already demonstrated,\n     ought to appear but a trifling circumstance, and indeed\n     might merit the term of an historical commonplace; we could\n     even suppose that it might be mentioned in a popular as well\n     as in a philosophical book. Nevertheless this law has\n     scarcely been twice repeated in the course of two thousand\n     years, and then only by two imitators, who scarcely\n     understood its whole purport, though they were the most\n     thinking heads of the most thinking nations--Machiavelli in\n     Italy, and Hegel in Germany. I solemnly ask of the whole\n     philosophical world if my words can be gainsaid, and to name\n     for me the third, by whom the Aristotelian law, of which I\n     speak, has been repeated and understood. I have ventured to\n     consider the thought of Aristotle, and to apply it to the\n     history of modern European States, and I found it confirmed\n     by a series of developments which have occupied two thousand\n     years. I also found that the whole series of events\n     confirmatory of this law (itself deduced from experience)\n     are not yet entirely fulfilled. Like the astronomer, who,\n     from a known fraction of the path of a newly discovered\n     planet, calculates its whole course, I ventured to divine\n     that which is still wanting, and which may yet take\n     centuries to complete. I turned silently to those whose\n     profession was the study of history, to prove the justice of\n     my calculations; I handed my book over to coming generations\n     and coming centuries, with the silent demand, when the\n     required series of events shall be fulfilled, then to\n     pronounce the final sentence, whether this law, and its\n     purport as now explained, be just or not. This is the\n     philosophical character, and these the contents of my\n     book--no more than was indispensably necessary to make this\n     calculation. And now comes the charge, and pronounces that\n     in the character of a pamphleteer, I have endeavored to\n     excite a revolution in the Grand Duchy of Baden, or in the\n     German Confederation.\"\n\nOn the 8th of March--it should have been the _fifth_--the thing came\nto a close. On account of \"his hostility to constitutional monarchy,\nand his declaration of its weakness, his denial of its good-will\n[towards the people], and his representing that the American Democracy\nwas a universal necessity and a desirable fact,\" sentence was\npronounced against him, condemning him to an imprisonment of four\nmonths, and ordering his book to be destroyed. There was no Jury of\nthe People to try him! Here our own Court has an admirable precedent\nfor punishing me for a word.[164]\n\n[Footnote 164: See Preface to English Translation of Gervinus (London,\n1853); and Allg. Lit. Zeitung fuer 1853, pp. 867, 883, 931, 946, 994,\n1131.]\n\nBut even in Massachusetts, within twenty years, an attempt was made to\npunish a man for his opinions on a matter of history which had no\nconnection with politics, or even with American Slavery. In July,\n1834, Rev. George R. Noyes, a Unitarian Minister at Petersham, a\nretired scholar, a blameless man of fine abilities and very large\nattainments in theological learning, wrote an elaborate article in the\nChristian Examiner, the organ of the \"Liberal Christians\" in America,\nin which he maintained that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah\npredicted in the Old Testament. \"It is difficult,\" said this\naccomplished Theologian, \"to point out any predictions which have been\nproperly fulfilled in Jesus.\" Peter and Paul found the death and\nresurrection of Jesus in the 16th Psalm, but they \"were in an error,\"\nwhich should not surprise us, for \"the Evangelists and Apostles never\nclaimed to be _inspired reasoners and interpreters_;\" \"they partook of\nthe errors and prejudices of their age in things in which Christ had\nnot instructed them.\" \"The commonly received doctrine of the\ninspiration of all the writings included in the Bible, is a millstone\nhung round its neck [the neck of Christianity], sufficient to sink\nit.\"\n\nThe article was written with remarkable candor and moderation, and\nindicated a devout and holy purpose in the author. The doctrines were\nby no means new. But Hon. James T. Austin, was then Attorney-General\nof the State; his attention being called to it by an anonymous writer\nin a newspaper, he attacked Mr. Noyes's article, thus giving vent to\nhis opinion thereon: \"He considers its learning very ill bestowed, its\nresearches worse than useless, and that its tendency is to strike down\none of the pillars on which the fabric of Christianity is supported.\"\n\"Its tendency is to shock the pious,--confound the unlearned,--overwhelm\nthose who are but moderately versed in the recondite investigations of\ntheology, and above all to open an arsenal whence all the small wits\nof the infidel army may supply themselves with arms. Its greater evil\nis to disarm the power of public opinion.\" \"It certainly disarms to a\ngreat degree the power of the law.\"[165]\n\n[Footnote 165: 16 Examiner, 321; 17 ibid. 127; Boston Atlas, July 8th\nand 9th, 1834.]\n\nGentlemen, suppose it had not been necessary to submit the matter to a\nJury, what would the right of freedom of conscience be worth in the\nhands of such a man, \"dressed in a little brief authority?\" It was\nsaid at the time that the author was actually presented to the\nGrand-Jury, and an attempt made to procure an indictment for\nBlasphemy, or Misdemeanor. I know not how true the rumor was. The\nthreat of prosecution came to nought, and Dr. Noyes, one of the most\nscholarly men in America, is now Professor of Theology in the Divinity\nSchool at Cambridge, and an honor to the liberal sect which maintains\nhim there.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen, when laws are unjustly severe, denouncing a punishment\nhighly excessive, the juries refuse to convict. Examples of this are\nvery common in trials for capital offences, now that the conscience of\nmoral men has become so justly hostile to the judicial shedding of\nblood. There is no doubt with the Jurors as to the Fact, none as to\nthe Law; but they say it is unjust to apply such a law to such a fact\nand hang a man. The Jury exercising their moral discretion, spite of\nthe judge, and spite of the special statute or custom, are yet\nfaithful to their official obligation and manly duty, and serve\nJustice, the ultimate End and Purpose of Law, whereto the statutes and\ncustoms are only provisional means. Foolish judges accuse such juries\nof \"Perjury;\" but it is clear enough, Gentlemen, where the falseness\nis.\n\n\"Do you take notice of that juryman dressed in blue?\" said one of the\njudges at the old Bailey to Judge Nares. \"Yes.\" \"Well, then, take my\nword for it, there will not be a single conviction to-day for any\ncapital offence.\" So it turned out. The \"gentleman in blue\" thought it\nunjust and wicked, contrary to the ultimate Purpose of law, to hang\nmen, and he was faithful to his juror's oath in refusing to convict.\nOf course he did not doubt of the Fact, or the Law, only of the\nJustice of its Application. One day there will be a good many\n\"gentlemen in blue.\"\n\nTo prevent this moral independence of the jury from defeating the\nimmoral aim of the government, or of the judges, or the\nlegislature--the court questions the jurors beforehand, and drives off\nfrom the panel all who think the statute unfit for such application.\nGentlemen, that is a piece of wicked tyranny. It would be as unfair to\nexclude such men from the legislature, or from the polls, as from the\njury box. In such cases the defendant is not tried by his \"country,\"\nbut by a jury packed for the purpose of convicting him, spite of the\nmoral feelings of the people.\n\nSometimes the statute is so framed that the jurors must by their\nverdict tell an apparent falsehood, or commit a great injustice. When\nit was a capital offence in England to steal forty shillings, and\nevidence made it plain that the accused had actually stolen eight or\nten times that value, you all know how often the jurors brought in a\nverdict of \"_stealing thirty-nine shillings_.\"[166] They preferred to\ntell what seemed to be a lie, rather than kill a man for stealing\nfifteen or twenty dollars. The verdict of NOT GUILTY would have been\nperfectly just in form as in substance, and conformable to their\nofficial oath.\n\n[Footnote 166: See several cases of this kind in Sullivan on Abolition\nof Punishment of Death, (N.Y. 1841), 73. Rantoul's Works, 459.]\n\nGentlemen, tyrannical rulers, and their servants, despotic and corrupt\njudges, have sought to frighten the juries from the exercise of all\ndiscretion--either moral or intellectual. To that end they threaten\nthem before the verdict, and punish them when they decide contrary to\nthe wish of the tyrant. To make the jurors agree in a unanimous\nverdict, they were kept without \"fire or water or food or bed\" until\nthey came to a conclusion; if eleven were of one mind and the twelfth\nnot convinced, the refractory juror was fined or put in jail.[167] If\nthe verdict, when unanimously given, did not satisfy the judge or his\nmaster, the jurors were often punished.[168] I have already shown you\nhow the juries were treated--with fine and imprisonment--who acquitted\nThrockmorton and Penn.[169] When John Lilburne was tried for his life\nin 1653, he censured the authorities which prosecuted him and appealed\nto the \"honorable Jury, the Keepers of the Liberties of England:\" they\nfound him Not Guilty, and were themselves brought before the council\nof State for punishment. \"Thomas Greene of Snow-hill, tallow chandler,\nForeman of the Jury, being asked what the grounds and reasons were\nthat moved him to find ... Lilburne not guilty, ... saith '_that he\ndid discharge his conscience in what he then did, and that he will\ngive no further answer to any questions which shall be asked him upon\nthat matter_.'\"[170] This was in the time of Cromwell; but as the\nPeople were indignant at his tyrannical conduct in that matter, and\nhis insolent attempt to punish the jurors, they escaped without fine\nor imprisonment. Indeed more than a hundred and twenty-five years\nbefore, Thomas Smith had declared \"such doings to be very violent,\ntyrannical, and contrary to the liberty and customs of the realm of\nEngland.\" Sir Matthew Hale said at a later day, \"It would be a most\nunhappy case for the judge himself, if the prisoner's fate depended\nupon his directions; unhappy also for the prisoner; for if the judge's\nopinion must rule the verdict, the trial by jury would be\nuseless.\"[171] Judge Kelyng was particularly hostile to the jury,\nthrowing aside \"all regard to moderation and decency.\" He compelled\nthe grand-jury of Somersetshire to find an indictment against their\nconsciences, reproaching Sir Hugh Wyndham, the foreman, as the \"Head\nof a Faction.\" He told the jury, \"You are all my servants, and I will\nmake the best in England stoop!\" He said it was a \"misdemeanor\" for\nthem to discriminate between murder and manslaughter; that was for the\ncourt to determine. But, Gentlemen, it does not appear that he had his\nbrother-in-law on that grand-jury. Several persons were indicted for\n\"attending a conventicle;\" the jury acquitted them contrary to his\nwish, and he fined them $334 apiece, and put them in jail till it was\npaid. On another occasion, this servile creature of Charles II. fined\nand imprisoned all the jurors because they convicted of _manslaughter_\na man whom he wanted to hang. But for this conduct he was accused in\nthe House of Commons, and brought to answer for it at their bar.[172]\n\n[Footnote 167: Forsyth, 241, 243.]\n\n[Footnote 168: Thomas Smith, Commonwealth, (London, 1589,) b. iii. c.\n1. Hargrave, in 6 St. Tr. 1019.]\n\n[Footnote 169: See above, p. 95. 1 St. Tr. 901; 6 St. Tr. 967, 969,\n999; 21 St. Tr. 925.]\n\n[Footnote 170: 1 St. Tr. 445.]\n\n[Footnote 171: 6 St. Tr. 967, note; Bushell's Case, Ibid. 999, and\nHargrave's note, 1013.]\n\n[Footnote 172: 2 Campbell, Justices, 405; 6 St. Tr. 910; Kelyng, 50; 3\nHallam, 6, note; Commons Journals, 16 Oct. 1667.]\n\nIn 1680 Chief Justice Scroggs was brought up before the House of\nCommons for discharging \"a refractory grand-jury\"--such an one as was\ndischarged in Boston last July: Sir Francis Winnington said, \"If the\njudges instead of acting by law shall be acted by their own ambition,\nand endeavor to get promotion rather by worshipping the rising sun\nthan doing justice, this nation will soon be reduced to a miserable\ncondition.\" \"As faults committed by judges are of more dangerous\nconsequence than others to the public, so there do not want precedents\nof severer chastisements for them than for others.\"[173]\n\n[Footnote 173: 4 Parl. Hist. 1224.]\n\nBut spite of the continual attempt to destroy the value of the trial\nby jury, and take from the People their ancient, sevenfold shield, the\nprogress of liberty is perpetual. Now and then there arose lawyers and\njudges like Sir Matthew Hale, Holt, Vaughan, Somers, Camden, and\nErskine, who reached out a helping hand. Nay, politicians came up to\nits defence. But the great power which has sustained and developed it\nis the sturdy and unconquerable Love of individual Liberty which is\none of the most marked characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon, whether\nBriton or American. The Common People of England sent Juries, as well\nas regiments of Ironsides, to do battle for the Right. Gentlemen, let\nus devoutly thank God for this Safeguard of Freedom, and take heed\nthat it suffers no detriment in our day, but serves always the Higher\nLaw of the Infinite God.\n\nNow, Gentlemen of the Jury, I come to the end.\n\n\nIV. OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS SPECIAL CASE, UNITED STATES VERSUS\nTHEODORE PARKER.\n\nHere, Gentlemen, I shall speak of three things.\n\n(I.) Of the Fugitive Slave Bill.\n\nAt the close of the Revolution there was a contradiction in the\nnational consciousness: the People were divided between the Idea of\nFreedom and the Idea of Slavery. There consequently ensued a struggle\nbetween the two elements. This has continued ever since the Treaty of\nPeace in 1783.\n\nTwice the Idea of Freedom has won an important victory: in 1787\nSlavery was prohibited in the North-West Territory; in 1808 the\nAfrican Slave Trade was abolished. Gentlemen, this is all that has\nbeen done for seventy-two years; the last triumph of American Freedom\nover American Slavery was forty-seven years ago!\n\nBut the victories of Slavery have been manifold: in 1787 Slavery came\ninto the Constitution,--it was left in the individual States as a part\nof their \"Republican form of government;\" the slaves were counted\nfractions of men, without the personal rights of integral humanity,\nand so to be represented by their masters; and the rendition of\nfugitive slaves was provided for. In 1792 out of old territory a new\nSlave State was made and Kentucky came into the Union. Tennessee\nfollowed in 1796, Mississippi in 1817, Alabama in 1819, and thus four\nSlave States were newly made out of soil which the Declaration of\nIndependence covered with ideal freedom. In 1793 the Federal\ngovernment took Slavery under its special patronage and passed the\nfirst fugitive slave bill for the capture of such as should escape\nfrom bondage in one State, and flee to another. In 1803 Louisiana was\npurchased and Slavery left in that vast territory; thus the first\nexpansion of our borders was an extension of bondage,--out of that\nsoil three great States, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, have since\nbeen made, all despotic, with more than half a million of Americans\nfettered there to-day. Florida was purchased as slave soil, and in\n1845 made a State with perpetual Slavery written in its Constitution.\nIn 1845 Texas was annexed and Slavery extended over nearly four\nhundred thousand square miles of once free soil; in 1848 Slavery was\nspread over California, Utah, and New Mexico. Here were seven great\nvictories of Slavery over Freedom.\n\nAt first it seemed doubtful which was master in the federal councils;\nbut in 1820, in a great battle--the Missouri Compromise--Slavery\ntriumphed, and has ever since been master. In 1845 Texas was annexed,\nand Slavery became the open, acknowledged, and most insolent master.\nThe rich, intelligent, and submissive North only registers the decrees\nof the poor, the ignorant, but the controlling South; accepts for\nOfficers such as the master appoints, for laws what the Slave-driver\ncommands. The Slave-Power became predominant in American politics,\nbusiness, literature, and \"Religion.\"\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, do you doubt what I say? Look at this Honorable\nCourt,--at its Judges, its Attorney, at its Marshal, and its Marshal's\nGuard: they all hold their offices by petty serjeantry of menial\nservice rendered to the Slave-Power. It would be an insult to any one\nof this august fraternity to hint that he had the faintest respect\nfor the great Principles of American Liberty, or any love of justice\nfor all men. I shall not be guilty of that \"contempt of court.\"\nGentlemen, I had expected that this Court would be solemnly opened\nwith prayer. I knew whom the Slave-Power would select as its priest to\n\"intercede with Heaven.\" I expected to hear the Rev. Nehemiah Adams,\nD.D., ask the God he worships and serves to take \"a South-side view of\nAmerican Slavery\" in general, and in special of this prosecution of a\nminister of the Christian Religion for attempting to keep the Golden\nRule. Should the Court hereafter indulge its public proclivity to\nprayer, that eminent divine will doubtless be its advocate--fit\nmediator for a Court which knows no Higher Law.\n\nWell, Gentlemen, that sevenfold triumph was not enough. Slavery will\nnever be contented so long as there is an inch of free soil in the\nUnited States! New victories must be attempted. Mr. Toombs has\ndeclared to this noble Advocate of Justice and Defender of Humanity,\n[John P. Hale] who renews the virtuous glories of his illustrious\nnamesake, Sir Matthew Hale, that, \"Before long the master will sit\ndown with his slaves at the foot of Bunker Hill Monument.\" But one\nthing disturbed our masters at the South--the concubine runs away from\nher lusty lord, the mulatto slave child from her white father; I have\nhad the \"best blood of Virginia,\" fugitive children of her \"first\nfamilies\" in my own house, and have given many a dollar to help the\nsons and daughters of \"Southern Democrats\" enjoy a taste of Northern\nDemocracy. The slaves would run away. The law of 1793 was not adequate\nto keep or catch these African Christians who heeded not the Southern\ncommand, \"Slaves, obey your masters.\" The Decision of the Supreme\nCourt in the Prigg case,[174] showed the disposition of the Federal\nGovernment, and took out of the hands of the individual States the\ndefence of their own citizens. Still the slaves would run away. In\n1849 there were more than five hundred fugitives from Southern\nDemocracy in Boston--and their masters could not catch them. What a\nmisfortune! Boston retained $200,000 of human Property of the\nChristian and chivalric South! Surely the Union was \"in danger.\"\n\n[Footnote 174: 16 Peters, 616.]\n\nIn 1850 came the fugitive slave bill. When first concocted, its\nauthor,--a restless politician, a man of small mind and mean\ncharacter, with \"Plantation manners,\"--thought it was \"too bad to\npass.\" He designed it not for an actual law, but an insult to the\nNorth so aggravating that she must resist the outrage, and then there\nwould be an opportunity for some excitement and agitation at the\nSouth--and perhaps some \"nullification\" in South Carolina and\nVirginia; and in that general fermentation who knows what scum would\nbe thrown up! Even Mr. Clay \"never expected the law would be\nenforced.\" \"No Northern _gentleman_,\" said he, \"will ever help return\na fugitive slave.\" It seemed impossible for the bill to pass.\n\nBut at that time Massachusetts had in the Senate of the nation a\ndisappointed politician, a man of great understanding, of most mighty\npowers of speech,--\n\n     \"Created hugest that swim the ocean stream,\"--\n\nand what more than all else contributed to his success in life, the\nmost magnificent and commanding personal appearance. At that time--his\nambition nothing abated by the many years which make men\nvenerable,--he was a bankrupt in money, a bankrupt in reputation, and\na bankrupt in morals--I speak only of his public morals, not his\nprivate,--a bankrupt in political character, pensioned by the Money\nPower of the North. Thrice disappointed, he was at that time gaming\nfor the Presidency. When the South laid down the fugitive slave bill,\non the national Faro-table, Mr. Webster bet his all upon that card. He\nstaked his mind--and it was one of vast compass; his eloquence, which\ncould shake the continent; his position, the senatorial influence of\nMassachusetts; his wide reputation, which rung with many a noble word\nfor justice and the Rights of man; he staked his conscience and his\nlife. Gentlemen, you know the rest,--the card won, the South took the\n_trick_, and Webster lost all he could lose,--his conscience, his\nposition, his reputation; not his wide-compassing mind, not his\nearth-shaking eloquence. Finally he lost his--life. Peace to his\nmighty shade. God be merciful to him that showed no mercy. The warning\nof his fall is worth more than the guidance of his success. Let us\nforgive; it were wicked to forget. For fifty years no American has had\nsuch opportunity to serve his country in an hour of need. Never has an\nAmerican so signally betrayed the trust--not once since Benedict\nArnold turned a less ignoble traitor!\n\nGentlemen, you know the speech of the 7th of March. You know it too\nwell. He proposed to support the fugitive slave bill \"with all its\nprovisions, to the fullest extent.\" At that time this bill of\nabominations was worse than even now; for then it left the liberty of\na man to the discretion not only of any judge or commissioner of any\nFederal court, but to any clerk or marshal thereof, nay, to any\ncollector of the customs and every one of the seventeen thousand\npostmasters in the United States! It provided that an affidavit made\nbefore any officer empowered, by the United States or any State, to\nadminister oaths, should be taken as conclusive evidence to prove a\nman a slave! So John Smith of some unknown town in Texas, might make\naffidavit before John Jones, a justice of peace in the same place,\nthat Lewis Hayden, or Wendell Phillips, or his Honor Judge Curtis, was\nhis (Smith's) slave, and had escaped to Boston: might bring hither\nJohn Brown, a Postmaster from Texas, or find some collector of the\ncustoms or minion of the court in Massachusetts, seize his victim, and\nswear away his liberty; and any man might be at once consigned to\neternal bondage! All that the bill provided for,--and authorized the\nkidnapper to employ as many persons as he might think proper to\naccomplish his purpose by force, at the expense of the United States!\nAll this Mr. Webster volunteered to support \"to the fullest extent.\"\n\nThe bill was amended, here bettered, there worsened, and came to the\nfinal vote. Gentlemen, the Money Power of the North joined the Slave\nPower of the South to kidnap men in America after 1850, as it had\nkidnapped them in Africa before 1808. Out of fifty Senators only\ntwelve said, No; while in the House 109 voted Yea. The Hon. Samuel A.\nEliot gave the vote of Beacon and State Streets for kidnapping men on\nthe soil of Boston. The one Massachusetts vote for man-stealing must\ncome from the town which once bore a Franklin and an Adams in her\nbosom; yes, from under the eaves of John Hancock's house! That one\nvote was not disgrace enough; his successor [Hon. William Appleton]\nmust take a needless delight in reaffirming the infamy. When the bill\npassed, Gentlemen, you remember how Mr. Webster rejoiced:--\n\n     \"Now is the winter of our discontent\n     Made glorious summer,\"\n\nwas his public outcry on the housetop! And Boston fired a hundred guns\nof joy! Do you know _who_ fired them? Ask Mr. Attorney Hallett; ask\nMr. Justice Curtis. They can \"instruct the jury.\"\n\nGentlemen, you know the operation of the fugitive slave bill. It\nsubverts the Purposes of the Constitution, it destroys Justice,\ndisturbs domestic Tranquillity, hinders the common Defence and the\ngeneral Welfare, and annihilates the Blessings of Liberty. It defies\nthe first Principles of the Declaration of Independence,--think of the\nfugitive slave bill as an appendix to that document! It violates the\nIdea of Democracy. It contradicts the very substance of the Christian\nReligion--the two great commandments of Love to God, and Love to man,\nwhereon \"hang all the Law and the Prophets.\" It makes natural humanity\na crime; it subjects all the Christian virtues to fine and\nimprisonment. It is a _lettre de cachet_ against Philanthropy.\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, you know the fugitive slave bill is\nunconstitutional. I need not argue the matter; it is too plain to need\nproof. See how it opposes Justice, the ultimate purpose of human law;\nnay, the declared objects of the Constitution itself! But yet its\nunconstitutionality has been most abundantly shown by our own\nfellow-citizens. I need not go out of Massachusetts for defenders of\nJustice and Law. You remember the Speeches of Mr. Phillips, Mr.\nSewall, Mr. Rantoul, Mr. Sumner, Mr. Mann, the arguments of Mr.\nHildreth. The judges before you by nature are able-minded men, both of\nthem; both also learned as lawyers and otherwise well educated,--I\nlove to honor their natural powers, and their acquired learning; would\nI could offer higher praise. Now, I will not insult their manly\nunderstanding with the supposition that either of them ever thought\nthe fugitive slave bill constitutional. No, Gentlemen, it is not\npossible that in the _personal_ opinion of Mr. Sprague, or even Mr.\nCurtis, this bill can be held for a constitutional law. But the Court\nhas its official dress: part of it is of silk--or supposed to be,--the\ngown which decorates the outward figure of the man who wears its ample\nfolds; it is made after a prescribed pattern. But part of it also is\nmade of _opinion_ which hides the ability and learning of the\nhonorable Court. The constitutionality of the fugitive slave bill is a\npart of the judge's official dress: accordingly, as no federal judge\nsits without his \"silk gown,\" so none appears without his \"opinion\"\nthat the fugitive slave bill is constitutional. But if the court\nshould solemnly declare that such was its _personal opinion_--Gentlemen\nof the Jury, I,--I--should not believe it--any more than if they\ndeclared the gown of silk was the natural judicial covering, the\nactual \"true skin\" of the judges. No, Gentlemen, these judges are not\nmonsters, not naturally idiotic in their Conscience. This opinion is\ntheir official robe, a supplementary cuticle, an artificial epidermis,\nwoven from without, to be thrown off one day, when it shall serve\ntheir turn, by political desquamation. Let them wear it; \"they have\ntheir reward.\" But you and I, Gentlemen, let us thank God we are not\nofficially barked about with such a leprous elephantiasis as that. You\nare to judge of its constitutionality for yourselves, not to take the\n_purchased, official opinion_ of the judge as veil for your\nConscience; let it hide the judges' if they like.\n\nGentlemen, I lack words to describe the fugitive slave bill; its sins\noutrun my power of speech. But you know the consequences which follow\nif it be accepted by the People, submitted to, and enforced: the State\nof Massachusetts is nothing; her courts nothing; her juries nothing;\nher laws nothing; her Constitution nothing--the Rights of the State\nare whistled away by the \"opinion\" of a fugitive slave bill judge, the\nrights of the citizen--all gone; his right to life, liberty, and the\npursuit of happiness lies at the mercy of the meanest man whom this\nCourt shall ever make a Commissioner to kidnap men. Yes, Gentlemen of\nthe Jury, you hold your liberty at the mercy of George T. Curtis and\nSeth J. Thomas! You are the People, \"the Country\" to determine whether\nit shall come to this.\n\nYou know the motive which led the South to desire this bill,--it was\npartly pecuniary, the desire to get the work of men and not pay for\nit; partly political, the desire to establish Slavery at the North.\nMr. Toombs is not the only man who wishes the master to sit down with\nhis slaves at the foot of Bunker Hill Monument! You know the motive of\nthe Northern men who supported the bill;--words are idle here!\n\nGentlemen, I said that Boston fired a hundred jubilant cannon when the\nfugitive slave bill became a law. It was only a _part of Boston_ that\nfired them. The bill was odious here to all just and honorable men.\nMassachusetts hated the bill, and was in no haste to \"conquer her\nprejudices\" in favor of Justice, Humanity, and the Christian Religion;\nshe did not like the \"disagreeable duty\" of making a public profession\nof practical Atheism. At first the yellow fever of the slave-hunters\ndid not extend much beyond the pavements of Boston and Salem; so pains\nmust be taken to spread the malady. The greatest efforts were made to\ninduce the People to renounce their Christianity, to accept and\nenforce the wicked measure. The cry was raised, \"The Union is in\ndanger:\" nobody believed it; they least of all who raised the cry.\nSome clergymen in the Churches of Commerce were coaxed, wheedled, or\nbought over, and they declared kidnapping would be imputed unto men\nfor \"righteousness.\" The actual man-stealer in Boston was likened to\n\"faithful Abraham\" in the Hebrew mythic tale,--\"the rendition of a\nslave was like the sacrifice of Isaac.\" One Trinitarian minister, a\nson of Massachusetts, laid Conscience down before the Juggernaut of\nthe fugitive slave bill, another would send his own mother into\nSlavery; both had their reward. Editors were brought over to the true\nfaith of kidnapping. Alas, there were some in Boston who needed no\nconversion; who were always on the side of inhumanity. There were\n\"Union meetings\" called to save the Nation; and the meanest men in the\ngreat towns came to serve as Redeemers in this Salvation unto\nkidnapping. Mr. Webster outdid himself in giant efforts--and though\nold and sick, he wrought with mighty strength. So in the great poem\nthe fallen angel, his Paradise of Virtue lost,--\n\n             ----\"with bold words\n     Breaking the horrid silence thus began.\n     'To do aught good never will be our task,\n     But ever to do ill our sole delight,\n     As being the contrary to His high will\n     Whom we resist....\n     Let us not slip the occasion....\n     But reassembling our afflicted powers\n     Consult how we may henceforth most offend\n     Our enemy; our own loss how repair,\n     How overcome this dire calamity;\n     What reinforcement we may gain from hope,\n     If not what resolution from despair.'\"\n\nOne class of men needed no change, no stimulation. They were ready to\nexecute this unjust, this unconstitutional Act; their lamps were\ntrimmed and burning, their loins girt about, their feet swift to shed\nblood. Who were they? Ask Philadelphia, ask New York, ask Boston. Look\nat this bench. The Federal Courts were as ready to betray justice in\n1850 as Kelyng and Jeffreys and Scroggs and the other pliant judges of\nCharles II. or James II. to support his iniquities. I must speak of\nthis.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n(II.) Of the conduct of the Federal Courts.\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, that you may understand the enormity of the\nconduct of the federal courts and the peril they bring upon their\nvictims, I must refresh your memory with a few facts.\n\n1. I shall begin with the cases in Pennsylvania. In that State four\nofficials of government have acquired great distinction by their zeal\nin enslaving men, McAllister, Ingraham, Grier, and Kane; the two first\nare \"Commissioners,\" the latter two \"Judges.\" In one year they had the\nglory of kidnapping twenty-six Americans and delivering them over to\nSlavery. Look at a few cases.\n\n(1.) On the 10th of March, 1851, Hannah Dellam was brought before\nJudge Kane charged with being a fugitive slave. She was far advanced\nin pregnancy, hourly expecting to give birth to a child. If a\nconvicted murderess is in that condition, the law delays the execution\nof its ghastly sentence till the baby is born, whom the gallows\norphans soon. The poor negro woman's counsel begged for delay that the\nchild might be born in Pennsylvania and so be free,--a poor boon, but\ntoo great for a fugitive slave bill judge to grant. The judge who\ninherits the name of the first murderer, disgraced the family of Cain;\nhe prolonged his court late into night, that he might send the child\ninto Slavery while in the bowels of its mother! Judge Kane held his\n\"court\" and gave his decision in the very building where the\nDeclaration of Independence was signed and published to the world. The\nmemorable bell which summons his court, has for motto on its brazen\nlips, \"Proclaim Liberty throughout the Land, to all the inhabitants\nthereof.\"\n\n(2.) The same year Rachel Parker, a free colored girl, was seized in\nthe house of Joseph C. Miller of West-Nottingham, Chester County, by\nThomas McCreary of Elkton, Maryland. Mr. Miller pursued the kidnapper\nand found the girl at Baltimore, and brought a charge of kidnapping\nagainst McCreary. But before the matter was decided Mr. Miller was\ndecoyed away and murdered! The man-hunter was set free and the girl\nkept as a slave, but after long confinement in jail was at last\npronounced free--not by the Pennsylvania \"judge\" but by a Baltimore\nJury![175]\n\n[Footnote 175: 20 Anti-Slavery Report, 28 and 21; Ibid. 34.]\n\n(3.) The same year occurred the Christiana Tragedy. Here are the\nfacts.\n\nIn Virginia a general law confers a reward of $100 on any man who\nshall bring back to Virginia a slave that has escaped into another\nState, and gives him also ten cents for each mile of travel in the\nchase after a man. Accordingly, beside the officers of the fugitive\nslave bill courts commissioned for that purpose, there is a body of\nprofessional Slave-hunters, who prowl about the borders of\nPennsylvania and entrap their prey. In September, 1850, \"a colored\nman, known in the neighborhood around Christiana to be free, was\nseized and carried away by professional kidnappers, and never\nafterwards seen by his family.\" In March, 1851, in the same\nneighborhood, under the roof of his employer, during the night,\nanother colored man was tied, gagged, and carried away, \"marking the\nroad along which he was dragged by his own blood.\" He was never\nafterwards heard from. \"These and many other acts of a similar kind\nhad so alarmed the neighborhood, that the very name of Kidnapper was\nsufficient to create a panic.\"[176]\n\n[Footnote 176: History of the Trial of Castner Hanway and others for\nTreason (Philadelphia, 1852), 35.]\n\n     \"On the 11th of September, Edward Gorsuch, of Maryland, his\n     son, Dickerson Gorsuch, with a party of friends, and a\n     United States officer named Kline, who bore the warrant of\n     Commissioner Ingraham, made their appearance in a\n     neighborhood near Christiana, Lancaster County,\n     Pennsylvania, in pursuit of a Slave. They lay in wait for\n     their prey near the house of William Parker, a colored man.\n     When discovered and challenged, they approached the house,\n     and Gorsuch demanded his Slave. It was denied that he was\n     there. High words ensued, and two shots were fired by the\n     assailants at the house. The alarm was then given by blowing\n     a horn, and the neighborhood roused. A party of colored men,\n     from thirty to fifty strong, most of them armed in some way,\n     were before long on the ground. Castner Hanway and Elijah\n     Lewis, both white men and Friends, rode up before the\n     engagement began and endeavored to prevent bloodshed by\n     persuading both parties to disperse peaceably. Kline, the\n     Deputy Marshal, ordered them to join the _posse_, which\n     they, of course, refused to do, but urged upon him the\n     necessity of withdrawing his men for their own safety. This\n     he finally did, as far as he personally was concerned, when\n     satisfied that there was actual danger of bloody resistance.\n     Gorsuch, however, and his party persisted in their attempt,\n     and he and two of his party fired on the colored men, who\n     returned the fire with deadly effect. Gorsuch was killed on\n     the spot, his son severely, though not mortally, wounded,\n     and the rest of the party put to flight. The dead and\n     wounded were cared for by the neighbors, mostly Friends and\n     Abolitionists. The Slave, for the capture of whom this\n     enterprise was undertaken, made his escape and reached a\n     land of safety.\n\n     \"Judge Grier denounced the act from the Bench as one of\n     Treason. A party of marines were ordered to the ground to\n     keep the peace after the battle had been fought and won.\n     United States Marshal Roberts, Commissioner Ingraham, United\n     States District Attorney Ashmead, with a strong body of\n     police, accompanied them, and kept the seat of war under a\n     kind of martial law for several days. The country was\n     scoured, houses ransacked, and about thirty arrests made.\n     Among those arrested were Castner Hanway and Elijah Lewis,\n     whose only crime had been endeavoring to prevent the\n     effusion of blood. The prisoners were brought to\n     Philadelphia, examined before a Commissioner, and committed\n     on a charge of High Treason. At the next term of the\n     District Court, under a charge from Judge Kane, the\n     Grand-Jury found indictments against all of them for this\n     crime.\"[177]\n\n[Footnote 177: 20 Anti-Slavery Report, pp. 30, 31.]\n\nMr. Hanway was brought to trial--for his life, charged with \"treason.\"\nIt appears that this was his overt act.--He was a Quaker, an\nanti-slavery Quaker, and a \"non-resistant;\" when he heard of the\nattack on the colored people, he rode on a sorrel horse to the spot,\nin his shirt-sleeves, with a broad felt hat on; he advised the colored\nmen not to fire, \"For God's sake don't fire;\" but when Deputy Marshal\nKline ordered him to assist in the kidnapping, he refused and would\nhave nothing to do with it. Some of the colored people fired, and with\nsuch effect on the Kidnappers as I have just now shown. It appeared\nalso that Mr. Hanway had said the fugitive slave bill was\nunconstitutional, and that he would never aid in kidnapping a\nman--words which I suppose this Honorable Court will consider as a\nconstructive \"misdemeanor;\" \"obstructing an officer.\"\n\nFor this \"offence\" his case was presented to the grand-jury of the\nCircuit Court the 29th of September, 1851. Judge Kane charged the\njury--laying down the law of treason. Mr. Hanway was indicted for\n\"wickedly devising and intending the peace and tranquillity of the ...\nUnited States to disturb;\" and that he \"wickedly and traitorously did\nintend to levy war against the said United States.\" And also that he\n\"with force and arms, maliciously and traitorously did prepare and\ncompose and ... and cause and procure to be prepared and composed,\ndivers books, pamphlets, letters, and declarations, resolutions,\naddresses, papers, and writings, and did ... maliciously and\ntraitorously publish and disperse ... divers other books ...\ncontaining ... incitement, encouragement, and exhortations, to move,\ninduce, and persuade persons held to service in any of the United\nStates ... who had escaped ... to resist, oppose, and prevent, by\nviolence and intimidation, the execution of the said laws, [that is\nthe law for kidnapping their own persons].\"\n\nHe was brought to trial at Philadelphia, November 24th 1851, before\nHonorable Judges Kane and Grier, then and subsequently so eminent for\ntheir zeal in perverting law and doing judicial iniquity. Gentlemen of\nthe Jury--it is no slander to say this. It is their great glory that\nin the cause of Slavery they have struck at the first principles of\nAmerican Democracy, and set at nought the Christian Religion. It is\nonly their panegyric which I pronounce.\n\nOn behalf of the government there appeared six persons as prosecuting\nofficers. One United States Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cooper),\nthe Attorney-General of Maryland, the District Attorney of\nPennsylvania, the Recorder of the City of Philadelphia, and two\nmembers of her bar.[178] For Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State, was\nhighly desirous that Maryland should send her Attorney-General, Hon.\nMr. Brent, to help the government of the United States prosecute a\nQuaker miller, a Non-resistant, for the crime of treason. Hon. James\nCooper, the Pennsylvania Senator, also appeared on behalf of Maryland,\nseeking to convict one of his own constituents! Gentlemen, such\nconduct carries us back to the time of the Stuarts; but despotism is\nalways the same. It was very proper that the United States government\nshould thus outrage the common decencies of judicial process.\n\n[Footnote 178: History, 55, 57; Report, 19; 2 Wallace.]\n\nThis question amongst others was put to each juror:--\n\n     \"Have you formed an opinion that the law of the United\n     States, known as the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, is\n     unconstitutional, so that you cannot for that reason convict\n     a person indicted for a forcible resistance thereto, if the\n     facts alleged in the indictment are proved and the court\n     hold the statute to be constitutional?\"\n\nThus all persons were excluded from the jury who believed this wicked\nbill a violation of the constitution; and one most important means of\nthe prisoner's legitimate defence was purposely swept away by the\ncourt.\n\nNow look at the law as laid down by the government.\n\nMr. Ashmead, the government's Attorney, said when the Constitution was\nadopted \"Men had not then become wiser than the laws [the laws of\nEngland and colonial laws which they were born under and broke away\nfrom]; nor had they learned to measure the plain and unambiguous\nletter of the Constitution by an artificial standard of their own\ncreation [that is the Self-evident Truth that all men have a natural\nand unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of\nHappiness]; to obey or disregard it according as it came up to or fell\nbeneath it [as the law was just or unjust].\"\n\n\"_You will receive the law from the court._\" \"You _are bound by the\ninstructions which the court may give_ in respect to it;\" \"_it is in\nno sense true that you are judges of the law_.\" \"_You must take the\ninterpretation which the court puts upon it._ You have a right to\napply the law to the facts, but you have no right to go further.\"\n\n\"The crime charged against this defendant is ... that of _levying war\nagainst the United States_. The phrase _levying war_ was long before\nthe adoption of the Constitution, a phrase ... _embracing such a\nforcible resistance to the laws as that charged against this\ndefendant_ [that is, speaking against the fugitive slave bill and\nrefusing to kidnap a man is 'levying war against the United States']!\"\n\nIt is treason \"if the intention is by force to prevent the execution\nof _any one ... of the general laws of the United States_, or _to\nresist_ the exercise of _any legitimate authority of the government_.\"\n\n\"Levying war embraces ... any combination forcibly to prevent or\noppose the execution ... of a public statute, if accompanied or\nfollowed by an act of forcible opposition.\" Of course the court is to\ndetermine the meaning of _force_; and using the same latitude of\nconstruction as in interpreting _levying war_, it would mean, a\n_word_, a _look_, a _thought_, a _wish_, a _fancy_ even.\n\nMr. Ludlow enforced the same opinions, relying in part on the old\ntyrannical decisions of the British courts in the ages of despotism,\nand on the opinion of Judge Chase--who had derived his law of treason\nfrom that source, and was impeached before the American Senate for his\noppressive conduct while judge in the very trials whence these\niniquitous doctrines were derived! But Mr. Ludlow says \"if a _spurious\ndoctrine have been introduced into the common law ... it would require\ngreat hardihood in a judge to reject it_.\" So the jury must accept \"a\nspurious doctrine\" as genuine law!\n\n\"In treason, all the _participes criminis_ are principals; there are\nno accessaries to this crime. Every act which ... would render a man\nan _accessary_ will ... make him a _principal_.\" \"If any man joins and\nacts with an assembly of people, _his intent is always to be\nconsidered ... the same as theirs; the law ... judgeth of the intent\nby the Fact_.\" This was Judge Kelyng's \"law.\"\n\n\"It may be ... advanced that because Hanway was not armed, he was not\nguilty. It is perfectly well settled that _arms are not necessary_.\"\n\"Military weapons ... are not necessary ... to a levying war.\" \"This\nis the opinion of Judge Chase,\" and \"it may be alleged that Judge\nChase was impeached, and that [therefore] his opinions are of little\nweight. Whatever may have been the grounds of that impeachment, _it is\nnot for us to discuss_.\"\n\n\"If a body of men be assembled for the purpose of effecting a\ntreasonable object [that is, 'to oppose the execution of a public\nstatute,' no matter what or how] _all those who perform any part,\nhowever minute, or however remote from the scene of action ... are\nequally traitors_.\"\n\nMr. Brent, the Maryland State Attorney, whom Mr. Webster had sent\nthere, declared that \"_any combination_ like this, of colored and\nwhite persons, _to prevent the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, is\ntreason_.\"\n\nMr. Cooper, the Pennsylvania Senator, adds, \"Castner Hanway ... having\nbeen present ... at the time the overt act was committed, he is a\nprincipal ... provided he was there aiding and abetting the objects of\nthe confederated parties.\" \"_Persons_ procuring, contriving, or\n_consenting_, come within the words aid and abet.\" So \"_if he_\nencourages, _assists, or consents to the act_, it is enough; _he\nbecomes at once an aider and abettor, and obnoxious to all the pains\nand penalties denounced against it_.\" \"If persons _do assemble\nthemselves_ and act with _some_ force in opposition to _some_ law ...\nand _hope thereby to get it repealed, this is a levying war and high\ntreason_.\" That is, an assembly of men acting against any law, with\nany force of argument, in order to procure its repeal, levies war and\nis guilty of treason!\n\nTo connect Mr. Hanway with this constructive treason, the government\nrelied on the evidence of Mr. Kline, the Deputy Marshal of the court,\na man like Mr. Butman and Mr. Patrick Riley, so well known in this\ncourt, and so conspicuous for courage and general elevation of\ncharacter. Witnesses testified that Kline was so much addicted to\nfalsehood that they would not believe him on oath,--but what of that?\nHe had \"conquered his prejudices.\" It appeared that Mr. Hanway went to\nthe scene of action on a sorrel horse, in his shirt-sleeves, with a\nfelt hat on, and did not join the Deputy in attempting to kidnap when\ncommanded. Hear how Mr. Ludlow constructs levying war out of the\ndisobedience of a non-resistant Quaker in a felt hat and\nshirt-sleeves, mounted on a sorrel horse! Hearken to this voice of the\ngovernment:--\n\n     \"Suddenly he sees the assembled band of infuriated men....\n     Does he leave the spot? No, Sir! Does he restrain the\n     negroes? Take the evidence for the defence in its fullest\n     latitude, and you will perceive he raised the feeble cry,\n     'Don't shoot! for God's sake don't shoot!' and there it\n     ended. Is that consistent with innocence?... according to\n     their own evidence the conclusion is irresistible that he\n     was not innocent.\"\n\n\"But he does more than this.\" When summoned by the Deputy to steal a\nman \"he is thrown off his guard, and exclaims, 'I will not assist\nyou;' 'he allowed the colored people had a right to defend\nthemselves.' 'He did not care for that Act of Congress or any other\nAct of Congress.'\"\n\nAnd so with his unsaddled sorrel nag this non-resistant miller levies\nwar upon the United States by crying \"Don't fire,\" and commits treason\nby the force and arms of a broad-brimmed Quaker hat. \"The smallest\namount of force is sufficient,\" \"military weapons are not necessary to\nlevy war!\"\n\nMr. Brent thought if Mr. Hanway was not hanged it would appear that a\n\"small and miserable and traitorous faction can resist and annul the\nlaws of the United States.\" \"Put down these factions [the Free-Soil\nParty, the Liberty Party, the Anti-Slavery Societies], overwhelm them\nwith shame, disgrace, and ruin, or you are not good citizens\nfulfilling the bonds that bind you to us of the South.\"\n\nThe government Attorney declared that Mr. Hanway and others\n\n     \"Had no right to refuse to assist because it was repugnant\n     to their consciences. Conscience! Conscience ... is the\n     pretended justification for an American citizen to refuse to\n     execute a law of his country.\" \"_Damnable, treasonable\n     doctrine._\" \"He has become a conspirator, he has connected\n     himself with them, and all their acts are his acts, and all\n     their intentions are his intentions.\"\n\n     \"The whole neighborhood was not only disloyal, but wanting\n     in common humanity:\" \"the whole region is infected,\" \"in\n     _that horde of traitors_;\" \"a whole county, a whole\n     township, a whole neighborhood are involved in plotting\n     treason.\" \"When you see these things _can you not infer ...\n     that he went there by pre-arrangement_!\" \"When you see a man\n     ... not saying one word to save his dear colored friends\n     from the guilt of murder, I say it is passing human\n     credulity to say that you cannot _infer_ in all that _a\n     feeling of hostility to the law, and an intention to resist\n     it_.\"\n\n     \"The consequences [of the verdict] are not with the jury:\"\n     the responsibility will not be with you--you are not\n     responsible for those just consequences.\"\n\n     \"When you allege that a master has come into Pennsylvania\n     and illegally seized and possessed himself of his slave\n     without process, you are to inquire, 'Has he done that which\n     he had authority to do in his own State?' You are to look to\n     the _laws of his own State_; for the Supreme Court\n     says,[179] 'He _has the same right to repossess his slave\n     here as in his own State_.'\" \"He who employs a man said to\n     have come from Maryland without being satisfied of his\n     freedom, is himself guilty of the first wrong.\"\n\n[Footnote 179: 16 Peters, Prigg _v._ Penn.]\n\nSenator Cooper closed for the government. Law was not enough for him;\nhe would have the sanction of \"Religion\" also. So he read extract from\na Sermon. Gentlemen of the Jury, you have not had the benefit of Rev.\nDr. Adams's prayers in this court; it is a pity you should not be\nblessed with the theology of despotism; listen therefore to the\n\"Thanksgiving Sermon\" of Rev. Dr. Wadsworth, which Hon. Mr. Cooper\nread to the Jury in Independence Hall.\n\n     \"For passing by all other causes of irritation as just now\n     secondary and subordinate, look for a moment, at the\n     influence which the Gospel of Christ would have in this\n     great sectional controversy about slavery.\n\n     \"First, It would say to the Northern fanatic, who _vapors\n     about man-stealing_ as if there were no other evil under the\n     sun but this one evil of Slavery--it would say to him,\n     Emulate the spirit of your blessed Master and his apostles,\n     _who, against this very evil_ [man-stealing] in their own\n     times, _brought no railing accusation_; but in one instance\n     at least, _sent back a fugitive_ from the household of\n     Philemon.\n\n     \"In treating Southern _Christian slaveholders_ with\n     Christian courtesy, and _sending back their fugitives_ when\n     apprehended among you, you neither indorse the system nor\n     partake of its evil; you are only performing in good faith\n     the agreement, and redeeming the pledges of your\n     forefathers, and leaving to each man for himself to answer\n     for his own acts at the judgment-seat of Jesus. It would\n     tear away from the man, as the foulest cloak of hypocrisy,\n     that pretence of a religious principle in this whole matter\n     of political abolitionism.\n\n     \"Religious principle! Oh my God! That religious principle,\n     that for the sake of _an abstract right_ whose very exercise\n     were disastrous to the unprepared bondmen who inherit it,\n     would tear this blest confederacy in pieces, and deluge\n     these smiling plains in fraternal blood, and barter the\n     loftiest freedom that the world ever saw, for the armed\n     despotism of a great civil warfare! That religious principle\n     which, in disaster to man's last great experiment, would\n     fling the whole race back into the gloom of an older\n     barbarism--rearing out of the ruin of these free homes, the\n     thrones of a more adamantine despotism--freedom's beacons\n     all extinguished, and the whole race slaves. That religious\n     principle through which, losing sight of God's great purpose\n     of evangelizing the nations, [by American Slavery,] would\n     shatter the mightiest wheel in the mechanism of salvation,\n     and palsy the wing of God's preaching angel in its flight\n     through the skies.\n\n     \"Alas--alas! ye that count as little this bond of blessed\n     brotherhood, wrought by our fathers' mighty hands and\n     bleeding hearts--we tell you, sorrowing and in tears, that\n     your pretence is foul hypocrisy. Ye have reversed the first\n     precept of the gospel, for your wisdom is a dove's, and your\n     harmlessness a serpent's. _Ye have not the first principle\n     within you either of religion or philanthropy, or common\n     human benevolence._ Your principle is the principle of Judas\n     Iscariot, and with the doom of the traitor ye shall go to\n     your own place.\"\n\n\"No, Sir--no, Sir,\" concludes the Senator thirsting for his\nconstituent's blood, \"'There is no gospel in all this treasonable\nfanaticism--for treason to my country is rebellion to my God.'\"\n\nJudge Grier charged the Jury;--but as _he stuck out from the\nphonographer's report_--of which the proof-sheets were sent to\nhim--_the most offensive portion_, Gentlemen of the Jury, I shall not\nbe able to enlighten you with all the legal words of this \"consummate\njudge.\" So be content with the following Elegant Extracts.\n\n     \"With the exception of a few individuals of perverted\n     intellect in some small districts or neighborhoods whose\n     moral atmosphere has been tainted and poisoned by male and\n     female vagrant lecturers and conventions, no party in\n     politics, no sect of religion, or any respectable numbers or\n     character can be found within our borders, who have viewed\n     with approbation or have looked with any other than feelings\n     of abhorrence upon this disgraceful tragedy.\"\n\n     \"It is not in this Hall of Independence that meetings of\n     infuriated fanatics and unprincipled demagogues have been\n     held to counsel a bloody resistance to the laws of the land.\n     It is not in _this_ city that conventions are held\n     denouncing the Constitution, the Laws, and the Bible. It is\n     not _here_ that the pulpit has been desecrated by seditious\n     exhortations, teaching that theft [a man stealing his own\n     limbs and person from his 'lawful owner'] is meritorious,\n     murder [in self-defence killing a man-stealer] excusable,\n     and treason [opposition to the fugitive slave bill] a\n     virtue!\"\n\n     \"The guilt of this foul murder [the shooting of a kidnapper\n     by the men whom he intended for his victims, and whose\n     premises he invaded without due process of law, and with\n     armed force], rests not alone on the deluded individuals who\n     were its immediate perpetrators, but the blood taints with\n     even deeper dye the skirts of those who promulgated\n     doctrines subversive of all morality and all government,\n     [that is, of Slavery and the fugitive slave bill].\"\n\n     \"This murderous tragedy is but the necessary development of\n     principles and the natural fruit from seed sown by others\n     whom the arm of the law cannot reach,\" [such as the Authors\n     of the Declaration of Independence, and still more the\n     Author of the \"Sermon on the Mount].\"\n\n     \"This [the slave clause of the Constitution] is the Supreme\n     law of the land, _binding ... on the conscience_ and conduct\n     of every individual citizen of the United States.\" \"The\n     shout of disapprobation with which this [the fugitive slave\n     bill] has been received by some, has been caused ... because\n     it is an act which can be executed ... the real objection\n     ... is to the Constitution itself, which is supposed to be\n     void in this particular, from the effect of some 'higher\n     law.' It is true that the number of persons whose\n     consciences affect to be governed by such a law [that is the\n     law of Natural Morality and Religion], is very small. But\n     there is a much larger number who take up opinions on\n     trust,--and have concluded this must be a very pernicious\n     and unjust enactment, for no other reason than because the\n     others shout their disapprobation with such violence and\n     vituperation.\"\n\n     \"This law is Constitutional.\" \"The question of its\n     Constitutionality is to be settled by the Courts, [fugitive\n     slave bill courts,] and not by conventions either of laymen\n     or ecclesiastics.\" \"_We are as much bound to support this\n     law as any other._\" \"The jury should regard the construction\n     of the Constitution as given them by the court as to what is\n     the true meaning of the words _levying war_.\" \"In treason\n     all are principals, and a man may be guilty of aiding and\n     abetting, though not present.\"\n\nHe spoke of those \"associations, or conventions, which occasionally or\nannually infest the neighboring village of West-Chester, for the\npurpose of railing at and resisting the Constitution and laws of the\nland [that is the fugitive slave bill and other laws which annihilate\na man's unalienable right to his liberty], and denouncing those who\nexecute them as no better than a Scroggs or a Jeffreys;--who stimulate\nand exhort poor negroes to the perpetration of offences which they\nknow must bring them to the penitentiary or the gallows.\"\n\nBut he thought refusing to aid the deputy marshal in kidnapping was\nnot an act of levying war, or treason against the United States. \"In\nso doing he is not acting the part of an honest, loyal citizen [who\nought to do any wickedness which a bum-bailiff commands]; he may be\n_liable to be punished for a misdemeanor for his refusal to\ninterfere_.\"\n\n     \"But he thought the government was right \"in procuring an\n     indictment for Treason.\" For \"meetings had been held in many\n     places in the North, denouncing the law, and advising a\n     traitorous resistance to its execution: conventions of\n     infuriated fanatics had invited to acts of rebellion; and\n     even the pulpit had been defiled with furious denunciations\n     of the law, and exhortations to a rebellious resistance to\n     it.\n\n     \"The government was perfectly justified in supposing that\n     this transaction was but the first overt act of a\n     treasonable conspiracy, extending over many of the Northern\n     States, to resist by force of arms the execution of this\n     article of the Constitution and the laws framed in pursuance\n     of it. In making these arrests, and having this\n     investigation, the officers of government have done no more\n     than their strict duty.\n\n     \"The activity, zeal, and ability, which have been exhibited\n     by the learned Attorney of the United States, in endeavoring\n     to bring to condign punishment the perpetrators of this\n     gross offence, are deserving of all praise. _It has given\n     great satisfaction to the Court also, that the learned\n     Attorney-General of Maryland, and the very able counsel\n     associated with him_ [Senator Cooper of Pennsylvania] _have\n     taken part in this prosecution_.\"\n\nIn about fifteen minutes the Jury returned a verdict of \"NOT\nGUILTY.\"[180]\n\n[Footnote 180: See Report of Trial of Castner Hanway, Phil. 1852.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n(4.) On the 29th of April, 1852, a man named William Smith was\narrested by Commissioner McAllister of Columbia, Pennsylvania, on\ncomplaint of one Ridgeley of Baltimore. While in the custody of the\nofficers, Smith endeavored to escape, and Ridgeley drew a pistol and\nshot him dead. The murderer escaped. No serious efforts were made by\nthe State authorities to bring that offender to justice. \"He has the\nsame right to repossess his slave here as in his own State;\" the same\nright to kill him if he attempts to escape! Mr. Toombs is modest--but\nwe shall soon see the slaveholder not only sit down with his slaves at\nthe foot of Bunker Hill Monument, but _shoot them if they attempt to\nrun away_! Nay, Gentlemen, we shall see this Court defending the\nslave-hunter's \"privilege.\"\n\n(5.) Here is another case, Gentlemen of the Jury, in which this same\nJudge Grier appears, and with his usual humanity. This is a brief\naccount of the case of Daniel Kauffman. In 1852 he allowed a party of\nfugitive slaves to pass the night in his barn, and gave them food in\nthe morning. For this he was brought before Judge Grier's court and\nfined $2,800! It was more than his entire property. Gentlemen, there\nare persons in this room who gave money to Mr. Kauffman, to indemnify\nhim for his losses; were not they also guilty of treason, at least of\na \"misdemeanor?\" They \"evinced an express liking\" for Freedom and\nHumanity, not Slavery and bloodshed.\n\n(6.) But here is yet one more,--which you shall have in the language\nof another:--\n\n     \"In a case of attempted Slave-catching at Wilkesbarre, in\n     Pennsylvania, the Deputy Marshal, Wyncoop and his\n     assistants, had behaved with such atrocious and abominable\n     cruelty, that the citizens felt that justice demanded their\n     punishment for the outrage. They were, accordingly, arrested\n     on a warrant issued by a most respectable magistrate, on the\n     oath of one of the principal inhabitants of the place. A\n     writ of habeas corpus was forthwith sued out, returnable\n     before Judge Grier. When the District Attorney, Ashmead,\n     moved the discharge of the relators, (which, it is needless\n     to say, was ordered,) Judge Grier delivered himself to the\n     following effect. 'If _habeas corpuses_ are to be taken out\n     after that manner, _I will have an indictment sent to the\n     United States Grand-Jury against the person who applies for\n     the writ, or assists in getting it, the lawyer who defends\n     it, and the sheriff who serves the writ_, to see whether the\n     United States officers are to be arrested and harassed\n     whenever they attempt to serve a process of the United\n     States.'\"\n\n2. Gentlemen of the Jury, you might suppose that love of liberty had\naltogether vanished from the \"Free\" States, else how could such men\nride over the local law as well as natural justice? But I am happy to\nfind one case where the wickedness of the fugitive slave bill courts\nwas resisted by the people and the local judges--it is a solitary\ncase, and occurred in Wisconsin:--\n\n     \"About the middle of March, 1854, a man named Joshua Glover,\n     was seized near Racine, in Wisconsin, as a Fugitive Slave.\n     His arrest was marked by the circumstances of cruelty and\n     cowardice which seem to be essential to the execution of\n     this Law above all others. He was brought, chained and\n     bleeding, to Milwaukee, where he was lodged in jail. As soon\n     as the news spread, an indignation, as general as it was\n     righteous, prevailed throughout the city. A public meeting\n     was forthwith called, and held in the open air, at which\n     several of the principal citizens assisted. Stirring\n     speeches were made, and strong resolutions passed, to the\n     effect that the rights of the man should be asserted and\n     defended to the utmost. Counsel learned in the law\n     volunteered, and all necessary process was issued, as well\n     against the claimant for the assault and battery, as in\n     behalf of the man restrained of his liberty. A vigilance\n     committee was appointed to see that Glover was not secretly\n     hurried off, and the bells were ordered to be rung in case\n     any such attempt should be made. But the people were not\n     disposed to trust to the operation of the Slave Law,\n     administered by United States Judges or Commissioners, and\n     they stepped in and settled the question for themselves in a\n     summary manner. A hundred men arrived, in the afternoon,\n     from Racine, the town from which the man had been kidnapped,\n     who marched in order to the jail. They were soon reinforced\n     by multitudes more, and a formal demand was made for the\n     slave. This being denied, an attack was made upon the door,\n     which was soon broken in, the man released, and carried back\n     in triumph to Racine, whence he was afterwards conveyed\n     beyond the jurisdiction of the star-spangled banner. A mass\n     convention of the citizens of Wisconsin was afterwards held\n     to provide for similar cases, should they occur, and a most\n     sound and healthy tone of feeling appears to have pervaded\n     that youthful commonwealth.\n\n     \"After the rescue had been effected, the United States\n     Marshal arrested several persons for the offence of\n     resisting an officer in the discharge of his duties. Among\n     these was Mr. Sherman M. Booth, the editor of the Free\n     Democrat. When brought before a Commissioner, in the custody\n     of the Marshal, a writ of habeas corpus was sued out on his\n     behalf, and he was brought before Judge A.D. Smith, of the\n     Supreme Court. After a full hearing, Judge Smith granted him\n     his discharge, on the ground that the fugitive slave law\n     was unconstitutional. The Marshal then had the proceedings\n     removed by a writ of certiorari before a full bench of the\n     Supreme Court, when the decision of Judge Smith was\n     confirmed, and Mr. Booth discharged from custody.\n     Immediately afterwards, Judge Miller, of the United States\n     District Court, issued another warrant for the arrest of Mr.\n     Booth, making no mention of the fugitive slave act, but\n     directing his arrest to answer to a charge for abetting the\n     escape of a prisoner from the custody of the United States\n     Marshal. Another writ of habeas corpus was sued out, but it\n     was denied by the Supreme Court, on the ground that there\n     was nothing on the face of the record to bring it within\n     range of their former decision.\"\n\n     \"In the mean time the United States Judge and Marshal were\n     busy in their vocation. It affirmed that the Grand-Jury was\n     packed in the most unblushing manner, until an inquest was\n     made up that would answer the purpose of the Government.\n     However this may have been, indictments were found in the\n     District Court, against Mr. Booth and several other persons.\n     A petty Jury selected with the same care that had been\n     bestowed on the composition of the Grand-Jury, convicted Mr.\n     Booth and Mr. Ryecraft. All the weight of the government was\n     thrown against the defendants. Special counsel were retained\n     to assist the District Attorney, the instructions of the\n     Court were precise and definite against them; all motions in\n     their behalf resting on the irregularities and injustices of\n     the proceedings were overruled. So were all motions\n     subsequent to the conviction for an arrest of judgment. They\n     were sentenced to fine and imprisonment--Mr. Booth to pay\n     one thousand dollars and costs, and to be imprisoned one\n     month, and Mr. Ryecraft to pay two hundred dollars, and to\n     be imprisoned for ten days. On these sentences they were\n     committed to jail. The public excitement in Milwaukee, and\n     throughout the State, was intense. It was with difficulty\n     that the people could be restrained from forcibly liberating\n     the prisoners. Fortunately there was no occasion for any\n     such extreme measures. They found protection, where it ought\n     to be found, in the constituted authorities of their State.\n     A writ of habeas corpus was issued in their behalf by the\n     Supreme Court, then sitting at Madison, the Capital of the\n     State, returnable before them there. Escorted by two\n     thousand of their fellow-citizens, thither, in charge of the\n     High Sheriff, they had a hearing at once. After full\n     deliberation, the Court unanimously ordered them to be\n     discharged. The majority of the Court made this decision on\n     the ground of the unconstitutionality of the fugitive slave\n     law, one Judge (Crawford) sustaining the law, but concurring\n     in the order on the ground that no offence, under that Act,\n     was charged in the indictment. So the prisoners were\n     discharged, and brought home in triumph.\"\n\nGentlemen, that matter will be carried up to the Supreme Court of the\nUnited States, and you may yet hear the opinion of the Hon. Associate\nJustice Curtis, for which let us wait with becoming reverence.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n3. Here is the case of Mr. Sloane, which happened in the State of\nOhio.\n\nIn October, 1852, several colored persons were about leaving Sandusky\nin a steamer for Detroit, when they were seized and taken before Mr.\nFollet, mayor of the city, and claimed as fugitive slaves. This\nseizure was made by the city marshal and three persons claiming to act\nfor the owners of the slaves.\n\nAfter the colored persons were brought before the mayor, their friends\nengaged Mr. Rush R. Sloane to act as counsel in their defence. He\ndemanded of the mayor and the claimants by what authority the\nprisoners were detained. There was no reply. He then asked, whether\nthey were in the custody of a United States Marshal or Commissioner.\nAgain there was no reply. He next called for any writs, papers, or\nevidences by which they were detained. Still there was no answer. He\nthen said to his clients, \"_I see no authority to detain your colored\nfriends._\"\n\nAt that time some one near the door cried out, \"Hustle them out,\" and\nsoon the crowd and the alleged fugitives were in the street. Then one\nof the claimants said to Mr. Sloane, \"I own these slaves; they are my\nproperty, and I shall hold you individually liable for their escape.\"\n_These were the first and only words he spoke to Mr. Sloane, and then\nnot until the black men were in the street._\n\nIn due time Mr. Sloane was arrested for resisting the execution of the\nfugitive slave bill, though he had _only acted as legal counsel for\nthe alleged slaves and had offered no resistance to the law, by deed,\nor word, or sign_.\n\nHe was brought to trial at Columbus. Before the jurors were sworn they\nwere all asked \"whether they had any conscientious scruples against\nthe fugitive slave law, and would hesitate to convict under it.\" If\nthey said \"Yes,\" they were rejected. Thus a jury was packed for the\npurpose, and the trial went on. Thirteen unimpeached witnesses deposed\nto the facts stated before, while the slave claimant had no evidence\nbut the _city marshal_ of Sandusky--the Tukey of that place--and _two\nof the three slave-catchers_--who swore that they had with them\n_powers of attorney for the seizure of twenty-four slaves_.\n\nGentlemen, such was the action of the court, and such the complexion\nof the packed jury, that Mr. Sloane was found \"guilty.\" The Judge,\nHon. Mr. Leavitt, refused to sign a bill of exceptions, enabling him\nto bring the matter before the Supreme Court. Mr. Sloane was sentenced\nto pay a fine of $3,000, and $930 _as costs of court_! Such was the\npenalty for a lawyer telling his clients that he saw no authority to\ndetain them,--after having three times demanded the authority, and\nnone had been shown!\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n4. Gentlemen of the Jury, I now come to cases which have happened in\nour own State,--in this city. Some alarm was felt as soon as Mr.\nMason's fugitive slave bill was proposed in the Senate. But men said,\n\"No northern man will support it. There is much smoke and no fire.\"\nBut when on the 7th of March, 1850, Mr. Webster adopted the bill, and\npromised to defend it and the amendments to it, \"with all its\nprovisions to the fullest extent;\" when he declared that Massachusetts\nwould execute the infamous measure \"with alacrity\"--then not only\nalarm but indignation took possession of northern breasts. The friends\nof Slavery at Boston must do all in their power to secure the passage\nof the bill, the prosperity of its adoptive father, and its ultimate\nenforcement--the kidnapping of men in Massachusetts. Here are the\nmeasures resorted to for attaining this end.\n\ni. A meeting was called at the Revere House, that Mr. Webster might\ndefend his scheme for stealing his constituents and putting himself\ninto the Presidency.\n\nii. A public letter was written to him approving of his attempts to\nrestore man-stealing, and other accompaniments of slavery, to the free\nStates. This letter declared the \"deep obligations\" of the signers\n\"for what this speech has done and is doing;\" \"we wish to thank you,\"\nthey say, \"for recalling us to our duties under the constitution;\"\n\"you have pointed out to a whole people the path of duty, have\nconvinced the understanding, and touched the conscience of the\nnation;\" \"we desire, therefore, to express to you our entire\nconcurrence in the sentiments of your speech.\" This letter was dated\nat Boston, March 25th, 1850, and received 987 signatures, it is said.\n\niii. When the bill became an Act of government, a hundred cannons, as\nI have before stated, were fired on Boston Common in token of joy at\nthe restoration of slavery to our New England soil.\n\niv. Articles were written in the newspapers in defence of kidnapping,\nin justification of the fugitive slave bill. The _Boston Courier_ and\n_Boston Daily Advertiser_ gave what influence they had in support of\nthat crime against America.\n\nv. Several ministers of Boston came out and publicly, in sermons in\ntheir own pulpits, defended the fugitive slave bill, and called on\ntheir parishioners to enforce the law!\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, need I tell you of the feelings of the\nPhilanthropists of Boston,--of the colored citizens who were to be the\nvictims of this new abomination! Within twenty-four hours of its\npassage more than thirty citizens of Boston, colored citizens, fled in\ntheir peril to a man whose delight it is to undo the heavy burthens\nand let the oppressed go free. While others were firing their joyful\ncannon at the prospect of kidnapping their brothers and sisters,\nFrancis Jackson helped his fellow Christians into the ark of\nDeliverance which he set afloat on that flood of Sin. Gentlemen, he is\nhere to-day--he is one of my bondsmen. There are the others--this\nvenerable gentleman [Samuel May], this steadfast friend [John R.\nManley.]\n\nvi. It was not long before the kidnappers came here for their prey.\n\n(1.) I must dwell a moment on the first attempt. Gentlemen of the\nJury, you know the story of William and Ellen Craft. They were slaves\nin Georgia; their master was said to be a \"very pious man,\" \"an\nexcellent Christian.\" Ellen had a little baby,--it was sick and ready\nto die. But one day her \"owner\"--for this wife and mother was only a\npiece of property--had a dinner party at his house. Ellen must leave\nher dying child and wait upon the table. She was not permitted to\ncatch the last sighing of her only child with her own lips; other and\nruder hands must attend to the mother's sad privilege. But the groans\nand moanings of the dying child came to her ear and mingled with the\njoy and merriment of the guests whom the mother must wait upon. At\nlength the moanings all were still--for Death took a North-side view\nof the little boy, and the born-slave had gone where the servant is\nfree from his master and the weary is at rest--for _there_ the wicked\ncease from troubling. Ellen and William resolved to flee to the North.\nThey cherished the plan for years; he was a joiner, and hired himself\nof his owner for about two hundred dollars a year. They saved a little\nmoney, and stealthily, piece by piece, they bought a suit of\ngentleman's clothes to fit the wife; no two garments were obtained of\nthe same dealer. Ellen disguised herself as a man, William attending\nas her servant, and so they fled off and came to Boston. No doubt\nthese Hon. Judges think it was a very \"immoral\" thing. Mr. Curtis\nknows no morality here but \"legality.\" Nay, it was a wicked thing--for\nMr. Everett, a most accomplished scholar, and once a Unitarian\nminister, makes St. Paul command \"SLAVES, obey your masters!\" Nay,\nHon. Judge Sprague says it is a \"precept\" of our \"Divine Master!\"\n\nEllen and William lived here in Boston, intelligent, respected, happy.\nThe first blow of the fugitive slave bill must fall on them. In\nOctober, 1850, one Hughes, a jailer from Macon, Georgia, a public\nnegro-whipper, who had once beaten Ellen's uncle \"almost to death,\"\ncame here with one Knight, his attendant, to kidnap William and Ellen\nCraft. They applied to Hon. Mr. Hallett for a writ. Perhaps they had\nheard (false) rumors that the Hon. Commissioner was \"a little slippery\nin his character;\" that he was \"not overscrupulous in his conduct;\"\nthat he \"would do any dirty work for political preferment.\" Gentlemen,\nyou know that such rumors will get abroad, and will be whispered of\nthe best of men. Of course you would never believe them in this case:\nbut a kidnapper from Georgia might; \"distance lends\" illusion, as well\nas \"enchantment, to the view.\" But be that as it may, Mr. Hallett (in\n1850) appeared to have too much manhood to kidnap a man. He was better\nthan his reputation; I mean his reputation with Knight and Hughes, and\nwould not (then) steal Mr. and Mrs. Craft. This is small praise; it is\nlarge in comparison with the conduct of his official brethren. But\nfor the salvation of the Union another Commissioner was found who had\nno such scruples. This Honorable Court--Mr. Woodbury was then in the\nchief place, and Mr. Sprague in his present position--issued the writ\nof man-stealing. Two gentlemen of this city were eminently, but\nsecretly, active in their attempt to kidnap their victim. I shall\nspeak of them by and by. Somebody took care of Ellen Craft. William\nless needed help; he armed himself with pistols and a poignard, and\nwalked in the streets in the face of the sun. He was a tall, brave\nman, and was quite as cool then as this Honorable Court is now, while\nI relate their \"glorious first essay\" in man-stealing. Public opinion\nat length drove the (southern) kidnappers from Boston. Then the Crafts\nalso left the town and the country, and found in the Monarchical\nAristocracy of Old England what the New England Democracy refused to\nallow them--protection of their unalienable right to Life, Liberty,\nand the pursuit of Happiness.\n\nGentlemen, the Evangelists of slavery could not allow a Southern\nkidnapper to come to Boston and not steal his man: they were in great\nwrath at the defeat of Hughes and Knights. So they procured a meeting\nat Faneuil Hall to make ready for effectual kidnapping and restoring\nSlavery to Boston. \"The great Union meeting\" was held at Faneuil Hall\nNovember 26th, 1850,--two days before the annual Thanksgiving; it was\n\"a preparatory meeting\" to make ready the hearts of the People for\nthat dear New England festival when we thank God for the Harvest of\nthe Land, and the Harvest of the Sea, and still more for the State\nwhose laws are Righteousness, and the Church that offers us \"the\nLiberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,\" \"the glorious Liberty of\nthe Sons of God.\" Here are the Resolutions which were passed.\n\n     \"Resolved, That the preservation of the Constitution and the\n     Union is the paramount duty of all citizens;--that the\n     blessings which have flowed from them in times past, which\n     the whole country is now enjoying under them, and which we\n     firmly believe posterity will derive from them hereafter,\n     are incalculable; and that they vastly transcend in\n     importance all other political objects and considerations\n     whatever.\n\n     \"Resolved, That it would be folly to deny that there has\n     been and still is danger to the existence of the Union,\n     where there is prevalent so much of a spirit of disunion,\n     constantly weakening its strength and alienating the minds\n     of one part of the people of the United States from another;\n     and that if this spirit be not checked and restrained, and\n     do not give way to a spirit of conciliation and of patriotic\n     devotion to the general good of the whole country, we cannot\n     expect a long continuance of the political tie which has\n     hitherto made us one people; but must rather look to see\n     groups of rival neighboring republics, whose existence will\n     be a state of perpetual conflict and open war.\n\n     \"Resolved, That all the provisions of the Constitution of\n     the United States--the supreme law of the land--are equally\n     binding upon every citizen, and upon every State in the\n     Union;--that ALL laws passed by Congress, in pursuance of\n     the Constitution, are equally binding on all the citizens,\n     and no man is at liberty to resist or disobey any one\n     constitutional act of Congress any more than another; and\n     that we do not desire or intend to claim the benefit of any\n     one of the powers or advantages of the Constitution, and to\n     refuse, or seem to refuse, to perform any part of its\n     duties, or to submit to any part of its obligations.\n\n     \"Resolved, That the adjustment of the measures which\n     disturbed the action of Congress for nearly ten months of\n     its last session, ought to be carried out by the people of\n     the United States in good faith, in all the substantial\n     provisions; _because_, although we may differ with each\n     other about the details of those measures, yet, in our\n     judgment, a renewed popular agitation of any of the main\n     questions then settled, would be fraught with new and\n     extreme dangers to the peace and harmony of the country,\n     which this adjustment has happily restored.\n\n     \"Resolved, That every species and form of resistance to the\n     execution of a regularly enacted law, except by peaceable\n     appeal to the regular action of the judicial tribunals upon\n     the question of its constitutionality--an appeal which ought\n     never to be opposed or impeded--is mischievous, and\n     subversive of the first principles of social order, and\n     tends to anarchy and bloodshed.\n\n     \"Resolved, That men, who directly or indirectly instigate or\n     encourage those who are or may be the subjects of legal\n     process, to offer violent resistance to the officers of the\n     law, deserve the reprehension of an indignant community, and\n     the severest punishment which its laws have provided for\n     their offence; and that we have entire confidence that any\n     combination or attempt to fix such a blot upon the fair fame\n     of our State or city, will be promptly rebuked and punished,\n     by an independent and impartial judiciary, and by firm and\n     enlightened juries.\n\n     \"Resolved, That we will at all times, in all places, and\n     under all circumstances, so far as our acts or influence may\n     extend, sustain the Federal Union, uphold its Constitution,\n     and enforce the duty of obedience to the laws.\"\n\nA singular preparation for a Thanksgiving day in Boston! But on that\nfestival, Gentlemen, three Unitarian ministers thanked God that the\nfugitive slave bill would be kept in all the land!\n\nSeveral speeches were made at the meeting, some by Whigs, some by\nDemocrats, for it was a \"Union meeting,\" where Herod and Pilate were\nmade friends. Gentlemen, I must depart a little from the severity of\nthis defence and indulge you with some of the remarks of my\ndistinguished opponent, Hon. Attorney Hallett: then he was merely a\nlawyer, and fugitive slave bill Commissioner, appointed \"to take bail,\naffidavits,\" and colored men,--he was only an expectant Attorney. His\nspeech was a forerunner of the \"Indictment\" which has brought us\ntogether. Hearken to the words of Mr. Hallett in his \"preparatory\nlecture:\"--\n\n     \"We can now say that there is no law of the United States\n     which cannot be executed in Massachusetts. If there was any\n     doubt before, _there can be no doubt now_; and if there be\n     any wild enough hereafter to resort to a fancied 'Higher\n     Law' to put down law [that is, the fugitive slave bill],\n     they will find in your determined will a stronger law to\n     sustain _all the laws of the United States_.\" \"The\n     threatened nullification comes from Massachusetts upon a law\n     [the fugitive slave bill] which the whole South insist is\n     _vital to the protection of their property and industry_\n     [much of their \"property\" and \"industry\" being addicted to\n     running away]. _And shall Massachusetts nullify that law?_\"\n     \"The question for us to-day is whether we will in good\n     faith abide by, and carry out these _Peace Measures_ [for\n     the rendition of fugitive slaves, the new establishment of\n     Slavery in Utah and New Mexico, and the restoration of it to\n     all the North] or whether we shall rush into renewed\n     agitation,\" etc. \"Resort is had to a new form of _moral\n     treason_ which assumes by the mysterious power of a '_Higher\n     Law_' to trample down all law [that is, the fugitive slave\n     bill]. Some of our fellow-citizens have avowed that the\n     fugitive slave bill is to be treated like the _Stamp Act_,\n     and never to be enforced in Massachusetts. If that means any\n     thing, it means that which our fathers meant when they\n     resisted the Stamp Act and threw the tea\n     overboard--Revolution.[181] _It_ [opposition to the fugitive\n     slave bill] _is revolution, or it is treason. If it only\n     resists law, and obstructs its officers, it is treason; and\n     he who risks it, must risk hanging for it._\"[182]\n\n[Footnote 181: The learned counsel for the fugitive slave bill\nconfounds two events. The Stamp Act was passed March 22d, 1765, and\nrepealed the 28th of the next March. The tea was destroyed December\n16th, 1773.]\n\n[Footnote 182: Report in Boston Courier of November 27th, 1850.]\n\nGentlemen, that meeting determined to execute the fugitive slave bill\n\"with all its provisions, to the fullest extent.\" It is dreadful to\nremember the articles in the Daily Advertiser and the Courier at that\nperiod. Some of the sermons in the Churches of Commerce on the\nfollowing Thursday, Thanksgiving day, were filled with the most odious\ndoctrines of practical atheism. The \"preparatory meeting\" had its\neffect. Soon the seed bore fruit after its kind. But some ministers\nwere faithful to their Brother and their Lord.\n\n(2.) February 15th, 1851, a colored man named \"Shadrach\" was arrested\nunder a warrant from that Commissioner who had been so active in the\nattempt to kidnap Mr. and Mrs. Craft. But a \"miracle\" was wrought:\n\"where sin abounded Grace did much more abound,\" and \"the Lord\ndelivered him out of their hands.\" Shadrach went free to Canada, where\nhe is now a useful citizen. He was rescued by a small number of\ncolored persons at noonday. The kidnapping Commissioner telegraphed to\nMr. Webster, \"It is levying war--it is treason.\" Another asked, \"What\nis to be done?\" The answer from Washington was, \"Mr. Webster was very\nmuch mortified.\"\n\nOn the 18th, President Fillmore, at Mr. Webster's instigation, issued\nhis proclamation calling on all well disposed citizens, and\n_commanding all officers_, \"civil and military, to aid and assist in\nquelling this, and all other such combinations, _and to assist in\nrecapturing the above-named person_\" Shadrach. General orders came\ndown from the Secretaries of War and the Navy, commanding the\n_military and naval officers to yield all practicable assistance_ in\nthe event of such another \"_insurrection_.\" The City Government of\nBoston passed Resolutions regretting that a man had been saved from\nthe shackles of slavery; cordially approving of the President's\nproclamation, and promising their earnest efforts to carry out his\nrecommendations. At that time Hon. Mr. Tukey was Marshal; Hon. John P.\nBigelow was Mayor; Hon. Henry J. Gardner, a man equally remarkable for\nhis temperance, truthfulness, and general integrity, was President of\nthe Common Council.\n\nIt was not long, Gentlemen, before the City Government had an\nopportunity to keep its word.\n\n(3.) On the night of the 3d of April, 1851, Thomas Sims was kidnapped\nby two police officers of Boston, pretending to arrest him for theft!\nGentlemen of the Jury, you know the rest. He was on trial nine days.\nHe never saw the face of a jury, a judge only once--who refused the\n_Habeas Corpus_, the great \"Writ of Right.\" That judge--I wish his\nsuccessors may better serve mankind--has gone to his own place; where,\nmay God Almighty have mercy on his soul! You remember, Gentlemen, the\nchains round the Court House; the Judges of your own Supreme Court\ncrawling under the southern chain. You do not forget the \"Sims\nBrigade\"--citizen soldiers called out and billeted in Faneuil Hall.\nYou recollect the Cradle of Liberty shut to a Free Soil Convention,\nbut open to those hirelings of the Slave Master. You will never forget\nthe Pro-Slavery Sermons that stained so many Boston pulpits on the\n\"Fast-day\" which intervened during the mock trial!\n\nMr. Sims had able defenders,--I speak now only of such as appeared on\nhis behalf, others not less noble and powerful, aided by their\nunrecorded service--Mr. Sewall, Mr. Rantoul, men always on the side of\nLiberty, and one more from whose subsequent conduct, Gentlemen of the\nJury, I grieve to say it, you would not expect such magnanimity then,\nMr. Charles G. Loring. But of what avail was all this before such a\nCommissioner? Thomas Sims was declared \"a chattel personal to all\nintents, uses, and purposes whatsoever.\" After it became plain that he\nwould be decreed a slave, the poor victim of Boston kidnappers asked\none boon of his counsel, \"I cannot go back to Slavery,\" said he, \"give\nme a knife, and when the Commissioner declares me a slave I will stab\nmyself to the heart, and die before his eyes! I will not be a slave.\"\nThe knife was withheld! At the darkest hour of the night Mayor Bigelow\nand Marshal Tukey, suitable companions, admirably joined by nature as\nby vocation, with two or three hundred police-men armed, some with\nbludgeons, some with drawn swords and horse pistols, took the poor boy\nout of his cell, chained, weeping, and bore him over the spot where,\non the 5th of March, 1770, the British tyrant first shed New England\nblood; by another spot where your fathers and mine threw to the ocean\nthe taxed tea of the oppressor. They put him on board a vessel, the\n\"_Acorn_,\" and carried him off to eternal bondage. \"And this is\nMassachusetts liberty!\" said he, as he stepped on board. Boston sent\nher Delegates to escort him back, and on the 19th of April, 1851, she\ndelivered him up to his tormentors in the jail at Savannah, where he\nwas scourged till human nature could bear no more, while his captors\nwere feasted at the public cost. Seventy-six years before there was\nanother 19th of April, also famous!\n\n(4.) Then came the examination and \"trial\" of the Shadrach Rescuers in\nFebruary and the following months. Some of these trials took place\nbefore his Honor Judge Peleg Sprague. Therefore, you will allow me,\nGentlemen, to refresh your memories with a word or two respecting the\nantecedents of this Judge--his previous history.\n\nIn 1835 the abolition of Slavery in the British West Indies and the\nefforts of the friends of Freedom in the Northern States, excited\ngreat alarm at the South, lest the \"peculiar institution\" should\nitself be brought into peril. Fear of a \"general insurrection of the\nslaves\" was talked about and perhaps felt. The mails were opened in\nsearch of \"incendiary publications;\" a piano-forte sent from Boston to\nVirginia, was returned because the purchaser found an old copy of the\n\"Emancipator\" in the case which contained it. Public meetings for the\npromotion of American Slavery were held. There was one at Boston in\nFaneuil Hall, August 21, 1835, at which a remarkable speech was made\nby a lawyer who had graduated at Harvard College in 1812, a man no\nlonger young, of large talents and great attainments in the law. He\nspoke against discussion, and in behalf of Slavery and Slaveholders:\nhe could see no good, but only unmixed evil \"consequent upon agitating\nthis subject here.\" He said:--\n\n     \"When did fear ever induce a man to relax his power over the\n     object that excited it? No, he will hold him down with a\n     stronger grasp, he will draw the cords tighter, he will make\n     the chains heavier and sink his victim to a still deeper\n     dungeon.\"\n\n     \"The language and measures of the abolitionists clearly tend\n     to insurrection and violence.\" \"They [the slaves] hear that\n     their masters have no legal or moral authority over them.\n     That every moment's exercise of such dominion is sin, and\n     that the laws that sanction it are morally void: that they\n     are entitled to immediate emancipation, and that their\n     masters are to be regarded as kidnappers and robbers for\n     refusing it.\" \"It is deluding these unfortunate beings to\n     their own destruction, we should not aid them. The\n     Constitution provides for the suppressing of insurrections\n     ... we should respond to its call [if the slaves attempted\n     to recover their liberty]; nay, we should not wait for such\n     a requisition, but on the instant should rush forward with\n     fraternal emotions to defend our brethren from desolation\n     and massacre.\"\n\n     \"The South will not tolerate our interference with their\n     slaves, [by our discussing the matter in the newspapers and\n     elsewhere].\" \"The Union then, if used to disturb this\n     institution of Slavery, will be then as the 'spider's web; a\n     breath will agitate, a blast will sweep it away forever.'\"\n\n     \"If, then, these abolitionists shall go on ... the fate of\n     our government is sealed.... And who will attempt to fathom\n     the immeasurable abyss of a dissolution of the Union?\"\n\n     \"Tell the abolitionists this; present to them in full array\n     the consequences of their attempts at immediate\n     emancipation, and they meet all by a cold abstraction. They\n     answer, '_We must do right regardless of consequences._'\"\n     \"They assume that such a course [undoing the heavy burthens\n     and letting the oppressed go free, and loving your neighbor\n     as yourself] _is_ right. When that is the very point in\n     controversy, and when inevitable consequences demonstrate\n     that it must be wrong.\"\n\n     \"They [the abolitionists] insist upon immediate,\n     instantaneous emancipation.... No man, say they, can be\n     rightfully restrained of his liberty except for crime.\"\n     \"They come to the conclusion that no laws that sanction or\n     uphold it [Slavery] can have any moral obligation. The\n     Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. It does\n     sanction, it does uphold Slavery; and if this doctrine be\n     true, that sacred compact has always been [so far] morally\n     null and void.\" \"He [Washington] THAT SLAVEHOLDER ... came\n     with other Slaveholders to drive the British myrmidons from\n     this city and this Hall. Our fathers did not refuse to hold\n     communion with him or with them. With Slaveholders they\n     formed the Confederation ... with them they made the\n     Declaration of Independence.\" \"And in the original draft of\n     the Declaration was contained a most _eloquent passage upon\n     this very topic of negro Slavery, which was stricken out in\n     deference to the wishes of members from the South_.\"\n     \"Slavery existed then as now.\" \"Our fathers were not less\n     devoted friends of liberty, not less pure as philanthropists\n     or pious as Christians than any of their children of the\n     present day.\" [Therefore _we_ must not attempt to emancipate\n     a slave!]\n\nHere is the passage which the speaker thought it so praiseworthy in\nthe Revolutionary Congress to strike out from the Declaration of\nIndependence:--\n\n     \"He [the king] has waged cruel war against human nature\n     itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty\n     in the persons of a distant people who never offended him,\n     captivating and carrying them into slavery in another\n     hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their\n     transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the\n     opprobrium of INFIDEL nations, is the warfare of the\n     CHRISTIAN King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a\n     market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has\n     prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative\n     attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.\n     And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of\n     distinguished dye, he is now exciting those very people to\n     rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which\n     he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he\n     also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed\n     against the LIBERTIES of one people with crimes which he\n     urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.\"\n\nMr. Jefferson says, \"It was struck out in _compliance to South\nCarolina and Georgia_, who had never attempted to restrain the\nimportation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to\ncontinue it. Our Northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little\ntender under it, for though their people have very few slaves\nthemselves, yet they have been pretty considerable carriers of them to\nothers.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut the orator went on protesting against righteousness:--\n\n     \"I would beseech them [the Abolitionists] to discard their\n     dangerous abstractions [that men are endowed by their\n     Creator with certain natural, equal, and unalienable\n     Rights--to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness]\n     which they [in common with the Declaration of Independence]\n     adopt as universal rules of human conduct--without regard to\n     time, condition, or circumstances; which _darken the\n     understanding and mislead the judgment_, and urge them\n     forward to consequences from which they will shrink back\n     with horror. I would ask them to reflect that ... the\n     religion they profess is not to be advanced by forgetting\n     the precepts and the example of their Divine Master. Upon\n     that example I would ask them to pause. He found Slavery,\n     Roman Slavery, an institution of the country in which he\n     lived. Did he denounce it? Did he attempt its immediate\n     abolition? Did he do any thing, or say any thing which could\n     in its remotest tendency encourage resistance and violence?\n     No, his precept was, 'Servants (Slaves) obey your\n     Masters.'\"[183] \"It was because _he would not interfere with\n     the administration of the laws, or abrogate their\n     authority_.\"\n\n[Footnote 183: The learned counsel for the slaveholders probably\nreferred to Eph. vi. 5; or Coloss. iii. 22; or Tit. ii. 9; or 1 Pet.\nii. 18.]\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, this alleged precept of the \"Divine Master\"\ndoes not occur in any one of the four canonical Evangelists of the New\nTestament; nor have I found it in any of those Spurious and Apocryphal\nRecords of old time. It appears originally in the Gospel according to\nthe Hon. Peleg Sprague. \"Slaves, obey your masters,\" \"a comfortable\nScripture\" truly; a beatitude for the stealers of men!\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, that was the language of Mr. Peleg Sprague at\nthe time when the State of Georgia offered $5,000 for the head of Mr.\nGarrison; when the Governors of Virginia and other Slave States, sent\nletters to the Governor of Massachusetts asking for \"penal statutes\"\nto prohibit our discussion in Boston; it was the very year that a mob\nof \"Gentlemen of Property and Standing\" in Boston broke up a meeting\nof women assembled to endeavor to abolish Slavery. Gentlemen of the\nJury, Mr. Sprague had his reward--he sits on the bench to try me for a\n\"misdemeanor\"--\"obstructing, resisting, and opposing an officer of the\nUnited States,\" \"while in the discharge of his duty\" to steal a man in\nBoston, that his \"owner\" might sell him in Richmond. The \"chief\ncommandment\" of the New Testament is, \"Slaves, obey your masters;\" on\nthat commandment he would now hang all the law, and the Abolitionists.\n\nIt would take a long time to tell the dark, sad tale of the trial of\nthe Shadrach Rescuers; how the Judge constructed and charged the Jury;\nhow he constructed his \"law.\" It was the old story of the Stuart\ndespotism, wickedness in the name of the law and with its forms.\nGentlemen, in that trial you saw the value of the jury. The Judges of\nMassachusetts went under the chain which the kidnappers placed about\nthe Court House in 1851. The Federal Judges sought to kidnap the\ncitizens of Boston and to punish all such as opposed man-stealing. The\nMassachusetts Judges allowed the law, which they had sworn to execute,\nto be struck down to the ground; nay, themselves sought to strike it\ndown. The Federal Judges perverted the law to make it an instrument of\ntorture against all such as love mankind. But the jury held up the\nShield of Justice, and the poisoned weapons of the court fell blunted\nto the ground. The government took nothing by that motion--nothing but\ndefeat. There was no conviction. One of the jurors said, \"You may get\none Hunker on any panel; it is not easy to get twelve. There was no\ndanger of a conviction.\" But still it is painful to think in what\nperil our lives and our liberties then were.\n\n(5.) At length came the \"Burns case.\" You know it too well. On the\nnight of Wednesday, May 26, 1854, in virtue of Commissioner Loring's\nwarrant, Anthony Burns was arrested on the charge of burglary, and\nthrust into jail. The next morning he was brought up for condemnation.\nTwo noble men, Mr. Dana and my friend Mr. Ellis, defended Mr. Burns.\nThere was to be no regular trial before Commissioner Loring.\n\nOn the evening of Friday, May 28th, there was a meeting at Faneuil\nHall, and an attack on the Court House where Mr. Burns was illegally\nheld in duress. In the attack a Mr. Batchelder was killed,--a man\nhired to aid in this kidnapping, as he had been in the stealing of Mr.\nSims. To judge from the evidence offered before the Grand-Jury of the\nMassachusetts Court, and especially from the testimony of Marshal\nFreeman, it appears he was accidentally killed by some of his own\nconfederates in that wickedness, and before the door of the Court\nHouse was broken through. But that is of no consequence: as Mr. Dana\nhas said, \"He went in for his pay, and has got his _corn_.\" On Friday,\nJune 4th, Mr. Burns was declared a slave by Commissioner Loring and\ndelivered up to eternal bondage.\n\nIt seems to be in consequence of my connection with this case that I\nam indicted; so you now approach the end of this long defence. I come\nto the last part of it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n(III.) Of the Indictment against Theodore Parker.\n\nI am indicted, gentlemen, for \"resisting an officer\" who was engaged\nin kidnapping Mr. Burns; and it is charged that I, at Boston, May\n26th, \"with force and arms did knowingly and wilfully, obstruct,\nresist, and oppose, ... Watson Freeman, then and there being an\nofficer of the United States, to the great damage of the said Watson\nFreeman; to the great hinderance and obstruction of justice, [to wit,\nof the kidnapping of Anthony Burns,] to the evil example of all others\nin like case offending, against the peace and dignity of the said\nUnited States and contrary to the form of the statute made and\nprovided.\"\n\nIt is also charged that \"one Theodore Parker of Boston, ... with\nforce and arms in and upon the said Watson Freeman, then and there, in\nthe peace of the said United States being, an assault did make, he the\nsaid Freeman also then and there being an officer of the said United\nStates, to wit, Marshal of the United States, ... and then and there\nalso being in the due and lawful discharge of his duties as such\nofficer\" [to wit, stealing and kidnapping one Anthony Burns]. These\nand various other pleasant charges, Mr. Hallett, in the jocose manner\nof indictments, alleges against me; wherefrom I must defend myself, as\nbest I may.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNow, Gentlemen, that you may completely understand the accusation\nbrought against me, I must go back a little, and bring up several\nother matters of fact that have straggled away from this long column\nof argument which I have led into the field thus far;--and also rally\nsome new forces not before drawn into the line of defence. I must\nspeak of the Hon. Justice Curtis; of his conduct in relation to\nSlavery in general, to this particular prosecution, and to this\nspecial case, _United States_ vs. _Theodore Parker_.\n\nFirst, Gentlemen, let me speak of some events which preceded Mr.\nCurtis's elevation to his present distinguished post. To make the\nwhole case perfectly clear, I must make mention of some others\nintimately connected with him.\n\nThere is a family in Boston which may be called the Curtis family. So\nfar as it relates to the matter in hand, it may be said to consist of\nsix persons, namely, Charles P. Curtis, lawyer, and Thomas B. Curtis,\nmerchant, sons of the late Thomas Curtis; Benjamin R. Curtis, by birth\na kinsman, and by marriage a son-in-law of Charles P. Curtis, late a\npractising lawyer, now this Honorable Judge of the Supreme Court of\nthe United States, and his brother, George T. Curtis, lawyer, and\nUnited States Commissioner for the District of Massachusetts; Edward\nG. Loring, a step-son of the late Thomas Curtis, and accordingly\nstep-brother of Charles P. and Thomas B. Curtis, lawyer, Judge of\nProbate for Boston, United States Commissioner, and, until recently,\nLecturer at the Cambridge Law School; and also William W. Greenough,\nson-in-law of Charles P. Curtis, merchant.\n\nThis family, though possessing many good qualities, has had a\nremarkably close and intimate connection with all, or most, of the\nrecent cases of kidnapping in Boston. Here are some of the facts, so\npainful for me to relate, but so indispensable to a full understanding\nof this case.\n\n1. In 1836 Charles P. Curtis and Benjamin R. Curtis appeared as\ncounsel for the slave-hunters in the famous case of the girl Med,\noriginally a slave in the West Indies, and brought to Boston by her\nmistress. Med claimed her freedom on the ground that slavery was not\nrecognized by the laws of Massachusetts, and could not exist here\nunless it were in the special case, under the Federal Constitution, of\nfugitives from the slave States of this Union. The Messrs. Curtis\ncontended with all their skill--_totis viribus_, as lawyers say--that\nslavery might, by legal comity, exist in Massachusetts--that slaves\nwere property by the law of nations; and that an ownership which is\nlegal in the West Indies continued in Boston, at least so far as to\nleave the right to seize and carry away.\n\nMr. Charles P. Curtis had already appeared as counsel for a\nslave-hunter in 1832, and had succeeded in restoring a slave child,\nonly twelve or fourteen years of age, to his claimant who took him to\nCuba with the valuable promise that he should be free in the Spanish\nWest Indies.[184]\n\n[Footnote 184: Daily Advertiser, Dec. 7th, 1832. Mr. Sewall, the early\nand indefatigable friend of the slave, asked the Court to appoint a\nguardian _ad litem_ for the child, who was not 14, who should see that\nhe was not enslaved. But the slaveholder's counsel objected, and the\nJudge (Shaw) refused; yet to his honor be it said in a similar case in\n1841, when Mr. Sewall was counsel for a slave child under the same\ncircumstances, he delivered him to a guardian appointed by the Probate\nCourt. 3 Metcalf, 72.]\n\nIn the Med case Mr. Benjamin R. Curtis made a long and elaborate\nargument to show that \"a citizen of a slaveholding State, who comes to\nMassachusetts for a temporary purpose of business or pleasure and\nbrings his slave as a personal attendant, may restrain that slave for\nthe purpose of carrying him out of the State and returning him to the\ndomicil of his owner.\" To support this proposition, he made two\npoints:--\n\n\"1. That this child by the law of Louisiana is _now_ a slave.\"\n\n\"2. That the law of Massachusetts will so far recognize and give\neffect to the law of Louisiana, as to allow the master to exercise\nthis restricted power over his slave.\" That is, the power to keep her\nhere as a slave, to remove her to Louisiana, and so make her a slave\nfor ever and her children after her.\n\nTo prove this last point he says by quotation, \"we always _import_,\ntogether with their persons, _the existing relations of foreigners\nbetween themselves_.\" So as we \"import\" the natural relation of\nhusband and wife, or parent and child, in the Irish immigrants, and\nrespect the same, we ought equally to import and respect the unnatural\nand forcible relation of master and slave in our visitors from Cuba or\nLouisiana.\n\n     \"It will be urged,\" he said, \"that though we claim to\n     exercise only a qualified and limited right over the slave,\n     namely the right to remove him from the State, yet if this\n     is allowed, all the rights of the master must be allowed,\n     ... and thus Slavery will be introduced into the\n     Commonwealth. To this I answer,\n\n     \"(1.) There is no practical difficulty in giving this\n     qualified effect to the law of Louisiana, [allowing the\n     master to bring and keep his slaves here and remove them\n     when he will]. The Constitution of the United States has\n     settled this question. That provides for and secures to the\n     master, the exercise of his right to the very extent claimed\n     in this case.\"\n\n     \"(2.) Neither is there any theoretical difficulty.\"\n\nTo do this, he thinks, will \"promote harmony and good feeling, where\nit is extremely desirable to promote it, encourage frequent\nintercourse, and soften prejudices by increasing acquaintance, and\ntend to peace and union and good-will.\" \"It will work no injury to the\nState [Massachusetts], by violating any public law of the State. The\nonly law in the statute-book applicable to the subject of Slavery is\nthe law against kidnapping.\" \"It will work no direct injury to the\ncitizens of this State for, ... it respects only strangers.\" \"It is\nconsistent with the public policy of Massachusetts, to permit this ...\nright of the master.\" \"_It may be perfectly consistent with our policy\nnot only to recognize the validity and propriety of those\ninstitutions_ [of Slavery] _in the States where they exist_, but _even\nto interfere actively to enable the citizens of those States to enjoy\nthose institutions at home._\" That is, it may be the duty of\nMassachusetts, \"to interfere actively\" in Louisiana for the\nestablishment and support of Slavery there!\n\nPennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, he adds, have\nmade laws allowing the slaveholder this right: \"The legislatures of\nthose States are the legitimate and highest authority in regard to\ntheir public policy; what they have declared on this subject, must be\ndeemed to be true.... We are not at liberty to suppose that it is\ncontrary to their public policy, that the master should exercise this\nright within their territory. I respectfully ask what difference there\nis between the policy of Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island, and New\nJersey, and the policy of Massachusetts, on the subject of Slavery.\"\n\n\"I shall now attempt,\" he adds, \"to prove that _Slavery is not\nimmoral_.\" How do you think he proved that? Did he cite the Bible? No,\nhe left that to lower law divines. Did he manufacture Bible? No, the\nHon. Peleg Sprague had sufficiently done that a year before. He took a\nshorter cut--he denied there was any morality but Legality. \"I take it\nto be perfectly clear,\" said this young man in all the moral\nenthusiasm of his youth, \"that the Standard of Morality by which\nCourts of Justice are to be guided is that which the law prescribes.\nYour Honors' Opinion as Men or as Moralists has no bearing on the\nquestion. Your Honors are to declare what the Law deems moral or\nimmoral.\"\n\nGentlemen, that needs no comment; this trial is comment enough. But\naccording to that rule no law is immoral. It was \"not immoral\" in 1410\nto hang and burn thirty-nine men in one day for reading the Bible in\nEnglish; the Catholic Inquisition in Spain was \"not immoral;\" the\nbutchery of Martyrs was all right soon as lawful! There is no Higher\nLaw!\n\nIt was \"not immoral\" for the servants of King Pharaoh to drown all the\nnew-born Hebrew boys; nor for Herod's butchers to murder the Innocents\nat Bethlehem. Nay, all the atrocities of the Saint Bartholomew\nMassacres, Gentlemen, they were \"not immoral,\" for \"the Standard of\nMorality\" is \"that which the law prescribes.\" So any legislature that\ncan frame an act, any tyrant who can issue a decree, any court which\ncan deliver an \"opinion,\" can at once nullify the legislation of the\nUniverse and \"dissolve the union\" of Man and God: \"Religion has\nnothing to do with politics; there it makes men mad.\" Is that the\ndoctrine of Young Massachusetts? Hearken then to the Old. In 1765 her\nHouse of Representatives unanimously resolved that \"there are certain\nessential Rights ... which are founded on the Law of God and Nature,\nand are the Common Rights of Mankind, and that the inhabitants of this\nProvince are unalienably entitled to these essential Rights in common\nwith all men, and _that no law of Society ... can divest them of these\nRights_.\" No \"Standard of Morality\" but Law! A thousand years before\nJesus of Nazareth taught his Beatitudes of Humanity, the old Hebrews\nknew better. Hearken to a Psalm nearly three thousand years old.\n\n     Among the assemblies of the great,\n     A Greater Ruler takes his seat;\n     The God of Heaven, as Judge, surveys\n     Those Gods on earth, and all their ways.\n     Why will ye, then, frame wicked laws?\n     Or why support the unrighteous cause?\n     When will ye once defend the poor,\n     That sinners vex the Saints no more?\n     Arise, oh Lord, and let thy Son\n     Possess his universal Throne,\n     And rule the nations with his rod;\n     He is our Judge, and he our God.\n\n\"By the _law of this Commonwealth_,\" added Mr. Curtis, \"_Slavery is\nnot immoral._ By the Supreme law of this Commonwealth Slavery is not\nonly recognized as a valid institution, but to a certain extent is\nincorporated into our own law. Before you [the court] rise from your\nseats, you may be called upon by the master of a fugitive slave, to\ngrant a certificate ... which _will put the whole force of the\nCommonwealth at his disposal, to remove his slave from our\nTerritory_.\"\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, that was conquering his prejudices \"with\nalacrity;\" it was obeying the fugitive slave bill fourteen years\nbefore it was heard of.\n\nHe adds still further, by quotation, \"I have no doubt but the citizen\nof a Slave State has a right to pass, upon business or pleasure,\nthrough any of the States attended by his slaves--and his right to\nreclaim his slave would be unquestioned. An escape from the attendance\nupon the person of his master, while on a journey through a free\nState, should be considered as an escape from the State where the\nmaster had a right of citizenship.\"\n\nMr. Charles P. Curtis thus sustained his kinsman:--\n\n     \"Is that to be considered immoral which the Court is bound\n     to assist in doing? _It is not for us to denounce as_\n     legally _immoral a practice which is permitted_ and\n     sanctioned _by the supreme law of the land_!\" \"It is said\n     the practice of Slavery is corrupting in its influence on\n     public morals. But the practice of bringing slaves here was\n     much more common thirty years ago than now. If this practice\n     be so corrupting, why is it tolerated in other States?\"...\n     \"The law of New York allows even foreigners to go there with\n     their slaves; and have the morals of that State suffered in\n     consequence? In Pennsylvania the law is similar, but where\n     is the evidence of its pernicious influence?\" \"As to the\n     _right to using them_, [the slaves voluntarily brought here\n     by their masters,] _notwithstanding the supposed horror at\n     such an admission_, the legislatures of New York and\n     Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and New Jersey, have actually\n     enacted statutes allowing precisely that privilege.\"[185]\n\n[Footnote 185: Med. Case, 1836.]\n\nBut the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held otherwise. Med was\ndeclared free. Chief Justice Shaw covered himself with honor by his\ndecision. And soon after, (Aug. 29,) the Daily Advertiser, the \"organ\"\nof the opinions of this family, said:--\n\n     \"In some of the States there is ... legislative provision\n     for cases of this sort, [allowing masters to bring and hold\n     slaves therein,] and it would seem that _some such provision\n     is necessary in this State_, unless we would prohibit\n     citizens of the Slave States from travelling in this State\n     with their families, and unless we would permit such of them\n     as wish to emancipate their slaves, to throw them, at their\n     pleasure, upon the people of this State.\"\n\nGentlemen, Mr. Curtis in 1836 contended for all which Mr. Toombs\nboasts he shall get--the right of the slaveholder to sit down at the\nfoot of Bunker Hill monument with his slaves! Nay, Mr. Curtis granted\nmore: it may be the duty of Massachusetts \"to interfere actively,\" and\nestablish slavery in Louisiana, or in Kansas. It may be said, this was\nonly a lawyer pleading for his client. It was--a lawyer asking the\nSupreme Court of Massachusetts to establish slavery in this\nCommonwealth. Is it innocent in a lawyer to ask the court to do a\nwicked thing, to urge the court to do it? Then is it equally innocent\nto ask the Treasurer of a Railroad to forge stock, or an editor to\npublish lies, or a counterfeiter to make and utter base coin, or an\nassassin to murder men. Surely it is as innocent to urge men to kidnap\nblacks in Africa as in Boston.\n\nGentlemen, That declaration--that the Statute supersedes natural\nJustice, and that the only \"Standard of Morality\" by which the courts\nare to be guided is \"that which the law prescribes\"--deserves your\ncareful consideration. \"He that squares his conscience by the law is a\nscoundrel\"--say the proverbs of many nations. What do you think of a\nman who knows no lawgiver but the General Court of Massachusetts, or\nthe American Congress: no Justice but the Statutes? If Mr. Curtis's\ndoctrine is correct, then Franklin, Hancock, Adams, Washington, were\nonly Rebels and Traitors! They refused that \"Standard of Morality.\"\nNay, our Puritan Fathers were all \"criminals;\" the twelve Apostles\ncommitted not only \"misdemeanors\" but sins; and Jesus of Nazareth was\nonly a malefactor, a wanton disturber of the public peace of the\nworld!\n\nThe slave child Med, poor, fatherless, and unprotected, comes before\nthe Supreme Court of Massachusetts, claiming her natural and\nunalienable Right to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,--if not\ngranted she is a slave for ever. In behalf of her wealthy \"owner\" Mr.\nCurtis resists the girl's claim; tells the court she \"is now a slave;\"\nthere is \"no practical difficulty\" in allowing the master to keep her\nin that condition, no \"theoretical difficulty;\" \"slavery is not\nimmoral;\" it may be the duty of Massachusetts not only to recognize\nslavery at home, but also \"even to interfere actively\" to support\nslavery abroad; the law is the only \"Standard of Morality\" for the\ncourts; that establishes slavery in Massachusetts! Gentlemen, what do\nmankind say to such sophistry? Hearken to this Hebrew Bible: \"Wo unto\nthem that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness\nwhich they have prescribed, to turn aside the needy from judgment, and\nto take away the Right from the poor of my people, that widows may be\ntheir prey, and _that they may rob the fatherless_.\" Let the stern\nPsalm of the Puritans still further answer from the manly bosom of the\nBible.\n\n     \"Judges who rule the world by laws,\n     Will ye despise the righteous cause,\n       When the injured poor before you stands?\n     Dare ye condemn the righteous poor\n     And let rich sinners 'scape secure,\n       While Gold and Greatness bribe your hands?\n\n     \"Have ye forgot, or never knew,\n     That God will judge the judges too?\n       High in the Heavens his Justice reigns;\n     Yet you invade the rights of God,\n     And send your bold decrees abroad,\n       To bind the Conscience in your chains.\n\n     \"Break out their teeth, eternal God,\n     Those teeth of lions dy'd in blood;\n       And crush the serpents in the dust;\n     As empty chaff, when whirlwinds rise,\n     Before the sweeping tempest flies,\n       So let their hopes and names be lost.\n\n     \"Thus shall the Justice of the Lord\n     Freedom and peace to men afford;\n       And all that hear shall join and say,\n     Sure there's a God that rules on high,\n     A God that hears his children cry,\n       And all their sufferings will repay.\"\n\n2. After Mr. Webster had made his speech of March 7, 1850, pledging\nhimself and his State to the support of the fugitive slave bill, then\nbefore Congress, \"to the fullest extent,\" Thomas B. Curtis, with the\nhelp of others, got up a letter to Mr. Webster, dated March 25, 1850,\nsigned, it is said, by 987 persons, who say: \"We desire to express to\nyou our deep obligations for what this speech has done and is doing.\"\n\"You have pointed out to a whole people the path of duty, have\nconvinced the understanding and touched the conscience of the nation.\"\n\"We desire, therefore, to express to you our entire concurrence in the\nsentiments of your speech.\"\n\n3. A little later, Mr. Webster returned to Boston, and was\n\"rapturously received\" at the Revere House, April 29, 1850, by a\n\"great multitude,\" when Benjamin R. Curtis made a public address, and\nexpressed his \"abounding gratitude for the ability and fidelity\" which\nMr. Webster had \"brought to the defence of the Constitution and of the\nUnion,\" and commended him as \"_eminently vigilant, wise, and faithful\nto his country, without a shadow of turning_.\"\n\n4. Presently, after the passage of the fugitive slave bill, at a\ndinner party, at the house of a distinguished counsellor of Boston,\nCharles P. Curtis declared that he hoped the first fugitive slave who\nshould come to Boston would be seized and sent back!\n\n5. Charles P. Curtis and his step-brother Edward G. Loring, and George\nT. Curtis, defended the fugitive slave bill by writing articles in the\n_Boston Daily Advertiser_.\n\n6. In November, 1850, the slave-hunters, thus invited and encouraged,\ncame to Boston, seeking to kidnap William and Ellen Craft: but they in\nvain applied to Commissioner Benj. F. Hallett, and to Judges Woodbury\nand Sprague, for a warrant to arrest their prey. Finally, they betook\nthemselves to Commissioner George T. Curtis, who at once agreed to\ngrant a warrant; but, according to his own statement, in a letter to\nMr. Webster, Nov. 23, 1850, as he anticipated resistance, and\nconsidered it very important that the Marshal should have more support\nthan it was in his power as a Commissioner to afford, he procured a\nmeeting of the Commissioners, four in number, and with their aid\nsucceeded in persuading the Circuit Court, then in session, to issue\nthe warrant.\n\nGentlemen, as that letter of Mr. George T. Curtis contains some\nmatters which are of great importance, you will thank me for\nrefreshing your memory with such pieces of history.\n\n     \"An application [for a warrant to arrest Mr. Craft] had\n     already been made to the judges [Messrs. Woodbury and\n     Sprague] privately ... they could not grant a warrant on\n     account of the pendency of an important Patent Cause then on\n     trial before a jury.\" \"To this I replied, that ... the\n     ordinary business of the Court ought to give way for a\n     sufficient length of time, to enable the judges to receive\n     this application and to hear the case.\" \"On a private\n     intimation to the presiding judge of our desire to confer\n     with him [the desire of the kidnapping commissioners, Mr.\n     B.F. Hallett, Mr. Edward G. Loring, Mr. C.L. Woodbury, and\n     Mr. G.T. Curtis] the jury were dismissed at _an earlier hour\n     than usual, ... and every person present except the\n     Marshal's deputies left the room, and the doors were\n     closed_.\" \"The learned Judge said ... that he would attend\n     at half past eight the next morning, to grant the warrant.\"\n     \"A process was placed in the hands of the Marshal ... in the\n     execution of which he might be called upon to _break open\n     dwelling-houses, and perhaps take life_, by quelling\n     resistance, actual or _threatened_.\" \"I devoted at once a\n     good deal of time to the necessary investigations of the\n     subject.\" \"There is a great deal of legislation needed to\n     make the general government independent of State control,\"\n     says this \"Expounder of the Constitution,\" \"and independent\n     of the power of mobs, whenever and wherever its measures\n     chance to be unpopular.\" \"The office of United States\n     Marshal is by no means organized and fortified by\n     legislation as it should be to encounter popular\n     disturbance.\"\n\n7. The warrant having been issued for the seizure of Mr. Craft,\nMarshal Devens applied to Benjamin R. Curtis for legal advice as to\nthe degree of force he might use in serving it, and whether it ought\nto be regarded as a civil or a criminal process. George T. Curtis was\nemployed by his brother to search for authorities on these points.\nThey two, together, as appears from the letter of George T. Curtis to\nMr. Webster, induced Marshal Devens to ask a further question, which\ngave Benjamin R. Curtis an opportunity to come out with an elaborate\nopinion in favor of the constitutionality of the fugitive slave bill,\ndated November 9, 1850. This was published in the newspapers. In order\nto maintain the constitutionality of this act, Benjamin R. Curtis was\ndriven to assume, as all its defenders must, that the Commissioner, in\nreturning the fugitive, performs none of the duties of a Judge; that\nthe hearing before him is not \"a case arising under the laws of the\nUnited States;\" that he acts not as a judicial, but merely as an\nexecutive and \"ministerial\" officer--not deciding him to be a slave,\nbut merely giving him up, to enable that point to be tried\nelsewhere.[186] But, spite of this opinion, public justice and the\nVigilance Committee forced the (Southern) slave-hunters to flee from\nBoston, after which, Mr. and Mrs. Craft left America to find safety in\nEngland, the evident rage and fierce threats of the disappointed\nBoston slave-hunters making it unsafe for them to remain.\n\n[Footnote 186: On this see Hildreth's Despotism, 262, 280.\nCommissioner Loring considers that the fugitive slave bill\ncommissioners have \"_judicial_ duties.\" Remonstrance to General Court,\n2.]\n\n8. After the failure of this attempt to arrest Mr. Craft, Thomas B.\nCurtis got up a \"Union Meeting\" at Faneuil Hall, November 26,\n1850.[187] The call was addressed to such as \"regard with disfavor all\nfurther popular agitation\" of the subject of Slavery. Thomas B. Curtis\ncalled the meeting to order: William W. Greenough, from the \"Committee\nof Arrangements,\" presented the resolutions, which you have already\nheard.[188] It was said at the time that they were written, wholly or\nin part, by Mr. Benjamin R. Curtis, who moved their adoption and made\na long and elaborate speech thereon.\n\n[Footnote 187: See Mr. Curtis's letter in Daily Advertiser of February\n7, 1855.]\n\n[Footnote 188: See above, p. 148, 149.]\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, as I just now gave you some passages from Mr.\nHallett's speech on that occasion, allow me now to read you some\nextracts from Mr. Curtis's address. The general aim of the speech was\nto reconcile the People to kidnapping; the rhetorical means to this\nend were an attempt to show that kidnapping was expedient; that it was\nindispensable; that it had been long since agreed to; that the Slaves\nwere foreigners and had no right in _Massachusetts_. He said:--\n\n     \"We have come here not to consider particular measures of\n     government but to assert that we have a government, not to\n     determine whether this or that law be wise or just, but to\n     declare that there is law, and its duties and power.\"\n\n     \"Every sovereign State has and must have the right to judge\n     _what persons from abroad_ shall be admitted.\"\n\n     \"Are not these persons [fugitive slaves] foreigners as to\n     us--and what right have they to come here at all, _against\n     the will of the legislative power of the State_.\n     [Massachusetts had no legislation forbidding them!] And if\n     their coming here or remaining here, is not consistent with\n     the safety of the State and the welfare of the citizens _may\n     we not_ prohibit their coming, or _send them back_ if they\n     come?\" \"_To deny this_ is to deny the right of\n     self-preservation to a State.... It ... _throws us back at\n     once into a condition below the most degraded savages who\n     have a semblance of government_.\" \"You know that the great\n     duty of justice could not otherwise be performed, [that is\n     without the fugitive-from-labor clause in the Constitution];\n     that our peace at home and our safety from foreign\n     aggression could not otherwise be insured; and that only by\n     this means could we obtain 'the Blessings of Liberty' to the\n     people of Massachusetts and their posterity.\" \"In no other\n     way could we become an example of, and security for, the\n     capacity of man, safely and peacefully and wisely to govern\n     himself under free and popular institutions.\"\n\nSo the fugitive slave bill is an argument against human depravity,\nshowing the capacity of man to govern himself \"safely and peacefully\nand wisely.\"\n\nHe adds, as early as 1643 the New England colonies found it necessary\n\"to insert an article substantially like this one,\" for the rendition\nof fugitive servants, and in 1789 the Federal government demanded that\nthe Spaniards should surrender the fugitive slaves of Georgia.\nInjustice, Gentlemen, has never lacked a precedent since Cain killed\nAbel. Mr. Curtis continues:--\n\n     \"When I look abroad over 100,000 happy homes in\n     Massachusetts and see a people, such as the blessed sun has\n     rarely shone upon, so intelligent and educated, moral,\n     religious, progressive, and free to do every thing but\n     wrong--I fear to say that I should not be in the wrong to\n     put all this at risk, because our _passionate will_ impels\n     us to break a promise our wise and good fathers made, not to\n     allow a _class of foreigners_ to come here, or to _send them\n     back if they came_.\"\n\nSo the refusal to kidnap Ellen and William Craft came of the\n\"_passionate will_\" of the people, and is likely to ruin the happy\nhomes of a moral and religious people!\n\n     \"_With the rights of these persons_ I firmly believe\n     _Massachusetts has nothing to do_. It is enough for us that\n     they have no right to be _here_. Whatever natural rights\n     they have--and I admit these natural rights to their fullest\n     extent--this is not the _soil_ on which to vindicate them.\n     This is _our_ soil, sacred to _our_ peace, on which we\n     intend to perform _our_ promises, and work out for the\n     benefit of ourselves and our posterity and the world, the\n     destiny which our Creator has assigned to _us_.\"\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, it is written of that Creator that He is \"no\nRespecter of Persons;\" and \"hath made of one blood all nations of men\nfor to dwell on all the face of the earth.\" The \"Our Creator\" of Mr.\nCurtis is also the Father of William and Ellen Craft; and that great\nSoul who has ploughed his moral truths deep into the history of\nmankind, represents the final Judge of us all as saying to such as\nscorned his natural Law of Justice and Humanity, \"INASMUCH AS YE DID\nIT NOT TO ONE OF THE LEAST OF THESE YE DID IT NOT TO ME.\"\n\nMassachusetts is \"our soil,\" is it; \"sacred to _our_ peace,\" which is\nto be made sure of by stealing our brother men, and giving to\nCommissioners George T. Curtis and Edward G. Loring ten dollars for\nmaking a slave, and only five for setting free a man! Peace and the\nfugitive slave bill! No, Gentlemen of the Jury, it is vain to cry\nPeace, Peace--when there is no peace! Ay, there _is_ no peace to the\nwicked; and though the counsel of the ungodly be carried, it is\ncarried headlong!\n\nIn that speech, Gentlemen, Mr. Curtis made a special attack upon me:--\n\n     \"There has been made within these walls,\" said he, \"the\n     declaration that an article of the Constitution [the\n     rendition clause] of the United States 'shall not be\n     executed, _law or no law_.' A gentleman offered a resolve\n     ... that 'constitution or no constitution, law or no law, we\n     will not allow a fugitive slave to be taken from\n     Massachusetts.' The chairman of a public meeting [Hon.\n     Charles Francis Adams, on October 14th] declared here that\n     'the law will be resisted, and if the fugitive resists, and\n     if he slay the slave-hunter, or even the Marshal, and if he\n     therefor be brought before a Jury of Massachusetts men, that\n     Jury will not convict him.' And as if there should be\n     nothing wanting to exhibit the madness which has possessed\n     men's minds, _murder and perjury_ have been enacted into\n     virtues, and in this city preached from the sacred desk. I\n     must not be suspected of exaggerating in the least degree. I\n     read therefore the following passage from a sermon preached\n     and published in this city:--\n\n     \"'Let me suppose a case which may happen here and before\n     long. A woman flies from South Carolina to Massachusetts to\n     escape from bondage. Mr. Greatheart aids her in her escape,\n     harbors and conceals her, and is brought to trial for it.\n     The punishment is a fine of one thousand dollars and\n     imprisonment for six months. I am drawn to serve as a juror\n     and pass upon this offence. I may refuse to serve and be\n     punished for that, leaving men with no scruples to take my\n     place, or I may take the juror's oath to give a verdict\n     according to the law and the testimony. The law is plain,\n     let us suppose, and the testimony conclusive. Greatheart\n     himself confesses that he did the deed alleged, saving one\n     ready to perish. The judge charges that if the jurors are\n     satisfied of that fact then they must return that he is\n     guilty. This is a nice matter. Here are two questions. The\n     one put to me in my official capacity as juror, is this:\n     \"Did Greatheart aid the woman?\" The other, put to me in my\n     natural character as man, is this: \"Will you help punish\n     Greatheart with fine and imprisonment for helping a woman\n     obtain her unalienable rights?\" If I have extinguished my\n     manhood by my juror's oath, then I shall do my official\n     business and find Greatheart guilty, and I shall seem to be\n     a true man; but if I value my manhood I shall answer after\n     my natural duty to love man and not hate him, to do him\n     justice, not injustice, to allow him the natural rights he\n     has not alienated, and shall say, \"Not guilty.\" Then men\n     will call me forsworn and a liar, but I think human nature\n     will justify the verdict.'\"\n\n\"I should like to ask,\" he continued, \"the reverend gentleman in what\ncapacity he expects to be punished for his _perjury_?\" Gentlemen of\nthe Jury, I rose and said, \"Do you want an answer to your question,\nsir?\" He had charged me with preaching murder and perjury; had asked,\nHow I expected to be punished for my own \"PERJURY?\" When I offered to\nanswer his question he refused me the opportunity to reply! Thus,\nGentlemen, he charged me with recommending men to commit perjury! Did\nhe think I advised men to take an oath and break it? On the other side\nof the page which he read there stood printed:--\n\n     \"Suppose a man has sworn to keep the Constitution of the\n     United States, and the Constitution is found to be wrong in\n     certain particulars; then his oath is not morally binding,\n     for before his oath, by his very existence, he is morally\n     bound to keep the law of God as fast as he learns it. No\n     oath can absolve him from his natural allegiance to God. Yet\n     I see not how a man can knowingly, and with a good\n     Conscience, swear to keep what he deems it wrong to keep,\n     and will not keep, and does not intend to keep.\"\n\nGentlemen, when that speech came to be printed--there was no charge of\n\"perjury\" at all, but a quite different sentence![189]\n\n[Footnote 189: See the speech in Boston Courier of November 27th, with\nthe editorial comment, and in Daily Advertiser of 28th, _Thanksgiving\nDay_. See also the Atlas of November 27th. The Sermon is in 2 Parker's\nSpeeches, 241.]\n\n9. In February, 1851, George T. Curtis issued the warrant for the\nseizure of Shadrach, who was \"hauled\" in to the court house before\nthat Commissioner; but \"the Lord delivered him out of their hands,\"\nand he also escaped out of the United States of America.\n\n10. After the escape or rescue of Shadrach, George T. Curtis\ntelegraphed the news to Mr. Webster, at Washington, declaring \"it is\nlevying war;\" thus constructing high treason out of the rescue of a\nprisoner by unarmed men, from the hands of a sub-deputy officer of the\nUnited States.\n\n11. George T. Curtis also officiated as Commissioner in the kidnapping\nof Thomas Sims, in April, 1851; and under the pretence of\n\"extradition,\" sent him to be scourged in the jail of Savannah, and\nthen to suffer eternal bondage. It was rumored at the time that\nCharles P. Curtis and Benjamin R. Curtis, his law-partner and\nson-in-law, were the secret legal advisers and chamber-counsel of the\nSouthern slave-hunters in this case. I know not how true the rumor\nwas, nor whether it was based on new observation of facts, or was\nmerely an inference from their general conduct and character.\n\n12. When Mr. Sims was brought before Judge Woodbury, on _habeas\ncorpus_, Benjamin R. Curtis appeared as counsel for the Marshal, and\nalso assisted Judge Woodbury in strengthening his opinion against\nSims, by a written note transmitted by an officer of the Court to the\nJudge, while he was engaged in delivering his opinion.\n\n13. Gentlemen of the Jury, I have shown you how, in Britain, the\nGovernment, seeking to oppress the people and to crush down freedom of\nspeech, put into judicial offices such men as were ready to go all\nlengths in support of profitable wickedness. You do not forget the men\nwhom the Stuarts made judges: surely you remember Twysden, and Kelyng,\nand Finch, and Saunders, and Scroggs. You will not forget Edmund\nThurlow and John Scott. Well, Gentlemen, in 1851, Judge Woodbury died,\nand on the recommendation of Mr. Webster, Mr. Benjamin R. Curtis was\nraised to the dignity he now holds. Of course, Gentlemen, the country\nwill judge of the cause and motive of the selection. No lawyer in New\nEngland had laid down such southern \"Principles\" for foundation of\nlaw; he outwent Mr. Sprague. None had rendered such service to the\nSlave Power. In 1836, he had sought to restore slavery to\nMassachusetts, and to accomplish that had denied the existence of any\nHigher Law,--the written statute was the only standard of judicial\nmorals. In 1850, he had most zealously defended the fugitive slave\nbill,--coming to the rescue of despotism when it seemed doubtful which\nway the money of Boston would turn, and showing most exemplary\ndiligence in his attempts to kidnap William and Ellen Craft.\nGentlemen, if such services were left unpaid, surely \"the Union would\nbe in danger!\" But I must go on with my sad chronicle.\n\n14. As Circuit Judge of the United States, Benjamin R. Curtis, as well\nin the construction of juries, as in the construction of the law,\nexerted all his abilities against the parties indicted for the rescue\nof Shadrach, though Mr. Hale says his conduct was far better than\nJudge Sprague's. He did this especially in the case of Elizur Wright,\nwho appeared without counsel, and thus afforded a better opportunity\nto procure a conviction. But it was in vain--all escaped out of his\nhands.\n\n15. In 1851, George T. Curtis brought an action for libel against\nBenjamin B. Mussey, bookseller, who had just published a volume of\nspeeches by the Hon. Horace Mann, one of which was against the\nbusiness of kidnapping in Boston, wherein George T. Curtis found, as\nhe alleged, matter libellous of himself. That suit remains yet\nundisposed of; but in it he will doubtless recover the full value of\nhis reputation, on which kidnapping has affixed no stain.\n\n16. In May, 1854, Edward G. Loring issued a warrant for the seizure of\nMr. Burns; decided the case before he heard it, having advised the\ncounsel not to oppose his rendition, for he would probably be sent\nback; held him ironed in his \"court,\" and finally delivered him over\nto eternal bondage. But in that case, it is said, Mr. Loring, who has\nno Curtis blood in his veins, did not wish to steal a man; and\nproposed to throw up his commission rather than do such a deed; but he\nconsulted his step-brother, Charles P. Curtis, who persuaded him it\nwould be dishonorable to decline the office of kidnapping imposed upon\nhim as a United States Commissioner by the fugitive slave bill.\nBenjamin R. Curtis, it is said, I know not how truly--himself can\nanswer, aided Mr. Loring in forming the \"opinion\" by which he\nattempted to justify the \"extradition\" of Mr. Burns; that is to say,\nthe giving him up as a slave without any trial of his right to\nliberty, merely on a presumptive case established by his claimant.\n\n17. After Commissioner Loring had seized Mr. Burns, Mr. George T.\nCurtis, by a communication published in the newspapers, informed the\npublic that he still continued the business of man-hunting at the old\nstand, where all orders for kidnapping would be promptly attended to.\nFor, he says, there was a statement \"that I had declined, or was\nunwilling or afraid to act. I did not choose that any one whatever\nshould have an excuse for believing that Judge Loring was willing to\nsit in a case that I had declined.\" \"I thought proper to place myself\nas it were by his side.\" \"But I never took a fee [for kidnapping], and\nI never shall take one.\"[190] Did he remember the fate of the Hebrew\nJudas, who \"betrayed the Innocent Blood,\" and then cast down the\nthirty pieces?\n\n[Footnote 190: See Boston Journal of May 29, and Boston Courier of\nJune 7, 1854.]\n\nHitherto the kidnapping commissioners, though both members of the same\nfamily, had pursued their game separately, each on his own account.\nAfter this it appears these two are to hunt in couples: Commissioner\nLoring and Commissioner Curtis \"as it were by his side:\"--\n\n     \"Swift in pursuit, but matched in mouth like bells,\n     _Each under each_.\"\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, it is a very painful thing for me to deliver\nthis very sad chronicle of such wicked deeds. But do not judge these\nmen wholly by those acts. I am by no means stingy of commendation, and\nwould rather praise than blame. The two elder Messrs. Curtis have many\nestimable and honorable qualities,--in private relations it is\nsaid--and I believe it--they are uncommonly tender and delicate and\nrefined in the elegant courtesies of common life. I know that they\nhave often been open-handed and generous in many a charity. In the\nordinary intercourse of society, where no great moral principle is\nconcerned, they appear as decorous and worthy men. Hon. Benj. R.\nCurtis,--he will allow me to mention his good qualities before his\nface,--though apparently destitute of any high moral instincts, is yet\na man of superior powers of understanding, and uncommon industry; as a\nlawyer he was above many of the petty tricks so common in his\nprofession. Strange as it may seem, I have twice seen Mr. George T.\nCurtis's name among others who contributed to purchase a slave; Mr.\nLoring's good qualities I have often mentioned, and always with\ndelight.\n\nBut this family has had its hand in all the kidnapping which has\nrecently brought such misery to the colored people and their friends;\nsuch ineffaceable disgrace upon Boston, and such peril to the natural\nRights of man. These men have laid down and advocated the principles\nof despotism; they have recommended, enforced, and practised\nkidnapping in Boston, and under circumstances most terribly atrocious.\nWithout their efforts we should have had no man-stealing here. They\ncunningly, but perhaps unconsciously, represented the low Selfishness\nof the Money Power at the North, and the Slave Power at the South, and\npersuaded the controlling men of Boston to steal Mr. Sims and Mr.\nBurns. In 1836 they sought to enslave a poor little orphan girl, and\nrestore bondage to Massachusetts; in 1851 they succeeded in\nenthralling a man. Now, Gentlemen, they are seeking to sew up the\nmouth of New England; there is a sad consistency in their public\nbehavior.\n\nGentlemen, they are not ashamed of this conduct; when \"A Citizen of\nBoston,\" last January, related in the New York Tribune some of the\nfacts I have just set forth, \"One of the name\" published his card in\nthat paper and thanked the \"Citizen\" for collecting abundant evidence\nthat the \"Curtis Family\" \"have worked hard to keep the _law_ superior\nto fanaticism, disloyalty, and the _mob_,\" and declared that \"they\nfeel encouraged to continue in the same course and _their children\nafter them_.\"[191] Mr. Thomas B. Curtis considers some of the acts I\nhave just mentioned \"among the most meritorious acts\" of his\nlife.[192] Mr. Loring, in his \"Remonstrance,\" justifies Kidnapping!\n\n[Footnote 191: New York Tribune, January 15, 1855.]\n\n[Footnote 192: Daily Advertiser, February 7, 1855.]\n\nThey may, indeed, speak well of the bridge which carries them safe\nover. Three of the family are fugitive slave bill commissioners; one\nof them intellectually the ablest, perhaps morally the blindest, who\nso charged me with \"Perjury,\" is the Honorable Judge who is to try me\nfor a \"Misdemeanor.\" Of course he is perfectly impartial, and has no\nanimosity which seeks revenge,--the history of courts forbids the\nsupposition!\n\nSuch, Gentlemen, are the antecedents of the Hon. Judge Curtis, such\nhis surroundings. You will presently see what effect they have had in\nprocuring this indictment. It a sad tale that I have presented. He\ntold it, not I; he did the deeds, and they have now found words.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, I shall next speak of Judge Curtis's charge to\nthe grand-jury, delivered in Boston, June 7, 1854--only five days\nafter his kinsman had sent Mr. Burns into Slavery. Here is that part\nof the charge which relates to our case.\n\n     \"There is another criminal law of the United States to which\n     I must call your attention, and give you in charge. It was\n     enacted on the 13th of April, 1790, and is in the following\n     words:--\n\n     \"'If any person shall knowingly or wilfully obstruct,\n     resist, or oppose any officer of the United States, in\n     serving, or attempting to serve, or execute any mesne\n     process, or warrant, or any rule or order of any of the\n     courts of the United States, or any other legal writ or\n     process whatever, or shall assault, beat, or wound any\n     officer, or other person duly authorized, in serving or\n     executing any writ, rule, order, process, or warrant,\n     aforesaid, such person shall, on conviction, be imprisoned\n     not exceeding twelve months, and fined not exceeding three\n     hundred dollars.'\n\n     \"You will observe, Gentlemen, that this law makes no\n     provision for a case where an officer, or other person duly\n     authorized, is killed by those unlawfully resisting him.\n     That is a case of murder, and is left to be tried and\n     punished under the laws of the State, within whose\n     jurisdiction the offence is committed. Over that offence\n     against the laws of the State of Massachusetts we have here\n     no jurisdiction. It is to be presumed that the duly\n     constituted authorities of the State will, in any such case,\n     do their duty; and if the crime of murder has been\n     committed, will prosecute and punish all who are guilty.\n\n     \"Our duty is limited to administering the laws of the United\n     States; and by one of those laws which I have read to you,\n     to obstruct, resist, or oppose, or beat, or wound any\n     officer of the United States, or other person duly\n     authorized, in serving or executing any legal process\n     whatsoever, is an offence against the laws of the United\n     States, and is one of the subjects concerning which you are\n     bound to inquire.\n\n     \"It is not material that the same act is an offence both\n     against the laws of the United States and of a particular\n     State. Under our system of government the United States and\n     the several States are distinct sovereignties, each having\n     its own system of criminal law, which it administers in its\n     own tribunals; and the criminal laws of a State can in no\n     way affect those of the United States. The offence,\n     therefore, of obstructing legal process of the United States\n     is to be inquired of and treated by you as a misdemeanor,\n     under the Act of Congress which I have quoted, without any\n     regard to the criminal laws of the State, or the nature of\n     the crime under these laws.\n\n     \"This Act of Congress is carefully worded, and its meaning\n     is plain. Nevertheless, there are some terms in it, and some\n     rules of law connected with it, which should be explained\n     for your guidance. And first, as to the process, the\n     execution of which is not to be obstructed.\n\n     \"The language of the Act is very broad. It embraces every\n     legal process whatsoever, whether issued by a court in\n     session, or by a judge, or magistrate, or commissioner\n     acting in the due administration of any law of the United\n     States. You will probably experience no difficulty in\n     understanding and applying this part of the law.\n\n     \"As to what constitutes an obstruction--it was many years\n     ago decided, by Justice Washington, that to support an\n     indictment under this law, it was not necessary to prove the\n     accused used or even threatened active violence. Any\n     obstruction to the free action of the officer, or his lawful\n     assistants, wilfully placed in his or their way, for the\n     purpose of thus obstructing him or them, is sufficient. And\n     it is clear that if a multitude of persons should assemble,\n     even in a public highway, with the design to stand together,\n     and thus prevent the officer from passing freely along the\n     way, in the execution of his precept, and the officer should\n     thus be hindered or obstructed, this would of itself, and\n     without any active violence, be such an obstruction as is\n     contemplated by this law. If to this be added use of any\n     active violence, then the officer is not only obstructed,\n     but he is resisted and opposed, and of course the offence is\n     complete, for either of them is sufficient to constitute it.\n\n     \"If you should be satisfied that an offence against this law\n     has been perpetrated, you will then inquire by whom; and\n     this renders it necessary for me to instruct you concerning\n     the kind and amount of participation which brings\n     individuals within the compass of this law.\n\n     \"And first, all who are present and actually obstruct,\n     resist, or oppose, are of course guilty. So are all who are\n     present leagued in the common design, and so situated as to\n     be able, in case of need, to afford assistance to those\n     actually engaged, though they do not actually obstruct,\n     resist, or oppose. If they are present for the purpose of\n     affording assistance in obstructing, resisting, or opposing\n     the officers, and are so situated as to be able in any event\n     which may occur, actually to aid in the common design,\n     though no overt act is done by them, they are still guilty\n     under this law. The offence defined by this act is a\n     misdemeanor; and it is rule of law that whatever\n     participation, in case of felony, would render a person\n     guilty, either as a principal in the second degree, or as an\n     accessory before the fact, does, in a case of misdemeanor,\n     render him guilty as a principal; in misdemeanors all are\n     principals. And, therefore, in pursuance of the same rule,\n     not only those who are present, but those who, though absent\n     when the offence was committed, did procure, counsel,\n     command, or abet others to commit the offence, are\n     indictable as principal.\n\n     \"Such is the law, and it would seem that no just mind could\n     doubt its propriety. If persons having influence over others\n     use that influence to induce the commission of crime, while\n     they themselves remain at a safe distance, that must be\n     deemed a very imperfect system of law which allows them to\n     escape with impunity. Such is not our law. It treats such\n     advice as criminal, and subjects the giver of it to\n     punishment according to the nature of the offence to which\n     his pernicious counsel has led. If it be a case of felony,\n     he is by the common law an accessory before the fact, and by\n     the laws of the United States and of this State, is\n     punishable to the same extent as the principal felon. If it\n     be a case of misdemeanor, the adviser is himself a principal\n     offender, and is to be indicted and punished as if he\n     himself had done the criminal act. It may be important for\n     you to know what, in point of law, amounts to such an\n     advising or counselling another as will be sufficient to\n     constitute this legal element in the offence. It is laid\n     down by high authority, that though a mere tacit\n     acquiescence, or words, which amount to a bare permission,\n     will not be sufficient, yet such a procurement may be,\n     either by direct means, as by hire, counsel, or command, or\n     indirect, by evincing an express liking, approbation, or\n     assent to another's criminal design. From the nature of the\n     case, the law can prescribe only general rules on this\n     subject. My instruction to you is, that language addressed\n     to persons who immediately afterwards commit an offence,\n     actually intended by the speaker to incite those addressed\n     to commit it, and adapted thus to incite them, is such a\n     counselling or advising to the crime as the law\n     contemplates, and the person so inciting others is liable to\n     be indicted as a principal.\n\n     \"In the case of the _Commonwealth_ v. _Bowen_ (13 Mass. R.\n     359), which was an indictment for counselling another to\n     commit suicide, tried in 1816, Chief Justice Parker\n     instructing the jury, and speaking for the Supreme Court of\n     Massachusetts, said:--\n\n     \"'The government is not bound to prove that Jewett would not\n     have hung himself, had Bowen's counsel never reached his\n     ear. The very act of advising to the commission of a crime\n     is of itself unlawful. The presumption of law is that advice\n     has the influence and effect intended by the adviser, unless\n     it is shown to have been otherwise; as that the counsel was\n     received with scoff, or was manifestly rejected and\n     ridiculed at the time it was given. It was said in the\n     argument that Jewett's abandoned and depraved character\n     furnishes ground to believe that he would have committed the\n     act without such advice from Bowen. Without doubt he was a\n     hardened and depraved wretch; but it is in man's nature to\n     revolt at self-destruction. When a person is predetermined\n     upon the commission of this crime, the seasonable\n     admonitions of a discreet and respected friend would\n     probably tend to overthrow his determination. On the other\n     hand, the counsel of an unprincipled wretch, stating the\n     heroism and courage the self-murderer displays, might\n     induce, encourage, and fix the intention, and ultimately\n     procure the perpetration of the dreadful deed; and if other\n     men would be influenced by such advice, the presumption is\n     that Jewett was so influenced. He might have been influenced\n     by many powerful motives to destroy himself. Still the\n     inducements might have been insufficient to procure the\n     actual commission of the act, and one word of additional\n     advice might have turned the scale.'\n\n     \"When applied--as this ruling seems to have been here\n     applied--to a case in which the advice was nearly connected,\n     in point of time, with the criminal act, it is, in my\n     opinion, correct. If the advice was intended by the giver to\n     stir or incite to a crime--if it was of such a nature as to\n     be adapted to have this effect, and the persons incited\n     immediately afterwards committed that crime--it is a just\n     presumption that they were influenced by the advice or\n     incitement to commit it. The circumstances, or direct proof,\n     may or may not be sufficient to control this presumption;\n     and whether they are so, can duly be determined in each\n     case, upon all its evidence.\n\n     \"One other rule of law on this subject is necessary to be\n     borne in mind--the substantive offence to which the advice\n     or incitement applied must have been committed; and it is\n     for that alone the adviser or procurer is legally\n     accountable. Thus if one should counsel another to rescue\n     one prisoner, and he should rescue another, unless by\n     mistake; or if the incitement was to rescue a prisoner, and\n     he commit a larceny, the inciter is not responsible. But it\n     need not appear _that the precise time, or place, or means\n     advised_, were used. Thus if one incite A. to murder B., but\n     advise him to wait until B. shall be at a certain place at\n     noon, and A. murders B. at a different place in the morning,\n     the adviser is guilty. So if the incitement be to poison,\n     and the murderer shoots, or stabs. So if the counsel be to\n     beat another, and he is beaten to death, the adviser is a\n     murderer; for having incited another to commit an unlawful\n     act, he is responsible for all that ensues upon its\n     execution.\n\n     \"These illustrations are drawn from cases of felonies,\n     because they are the most common in the books and the most\n     striking in themselves; but the principles on which they\n     depend are equally applicable to cases of misdemeanor. In\n     all such cases the real question is, whether the accused did\n     procure, counsel, command, or abet the substantive offence\n     committed. If he did, it is of no importance that his advice\n     or directions were departed from in respect to the time, or\n     place, or precise mode or means of committing it.\n\n     \"Gentlemen: The events which have recently occurred in this\n     city, have rendered it my duty to call your attention to\n     these rules of law, and to direct you to inquire whether in\n     point of fact the offence of obstructing process of the\n     United States has been committed; if it has, you will\n     present for trial all such persons as have so participated\n     therein as to be guilty of that offence. And you will allow\n     me to say to you that if you or I were to begin to make\n     discriminations between one law and another, and say this we\n     will enforce and that we will not enforce, we should not\n     only violate our oaths, but so far as in us lies, we should\n     destroy the liberties of our country, which rest for their\n     basis upon the great principle that our country is governed\n     by laws, constitutionally enacted, and not by men.\n\n     \"In one part of our country the extradition of fugitives\n     from labor is odious; in another, if we may judge from some\n     transactions, the law concerning the extradition of\n     fugitives from justice has been deemed not binding; in\n     another still, the tariff laws of the United States were\n     considered oppressive, and not fit to be enforced.\n\n     \"Who can fail to see that the government would cease to be a\n     government if it were to yield obedience to those local\n     opinions? While it stands, all its laws must be faithfully\n     executed, or it becomes the mere tool of the strongest\n     faction of the place and the hour. If forcible resistance to\n     one law be permitted practically to repeal it, the power of\n     the mob would inevitably become one of the constituted\n     authorities of the State, to be used against any law or any\n     man obnoxious to the interests and passions of the worst or\n     most excited part of the community; and the peaceful and the\n     weak would be at the mercy of the violent.\n\n     \"It is the imperative duty of all of us concerned in the\n     administration of the laws to see to it that they are\n     firmly, impartially, and certainly applied to every offence,\n     whether a particular law be by us individually approved or\n     disapproved. And it becomes all to remember, that forcible\n     and concerted resistance to any law is civil war, which can\n     make no progress but through bloodshed, and can have no\n     termination but the destruction of the government of our\n     country, or the ruin of those engaged in such resistance. It\n     is not my province to comment on events which have recently\n     happened. They are matters of fact which, so far as they are\n     connected with the criminal laws of the United States, are\n     for your consideration. I feel no doubt that, as good\n     citizens and lovers of our country, and as conscientious\n     men, you will well and truly observe and keep the oath you\n     have taken, diligently to inquire and true presentment make\n     of all crimes and offences against the laws of the United\n     States given you in charge.\"[193]\n\n[Footnote 193: Law Reporter, August, 1854.]\n\nNow gentlemen look at some particulars of this charge.\n\n1. \"If a multitude of persons shall assemble _even in a public\nhighway_, with the design to _stand together, and thus prevent the\nofficer from passing freely along that way_, in the execution of his\nprecept, and the officer should thus be _hindered and obstructed_,\nthis would, of itself, and without any active violence, be such an\nobstruction as is contemplated by this law.\" Of course, all persons\nthus assembled in the public highway were guilty of that offence, and\nliable to be punished with imprisonment for twelve months and a fine\nof three hundred dollars: \"_All who are present_, and obstruct,\nresist, or oppose, _are of course guilty_.\" Their \"design\" is to be\ninferred from \"the fact\" that the officer was obstructed.\n\nThat is not all, this offence in technical language the Judge calls a\n\"misdemeanor,\" and in \"misdemeanors,\" he says, \"all are principals.\"\nSo, accordingly, not only are all guilty who _actually obstruct_ but\nlikewise all who are \"leagued in the common design, and _so situated\nas to be able_ in case of need _to afford assistance to those actually\nengaged_, though they do not actually obstruct, resist, or oppose.\"\nThese are obstructors by construction No. 1; they must have been\nseveral thousands in number.\n\nBut even that is not all; the judicial logic of deduction goes further\nstill, and he adds, \"Not only those who are present, but _those who_\nthough _absent_ when the offence was committed, _did procure, counsel,\ncommand, or abet_ others to commit the offence are indictable as\nprincipals.\" These are obstructors by construction No. 2.\n\n2. Next he determines what it is which \"amounts to _such advising or\ncounselling_ another as will be sufficient to constitute this legal\nelement in the offence.\" First he constructs the physical act which is\nthe misdemeanor, namely, standing in the high road and thereby\nhindering a kidnapper from \"passing freely along that way; or being so\nsituated as to be able to afford assistance to others thus standing;\nor advising another thus to stand, or be situated:\" next he constructs\nthe _advice_, the metaphysical act, which is equally a \"misdemeanor.\"\nThis is the square root of construction No. 2. Look at this absurd\nquantity.\n\n\"_Such a procurement may be_, either by direct means, as by hire,\ncounsel, or command, or indirect, _by evincing an express liking,\napprobation, or assent_.\" Thus the mere casual expression, \"I wish\nBurns would escape, or I wish somebody would let him out,\" is a\n\"Misdemeanor;\" it is \"evincing an express liking.\" Nodding to any\nother man's similar wish is a misdemeanor. It is \"approbation.\" Even\nsmiling at the nod is a crime--it is \"assent.\" Such is the threefold\nshadow of this constructive shade. But even that is not all. A man is\nheld responsible for what he evinced no _express_ or implied _liking_\nfor: \"_it need not appear that the precise time, or place, or means\nadvised, were used_.\" Accordingly, he that \"evinces an express\nliking,\" \"_is responsible for all that ensues upon its execution_.\" He\nevinces his assent to the End and is legally responsible for any Means\nwhich any hearer thereof shall, at any time, or in any place, make use\nof to attain that end!\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, this charge is a _quo warranto_ against all\nFreedom of Speech. But suppose it were good law, and suppose the\nGrand-Jury obedient to it, see how it would apply.\n\nAll who evinced an express liking, approbation, or assent to the\nrescue of Mr. Burns are guilty of a misdemeanor; if they \"evinced an\nexpress liking\" that he should be rescued by a miracle wrought by\nAlmighty God,--and some did express \"approbation\" of that\n\"means,\"--they are indictable, guilty of a \"misdemeanor;\" \"it need not\nappear that the precise time, or place, or means advised, were used!\"\nIf any colored woman during the wicked week--which was ten days\nlong--prayed that God would deliver Anthony, as it is said his angel\ndelivered Peter, or said \"Amen\" to such a prayer, she was \"guilty of a\nmisdemeanor;\" to be indicted as a \"principal.\"\n\nSo every man in Boston who, on that bad Friday, stood in the streets\nof Boston between Court Square and T Wharf, was \"guilty of a\nmisdemeanor,\" liable to a fine of three hundred dollars, and to\njailing for twelve months. All who at Faneuil Hall stirred up the\nminds of the people in opposition to the fugitive slave bill; all who\nshouted, who clapped their hands at the words or the countenance of\ntheir favorites, or who expressed \"approbation\" by a whisper of\n\"assent,\" are \"guilty of a misdemeanor.\" The very women who stood for\nfour days at the street corners, and hissed the infamous Slave-hunters\nand their coadjutors; they, too, ought to be punished by fine of three\nhundred dollars and imprisonment for a year! Well, there were fifteen\nthousand persons \"assembled\" \"in the highway\" of the city of Boston\nthat day opposed to kidnapping; half the newspapers in the country\ntowns of Massachusetts \"evinced an express liking\" for freedom, and\nopposed the kidnapping; they are all \"guilty of a misdemeanor;\" they\nare \"Principals.\" Nay, the ministers all over the State, who preached\nthat kidnapping was a sin; those who read brave words out of the Old\nTestament or the New; those who prayed that the victim might escape;\nthey, likewise, were \"guilty of a misdemeanor,\" liable to be fined\nthree hundred dollars and jailed for twelve months.[194]\n\n[Footnote 194: 2 Parker's Additional, 280.]\n\nBut where did Judge Curtis find his right to levy Ship-money, Tonnage,\nand Poundage on the tongues of men; where did he find his \"law?\"\nSurely not in the statute. When the bill was pending in 1790, suppose\nhis construction of the statute had been declared to Congress--who\nwould have voted for a law so monstrous? The statute lay in the\nLaw-book for nearly seventy years, and nobody ever applied it to a\ncase like this.\n\nGentlemen, I have shown you already how British judges in the time of\nthe Jameses and Charleses perverted the law to the basest of purposes.\nI mentioned, amongst others, the work of Twysden and Kelyng and Jones.\nThis is a case like those. Just now I spoke of the action of Chief\nJustice Parker who said it was not for the jury to judge whether a law\n_were harsh or not_; I showed how he charged the jury in the case of\nBowen, and how the jury returned a verdict of \"not guilty,\" thus\nsetting his inhuman charge at nought.[195] But Judge Curtis, for his\nlaw, relies upon Judge Parker's charge. It is not a Statute made by\nthe legislature that Judge Curtis relies on for his law; it is not a\nCustom of the Common law; it is not an Opinion of the Court solemnly\npronounced after mature deliberation; it is only the charge of a\nsingle judge to a jury in a special case, and one which the jury\ndisregarded even then!\n\n[Footnote 195: See above, p. 112.]\n\nBut where did Judge Parker, an estimable man, find his law? Mr. Perez\nMorton, the Attorney-General, found it in Kelyng's Reports. In the\ncase of Bowen only one authority is referred to for that odious\nprinciple on which the judge sought to hang him; that authority is\ntaken from \"9 Charles I.;\" from the year 1634--the worst age of the\nStuart tyranny! But even that authority was not a Statute law, not a\nCustom of the People, not the Opinion of a Court solemnly pronounced.\nIt was the charge of a single judge--a charge to a jury, made by an\ninferior judge, of an inferior court, in a barbarous age, under a\ndespotic king! Hearken to this,--from the volume of Kelyng's\nReports.[196] \"_Memorandum_, That my Brother Twysden shewed me a\nReport which he had of the Charge given by Justice Jones to the\ngrand-jury at the King's Bench Barr, in Michaelmas Term, 9 Carl. I.\"\nGentlemen of the Jury, that charge no more settled the law even in\n1634, than Judge Sprague's charge telling the _grand-jury to \"obey\nboth\"_ the law of God and the law of man which is exactly opposite\nthereto, settled the law of the United States and the morality of the\nPeople. But yet that is all the law the government had to hang Bowen\nwith. The jury made nothing of it.[197]\n\n[Footnote 196: Page 52. See above, p. 112.]\n\n[Footnote 197: Jones's \"opinion\" relates to a case of _murder_ by the\nadvice of an absent person, not at all to _suicide by the advice of\nanother_, so it could not apply to the case of Bowen.]\n\nBut Kelyng's Reports are of no value as authority. Here is what Lord\nCampbell, now Chief Justice of the King's Bench, says of them and\ntheir author. I read it to you long ago. \"I ought to mention that\namong his other vanities he had the ambition to be an author; and he\ncompiled a folio volume of decisions in criminal laws, _which are of\nno value whatever except to make us laugh at some of the silly\negotisms with which they abound_.\"[198] Twysden, who showed him the\nReport of the charge, is of little value, and of no authority. I\nmentioned his character before.\n\n[Footnote 198: 2 Campbell's Justices, 406.]\n\nJustice Jones, who made the charge, would hardly be an authority in\nthe English courts in a nice question of construction. He allowed the\nking to levy ship-money, as I have shown before,[199] and dared not\nperform the duties of his office and so protect the Liberty of the\nSubject when the king smote thereat. He was brought before the House\nof Commons to answer for his conduct, in 1628. \"His memory,\" says\nEchard, \"suffers upon the account of his open judgment for the\nship-money, the unhappy consequence of which he did not live to\nsee.\"[200]\n\n[Footnote 199: Above, p. 23.]\n\n[Footnote 200: Parl. Hist. 290; 3 St. Tr. 844, 1181, 162; 2 Echard,\n186.]\n\nJudge Kelyng, the great authority in this case, was notorious for\nviolating alike Justice and the law. Out of a riot committed by some\napprentices he constructed the crime of High Treason, and sentenced\nthirteen men to death. He fined and imprisoned jurors because they\nrefused to return the wicked, illegal verdict he demanded. With\nlanguage too obscene to utter in this century, he mocked at the Great\nCharter of English Liberty. But at last the scandal was too great even\nfor the reign of Charles II., and in 1667 the \"Grand Committee of\nJustice\" in the House of Commons, after examining witnesses and\nhearing him on his own behalf, reported:--\n\n     1. \"That the proceedings of the Lord Chief Justice in the\n     cases referred to us are innovations in the trial of men for\n     their lives and liberties, and that he hath used an\n     arbitrary and illegal power which is of dangerous\n     consequence to the lives and liberties of the people of\n     England.\"\n\n     2. \"That in place of Judicature, the Lord Chief Justice hath\n     undervalued, vilified, and condemned MAGNA CHARTA, the great\n     preserver of our lives, freedom, and property.\"\n\n     3. \"That the Lord Chief Justice be brought to trial, in\n     order to condign punishment, in such manner as the House\n     shall judge most fit and requisite.\"[201]\n\n[Footnote 201: See above, p. 23, 39, 113, 125; 1 Campbell, _Ibid._\n406; 6 St. Tr. 76, 229, 171, 532, 769, 879, 992; Pepys' Diary, 17\nOct., 1667; Commons Journal, 16th Oct., 1667.]\n\nSome of the lawyers whom he had browbeaten, generously interceded for\nhim. He made an abject submission \"with great humility and reverence,\"\nand the House desisted from prosecution. \"He was abundantly tame for\nthe rest of his days,\" says Lord Campbell, \"fell into utter contempt,\"\n\"and _died to the great relief of all who had any regard for the due\nadministration of justice_.\"\n\nGentlemen, I am no lawyer, and may easily be mistaken in this matter,\nbut as I studied Judge Curtis's charge and cast about for the sources\nof its doctrines and phraseology, I thought I traced them all back to\nKelyng's opinions in that famous case, where he made treason out of a\ncommon riot among apprentices; and to Judge Chase's \"opinions\" and\n\"rulings\" in the trial of Mr. Fries,--opinions and rulings which\nshocked the public at the time, and brought legislative judgment on\nhis head. Let any one compare the documents, I think he will find the\nwhole of Curtis in those two impeached Judges, in Kelyng and in\nChase.[202]\n\n[Footnote 202: 1 Wharton, 636; Kelyng, 1-24, 70-77; 6 St. Tr. 879.]\n\nHere then is the law,--derived from the memorandum of the charge to a\ngrand-jury made in 1634, by a judge so corrupt that he did not\nhesitate to violate Magna Charta itself; not published till more than\nseventy years after the charge was given; cited as law by a single\nauthority, and that authority impeached for unrighteously and\ncorruptly violating the laws he was set and sworn to defend, impeached\neven in that age--of Charles II.;--that is the law! Once before an\nattempt was made to apply it in Massachusetts, and inflict capital\npunishment on a man for advising a condemned murderer to anticipate\nthe hangman and die by his own hand in private--and the jury refused.\nBut to such shifts is this Honorable Court reduced! Gentlemen of the\nJury, the fugitive slave bill cannot be executed in Massachusetts, not\nin America, without reviving the worst despotism of the worst of the\nStuarts; not without bringing Twysden and Jones and Kelyng on the\nBench; no, not without Saunders and Finch, and Jeffreys and Scroggs!\n\nGentlemen, such was Judge Curtis's charge. I have been told it was\nwhat might have been expected from the general character and previous\nconduct of the man; but I confess it did surprise me: it was foolish\nas it was wicked and tyrannical. But it all came to nought.\n\nFor, alas! there was a grand-jury, and the Salmonean thunder of the\nfugitive slave bill judge fell harmless--quenched, conquered,\ndisgraced, and brutal,--to the ground. Poor fugitive slave bill Court!\nIt can only gnash its teeth against freedom of speech in Faneuil Hall;\nonly bark and yelp against the unalienable rights of man, and howl\nagainst the Higher Law of God! it cannot bite! Poor, imbecile,\nmalignant Court! What a pity that the fugitive slave bill judge was\nnot himself the grand-jury, to order the indictment! what a shame that\nthe attorney was not a petty jury to convict! Then New England, like\nOld, might have had her \"bloody assizes,\" and Boston streets might\nhave streamed with the heart's gore of noble men and women; and human\nheads might have decked the pinnacles all round the town; and Judge\nCurtis and Attorney Hallett might have had their place with Judge\nJeffreys and John Boilman of old. What a pity that we have a\ngrand-jury and a traverse jury to stand between the malignant arm of\nthe Slave-hunter and the heart of you and me![203]\n\n[Footnote 203: 2 Parker's Additional, p. 281.]\n\nThe grand-jury found no bill and were discharged. In a Fourth of July\nSermon \"Of the Dangers which Threaten the Rights of Man in America,\" I\nsaid:--\n\n     \"Perhaps the Court will try again, and find a more pliant\n     Grand-Jury, easier to intimidate. Let me suggest to the\n     Court that the next time it should pack its Jury from the\n     Marshal's 'Guard.' Then there will be Unity of Idea; of\n     action too,--the Court a figure of equilibrium.\"\n\nThe audacious Grand-Jury was discharged. A new one was summoned; this\ntime it was constructed out of the right material. Before that,\nGentlemen, we had had the Judge or his kinsmen writing for the\nfugitive slave bill in the newspapers; getting up public meetings in\nbehalf of man-stealing in Boston; writing letters in support of the\nsame; procuring opinions in favor of the constitutionality of the\nfugitive slave bill; nay, kidnapping men and sending them into eternal\nbondage, and in the newspapers defending the act; but we had none of\nthem in the Jury box. On the new Grand-Jury appeared Mr. William W.\nGreenough, the brother-in-law of Hon. Judge Curtis--each married a\ndaughter of Mr. Charles P. Curtis. Mr. Greenough \"was very active in\nhis endeavors to procure an indictment\" against me; and a bill was\nfound.\n\nHow came the Brother-in-law of the Judge on the Grand-Jury summoned to\npunish men who spoke against kidnapping? Gentlemen of the Jury, I do\nnot know. Of course it was done honestly; nobody suspects the Mayor of\nBoston of double-dealing, of intrigue, or of any indirection! Of\ncourse there was no improper influence used by the Marshal, or Mr.\nCurtis, or Mr. Hallett, who had all so much at stake; of course Mr.\nGreenough \"did not wish to be on the Jury;\" of course Judge Curtis\n\"was very sorry he was there,\" and of course \"all the family was\nsorry!\" Of course \"he went and asked Judge Sprague to excuse him, and\nthe Judge wouldn't let him off!\" Well, Gentlemen, I suppose it was a\n\"miracle;\" such a miracle as delivered the old or the new Shadrach; a\n\"singular coincidence;\" a \"very remarkable fact.\" You will agree with\nme, Gentlemen, that it was a _very remarkable_ FACT. In all the\njudicial tyranny I have related, we have not found a case before in\nwhich the judge had his brother on the Grand-Jury. Even Kelyng affords\nno precedent for that.\n\nLast summer I met Mr. Greenough in a Bookstore and saluted him as\nusual; he made no return to my salutation, but doubled up his face and\nwent out of the shop! That was the impartial Grand-Juror, who took the\noath to \"present no man for envy, hatred, or malice.\"\n\n\"After the impanelling of the new Grand-Jury,\"--I am reading from a\nnewspaper,[204] \"Judge Curtis charged them in reference to their\nduties at considerable length. In regard to the Burns case he read the\nlaw of 1790 respecting opposition to the United States Marshals and\ntheir deputies while in discharge of their duty, enforcing the laws of\nthe United States, and referred for further information as to the law\nupon the point to his charge delivered at a previous term of the\nCourt, and now in the possession _of the District Attorney_.\" Thus he\ndelegated the duty of expounding the law to a man who is not a\njudicial officer of the United States.\n\n[Footnote 204: Evening Traveller, Oct. 16.]\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, look at the facts. I am indicted by a\nGrand-Jury summoned for that purpose after one Grand-Jury--which had\nbeen drawn before the kidnapping of Mr. Burns--had refused to find a\nbill; a member of the family which has been so distinguished for\nkidnapping ever since 1832, the Brother-in-law of the Judge, is made\none of that Grand-Jury; he is so hostile and malignant as to refuse my\nfriendly salutation when offered as usual; and on the jury is \"most\nactive of all in his efforts to procure an indictment,\" so that \"but\nfor his efforts,\" as one of the Grand-Jury informed me, \"no bill would\nhave been found that time;\" and \"it was obvious that an outside\ninfluence affected him.\" Out of court Mr. Hallett, it is said,\njocosely offers to bet ten dollars that he \"will get Mr. Parker\nindicted.\" I am to be tried before two judges deeply committed to the\nSlave Power, now fiercely invading our once free soil; they owe their\nappointment to their hostility against Freedom. Twenty years ago, in\nthe Old Cradle of Liberty, Mr. Sprague could find for Washington no\nepithet so endearing as \"THAT SLAVEHOLDER;\" he defended Slavery with\nall his legal learning, all his personal might. Yes, when other\nweapons failed him he extemporized a new gospel, and into the mouth of\nJesus of Nazareth,--who said, \"Thou shalt love thy Neighbor as\nthyself,\" and pointed out the man who had \"fallen among thieves\" as\nneighbor to the Samaritan--he put this most unchristian precept,\n\"SLAVES, OBEY YOUR MASTERS!\" Nay, only four years ago, in this very\nCourt, he charged the jury that if they thought there was a\ncontradiction between the Law of God and the Statutes of men they must\n\"obey both.\"\n\nGentlemen, the other judge, Mr. Curtis, began his career by asking the\nSupreme Court of Massachusetts to restore Slavery to Lexington and\nBunker Hill; he demanded that our own Supreme Court should grant all\nthat wickedness which Toombs and Hangman Foote, and Atchison and\nStringfellow, and Grier and Kane have since sought to perpetuate! He\ndenied the existence of any Law of God to control the Court, there is\nnothing but the Statutes of men; and declared \"Slavery is not\nimmoral;\" Massachusetts may interfere actively to establish it abroad\nas well as at home. In Faneuil Hall, in a meeting which he and his\nkinsmen had gathered and controlled, a meeting to determine upon\nkidnapping the citizens of Boston, he charged me with perjury, asked a\nquestion, and did not dare listen to my reply! Gentlemen, it is a very\nproper Court to try me. A fugitive slave bill Court--with a fugitive\nslave bill Attorney, a fugitive slave bill Grand-Jury, two fugitive\nslave bill Judges--which scoffs at the natural law of the Infinite\nGod, is a very suitable tribunal to try a Minister of the Christian\nreligion for defending his own parishioners from being kidnapped,\ndefending them with a word in Faneuil Hall!\n\n\"No tyranny so secure,--none so intolerable,--none so dangerous,--none\nso remediless, as that of Executive Courts.\" \"This is a truth all\nnations bear witness to--all history confirms.\" These were the words\nof Josiah Quincy, Jr., in 1772.--Gentlemen, in 1855 you see how true\nthey are! \"So sensible are all tyrants of the importance of such\ncourts--that to advance and establish their system of oppression,\n_they never rest until they have completely corrupted or bought the\njudges of the land_. I could easily show that the most deep laid and\ndaring attacks upon the rights of a people might, in some measure, be\ndefeated, or evaded by upright judicatories; bad laws with good judges\nmake little progress.\"[205]\n\n[Footnote 205: Quincy's Quincy, 68.]\n\nBut Gentlemen,--when the fugitive slave bill is \"_law_,\" when the\njudges are selected for their love of Slavery and their hatred of\nfreedom--men who invent Scripture to justify bondage, or who as\nLawyers beseech the courts to establish Slavery in Massachusetts; who\ndeclare it is not immoral, that it may be the duty of Massachusetts to\ninterfere actively and establish slavery abroad, nay, that there is no\nmorality but only legality, the statute the only standard of right\nand wrong--what are you to expect? What you see in Philadelphia, New\nYork; aye, in Boston at this hour. I will add with Mr. Quincy, \"Is it\npossible this should not rouse us and drive us not to desperation but\nto our duty! The blind may see; the callous must feel; the spirited\nwill act.\"[206]\n\n[Footnote 206: Gazette, Feb. 10, 1772.]\n\nIt would be just as easy for the Judge to make out divers other crimes\nfrom my words, as to construct a misdemeanor therefrom. To charge me\nwith \"treason,\" he has only to vary a few words and phrases; to cite\nChase, and not Judge Parker, and to refer to other passages of\nKelyng's Reports. James II.'s judges declared it was treason in the\nseven Bishops to offer their petition to the King. Mr. Webster said,\nit is only the \"clemency of the Government which indicted the Syracuse\nrescuers for misdemeanors and not for a capital crime!\" How easy for a\nfugitive slave bill judge to hang men for a word against his brother\nkidnapper--if there were no jury; if, like the New York sheriff in\n1735, he could order \"his own negro\" to do it! Here is a remarkable\ncase of constructive crime, worthy of this Honorable Court. It is the\nfamous case of _Dux_ v. _Conrade et Boracio_. Honorable Judge Dogberry\nthus delivered his charge to the Grand Inquest, \"Masters, I charge you\naccuse these men,\"--one policeman testified that Conrade said \"that\nDon John, the prince's Brother, was a _villain_.\" Judge Dogberry\nruled, \"This is flat perjury to call a prince's Brother, _villain_.\"\nThe next member of the Marshal's guard deposed that Boracio had said,\n\"That he had received a thousand ducats of Don John for accusing the\nLady Hero wrongfully.\" Chief Justice Dogberry decided, \"Flat Burglary\nas ever was committed.\" Sentence accordingly.[207]\n\n[Footnote 207: 2 Singer's Shakspeare, 192.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen, the indictment is so roomy and vague, that before I came\ninto court, I did not know what special acts of mine would be brought\nup against me--for to follow out the Judge's charge, all my life is a\nseries of constructive misdemeanors. Nay, I think my mother--the\nviolet has bloomed over that venerable and well-beloved head for more\nthan thirty summers now--I think my mother might be indicted for\nconstructive treason, only for bearing me, her youngest son.\nCertainly, it was \"obstructing an officer,\" and in \"misdemeanors all\nare principals.\" I have committed a great many misdemeanors; all my\nteachings evince an express liking for Piety, for Justice, for\nLiberty; all my life is obstructing, opposing, and resisting the\nfugitive slave bill Court, its Commissioners, its Judges, its Marshals\nand its Marshal's guard. Gentlemen of the jury, you are to judge me.\nLook at some of my actions and some of my words.\n\nIn 1850, on the 25th of March, a fortnight after Mr. Webster made his\nspeech against Humanity, there was a meeting of the citizens of\nBoston, at Faneuil Hall; Gentlemen, I helped procure the meeting.\nFirst, I tried to induce the leading Whigs to assemble the people. No,\nthat could not be done; \"the Bill would not pass, there was no\ndanger!\" Then I tried the leading Free Soilers; \"No, it was not quite\ntime, and we are not strong enough.\" At last the old abolitionists\ncame together. Mr. Phillips made a magnificent speech. Here are some\nthings which I also said.\n\n     \"There were three fugitives at my house the other night.\n     Ellen Craft was one of them. You all know Ellen Craft is a\n     slave; she, with her husband, fled from Georgia to\n     Philadelphia, and is here before us now. She is not so dark\n     as Mr. Webster himself, if any of you think freedom is to be\n     dealt out in proportion to the whiteness of the skin. If\n     Mason's bill passes, I might have some miserable postmaster\n     from Texas or the District of Columbia, some purchased agent\n     of Messrs. Bruin & Hill, the great slave-dealers of the\n     Capital, have him here in Boston, take Ellen Craft before\n     the caitiff, and on his decision hurry her off to bondage as\n     cheerless, as hopeless, and as irremediable as the grave!\n\n     \"Let me interest you in a scene which might happen. Suppose\n     a poor fugitive, wrongfully held as a slave--let it be Ellen\n     Craft--has escaped from Savannah in some northern ship. No\n     one knows of her presence on board; she has lain with the\n     cargo in the hold of the vessel. Harder things have\n     happened. Men have journeyed hundreds of miles bent double\n     in a box half the size of a coffin, journeying towards\n     freedom. Suppose the ship comes up to Long Wharf, at the\n     foot of State Street. Bulk is broken to remove the cargo;\n     the woman escapes, emaciated with hunger, feeble from long\n     confinement in a ship's hold, sick with the tossing of the\n     heedless sea, and still further etiolated and blanched with\n     the mingling emotions of hope and fear. She escapes to land.\n     But her pursuer, more remorseless than the sea, has been\n     here beforehand; laid his case before the official he has\n     brought with him, or purchased here, and claims his slave.\n     She runs for her life, fear adding wings. Imagine the\n     scene--the flight, the hot pursuit through State Street,\n     Merchants' Row--your magistrates in hot pursuit. To make the\n     irony of nature still more complete, let us suppose this\n     shall take place on some of the memorable days in the\n     history of America--on the 19th of April, when our fathers\n     first laid down their lives 'in the sacred cause of God and\n     their country;' on the 17th of June, the 22d of December, or\n     on any of the sacramental days in the long sad history of\n     our struggle for our own freedom! Suppose the weary fugitive\n     takes refuge in Faneuil Hall, and here, in the old Cradle of\n     Liberty, in the midst of its associations, under the eye of\n     Samuel Adams, the bloodhounds seize their prey! Imagine Mr.\n     Webster and Mr. Winthrop looking on, cheering the\n     slave-hunter, intercepting the fugitive fleeing for her\n     life. Would not that be a pretty spectacle?\n\n     \"Propose to support that bill to the fullest extent, with\n     all its provisions! Ridiculous talk! Does Mr. Webster\n     suppose that such a law could be executed in Boston? that\n     the people of Massachusetts will ever return a single\n     fugitive slave, under such an act as that? Then he knows his\n     constituents very little, and proves that he needs\n     'Instruction.'\n\n     \"Perpetuate Slavery, we cannot do it. Nothing will save it.\n     It is girt about by a ring of fire which daily grows\n     narrower, and sends terrible sparkles into the very centre\n     of the shameful thing. 'Joint resolutions' cannot save it;\n     annexations cannot save it--not if we reannex all the West\n     Indies; delinquent representatives cannot save it;\n     uninstructed senators, refusing instructions, cannot save\n     it, no, not with all their logic, all their eloquence, which\n     smites as an earthquake smites the sea. No, slavery cannot\n     be saved; by no compromise, no non-intervention, no Mason's\n     Bill in the Senate. It cannot be saved in this age of the\n     world until you nullify every ordinance of nature, until you\n     repeal the will of God, and dissolve the union He has made\n     between righteousness and the welfare of a people. Then,\n     when you displace God from the throne of the world, and\n     instead of His eternal justice, reenact the will of the\n     Devil, then you may keep Slavery; keep it for ever, keep it\n     in peace. Not till then.\n\n     \"The question is, not if slavery is to cease, and soon to\n     cease, but shall it end as it ended in Massachusetts, in New\n     Hampshire, in Pennsylvania, in New York; or shall it end as\n     in St. Domingo? Follow the counsel of Mr. Webster--it will\n     end in fire and blood. God forgive us for our cowardice, if\n     we let it come to this, that three millions or thirty\n     millions of degraded human beings, degraded by us, must wade\n     through slaughter to their unalienable rights.\"[208]\n\n[Footnote 208: 2 Occasional Speeches, 164, 165, and 172.]\n\nGentlemen, that speech was a \"seditious libel\" by construction!\n\nOn the 29th of May, I spoke at the New England Anti-Slavery\nConvention, and said:--\n\n     \"Let us not be deceived about the real question at issue. It\n     is not merely whether we shall return fugitive slaves\n     without trial by jury. We will not return them with trial by\n     jury! neither 'with alacrity,' nor with the 'solemnity of\n     judicial proceedings!' It is not merely whether slavery\n     shall be extended or not. By and by there will be a\n     political party with a wider basis than the free soil party,\n     who will declare that the nation itself must put an end to\n     slavery in the nation; and if the Constitution of the United\n     States will not allow it, there is another Constitution that\n     will. Then the title, Defender and expounder of the\n     Constitution of the United States, will give way to\n     this,--'Defender and expounder of the Constitution of the\n     Universe,' and we shall reaffirm the ordinance of nature,\n     and reenact the will of God. You may not live to see it, Mr.\n     President, nor I live to see it; but it is written on the\n     iron leaf that it must come; come, too, before long. Then\n     the speech of Mr. Webster, and the defence thereof by Mr.\n     Stuart, the letter of the retainers and the letters of the\n     retained, will be a curiosity; the conduct of the whigs and\n     democrats an amazement, and the peculiar institution a\n     proverb amongst all the nations of the earth. In the turmoil\n     of party politics, and of personal controversy, let us not\n     forget continually to move the previous question, whether\n     Freedom or Slavery is to prevail in America. There is no\n     attribute of God which is not on our side; because, in this\n     matter, we are on the side of God.\"[209]\n\n[Footnote 209: Ibid., 207, 208.]\n\nAfter the death of General Taylor on the 14th of July, I lifted up my\nvoice in a funeral sermon thus:--\n\n     \"If he could speak to us from his present position, methinks\n     he would say: Countrymen and friends! You see how little it\n     availed you to agitate the land and put a little man in a\n     great place. It is not the hurrah of parties that will 'save\n     the Union,' it is not 'great men.' It is only Justice.\n     Remember that Atheism is not the first principle of a\n     Republic; remember there is a law of God, the higher law of\n     the universe, the Everlasting Right: I thought so once, and\n     now I know it. Remember that you are accountable to God for\n     all things; that you owe justice to all men, the black not\n     less than the white; that God will demand it of you, proud,\n     wicked nation, careful only of your gold, forgetful of God's\n     high law! Before long each of you shall also come up before\n     the Eternal. Then and there it will not avail you to have\n     compromised truth, justice, love, but to have kept them.\n     Righteousness only is the salvation of a State; that only of\n     a man.\"[210]\n\n[Footnote 210: 2 Occasional Sermons, 239, 240.]\n\nAll that was before the bill passed, but how easy it would be for\nJudge Jeffreys or Judge Curtis, Judge Sprague or Judge Scroggs, to\nconstruct it into a \"misdemeanor,\" \"resisting an officer!\"\n\nAfter the fugitive slave bill passed, on the 22d of September, 1850,\nnot forty-eight hours after the Judge's friends had fired their\njubilant cannon at the prospect of kidnapping the men who wait upon\ntheir tables, I preached a \"Sermon of the Function and Place of\nConscience in relation to the Laws of Man, a sermon for the times.\" I\nsaid this:--\n\n     \"If a man falls into the water and is in danger of drowning,\n     it is the natural duty of the bystanders to aid in pulling\n     him out, even at the risk of wetting their garments. We\n     should think a man a coward who could swim, and would not\n     save a drowning girl for fear of spoiling his coat. He would\n     be indictable at common law. If a troop of wolves or tigers\n     were about to seize a man, and devour him, and you and I\n     could help him, it would be our duty to do so, even to peril\n     our own limbs and life for that purpose. If a man undertakes\n     to murder or steal a man, it is the duty of the bystanders\n     to help their brother, who is in peril, against wrong from\n     the two-legged man, as much as against the four-legged\n     beast. But suppose the invader who seizes the man is an\n     officer of the United States, has a commission in his\n     pocket, a warrant for his deed in his hand, and seizes as a\n     slave a man who has done nothing to alienate his natural\n     rights--does that give him any more natural right to enslave\n     a man than he had before? Can any piece of parchment make\n     right wrong, and wrong right?\n\n     \"The fugitive has been a slave before: does the wrong you\n     committed yesterday, give you a natural right to commit\n     wrong afresh and continually? Because you enslaved this\n     man's father, have you a natural right to enslave his child?\n     The same right you would have to murder a man because you\n     butchered his father first. The right to murder is as much\n     transmissible by inheritance as the right to enslave! It is\n     plain to me that it is the natural duty of citizens to\n     rescue every fugitive slave from the hands of the marshal\n     who essays to return him to bondage; to do it peaceably if\n     they can, forcibly if they must, but by all means to do it.\n     Will you stand by and see your countrymen, your\n     fellow-citizens of Boston, sent off to slavery by some\n     commissioner? Shall I see my own parishioners taken from\n     under my eyes and carried back to bondage, by a man whose\n     constitutional business it is to work wickedness by statute?\n     Shall I never lift an arm to protect him? When I consent to\n     that, you may call me a hireling shepherd, an infidel, a\n     wolf in sheep's clothing, even a defender of slave-catching\n     if you will; and I will confess I was a poor dumb dog,\n     barking always at the moon, but silent as the moon when the\n     murderer comes near.\n\n     \"I am not a man who loves violence. I respect the sacredness\n     of human life. But this I say, solemnly, that I will do all\n     in my power to rescue any fugitive slave from the hands of\n     any officer who attempts to return him to bondage. I will\n     resist him as gently as I know how, but with such strength\n     as I can command; I will ring the bells, and alarm the\n     town; I will serve as head, as foot, or as hand to any body\n     of serious and earnest men, who will go with me, with no\n     weapons but their hands, in this work. I will do it as\n     readily as I would lift a man out of the water, or pluck him\n     from the teeth of a wolf, or snatch him from the hands of a\n     murderer. What is a fine of a thousand dollars, and jailing\n     for six months, to the liberty of a man? My money perish\n     with me, if it stand between me and the eternal law of God.\n     I trust there are manly men enough in this house to secure\n     the freedom of every fugitive slave in Boston, without\n     breaking a limb or rending a garment.\n\n     \"One thing more I think is very plain, that the fugitive has\n     the same natural right to defend himself against the\n     slave-catcher, or his constitutional tool, that he has\n     against a murderer or a wolf. The man who attacks me to\n     reduce me to slavery, in that moment of attack alienates his\n     right to life, and if I were the fugitive, and could escape\n     in no other way, I would kill him with as little compunction\n     as I would drive a mosquito from my face. It is high time\n     this was said. What grasshoppers we are before the statute\n     of men! what Goliaths against the law of God! What\n     capitalist heeds your statute of usury when he can get\n     illegal interest? How many banks are content with _six per\n     cent._ when money is scarce? Did you never hear of a\n     merchant evading the duties of the custom-house? When a\n     man's liberty is concerned, we must keep the law, must we?\n     betray the wanderer, and expose the outcast?\"[211]\n\n[Footnote 211: 2 Occasional Sermons, 256, 257, 258.]\n\nGentlemen, you know what Mr. Commissioner Hallett said of such\nlanguage, said at the Union Meeting in Faneuil Hall.[212] He was only\nfugitive slave bill commissioner then; in consequence of his denial of\nthe Higher Law of God he is now fugitive slave bill Attorney. You know\nwhat Mr. Curtis said of the Sermon; now, in consequence he is Judge\nCurtis--the fugitive slave bill Judge.\n\n[Footnote 212: See above, p. 149.]\n\nOn the 14th of October there was another meeting at Faneuil Hall--the\nFreesoilers came that time. The old flame of Liberty burnt anew in\nCharles Francis Adams, who presided. Perhaps some of you remember the\nprayer of the venerable Dr. Lowell which lifted up our souls to the\n\"Father of all men!\" I proposed the appointment of a \"Committee of\nVigilance and Safety to take such measures as they shall deem just and\nexpedient to protect the colored people of this city in the enjoyment\nof their lives and liberties.\" I was appointed one of the Committee,\nand subsequently Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Vigilance\nCommittee; a very responsible office, Gentlemen. At that meeting I\ntold of a fugitive from Boston, who that day had telegraphed to his\nwife here, asking if it was safe for him to come back from Canada. I\nasked the meeting, \"Will you let him come back; how many will defend\nhim to the worst?\" \"Here a hand vote was taken,\" said the newspapers,\n\"a forest of hands was held up.\" Surely that was \"evincing an express\nliking\" for an obstruction of the kidnappers. But did it violate the\nlaw of 1790?\n\nAll this you might easily have known before. Here is something you did\nnot know. That Meeting, its Resolutions, its Speeches, its Action,\nwere brought up in the cabinet of the United States and discussed.\n_Mr. Webster_, then Secretary of State, _wished to have Mr. Adams,\npresident of the meeting, presented to the grand-jury and indicted for\ntreason_! But the majority thought otherwise.\n\nGentlemen, when the kidnappers came to Boston I did some things of\nwhich this court has not taken notice, and so I will not speak of them\nnow, but only tell your grandchildren of, if I live long enough.\nOthers did more and better than I could do, however. In due time they\nwill have their reward. One thing let me say now. When the two\nbrothers Curtis, with their kinsfolk and coadjutors, were seeking to\nkidnap the Crafts, I took Ellen to my own house, and kept her there so\nlong as the (Southern) kidnappers remained in the city. For the first\ntime I armed myself, and put my house in a state of defence. For two\nweeks I wrote my sermons with a sword in the open drawer under my\ninkstand, and a pistol in the flap of the desk, loaded, ready, with a\ncap on the nipple. Commissioner Curtis said \"a process was in the\nhands of the marshal ...\" in the execution of which, he _might be\ncalled upon to break open dwelling-houses, and perhaps to take life_,\nby quelling resistance actual or \"_threatened_.\" I was ready for him.\nI knew my rights.\n\nI went also and looked after William Craft. I inspected his weapons;\n\"his powder had a good kernel, and he kept it dry; his pistols were of\nexcellent proof; the barrels true, and clean, the trigger went easy,\nthe caps would not hang fire at the snap. I tested his poignard; the\nblade had a good temper, stiff enough and yet springy withal; the\npoint was sharp.\"[213] After the immediate danger was over and Knight\nand Hughes had avoided the city, where they had received such welcome\nfrom the friends of this Court, such was the tone of the political\nnewspapers and the commercial pulpit that William and Ellen must needs\nflee from America. Long made one by the wedlock of mutual and plighted\nfaith, their marriage in Georgia was yet \"null and void\" by the laws\nof that \"Christian State.\" I married them according to the law of\nMassachusetts. As a symbol of the husband's peculiar responsibility\nunder such circumstances, I gave William a Sword--it lay on the table\nin the house of another fugitive, where the wedding took place--and\ntold him of his manly duty therewith, if need were, to defend the life\nand liberty of Ellen. I gave them both a Bible, which I had bought for\nthe purpose, to be a symbol of their spiritual culture and a help for\ntheir soul, as the sword was for their bodily life. \"With this sword I\nthee wed,\" suited the circumstances of that bridal.\n\n[Footnote 213: 1 Parker's Additional Speeches, 55.]\n\nMr. and Mrs. Craft were parishioners of mine, and besides I have been\nappointed \"minister at large in behalf of all fugitive slaves in\nBoston.\" I have helped join men and women in wedlock according to the\ncustoms of various sects and nations. There is one wedlock, a\nsacrament, but many forms. Never before did I marry two lovers with\nthe Sword and the Bible--the form of matrimony for fugitive slaves:\nout of that fact perhaps Mr. Attorney can frame an indictment that\nwill hold water. \"If it only resists law and obstructs its officers,\"\nquoth he, \"it is treason, and he who risks it must risk hanging for\nit!\"\n\nAt the great Union meeting, November 26, when Mr. Curtis said \"I\nshould like to ask the Reverend Gentleman in what capacity he expects\nto be punished for his _perjury_,\" I said, \"Do you want an answer to\nyour question, Sir?\" No doubt that was obstructing a (prospective)\n\"officer,\" then preparing for process. How easily could Scroggs make a\n\"misdemeanor,\" or \"a seditious libel,\" out of that question! Allybone\nwould call it \"treason,\" \"levying war.\"\n\nThirty-six hours after the Union meeting, on Thanksgiving day, 28th\nNovember, 1850, in a \"Sermon of the State of the Nation,\" I said:--\n\n     \"I have sometimes been amazed at the talk of men who call on\n     us to keep the fugitive slave law, one of the most odious\n     laws in a world of odious laws--a law not fit to be made or\n     kept. I have been amazed that they should dare to tell us\n     the law of God, writ on the heavens and our hearts, never\n     demanded we should disobey the laws of men! Well, suppose it\n     were so. Then it was old Daniel's duty at Darius' command to\n     give up his prayer; but he prayed three times a day, with\n     his windows up. Then it was John's and Peter's duty to\n     forbear to preach of Christianity; but they said, 'Whether\n     it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more\n     than unto God, judge ye.' Then it was the duty of Amram and\n     Jochebed to take up their new-born Moses and cast him into\n     the Nile, for the law of king Pharaoh, commanding it, was\n     'constitutional,' and 'political agitation' was\n     discountenanced as much in Goshen as in Boston. But Daniel\n     did not obey; John and Peter did not fail to preach\n     Christianity; and Amram and Jochebed refused 'passive\n     obedience' to the king's decree! I think it will take a\n     strong man all this winter to reverse the judgment which the\n     world has passed on these three cases. But it is 'innocent'\n     to try.\n\n     \"However, there is another ancient case, mentioned in the\n     Bible, in which the laws commanded one thing and conscience\n     just the opposite. Here the record of the law:--'Now both\n     the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment,\n     that if any one knew where he [Jesus] were, he should show\n     it, that they might take him.' Of course, it became the\n     official and legal business of each disciple who knew where\n     Christ was, to make it known to the authorities. No doubt\n     James and John could leave all and follow him, with others\n     of the people who knew not the law of Moses, and were\n     accursed; nay, the women, Martha and Mary, could minister\n     unto him of their substance, could wash his feet with their\n     tears, and wipe them with the hairs of their head. They did\n     it gladly, of their own free will, and took pleasure\n     therein, I make no doubt. There was no merit in that--'Any\n     man can perform an agreeable duty.' But there was found one\n     disciple who could 'perform a disagreeable duty.' He went,\n     perhaps 'with alacrity,' and betrayed his Saviour to the\n     marshal of the district of Jerusalem, who was called a\n     centurion. Had he no affection for Jesus? No doubt; but he\n     could conquer his prejudices, while Mary and John could\n     not.\n\n     \"Judas Iscariot has rather a bad name in the Christian\n     world: he is called 'The son of perdition,' in the New\n     Testament, and his conduct is reckoned a 'transgression;'\n     nay, it is said the devil 'entered into him,' to cause this\n     hideous sin. But all this it seems was a mistake; certainly,\n     if we are to believe our 'republican' lawyers and statesmen,\n     Iscariot only fulfilled his 'constitutional obligations.' It\n     was only 'on that point,' of betraying his Saviour, that the\n     constitutional law required him to have any thing to do with\n     Jesus. He took his 'thirty pieces of silver'--about fifteen\n     dollars; a Yankee is to do it for ten, having fewer\n     prejudices to conquer--it was his legal fee, for value\n     received. True, the Christians thought it was 'The wages of\n     iniquity,' and even the Pharisees--who commonly made the\n     commandment of God of none effect by their traditions--dared\n     not defile the temple with this 'price of blood;' but it was\n     honest money. Yes, it was as honest a fee as any American\n     commissioner or deputy will ever get for a similar service.\n     How mistaken we are! Judas Iscariot is not a traitor! he was\n     a great patriot; he conquered his 'prejudices,' performed 'a\n     disagreeable duty,' as an office of 'high morals and high\n     principle;' he kept the 'law' and the 'Constitution,' and\n     did all he could to 'save the Union;' nay, he was a saint,\n     'not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.' 'The law of\n     God never commands us to disobey the law of man.' _Sancte\n     Iscariote ora pro nobis._\n\n     \"Talk of keeping the fugitive slave law! Come, come, we know\n     better. Men in New England know better than this. We know\n     that we ought not to keep a wicked law, and that it must not\n     be kept when the law of God forbids!\n\n     \"One of the most awful spectacles I ever saw, was this: A\n     vast multitude attempting, at an orator's suggestion [Hon.\n     Mr. Hallett], to howl down the 'Higher law,' and when he\n     said, Will you have this to rule over you? they answered,\n     'Never!' and treated the 'Higher law' to a laugh and a howl!\n     It was done in Faneuil Hall; under the eyes of the three\n     Adamses, Hancock, and Washington; and the howl rung round\n     the venerable arches of that hall! I could not but ask, 'Why\n     do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?\n     the rulers of the earth set themselves, and kings take\n     counsel against the Lord and say, Let us break his bands\n     asunder, and cast off his yoke from us.' Then I could not\n     but remember that it was written, 'He that sitteth in the\n     heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision.'\n     'He taketh up the isles as a very little thing, and the\n     inhabitants of the earth are as grasshoppers before Him.'\n     Howl down the law of God at a magistrate's command! Do this\n     in Boston! Let us remember this--but with charity.\"\n\n     \"I do not believe there is more than one of the New England\n     men who publicly helped the law into being, but would\n     violate its provisions; conceal a fugitive; share his loaf\n     with a runaway; furnish him golden wings to fly with. Nay, I\n     think it would be difficult to find a magistrate in New\n     England, willing to take the public odium of doing the\n     official duty. I believe it is not possible to find a\n     regular jury, who will punish a man for harboring a slave,\n     for helping his escape, or fine a marshal or commissioner\n     for being a little slow to catch a slave. Men will talk loud\n     in public meetings, but they have some conscience after all,\n     at home. And though they howl down the 'Higher law' in a\n     crowd, yet conscience will make cowards of them all, when\n     they come to lay hands on a Christian man, more innocent\n     than they, and send him into slavery for ever! One of the\n     commissioners of Boston talked loud and long, last Tuesday,\n     in favor of keeping the law. When he read his litany against\n     the law of God, and asked if men would keep the 'Higher\n     law,' and got 'Never' as the welcome, and amen for\n     response--it seemed as if the law might be kept, at least by\n     that commissioner, and such as gave the responses to his\n     creed. But slave-hunting Mr. Hughes, who came here for two\n     of our fellow-worshippers, in his Georgia newspaper, tells a\n     different story. Here it is from the 'Georgia Telegraph,' of\n     last Friday. 'I called at eleven o'clock at night, at his\n     [the commissioner's] residence, and stated to him my\n     business, and asked him for a warrant, saying that if I\n     could get a warrant, I could have the negroes [William and\n     Ellen Craft] arrested. He said the law did not authorize a\n     warrant to be issued: that it was my duty to go and arrest\n     the negro without a warrant, and bring him before him!' This\n     is more than I expected. 'Is Saul among the prophets?' The\n     men who tell us that the law must be kept, God willing, or\n     against His will--there are Puritan fathers behind them\n     also; Bibles in their houses; a Christ crucified, whom they\n     think of; and a God even in their world, who slumbers not,\n     neither is weary, and is as little a respecter of parchments\n     as of persons! They know there is a people, as well as\n     politicians, a posterity not yet assembled, and they would\n     not like to have certain words writ on their tomb-stone.\n     'Traitor to the rights of mankind,' is no pleasant epitaph.\n     They, too, remember there is a day after to-day; aye, a\n     forever; and 'Inasmuch as ye have not done it unto one of\n     the least of these my brethren, ye have not done it unto\n     me,' is a sentence they would not like to hear at the day of\n     judgment.\"[214]\n\n[Footnote 214: 2 Parker's Occasional Sermons, pp. 298-300, 301, 302,\n304, 305.]\n\nGentlemen, you see by the faces of this Honorable Court, and you know\nby what these honorable functionaries and their coadjutors have done\nout of its limit, how much I was mistaken in the notion that no Boston\nCommissioner would ever kidnap a man! Perhaps you will pardon me for\nthe mistake. I will soon explain it by a quotation.\n\nAfter the rescue of Shadrach, in my Sunday prayer I publicly gave God\nthe thanks of the congregation for the noble deed. Perhaps that was a\ncrime. I think Judge Saunders could make it appear that I was an\n\"accessory after the fact,\" and then Judge Curtis could call the\noffence not a felony but a \"misdemeanor,\" and \"in misdemeanors all are\nprincipals.\" Nay, it might be \"levying war\" \"with force and arms.\"\n\nAfter the Hon. Judge Sprague had made himself glorious by charging the\njury \"to obey both\" the will of God and the laws of men, which forbid\nthat will; and after Commissioner Curtis had kidnapped Mr. Sims, while\nhe still had him in his unlawful jail, on Fast-day, April 10, 1851, I\npreached a sermon \"of the Chief Sins of the People,\" and said,--\n\n     \"He [Judge Sprague] supposes a case: that the people ask\n     him, 'Which shall we obey, the law of man or the will of\n     God?' He says, 'I answer, obey both. The incompatibility\n     which the question assumes does not exist.'\n\n     \"So, then, here is a great general rule, that between the\n     'law of man' and the 'will of God' there is no\n     incompatibility, and we must 'obey both.' Now let us see how\n     this rule will work.\n\n     \"If I am rightly informed, King Ahab made a law that all the\n     Hebrews should serve Baal, and it was the will of God that\n     they should serve the Lord. According to this rule of the\n     judge, they must 'obey both.' But if they served Baal, they\n     could not serve the Lord. In such a case, 'what is to be\n     done?' We are told that Elijah gathered the prophets\n     together: 'and he came unto all the people, and said, How\n     long halt ye? If the Lord be God, follow him; but if Baal,\n     then follow him.' Our modern prophet says, 'Obey both. The\n     incompatibility which the question assumes does not exist.'\n     Such is the difference between Judge Elijah and Judge Peleg.\n\n     \"Let us see how this rule will work in other cases; how you\n     can make a compromise between two opposite doctrines. The\n     king of Egypt commanded the Hebrew nurses, 'When you do the\n     office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, if it be a son ye\n     shall kill him.' I suppose it is plain to the Judge of the\n     Circuit Court that this kind of murder, killing the new-born\n     infants, is against 'the will of God;' but it is a matter of\n     record that it was according to 'the law of man.' Suppose\n     the Hebrew nurses had come to ask Judge Sprague for his\n     advice. He must have said, 'Obey both!' His rule is a\n     universal one.\n\n     \"Another decree was once made, as it is said in the Old\n     Testament, that no man should ask any petition of any God\n     for thirty days, save of the king, on penalty of being cast\n     into the den of lions. Suppose Daniel--I mean the old\n     Daniel, the prophet--should have asked him, What is to be\n     done? Should he pray to Darius or pray to God? 'Obey both!'\n     would be the answer. But he cannot, for he is forbid to pray\n     to God. We know what Daniel did do.\n\n     \"The elders and scribes of Jerusalem commanded the\n     Christians not to speak or to teach at all in the name of\n     Jesus; but Peter and John asked those functionaries,\n     'Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you\n     more than unto God, judge ye.' Our judge must have said,\n     There is no 'incompatibility;' 'obey both!' What 'a\n     comfortable Scripture' this would have been to poor John\n     Bunyan! What a great ethical doctrine to St. Paul! He did\n     not know such Christianity as that. Before his time a\n     certain man had said, 'No man can serve two masters.' But\n     there was one person who made the attempt, and he also is\n     eminent in history. Here was 'the will of God,' to do to\n     others as you would have others do to you: 'Love thy\n     neighbor as thyself.' Here is the record of 'the law of\n     man:' 'Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had\n     given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he [Jesus]\n     were, he should show it that they might take him.' Judas, it\n     seems, determined to 'obey both,'--'the law of man' and 'the\n     will of God.' So he sat with Jesus at the Last Supper,\n     dipped his hand in the same dish, and took a morsel from the\n     hand of Christ, given him in token of love. All this he did\n     to obey 'the will of God.' Then he went and informed the\n     Commissioner or Marshal where Jesus was. This he did to obey\n     'the law of man.' Then he came back, and found Christ,--the\n     agony all over, the bloody sweat wiped off from his brow\n     presently to bleed again,--the Angel of Strength there with\n     him to comfort him. He was arousing his sleeping disciples\n     for the last time, and was telling them, 'Pray, lest ye\n     enter into temptation.' Judas came and gave him a kiss. To\n     the eleven it seemed the friendly kiss, obeying 'the will of\n     God.' To the Marshal it also seemed a friendly\n     kiss,--obeying 'the law of man.' So, in the same act, he\n     obeys 'the law of God' and 'the will of man,' and there is\n     no 'incompatibility!'\n\n     \"Of old it was said, 'Thou canst not serve God and mammon.'\n     He that said it, has been thought to know something of\n     morals,--something of religion.\n\n     \"Till the fugitive slave law was passed, we did not know\n     what a great saint Iscariot was. I think there ought to be a\n     chapel for him, and a day set apart in the calendar. Let him\n     have his chapel in the navy yard at Washington. He has got a\n     priest there already. And for a day in the calendar--set\n     apart for all time the seventh of March!\"\n\n     \"Last Thanksgiving day, I said it would be difficult to find\n     a magistrate in Boston to take the odium of sending a\n     fugitive back to slavery. I believed, after all, men had\n     some conscience, although they talked about its being a duty\n     to deliver up a man to bondage. Pardon me, my country, that\n     I rated you too high! Pardon me, town of Boston, that I\n     thought your citizens all men! Pardon me, lawyers, that I\n     thought you had been all born of mothers! Pardon me,\n     ruffians, who kill for hire! I thought you had some animal\n     mercy left, even in your bosom! Pardon me, United States'\n     commissioners, marshals, and the like, I thought you all had\n     some shame! Pardon me, my hearers, for such mistakes. One\n     commissioner was found to furnish the warrant [Mr. George T.\n     Curtis]! Pardon me, I did not know he was a commissioner; if\n     I had, I never would have said it!\n\n     \"Spirits of tyrants, I look down to you! Shade of Cain, you\n     great first murderer, forgive me that I forgot your power,\n     and did not remember that you were parent of so long a line!\n     And you, my brethren, if hereafter I tell you that there is\n     any limit of meanness or wickedness which a Yankee will not\n     jump over, distrust me, and remind me of this day, and I\n     will take it back!\n\n     \"Let us look at the public conduct of any commissioner who\n     will send an innocent man from Boston into slavery. I would\n     speak of all men charitably; for I know how easy it is to\n     err, yea, to sin. I can look charitably on thieves, prowling\n     about in darkness; on rum-sellers, whom poverty compels to\n     crime; on harlots, who do the deed of shame that holy\n     woman's soul abhors and revolts at; I can pity the pirate,\n     who scours the seas doing his fiendish crimes--he is\n     tempted, made desperate by a gradual training in wickedness.\n     The man, born at the South, owning slaves, who goes to\n     Africa and sells adulterated rum in exchange for men to\n     retail at Cuba,--I cannot understand the consciousness of\n     such a man; yet I can admit that by birth and by breeding he\n     has become so imbruted he knows no better. Nay, even that he\n     may perhaps justify his conduct to himself. I say I think\n     his sin is not so dreadful as that of a commissioner in\n     Boston who sends a man into slavery. A man commits a murder,\n     inflamed by jealousy, goaded by desire of great gain,\n     excited by fear, stung by malice, or poisoned by revenge,\n     and it is a horrid thing. But to send a man into slavery is\n     worse than to murder him. I should rather be slain than\n     enslaved. To do this, inflamed by no jealousy, goaded by no\n     desire of great gain,--only ten dollars!--excited by no\n     fear, stung by no special malice, poisoned by no revenge,--I\n     cannot comprehend that in any man, not even in a hyena.\n     Beasts that raven for blood do not kill for killing's sake,\n     but to feed their flesh. Forgive me, O ye wolves and hyenas!\n     that I bring you into such company. I can only understand it\n     in a devil!\n\n     \"When a man bred in Massachusetts, whose Constitution\n     declares that 'All men are born free and equal;' within\n     sight of Faneuil Hall, with all its sacred memories; within\n     two hours of Plymouth Rock; within a single hour of Concord\n     and Lexington; in sight of Bunker Hill,--when he will do\n     such a deed, it seems to me that there is no life of crime\n     long enough to prepare a man for such a pitch of depravity;\n     I should think he must have been begotten in sin, and\n     conceived in iniquity, and been born 'with a dog's head on\n     his shoulders;' that the concentration of the villany of\n     whole generations of scoundrels would hardly be enough to\n     fit a man for a deed like this!\"\n\n     \"Last Thursday night,--when odious beasts of prey, that dare\n     not face the light of heaven, prowl through the\n     woods,--those ruffians of the law seized on their brother\n     man. They lie to the bystanders, and seize him on a false\n     pretence. There is their victim--they hold him fast. His\n     faithless knife breaks in his hand; his coat is rent to\n     pieces. He is the slave of Boston. Can you understand his\n     feelings? Let us pass by that. His 'trial!' Shall I speak of\n     that? He has been five days on trial for more than life, and\n     has not seen a judge! A jury? No,--only a commissioner! O\n     justice! O republican America! Is this the liberty of\n     Massachusetts?\n\n     \"Where shall I find a parallel with men who will do such a\n     deed,--do it in Boston? I will open the tombs, and bring up\n     most hideous tyrants from the dead. Come, brood of monsters,\n     let me bring you up from the deep damnation of the graves\n     wherein your hated memories continue for all time their\n     never-ending rot. Come, birds of evil omen! come, ravens,\n     vultures, carrion-crows, and see the spectacle! come, see\n     the meeting of congenial souls! I will disturb, disquiet,\n     and bring up the greatest monsters of the human race!\n     Tremble not, women; tremble not, children; tremble not, men!\n     They are all dead! They cannot harm you now! Fear the\n     living, not the dead!\n\n     \"Come hither, Herod the wicked! Thou that didst seek after\n     that young child's life, and destroyed the Innocents! Let me\n     look on thy face! No; go! Thou wert a heathen! Go, lie with\n     the Innocents thou hast massacred. Thou art too good for\n     this company!\n\n     \"Come, Nero! Thou awful Roman Emperor! Come up! No; thou\n     wast drunk with power! schooled in Roman depravity. Thou\n     hadst, besides, the example of thy fancied gods! Go, wait\n     another day. I will seek a worser man.\n\n     \"Come hither, St. Dominic! come, Torquemada!--Fathers of the\n     Inquisition! Merciless monsters, seek your equal here! No;\n     pass by! You are no companions for such men as these! You\n     were the servants of atheistic popes, of cruel kings. Go to,\n     and get you gone. Another time I may have work for you,--not\n     now; lie there and persevere to rot. You are not yet quite\n     wicked and corrupt enough for this comparison. Go, get ye\n     gone, lest the sun turn back at sight of ye!\n\n     \"Come up, thou heap of wickedness, George Jeffreys!--thy\n     hands deep purple with the blood of thy murdered fellow men!\n     Ah, I know thee! awful and accursed shade! Two hundred years\n     after thy death, men hate thee still, not without cause! Let\n     me look upon thee! I know thy history. Pause and be still,\n     while I tell it to these men.\n\n     \"Brothers, George Jeffreys 'began in the sedition line.'\n     'There was no act, however bad, that he would not resort to\n     to get on.' 'He was of a bold aspect, and cared not for the\n     countenance of any man.' 'He became the avowed, unblushing\n     slave of the court, and the bitter persecutor and\n     unappeasable enemy of the principles he had before\n     supported.' 'He was universally insolent and overbearing.'\n     'As a judge, he did not consider the decencies of his post,\n     nor did he so much as affect to be impartial, as became a\n     judge.' His face and voice were always unamiable. 'All\n     tenderness for the feelings of others, all self-respect were\n     obliterated from his mind.' He had 'a delight in misery,\n     merely as misery,' and 'that temper which tyrants require in\n     their worst instruments.' 'He made haste to sell his\n     forehead of brass and his tongue of venom to the court.' He\n     had 'more impudence than ten carted street-walkers;' and was\n     appropriately set to a work 'which could be trusted to no\n     man who reverenced law, or who was sensible of shame.' He\n     was a 'Commissioner' in 1685. You know of the 'Bloody\n     assizes' which he held, and how he sent to execution three\n     hundred and twenty persons in a single circuit. 'The whole\n     country was strewed with the heads and limbs of his\n     victims.' Yet a man wrote that 'A little more hemp might\n     have been usefully employed.' He was the worst of the\n     English judges. 'There was no measure, however illegal, to\n     the execution of which he did not devotedly and recklessly\n     abandon himself.' 'During the Stuart reigns, England was\n     cursed by a succession of ruffians in ermine, who, for the\n     sake of court favor, wrested the principles of law, the\n     precepts of religion, and the duties of humanity; but they\n     were all greatly outstripped by Jeffreys.' Such is his\n     history.\n\n     \"Come, shade of a judicial butcher! Two hundred years thy\n     name has been pilloried in face of the world, and thy memory\n     gibbeted before mankind. Let us see how thou wilt compare\n     with those who kidnap men in Boston! Go seek companionship\n     with them! Go claim thy kindred, if such they be! Go tell\n     them that the memory of the wicked shall rot,--that there is\n     a God; an Eternity; ay! and a Judgment too! where the slave\n     may appeal against him that made him a slave, to Him that\n     made him a man.\n\n     \"What! Dost thou shudder? Thou turn back! These not thy\n     kindred! Why dost thou turn pale, as when the crowd\n     clutched at thy life in London Street? It is true, George\n     Jeffreys, and these are not thy kin. Forgive me that I\n     should send thee on such an errand, or bid thee seek\n     companionship with such--with Boston hunters of the slave!\n     Thou wert not base enough! It was a great bribe that tempted\n     thee! Again I say, pardon me for sending thee to keep\n     company with such men! Thou only struckst at men accused of\n     crime; not at men accused only of their birth! Thou wouldst\n     not send a man into bondage for two pounds! I will not rank\n     thee with men who, in Boston, for ten dollars, would enslave\n     a negro now! Rest still, Herod! Be quiet, Nero! Sleep, St.\n     Dominic, and sleep, O Torquemada! in your fiery jail! Sleep,\n     Jeffreys, underneath 'the altar of the church' which seeks\n     with Christian charity to hide your hated bones.\"\n\n     \"Well, my brethren, these are only the beginning of sorrows.\n     There will be other victims yet; this will not settle the\n     question. What shall we do? I think I am a calm man and a\n     cool man, and I have a word or two to say as to what we\n     shall do. Never obey the law. Keep the law of God. Next I\n     say, resist not evil with evil; resist not now with\n     violence. Why do I say this? Will you tell me that I am a\n     coward? Perhaps I am; at least I am not afraid to be called\n     one. Why do I say, then, do not now resist with violence?\n     Because it is not time just yet; it would not succeed. If I\n     had the eloquence that I sometimes dream of, which goes into\n     a crowd of men, and gathers them in its mighty arm, and\n     sways them as the pendent boughs of yonder elm shall be\n     shaken by the summer breeze next June, I would not give that\n     counsel. I would call on men, and lift up my voice like a\n     trumpet through the whole land, until I had gathered\n     millions out of the North and the South, and they should\n     crush slavery for ever, as the ox crushes the spider\n     underneath his feet. But such eloquence is given to no man.\n     It was not given to the ancient Greek who 'shook the arsenal\n     and fulmined over Greece.' He that so often held the nobles\n     and the mob of Rome within his hand, had it not. He that\n     spoke as never man spake, and who has since gathered two\n     hundred millions to his name, had it not. No man has it. The\n     ablest must wait for time! It is idle to resist here and\n     now. It is not the hour. If in 1765 they had attempted to\n     carry out the Revolution by force, they would have failed.\n     Had it failed, we had not been here to-day. There would have\n     been no little monument at Lexington 'sacred to liberty and\n     the rights of mankind' honoring the men who 'fell in the\n     cause of God and their country.' No little monument at\n     Concord; nor that tall pile of eloquent stone at Bunker\n     Hill, to proclaim that 'Resistance to tyrants is obedience\n     to God.' Success is due to the discretion, heroism,\n     calmness, and forbearance of our fathers: let us wait our\n     time. It will come--perhaps will need no sacrifice of\n     blood.\"[215]\n\n[Footnote 215: 2 Parker's Occasional Sermons, p. 334-337, 343-348,\n351, 352.]\n\nGentlemen, I think Judge Finch could construct a misdemeanor out of\nthese words; you will find in them nothing but the plain speech of a\nminister of the Christian religion.\n\nOn the 6th of July, 1851, I preached \"Of the three chief Safeguards of\nSociety,\" and said:--\n\n     \"Nowhere in the world is there a people so orderly, so much\n     attached to law, as the people of these Northern States. But\n     one law is an exception. The people of the North hate the\n     fugitive slave law, as they have never hated any law since\n     the stamp act. I know there are men in the Northern States\n     who like it,--who would have invented slavery, had it not\n     existed long before. But the mass of the Northern people\n     hate this law, because it is hostile to the purpose of all\n     just human law, hostile to the purpose of society, hostile\n     to the purpose of individual life; because it is hostile to\n     the law of God,--bids the wrong, forbids the right. We\n     disobey that, for the same reason that we keep other laws:\n     because we reverence the law of God. Why should we keep that\n     odious law which makes us hated wherever justice is loved?\n     Because we must sometimes do a disagreeable deed to\n     accomplish an agreeable purpose? The purpose of that law is\n     to enable three hundred thousand slaveholders to retake on\n     our soil the men they once stole on other soil! Most of the\n     city churches of the North seem to think that is a good\n     thing. Very well; is it worth while for fifteen million\n     freemen to transgress the plainest of natural laws, the most\n     obvious instincts of the human heart, and the plainest\n     duties of Christianity, for that purpose? The price to pay\n     is the religious integrity of fifteen million men; the thing\n     to buy is a privilege for three hundred thousand\n     slaveholders to use the North as a hunting field whereon to\n     kidnap men at our cost. Judge you of that bargain.\"\n\n     \"I adjure you to reverence a government that is right,\n     statutes that are right, officers that are right; but to\n     disobey every thing that is wrong. I intreat you by your\n     love for your country, by the memory of your fathers, by\n     your reverence for Jesus Christ, yea, by the deep and holy\n     love of God which Jesus taught, and you now feel.\"[216]\n\n[Footnote 216: 2 Parker's Occasional Sermons, p. 392-394.]\n\nYou will say all this is but indispensable duty; but the judge who\nhanged a man for treason because he promised to make his son \"heir to\nthe Crown\"--meaning the \"Crown Tavern\" that he lived in--would\ndoubtless find treason in my words also.\n\nOn the 12th of April, 1852, I delivered an address to commemorate the\nfirst anniversary of the Kidnapping of Thomas Sims, and said:--\n\n     \"But when the rulers have inverted their function, and\n     enacted wickedness into a law which treads down the\n     unalienable rights of man to such a degree as this, then I\n     know no ruler but God, no law but natural Justice. I tear\n     the hateful statute of kidnappers to shivers; I trample it\n     underneath my feet. I do it in the name of all law; in the\n     name of Justice and of Man; in the name of the dear God.\"\n\n     \"You remember the decision of the Circuit judge,--himself\n     soon to be summoned by death before the Judge who is no\n     respecter of persons,--not allowing the destined victim his\n     last hope, 'the great writ of right.' The decision left him\n     entirely at the mercy of the other kidnappers. The\n     Court-room was crowded with 'respectable people,' 'gentlemen\n     of property and standing:' they received the decision with\n     'applause and the clapping of hands.' Seize a lamb out of a\n     flock, a wolf from a pack of wolves, the lambs bleat with\n     sympathy, the wolves howl with fellowship and fear; but when\n     a competitor for the Presidency sends back to eternal\n     bondage a poor, friendless negro, asking only his limbs,\n     wealthy gentlemen of Boston applaud the outrage.\n\n          \"'O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,\n          And men have lost their reason!'\"\n\n     \"When the Fugitive Slave Bill passed, the six New England\n     States lay fast asleep: Massachusetts slept soundly, her\n     head pillowed on her unsold bales of cotton and of woollen\n     goods, dreaming of 'orders from the South.' Justice came to\n     waken her, and whisper of the peril of nine thousand\n     citizens; and she started in her sleep, and, being frighted,\n     swore a prayer or two, then slept again. But Boston\n     woke,--sleeping, in her shop, with ears open, and her eye on\n     the market, her hand on her purse, dreaming of goods for\n     sale,--Boston woke broadly up, and fired a hundred guns for\n     joy. O Boston, Boston! if thou couldst have known, in that\n     thine hour, the things which belong unto thy peace! But no:\n     they were hidden from her eyes. She had prayed to her god,\n     to Money; he granted her the request, but sent leanness into\n     her soul.\"\n\n     \"Yet one charge has been made against the Government, which\n     seems to me a little harsh and unjust. It has been said the\n     administration preferred low and contemptible men as their\n     tools; judges who blink at law, advocates of infamy, and men\n     cast off from society for perjury, for nameless crimes, and\n     sins not mentionable in English speech; creatures 'not so\n     good as the dogs that licked Lazarus's sores; but, like\n     flies, still buzzing upon any thing that is raw.' There is a\n     semblance of justice in the charge: witness Philadelphia,\n     Buffalo, Boston; witness New York. It is true, for\n     kidnappers the Government did take men that looked 'like a\n     bull-dog just come to man's estate;' men whose face declared\n     them, 'if not the devil, at least his twin-brother.' There\n     are kennels of the courts wherein there settles down all\n     that the law breeds most foul, loathsome, and hideous and\n     abhorrent to the eye of day; there this contaminating puddle\n     gathers its noisome ooze, slowly, stealthily, continually,\n     agglomerating its fetid mass by spontaneous cohesion, and\n     sinking by the irresistible gravity of rottenness into that\n     abhorred deep, the lowest, ghastliest pit in all the\n     subterranean vaults of human sin. It is true the Government\n     has skimmed the top and dredged the bottom of these kennels\n     of the courts, taking for its purpose the scum and sediment\n     thereof, the Squeers, the Fagins, and the Quilps of the law,\n     the monsters of the court. Blame not the Government; it took\n     the best it could get. It was necessity, not will, which\n     made the selection. Such is the stuff that kidnappers must\n     be made of. If you wish to kill a man, it is not bread you\n     buy: it is poison. Some of the instruments of Government\n     were such as one does not often look upon. But, of old time,\n     an inquisitor was always 'a horrid-looking fellow, as\n     beseemed his trade.' It is only justice that a kidnapper\n     should bear 'his great commission in his look.'\"\n\n     \"I pity the kidnappers, the poor tools of men almost as\n     base. I would not hurt a hair of their heads; but I would\n     take the thunder of the moral world, and dash its bolted\n     lightning on this crime of stealing men, till the name of\n     kidnapping should be like Sodom and Gomorrah. It is piracy\n     to steal a man in Guinea; what is it to do this in Boston?\n\n     \"I pity the merchants who, for their trade, were glad to\n     steal their countrymen; I wish them only good. Debate in\n     yonder hall has shown how little of humanity there is in the\n     trade of Boston. She looks on all the horrors which\n     intemperance has wrought, and daily deals in every street;\n     she scrutinizes the jails,--they are filled by rum; she\n     looks into the alms-houses, crowded full by rum; she walks\n     her streets, and sees the perishing classes fall, mowed down\n     by rum; she enters the parlors of wealthy men, looks into\n     the bridal chamber, and meets death: the ghosts of the slain\n     are there,--men slain by rum. She knows it all, yet says,\n     'There is an interest at stake!'--the interest of rum; let\n     man give way! Boston does this to-day. Last year she stole a\n     man; her merchants stole a man! The sacrifice of man to\n     money, when shall it have an end? I pity those merchants who\n     honor money more than man. Their gold is cankered, and their\n     soul is brass,--is rusted brass. They must come up before\n     the posterity which they affect to scorn. What voice can\n     plead for them before their own children? The eye that\n     mocketh at the justice of its son, and scorneth to obey the\n     mercy of its daughter, the ravens of posterity shall pick it\n     out, and the young eagles eat it up!\n\n     \"But there is yet another tribunal: 'After the death the\n     judgment!' When he maketh inquisition for the blood of the\n     innocent, what shall the stealers of men reply? Boston\n     merchants, where is your brother, Thomas Sims? Let Cain\n     reply to Christ.\"[217]\n\n[Footnote 217: 1 Parker's Additional Speeches, p. 50, 70, 88, 89, 92,\n93, 100, 101.]\n\nThe Sunday after Mr. Webster's death, Oct. 31, 1852, I spoke of that\npowerful man; listen to this:--\n\n     \"Mr. Webster stamped his foot, and broke through into the\n     great hollow of practical atheism, which undergulfs the\n     State and Church. Then what a caving in was there! The\n     firm-set base of northern cities quaked and yawned with\n     gaping rents. 'Penn's sandy foundation' shook again, and\n     black men fled from the city of brotherly love, as doves,\n     with plaintive cry, flee from a farmer's barn when summer\n     lightning stabs the roof. There was a twist in Faneuil Hall,\n     and the doors could not open wide enough for Liberty to\n     regain her ancient Cradle; only soldiers, greedy to steal a\n     man, themselves stole out and in. Ecclesiastic quicksand ran\n     down the hole amain. Metropolitan churches toppled, and\n     pitched, and canted, and cracked, their bowing walls all out\n     of plumb. Colleges, broken from the chain which held them in\n     the stream of time, rushed towards the abysmal rent. Harvard\n     led the way, '_Christo et Ecclesiae_' in her hand. Down\n     plunged Andover, 'Conscience and the Constitution' clutched\n     in its ancient, failing arm. New Haven began to cave in.\n     Doctors of Divinity, orthodox, heterodox, with only a doxy\n     of doubt, 'no settled opinion,' had great alacrity in\n     sinking, and went down quick, as live as ever, into the pit\n     of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, the bottomless pit of lower\n     law,--one with his mother, cloaked by a surplice, hid\n     beneath his sinister arm, and an acknowledged brother\n     grasped by his remaining limb. Fossils of theology, dead as\n     Ezekiel's bones, took to their feet again, and stood up for\n     most arrant wrong. 'There is no higher law of God,' quoth\n     they, as they went down; 'no golden rule, only the statutes\n     of men.' A man with mythologic ear might fancy that he heard\n     a snickering laugh run round the world below, snorting,\n     whinnying, and neighing, as it echoed from the infernal spot\n     pressed by the fallen monsters of ill-fame, who, thousands\n     of years ago, on the same errand, had plunged down the\n     self-same way. What tidings the echo bore, Dante nor Milton\n     could not tell. Let us leave that to darkness, and to\n     silence, and to death.\n\n     \"But spite of all this, in every city, in every town, in\n     every college, and in each capsizing church, there were\n     found Faithful Men, who feared not the monster, heeded not\n     the stamping;--nay, some doctors of divinity were found\n     living. In all their houses there was light, and the\n     destroying angel shook them not. The word of the Lord came\n     in open vision to their eye; they had their lamps trimmed\n     and burning, their loins girt; they stood road-ready.\n     Liberty and Religion turned in thither, and the slave found\n     bread and wings. 'When my father and my mother forsake me,\n     then the Lord will hold me up!'\n\n     \"After the 7th of March, Mr. Webster became the ally of the\n     worst of men, the forefront of kidnapping. The orator of\n     Plymouth Rock was the advocate of slavery; the hero of\n     Bunker Hill put chains round Boston Court House; the\n     applauder of Adams and Jefferson was a tool of the\n     slaveholder, and a keeper of slavery's dogs, the associate\n     of the kidnapper, and the mocker of men who loved the right.\n     Two years he lived with that rabble rout for company, his\n     name the boast of every vilest thing.\n\n          \"'Oh, how unlike the place from whence he fell!'\"\n\n     \"Do men mourn for him? See how they mourn! The streets are\n     hung with black. The newspapers are sad colored. The shops\n     are put in mourning. The Mayor and Aldermen wear crape.\n     Wherever his death is made known, the public business stops,\n     and flags drop half-mast down. The courts adjourn. The\n     courts of Massachusetts--at Boston, at Dedham, at Lowell,\n     all adjourn; the courts of New Hampshire, of Maine, of New\n     York; even at Baltimore and Washington, the courts adjourn;\n     for the great lawyer is dead, and Justice must wait another\n     day. Only the United States Court, in Boston, trying a man\n     for helping Shadrach out of the furnace of the\n     kidnappers,--the court which executes the Fugitive Slave\n     Bill,--that does not adjourn; that keeps on; its worm dies\n     not, and the fire of its persecution is not quenched, when\n     death puts out the lamp of life! Injustice is hungry for its\n     prey, and must not be balked. It was very proper! Symbolical\n     court of the Fugitive Slave Bill--it does not respect life,\n     why should it death? and, scorning liberty, why should it\n     heed decorum?\"[218]\n\n[Footnote 218: 1 Parker's Additional Speeches, 235-37, 246-47.]\n\nOn the 12th of February, 1854, I preached \"Some Thoughts on the new\nAssault upon Freedom in America.\"\n\n     \"Who put Slavery in the Constitution; made it Federal? who\n     put it in the new States? who got new soil to plant it in?\n     who carried it across the Mississippi--into Louisiana,\n     Florida, Texas, Utah, New Mexico? who established it in the\n     Capital of the United States? who adopted Slavery and\n     volunteered to catch a runaway, in 1793, and repeated the\n     act in 1850,--in defiance of all law, all precedent, all\n     right? Why, it was the North. 'Spain armed herself with\n     bloodhounds,' said Mr. Pitt, 'to extirpate the wretched\n     natives of America.' In 1850, the Christian Democracy set\n     worse bloodhounds afoot to pursue Ellen Craft; offered them\n     five dollars for the run, if they did not take her; ten if\n     they did! The price of blood was Northern money; the\n     bloodhounds--they were Kidnappers born at the North, bred\n     there, kennelled in her church, fed on her sacraments,\n     blessed by her priests! In 1778, Mr. Pitt had a yet harsher\n     name for the beasts wherewith despotic Spain hunted the red\n     man in the woods--he called them '_Hell Hounds_.' But they\n     only hunted 'savages, heathens, men born in barbarous\n     lands.' What would he say of the pack which in 1851 hunted\n     American Christians, in the 'Athens of America,' and stole a\n     man on the grave of Hancock and Adams--all Boston looking\n     on, and its priests blessing the deed!\"\n\n     \"See what encourages the South to make new encroachments.\n     She has been eminently successful in her former demands,\n     especially with the last. The authors of the fugitive slave\n     bill did not think that enormity could be got through\n     Congress: it was too atrocious in itself, too insulting to\n     the North. But Northern men sprang forward to defend\n     it--powerful politicians supported it to the fullest extent.\n     The worse it was, the better they liked it. Northern\n     merchants were in favor of it--it 'would conciliate the\n     South.' Northern ministers in all the churches of commerce\n     baptized it, defended it out of the Old Testament, or the\n     New Testament. The Senator of Boston gave it his mighty\n     aid,--he went through the land a huckster of Slavery,\n     peddling Atheism: the Representative of Boston gave it his\n     vote. Their constituents sustained both! All the great\n     cities of the North executed the bill. The leading Journals\n     of Boston advised the merchants to withhold all commercial\n     intercourse from Towns which opposed Kidnapping. There was a\n     'Union Meeting' at Faneuil Hall. You remember the men on the\n     platform: the speeches are not forgotten. The doctrine that\n     there is a Law of God above the passions of the multitude\n     and the ambition of their leaders, was treated with scorn\n     and hooting: a loud guffaw of vulgar ribaldry went up\n     against the Justice of the Infinite God! All the great\n     cities did the same. Atheism was inaugurated as the first\n     principle of Republican government; in politics, religion\n     makes men mad! Mr. Clay declared that 'no Northern gentleman\n     will ever help return a fugitive Slave!' What took place at\n     Philadelphia? New York? Cincinnati?--nay, at Boston? The\n     Northern churches of commerce thought Slavery was a\n     blessing, Kidnapping a 'grace.' The Democrats and Whigs vie\n     with each other in devotion to the fugitive slave bill. The\n     'Compromises' are the golden rule. The North conquered her\n     prejudices. The South sees this, and makes another demand.\n     Why not? I am glad of it. She serves us right.\"\n\n     \"In 1775, what if it had been told the men all red with\n     battle at Lexington and Bunker Hill,--'your sons will gird\n     the Court House with chains to kidnap a man; Boston will\n     vote for a Bill which puts the liberty of any man in the\n     hands of a Commissioner, to be paid twice as much for making\n     a Slave as for declaring a freeman; and Boston will call out\n     its soldiers to hunt a man through its streets!' What if on\n     the 19th of April, 1775, when Samuel Adams said, 'Oh! what a\n     glorious morning is this!' as he heard the tidings of war in\n     the little village where he passed the night,--what if it\n     had been told him,--'On the 19th of April, seventy-six years\n     from this day, will your City of Boston land a poor youth at\n     Savannah, having violated her own laws, and stained her\n     Magistrates' hands, in order to put an innocent man in a\n     Slave-master's jail?' What if it had been told him that\n     Ellen Craft must fly out of Democratic Boston, to Monarchic,\n     Theocratic, Aristocratic England, to find shelter for her\n     limbs, her connubial innocence, and the virtue of her\n     woman's heart? I think Samuel would have cursed the day in\n     which it was said a man-child was born, and America was\n     free! What if it had been told Mayhew and Belknap, that in\n     the pulpits of Boston, to defend kidnapping should be\n     counted to a man as righteousness? They could not have\n     believed it. They did not know what baseness could suck the\n     Northern breast, and still be base.\"[219]\n\n[Footnote 219: 1 Parker's Additional Speeches, p. 351, 352, 357-359,\n368, 369.]\n\nYou will think all this is good morality; but Mr. Curtis in 1836,\nmaintained that kidnapping in Massachusetts, would \"promote harmony\nand good-will where it is extremely desirable to promote it, encourage\nfrequent intercourse, and soften prejudice by increasing acquaintance,\nand tend to peace and good-will.\" Nay, that it may be \"perfectly\nconsistent with our policy ... _to interfere actively to enable the\ncitizens of those States_ [the slave States] _to enjoy those\ninstitutions at home_.\" \"Slavery is not immoral;\" \"By the law of this\nCommonwealth slavery is not immoral.\"[220]\n\n[Footnote 220: Med Case, p. 9, 11.]\n\nAfter Commissioner Loring had kidnapped Anthony Burns, I attended the\nmeeting at Faneuil Hall, and spoke. Gentlemen, I did not finish the\nspeech I had begun, for news came that an attack was made on the Court\nHouse, and the meeting was thrown into confusion. I did not speak in a\ncorner, but in the old Cradle of Liberty. Here is the report of the\nspeech which was made by a phonographer, and published in the\nnewspapers of the time--I have no other notes of it. You shall see if\nthere be a misdemeanor in it. Here is the speech:--\n\n\"FELLOW-SUBJECTS OF VIRGINIA--[Loud cries of 'No,' 'no,' and 'you must\ntake that back!'] FELLOW-CITIZENS OF BOSTON, then--['Yes,' 'yes,']--I\ncome to condole with you at this second disgrace which is heaped on\nthe city made illustrious by _some_ of those faces that were once so\nfamiliar to our eyes. [Alluding to the portraits which _once hung_\nconspicuously in Faneuil Hall, but which had been removed to obscure\nand out-of-the-way locations.] Fellow-citizens--A deed which Virginia\ncommands has been done in the city of John Hancock and the 'brace of\nAdamses.' It was done by a Boston hand. It was a Boston man who issued\nthe warrant; it was a Boston Marshal who put it in execution; they are\nBoston men who are seeking to kidnap a citizen of Massachusetts, and\nsend him into slavery for ever and ever. It is our fault that it is\nso. Eight years ago, a merchant of Boston 'kidnapped a man on the high\nroad between Faneuil Hall and Old Quincy,' at 12 o'clock,--at the noon\nof day,--and the next day, mechanics of this city exhibited the\nhalf-eagles they had received for their share of the spoils in\nenslaving a brother man. You called a meeting in this hall. It was as\ncrowded as it is now. I stood side by side with my friend and former\nneighbor, your honorable and noble Chairman to-night [George R.\nRussell, of West Roxbury], [Loud Cheers,] while this man who had\nfought for liberty in Greece, and been imprisoned for that sacred\ncause in the dungeons of Poland, [Dr. Samuel G. Howe,] stood here and\nintroduced to the audience that 'old man eloquent,' John Quincy Adams.\n[Loud Cheers.]\n\n\"It was the last time he ever stood in Faneuil Hall. He came to defend\nthe unalienable rights of a friendless negro slave, kidnapped in\nBoston. There is even no picture of John Quincy Adams to-night.\n\n\"A Suffolk Grand-Jury would find no indictment against the Boston\nmerchant for kidnapping that man. ['Shame,' 'shame.'] If Boston had\nspoken then, we should not have been here to-night. We should have had\nno fugitive slave bill. When that bill passed, we fired a hundred\nguns.\n\n\"Don't you remember the Union meeting held in this very hall? A man\nstood on this platform,--he is a Judge of the Supreme Court now,--and\nhe said--When a certain 'Reverend gentleman' is indicted for perjury,\nI should like to ask him how he will answer the charge? And when that\n'Reverend gentleman' rose, and asked, 'Do you want an answer to your\nquestion?' Faneuil Hall cried out,--'No,' 'no,'--'Throw him over!' Had\nFaneuil Hall spoken then on the side of Truth and Freedom, we should\nnot now be the subjects of Virginia.\n\n\"Yes, we are the vassals of Virginia. She reaches her arm over the\ngraves of our mothers, and kidnaps men in the city of the Puritans;\nover the graves of Samuel Adams and John Hancock. [Cries of 'Shame!']\n'Shame!' so I say; but who is to blame? 'There is no north,' said Mr.\nWebster. There is none. The South goes clear up to the Canada line.\nNo, gentlemen, there is no Boston to-day. There _was_ a Boston once.\nNow, there is a North suburb to the city of Alexandria,--that is what\nBoston is. [Laughter.] And you and I, fellow-subjects of the State of\nVirginia--[Cries of 'no,' 'no.' 'Take that back again.']--I will take\nit back when you show me the fact is not so.--Men and brothers,\n(brothers, at any rate,) I am not a young man; I have heard hurrahs\nand cheers for liberty many times; I have not seen a great many deeds\ndone for liberty. I ask you, are we to have deeds as well as words?\n['Yes,' 'yes,' and loud cheers.]\n\n\"Now, brethren, you are brothers at any rate, whether citizens of\nMassachusetts or subjects of Virginia--I am a minister--and,\nfellow-citizens of Boston, there are two great laws in this country;\none of them is the LAW OF SLAVERY; that law is declared to be a\n'finality.' Once the Constitution was formed 'to establish justice,\npromote tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves\nand our posterity.' _Now_, the Constitution is not to secure liberty;\nit is to extend slavery into Nebraska. And when slavery is established\nthere, in order to show what it is, there comes a sheriff from\nAlexandria, to kidnap a man in the city of Boston, and he gets a Judge\nof Probate, in the county of Suffolk, to issue a writ, and another\nBoston man to execute that writ! [Cries of 'shame,' 'shame.']\n\n\"Slavery tramples on the Constitution; it treads down State Rights.\nWhere are the Rights of Massachusetts? A fugitive slave bill\nCommissioner has got them all in his pocket. Where is the trial by\njury? Watson Freeman has it under his Marshal's staff. Where is the\ngreat writ of personal replevin, which our fathers wrested, several\nhundred years ago, from the tyrants who once lorded it over Great\nBritain? Judge Sprague trod it under his feet! Where is the sacred\nright of _habeas corpus_? Deputy Marshal Riley can crush it in his\nhands, and Boston does not say any thing against it. Where are the\nlaws of Massachusetts forbidding State edifices to be used as prisons\nfor the incarceration of fugitives? They, too, are trampled underfoot.\n'Slavery is a finality.'\n\n\"These men come from Virginia, to kidnap a man here. Once, this was\nBoston; now, it is a Northern suburb of Alexandria. At first, when\nthey carried a fugitive slave from Boston, they thought it was a\ndifficult thing to do it. They had to get a Mayor to help them; they\nhad to put chains round the Court House; they had to call out the\n'Sims Brigade'; it took nine days to do it. Now, they are so confident\nthat we are subjects of Virginia, that they do not even put chains\nround the Court House; the police have nothing to do with it. I was\ntold to-day that one of the officers of the city said to twenty-eight\npolice-men, 'If any man in the employment of the city meddles in this\nbusiness, he will be discharged from service, without a hearing.'\n[Great applause.] Well, gentlemen, how do you think they received\nthat declaration? They shouted, and hurrahed, and gave three cheers.\n[Renewed applause.] My friend here would not have had the honor of\npresiding over you to-night, if application had been made a little\nsooner to the Mayor. Another gentleman told me that, when that man\n(the Mayor) was asked to preside at this meeting, he said that he\nregretted that all his time to-night was previously engaged. If he had\nknown it earlier, he said, he might have been able to make\narrangements to preside. When the man was arrested, he told the\nMarshal he regretted it, and that his sympathies were wholly with the\nslave. [Loud applause.] Fellow-citizens, remember that word. Hold your\nMayor to it, and let it be seen that he has got a background and a\nforeground, which will authorize him to repeat that word in public,\nand act it out in Faneuil Hall. I say, so confident are the slave\nagents now, that they can carry off their slave in the daytime, that\nthey do not put chains round the Court House; they have got no\nsoldiers billeted in Faneuil Hall, as in 1851. They think they can\ncarry this man off to-morrow morning in a cab. [Voices--'They can't do\nit.' 'Let's see them try.']\n\n\"I say, there are two great laws in this country. One is the slave\nlaw. That is the law of the President of the United States; it is the\nlaw of the Commissioner; it is the law of every Marshal, and of every\nmeanest ruffian whom the Marshal hires to execute his behests.\n\n\"There is another law, which my friend, Mr. Phillips, has described in\nlanguage such as I cannot equal, and therefore shall not try; I only\nstate it in its plainest terms. It is the Law of the People when they\nare sure they are right and determined to go ahead. [Cheers and much\nconfusion.]\n\n\"Now, gentlemen, there was a Boston once, and you and I had\nfathers--brave fathers; and mothers who stirred up those fathers to\nmanly deeds. Well, gentlemen, once it came to pass that the British\nParliament enacted a 'law'--_they_ called it law--issuing stamps here.\nWhat did your fathers do on that occasion? They said, in the language\nof Algernon Sydney, quoted in your resolutions, 'that which is not\njust is not law, and that which is not law ought not to be\nobeyed.'--[Cheers.] They did not obey the stamp act. They did not call\nit law, and the man that did call it a law, here, eighty years ago,\nwould have had a very warm coat of tar and feathers on him. They\ncalled it an 'act,' and they took the Commissioner who was here to\nexecute it, took him solemnly, manfully,--_they didn't hurt a hair of\nhis head_; they were non-resistants, of a very potent sort,\n[Cheers,]--and made him take a solemn oath that he would not issue a\nsingle stamp. He was brother-in-law of the Governor of the State, the\nservant of a royal master, 'exceedingly respectable,' of great\nwealth, and once very popular; but they took him, and made him swear\nnot to execute his commission; and he kept his oath, and the stamp act\nwent to its own place, and you know what that was. [Cheers.] That was\nan instance of the people going behind a wicked law to enact Absolute\nJustice into their statute, and making it Common Law. You know what\nthey did with the tea.\n\n\"Well, gentlemen, in the South there is a public opinion, it is a very\nwicked public opinion, which is stronger than law. When a colored\nseaman goes to Charleston from Boston, he is clapped instantly into\njail, and kept there until the vessel is ready to sail, and the Boston\nmerchant or master must pay the bill, and the Boston black man must\nfeel the smart. That is a wicked example, set by the State of South\nCarolina. When Mr. Hoar, one of our most honored and respected\nfellow-citizens, was sent to Charleston to test the legality of this\niniquitous law, the citizens of Charleston ordered him off the\npremises, and he was glad to escape to save himself from further\noutrage. There was no violence, no guns fired. That was an instance of\nthe strength of public opinion--of a most unjust and iniquitous public\nopinion.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Well, gentlemen, I say there is one law--slave law; it is everywhere.\nThere is another law, which also is a finality; and that law, it is in\nyour hands and your arms, and you can put it in execution, just when\nyou see fit.\n\n\"Gentlemen, I am a clergyman and a man of peace; I love peace. But\nthere is a means, and there is an end; Liberty is the end, and\nsometimes peace is not the means towards it. [Applause.] Now, I want\nto ask you what you are going to do. [A voice--'shoot, shoot.'] There\nare ways of managing this matter without shooting anybody. Be sure\nthat these men who have kidnapped a man in Boston, are cowards, every\nmother's son of them; and if we stand up there resolutely, and declare\nthat this man shall not go out of the city of Boston, _without\nshooting a gun_--[cries of 'that's it,' and great applause,]--then he\nwon't go back. Now, I am going to propose that when you adjourn, it be\nto meet at _Court Square, to-morrow morning at nine o'clock_. As many\nas are in favor of that motion will raise their hands. [A large number\nof hands were raised, but many voices cried out, 'Let's go to-night,'\n'let's pay a visit to the slave-catchers at the Revere House,' etc.\n'Put that question.'] Do you propose to go to the Revere House\nto-night, then show your hands. [Some hands were held up.] It is not a\nvote. We shall meet at _Court Square, at nine o'clock to-morrow\nmorning_.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOn the following Sunday, May 28, in place of the usual Scripture\npassages, I extemporized the following \"Lesson for the Day,\" which on\nMonday appeared in the newspapers:--\n\n\"Since last we came together, there has been a man stolen in the city\nof our fathers. It is not the first; it may not be the last. He is now\nin the great slave-pen in the city of Boston. He is there against the\nlaw of the Commonwealth, which, if I am rightly informed, in such\ncases prohibits the use of State edifices as United States jails.\"\n\n\"A man has been killed by violence. Some say he was killed by his own\ncoadjutors: I can easily believe it; there is evidence enough that\nthey were greatly frightened. They were not United States soldiers,\nbut volunteers from the streets of Boston, who, for their pay, went\ninto the Court House to assist in kidnapping a brother man. They were\nso cowardly that they could not use the simple cutlasses they had in\ntheir hands, but smote right and left, like ignorant and frightened\nruffians as they are. They may have slain their brother or not--I\ncannot tell.\"\n\n\"Why is Boston in this confusion to-day? The fugitive slave bill\nCommissioner has just now been sowing the wind, that we may reap the\nwhirlwind. The old fugitive slave bill Commissioner stands back; he\nhas gone to look after his 'personal popularity.' But when\nCommissioner Curtis does not dare appear in this matter, another man\ncomes forward, and for the first time seeks to kidnap his man also in\nthe city of Boston.\"\n\n\"But he has sown the wind, and we are reaping the whirlwind. All this\nconfusion is his work. He knew he was stealing a Man born with the\nsame unalienable right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of\nhappiness,' as himself. He knew the slaveholders had no more right to\nAnthony Burns than to his own daughter. He knew the consequences of\nstealing a man. He knew that there are men in Boston who have not yet\nconquered their prejudices--men who respect the Higher Law of God. He\nknew there would be a meeting at Faneuil Hall, gatherings in the\nstreets. He knew there would be violence.\"\n\n\"Edward Greeley Loring, Judge of Probate for the County of Suffolk, in\nthe State of Massachusetts, fugitive slave bill Commissioner of the\nUnited States, before these citizens of Boston, on Ascension Sunday,\nassembled to worship God, I charge you with the death of that man who\nwas killed on last Friday night. He was your fellow-servant in\nkidnapping. He dies at your hand. You fired the shot which makes his\nwife a widow, his child an orphan. I charge you with the peril of\ntwelve men, arrested for murder, and on trial for their lives. I\ncharge you with filling the Court House with one hundred and\neighty-four hired ruffians of the United States, and alarming not only\nthis city for her liberties that are in peril, but stirring up the\nwhole Commonwealth of Massachusetts with indignation, which no man\nknows how to stop--which no man can stop. You have done it all!\"[221]\n\n[Footnote 221: 2 Parker's Additional, 74, 75, 81, 83.]\n\nJune 4th, I preached \"of the New Crime against Humanity,\" and said:--\n\n\"Wednesday, the 24th of May, the city was all calm and still. The poor\nblack man was at work with one of his own nation, earning an honest\nlivelihood. A Judge of Probate, Boston born and Boston bred, a man in\neasy circumstances, a Professor in Harvard College, was sitting in his\noffice, and with a single spurt of his pen he dashes off the liberty\nof a man--a citizen of Massachusetts. He kidnaps a man endowed by his\nCreator with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit\nof happiness. He leaves the writ with the Marshal, and goes home to\nhis family, caresses his children, and enjoys his cigar. The frivolous\nsmoke curls round his frivolous head, and at length he lays him down\nto sleep, and, I suppose, such dreams as haunt such heads. But when he\nwakes next morn, all the winds of indignation, wrath, and honest\nscorn, are let loose. Before night, they are blowing all over this\ncommonwealth--ay, before another night they have gone to the\nMississippi, and wherever the lightning messenger can tell the tale.\nSo have I read in an old mediaeval legend that one summer afternoon,\nthere came up a 'shape, all hot from Tartarus,' from hell below, but\ngarmented and garbed to represent a civil-suited man, masked with\nhumanity. He walked quiet and decorous through Milan's stately\nstreets, and scattered from his hand an invisible dust. It touched the\nwalls; it lay on the streets; it ascended to the cross on the\nminster's utmost top. It went down to the beggar's den. Peacefully he\nwalked through the streets, vanished and went home. But the next\nmorning, the pestilence was in Milan, and ere a week had sped half her\npopulation were in their graves; and half the other half, crying that\nhell was clutching at their hearts, fled from the reeking City of the\nPlague!\"\n\n\"I have studied the records of crime--it is a part of my ministry. I\ndo not find that any College Professor has ever been hanged for murder\nin all the Anglo-Saxon family of men, till Harvard College had that\nsolitary shame. Is not that enough? Now she is the first to have a\nProfessor that kidnaps men. 'The Athens of America' furnished both!\n\n\"I can understand how a man commits a crime of passion, or\ncovetousness, or rage, nay, of revenge, or of ambition. But for a man\nin Boston, with no passion, no covetousness, no rage, with no ambition\nnor revenge, to steal a poor negro, to send him into bondage,--I\ncannot comprehend the fact. I can understand the consciousness of a\nlion, not a kidnapper's heart.\"\n\n\"But there is another court. The Empsons and the Dudleys have been\nsummoned there before: Jeffreys and Scroggs, the Kanes, and the\nCurtises, and the Lorings, must one day travel the same unwelcome\nroad. Imagine the scene after man's mythological way. 'Edward, where\nis thy brother, Anthony?' 'I know not; am I my brother's keeper,\nLord?' 'Edward, where is thy brother, Anthony?' 'Oh, Lord, he was\nfriendless, and so I smote him; he was poor, and I starved him of more\nthan life. He owned nothing but his African body. I took that away\nfrom him, and gave it to another man!'\n\n\"Then listen to the voice of the Crucified--'Did I not tell thee, when\non earth, \"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy understanding\nand thy heart?\"' 'But I thought thy kingdom was not of this world.'\n\n\"'Did I not tell thee that thou shouldst love thy neighbor as thyself?\nWhere is Anthony, thy brother? I was a stranger, and you sought my\nlife; naked, and you rent away my skin; in prison, and you delivered\nme to the tormentors--fate far worse than death. Inasmuch as you did\nit to Anthony Burns, you did it unto me.'\"[222]\n\n[Footnote 222: Parker's Additional, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen, I suppose the honorable Judge had the last three addresses\nin his mind while concocting his charge to the Grand-Jury which\nrefused to find a bill. I infer this partly from what took place in\nthe room of the next Grand-Jury which found this indictment, and\npartly also from another source which you will look at for a moment.\n\nI preach on Sundays in the Music Hall, which is owned by a Corporation\nwho rent it to the 28th Congregational Society for their religious\nmeetings. Mr. Charles P. Curtis, father-in-law of the Hon. Judge\nCurtis, and step-brother of Commissioner Loring, and a more distant\nrelation but intimate friend of George T. Curtis, was then president\nof that Corporation, and one of its directors. At a meeting of the\ncorporation, held presently after the kidnapping of Mr. Burns, Mr.\nCharles P. Curtis and his family endeavored to procure a vote of the\nCorporation to instruct the directors \"to terminate the lease of the\n28th Congregational Society as soon as it can be legally done, and not\nto renew it.\" Mr. Charles P. Curtis managed this matter clandestinely,\nbut not with his usual adroitness, for at the meeting he disclosed the\ncause of his act,--that _Mr. Parker had called his brother a\nmurderer_, probably referring to the passage just read from the\n\"Lesson for the Day.\" But he took nothing by that motion.[223]\n\n[Footnote 223: See the communications of Messrs. Chas. P. Curtis and\nThomas B. Curtis, in the Boston Daily Advertiser of June, 1854; and\nthe other articles setting forth the facts of the case.]\n\nWhat influence this private and familistic disposition had in framing\nthe Judge's charge, I leave it for you and the People of America to\ndetermine. You also can conjecture whether it had any effect on Mr.\nGreenough, the other son-in-law of Mr. Charles P. Curtis, who refused\nto return my salutation, and who, \"by a miracle,\" was put on the new\nGrand-Jury after the old one was discharged, and then was so \"very\nanxious to procure an indictment\" against me. I leave all that with\nyou. You can easily appreciate the efforts made to silence not only my\nSunday preaching, but also the magnificent eloquence of Wendell\nPhillips; yes, to choke all generous speech, in order that kidnappers\nmight pursue their vocation with none to molest or make them afraid.\n\nBut, Gentlemen, I fear you do not yet quite understand the arrogance\nof our Southern masters, and the fear and hatred they bear towards all\nwho dare speak a word in behalf of the Rights of outraged Humanity.\nThe gag-law of Congress which silenced the House of Representatives\ntill John Quincy Adams, that noble son of a noble sire, burst through\nthe Southern chain; the violation of the United States mails to detect\n\"incendiary publications;\" the torturing of men and women for an\nopinion against Slavery--all these are notorious; but they and all\nthat I have yet stated of the action of the Federal Courts in the\nfugitive slave bill cases, with the \"opinions\" of Northern Judges\nalready mentioned, do not fill up the cup of bitterness and poison\nwhich is to be poured down our throats. Let me, therefore, here give\nyou one supplementary piece of evidence to prove how intensely the\nSouth hates the Northern Freedom of Speech. I purposely select this\ncase from a period when Southern arrogance and Northern servility were\nfar less infamous than now.\n\nAbout twenty years ago Mr. R.G. Williams of New York published this\nsentence in a newspaper called the Emancipator,--\"God commands and all\nnature cries out, that man should not be held as property. The system\nof making men property has plunged 2,250,000 of our fellow countrymen\ninto the deepest physical and moral degradation, and they are every\nmoment sinking deeper.\"\n\nFor this he was indicted by a Grand-Jury of the State of Alabama, and\nthe Governor of that State made a demand on the Executive of New York\ninsisting that Mr. Williams should be delivered up to take his trial\nin Alabama--a State where he had never been! But the New York\nGovernor, after consulting with his law-advisers, did not come to the\nconclusion that it was consistent with the public policy of New York\nto \"interfere actively\" and promote Slavery in Alabama. _So he refused\nto deliver up Mr. Williams!_[224]\n\n[Footnote 224: Med Case, p. 25.]\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, before you can convict me of the crime charged,\nyou must ask three several sets of questions, and be satisfied of all\nthese things which I will now set forth.\n\nI. THE QUESTION OF FACT. Did I do the deed charged, and obstruct\nMarshal Freeman while in the peace of the United States, and\ndischarging his official duty? This is a quite complicated question.\nHere are the several parts of it:--\n\n1. Was there any illegal obstruction or opposition at all made to the\nMarshal? This is not clear. True, an attack was made on the doors and\nwindows of the Court House, but that is not necessarily an attack on\nthe Marshal or his premises. He has a right in certain rooms of the\nCourt House, and this he has in virtue of a lease. He has also a right\nto use the passage-ways of the house, in common with other persons and\nthe People in general. His rights as Tenant are subject to the terms\nof his lease and to the law which determines the relation of Tenant\nand Landlord. Marshal Freeman as tenant has no more rights than\nFreeman Marshal, or John Doe, or Rachel Roe would have under the same\ncircumstances. Of course he had a legal right to defend himself if\nattacked, and to close his own doors, bar and fortify the premises he\nrented against the illegal violence of others. But neither his lease\nnor the laws of the land authorized him to close the other doors, or\nto obstruct the passages, no more than to obstruct the Square or the\nStreet. No lease, no law gave him that right.\n\nNow there have been three secret examinations of witnesses relative to\nthis assault, before three Grand-Juries. No evidence has been offered\nwhich shows _that any attack was made on the premises of the Marshal_.\nThe Supreme Court of Massachusetts was in session at the moment the\nattack was made on the Court House; the venerable Chief Justice was on\nthe Bench; the jury had retired to consider the capital case then\npending, and were expected to return with their verdict. The People\nhad a right in the court-room, a right in the passage-ways and doors\nwhich lead thither. That court had not ordered the room to be cleared\nor the doors to be shut. Marshal Freeman closed the outer doors of the\nCourt House, and thus debarred men of their right to enter a\nMassachusetts Court of Justice solemnly deciding a capital case. You\nare to consider whether an attack on the outer doors of the Court\nHouse, is an illegal attack on the Marshal who had shut those doors\nwithout any legal authority. If you decide this point as the\ngovernment wishes, then you will proceed to the next question.\n\n2. Did I actually obstruct him? If not, then the inquiry stops here.\nYou answer \"not guilty.\" But if I did, then it is worth while to\nconsider how I obstructed him. (1.) Was it by a physical act, by\nmaterial force; or, (2.) by a metaphysical act, immaterial or\nspiritual force--a word, thought, a feeling, a wish, approbation,\nassent, consent, \"evincing an express liking.\"\n\n3. Was Marshal Freeman, at the time of the obstruction, in the peace\nof the United States, or was he himself violating the law thereof? For\nif he were violating the law and thereby injuring some other man, and\nI obstructed him in that injury, then I am free from all legal guilt,\nand did a citizen's duty in obstructing his illegal conduct. Now it\nappears that he was kidnapping and stealing Anthony Burns for the\npurpose of making him the slave of one Suttle of Virginia, who wished\nto sell him and acquire money thereby; and that Mr. Freeman did this\nat the instigation of Commissioner Loring who was entitled to receive\nten dollars if he enslaved Mr. Burns, and five only for setting him\nfree. It appears also that Marshal Freeman was to receive large,\nofficial money for this kidnapping, and such honor as this\nAdministration, and the Hunker newspapers, and lower law divines can\nbestow.\n\nNow you are to consider whether a man so doing was in the peace of the\nUnited States. He professes to have acted under the fugitive slave\nbill which authorizes him to seize, kidnap, steal, imprison, and carry\noff any person whatsoever, on the oath of any slaveholder who has\nfortified himself with a piece of paper of a certain form and tenor\nfrom any court of slaveholders in the slave States. Is that bill\nConstitutional? The Constitution of the United States is the People's\nPower of Attorney by which they authorize certain servants, called\nLegislative, Judicial, and Executive officers, to do certain matters\nand things in a certain way, but prohibit them from doing in the name\nof the People, any thing except those things specified, or those in\nany but the way pointed out. Does the fugitive slave bill attempt\nthose things and only those, in the way provided for in that Power of\nAttorney; or other things, or in a different way?\n\nTo determine this compound question you will look (1.) at the ultimate\nPurpose of the Constitution, the End which the People wanted to\nattain; and (2.) at the provisional Means, the method by which they\nproposed to reach it. Here of course the Purpose is more important\nthan the Means. The Preamble to this Power of Attorney clearly sets\nforth this Purpose aimed at: here it is, \"to form a more perfect\nUnion, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for\nthe Common Defence, promote the General Welfare, and secure the\nBlessings of Liberty.\" Is the fugitive slave bill a Measure tending to\nthat End?\n\nTo answer that question you are to consult your own mind and\nconscience. You are not to take the opinion of the Court. For (1.) it\nwould probably be their purchased _official_ opinion which the\ngovernment pays for, and so is of no value whatever; or (2.) if it be\ntheir _personal_ opinion, from what Mr. Sprague and Mr. Curtis have\nsaid and done before, you know that their personal opinion in the\nmatter would be of no value whatsoever. To me it is very plain that\nkidnapping a man in Boston and making him a slave, is not the way to\nform a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic\nTranquillity, provide for the Common Defence, promote the General\nWelfare, or secure the Blessings of Liberty. But you are to judge for\nyourselves. If you think the fugitive slave bill not a Means towards\nthat End, which this national Power of Attorney proposes, then you\nwill think it is unconstitutional, that Mr. Freeman was not in the\npeace of the United States, but acting against it; and then it was the\nRight of every citizen to obstruct his illegal wickedness and might be\nthe Duty of some.\n\nBut not only does the fugitive slave bill contravene and oppose the\nPurpose of the Constitution, it also transcends the Means which that\nPower of Attorney declares the People's agents shall make use of, and\nwhereto it absolutely restricts them. The Constitution prescribes that\n\"the Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such\ninferior courts the Congress may ordain and establish.\" \"The Judges\n... shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall ...\nreceive a compensation which shall not be diminished during their\ncontinuance in office.\" Now the Commissioner who kidnaps a man and\ndeclares him a slave, exercises _judicial power_. Commissioner Loring\nhimself confesses it, in his Remonstrance against being removed from\nthe office of Judge of Probate. You are to consider whether a\nCommissioner appointed by the Judge of the Court as a ministerial\nofficer to take \"bail and affidavits,\" and paid twice as much for\nstealing a victim as for setting free a man, is either such a\n\"supreme\" or such an \"inferior court\" as the Constitution vests the\n\"judicial powers\" in. If not, then the fugitive slave bill is\nunconstitutional because it does not use the Means which the People's\nPower of Attorney points out. Of course the inquiry stops at this\npoint, and you return \"not guilty.\"\n\n4. It is claimed that the fugitive slave bill is sustained by this\nclause in the Constitution, \"No person held to service or labor in one\nState, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in\nconsequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such\nservice or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to\nwhom such service or labor may be due.\"[225] But if you try the\nfugitive slave bill by this rule, you must settle two questions. (1.)\nWho is meant by persons \"held to service or labor?\" and (2.) by whom\nshall they \"be delivered up on claim?\" Let us begin with the first.\n\n[Footnote 225: Art. iv. Sec. 2, P. 2.]\n\n(1.) Who are the persons \"held to service or labor?\" The preamble to\nthis People's Power of Attorney, sets forth the matters and things\nwhich the People's agents are empowered to achieve. \"They are to form\na more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity,\nprovide for the common Defence, promote the General Welfare and secure\nthe Blessings of Liberty.\" Now the fugitive-from-labor clause must be\ninterpreted in part by the light of the Purpose of the Constitution.\nSo it would appear that this Power of Attorney, requires the delivery\nof only such as are _justly_ \"held to service or labor;\" and only to\nthose men to whom this \"service\" is _justly_ \"due.\" Surely, it would\nbe a monstrous act to deliver up to his master a person _unjustly_\n\"held to service or labor,\" or one justly held to those to whom his\nservice was not _justly_ due: it would be as bad to deliver up the\n_wrong fugitive_, as to deliver the right fugitive to the _wrong\nclaimant_: it would be also monstrous to suppose that the People of\nthe United States, with the Declaration of Independence in their\nmemory, should empower their attorneys to deliver up a man _unjustly_\nheld to service or labor, and that too by the very instrument which\ndirects them to \"establish Justice\" and \"secure the Blessings of\nLiberty.\" Whatsoever interpretation was at the time put on the\nConstitution, whatsoever the People thereby intended, two things are\nplain--namely, (1.) that the language implies only such as are\n_justly_ held to service, or labor, and (2.) that the People had no\nmoral right to deliver up any except such as were _justly_ held, and\nhad _unjustly_ escaped.\n\nIf the opposite interpretation be accepted, and that clause be taken\nwithout restrictions, then see what will follow. South Carolina has\nalready made a law by which she imprisons all _colored_ citizens of\nthe free States who are found on her soil. Let us suppose she makes a\nnew law for reducing to perpetual slavery all the white citizens of\nMassachusetts whom she finds on her soil; that a Boston vessel with\n500 Boston men and women--sailing for California,--is wrecked on her\ninhospitable coast, and those persons are all seized and reduced to\nslavery; but some ten or twenty of the most resolute escape from the\n\"service or labor\" to which they are held, and return to their\nbusiness in Boston. But their \"owners\" come in pursuit; the kidnapping\nCommissioners, Curtis and Loring, with the help of the rest of the\nfamily of men-stealers, arrest them under the fugitive slave bill. On\nthe mock trial, it is shown by the kidnapper that they were legally\n\"held to service or labor,\" and according to the constitution \"shall\nbe delivered up;\" that this enslavement is perfectly \"legal\" in South\nCarolina; and the constitution says that no \"law or regulation\" of\nMassachusetts shall set them free. They must go with Sims and Burns.\nGentlemen, you see where you are going, if you allow the Constitution\nof parchment to override the Constitution of Justice.\n\n(2.) By whom shall they \"be delivered up?\" Either by the Federal\nGovernment, or else by the Government of the State into which they\nhave escaped. Now the Federal Government has no constitutional power,\nexcept what the Constitution gives it. Gentlemen, there is not a line\nin that Power of Attorney by which the People authorize the Federal\nGovernment to make a man a slave in Massachusetts or anywhere else. I\nknow the Government has done it, as the British Government levied\nship-money, and put men to the rack, but it is against the\nConstitution of the land.\n\nGentlemen, you will settle these constitutional questions according to\nyour conscience, not mine. But if the fugitive slave bill demands the\nrendition of men from whom service is not _justly_ due--due by the Law\nof God, or if the Government unconstitutionally aims to do what the\nConstitution gave it no right to do--then the Marshal was not \"in the\npeace of the United States.\" Your inquiry stops at this point.\n\n5. But, if satisfied on all which relates to this question of his\nbeing in the peace of the United States, you are next to inquire if\nMr. Freeman, at the time of the obstruction was \"Marshal of the United\nStates,\" and \"in the due and lawful discharge of his duties as such\nofficer.\" There is no doubt that he was Marshal; but there may be a\ndoubt that he was in the \"lawful discharge of his duties as such\nofficer.\" Omitting what I first said, (I. 1.) see what you must\ndetermine in order to make this clear.\n\n(1.) Was Commissioner Loring, who issued the warrant to kidnap Mr.\nBurns, legally qualified to do that act. Gentlemen, there is no record\nof his appointment and qualification by the form of an oath. No\nevidence has been adduced to this point. Mr. Loring says he was duly\nappointed and qualified. There is no written line, no other word of\nmouth to prove it.\n\n(2.) Admitting that Mr. Loring had the legal authority to command Mr.\nFreeman to steal Mr. Burns, it appears that stealing was done\nfeloniously. The Marshal's guard seized him on the charge of\nBurglary--a false charge. You are to consider whether Mr. Freeman had\nlegally taken possession of his victim.\n\n(3.) If satisfied thus far, you are to inquire if he held him legally.\nIt seems he was imprisoned in a public building of Massachusetts,\nwhich was by him used as a jail for the purpose of keeping a man\nclaimed as a fugitive slave, contrary to the express words of a\nregular and constitutional statute of Massachusetts.\n\nIf you find that Mr. Freeman was not in the lawful discharge of his\nduties as Marshal, then the inquiry stops here, and you return a\nverdict of \"not guilty.\"\n\nBut if you are convinced that an obstruction was made against a\nMarshal in the peace of the United States, and in the legal discharge\nof a legal, constitutional duty, then you settle the question of Fact\nagainst me, and proceed to the next point.\n\nII. _The Question of Law._\n\n1. Is there a law of the United States punishing this deed of mine?\nThe answer will depend partly on the kind of opposition or obstruction\nwhich I made. If you find (1.) that I obstructed him, while in the\nlegal discharge of his legal duties, with physical force, violence,\nthen there is a law, clear and unmistakable, forbidding and punishing\nthat offence. But if you find (2.) that I obstructed him with only\nmetaphysical force,--\"words,\" \"thoughts,\" \"feelings,\" \"wishes,\"\n\"consent,\" \"assent,\" \"evincing an express liking,\" \"or approbation,\"\nthen it may be doubtful to you whether the law of 1790, or any other\nlaw of the United States forbids that.\n\n2. But if you find there is such a law, punishing such metaphysical\nresistance--and the court by the charge to the Grand-Jury seems\nplainly of that opinion, which is fortified by the authority of Chief\nJustice Kelyng and Judge Chase, two impeached judges--then you will\nconsider whether that law is constitutional. And here you will look at\ntwo things, (1.) The Purpose of the Constitution already set forth;\nand (2.) at the Means provided for by that Power of Attorney. For if\nthe agents of the People--legislative, judiciary, or executive--have\nexceeded their delegated authority, then their act is invalid and\nbinding on no man. If I, in writing, authorize my special agent to\nsell my Ink-stand for a dollar, I am bound by his act in obedience\nthereto. But if on that warrant he sells my Writing-Desk for that sum,\nI am not bound by his unauthorized act. Now I think there will be\ngrave doubts, whether any law, which with fine and imprisonment\npunishes such words, thoughts, feelings, consent, assent, \"express\nliking,\" approbation, is warranted by the People's Power of Attorney\nto their agents. The opinion of the Court on such a matter, Gentlemen,\nI think is worth as much as Bacon's opinion in favor of the rack; or\nJones's opinion that Charles I. had the right to imprison members of\nParliament for words spoken in the Commons' Debate; or the opinion of\nthe ten judges that Ship-money was lawful; or of the two chief\njustices that the Seven Bishops' Petition to James II. was high\ntreason; or Thurlow's opinion that a jury is the natural enemy of the\nKing. Gentlemen, I think it is worth nothing at all. But if you think\notherwise, you have still to ask:--\n\n3. Is this law just? That is does it coincide with the Law of God, the\nConstitution of the Universe? There your own conscience must decide.\nMr. Curtis has told you there is no Morality but Legality, no standard\nof Right and Wrong but the Statute, your only light comes from this\nprinted page, \"Statutes of the United States,\" and through these\nsheepskin covers. Gentlemen, if your conscience is also bound in\nsheepskin you will think as these Honorable Judges, and recognize only\nJudge Curtis's \"Standard of Morality,\"--no Higher Law. But even if you\nthus dispose of the Question of Law, there will yet remain the last\npart of your function.\n\nIII. _The Question of the Application of the Law to the Fact._ To\ndetermine this Question you are to ask:--\n\n1. Does the law itself, the act of 1790, apply to such acts, that is,\nto such words, thoughts, wishes, feelings, consent, assent,\napprobation, express liking, and punish them with fine and\nimprisonment? If not, the consideration ends: but if it does, you will\nnext ask:--\n\n2. Is it according to the Constitution of the United States--its\nPurpose, its Means--thus to punish such acts? If not satisfied\nthereof, you stop there; but if you accept Judge Curtis's opinion then\nyou will next inquire:--\n\n3. Is it expedient in this particular case to apply this law, under\nthe circumstances, to this man, and punish him with fine and\nimprisonment? If you say \"yes\" you will then proceed to the last part\nof the whole investigation, and will ask:--\n\n4. Is it just and right; that is according to the Natural Law of God,\nthe Constitution of the Universe? Here you will consider several\nthings.\n\n(1.) What was the Marshal legally, constitutionally, and justly doing\nat the time he was obstructed? He was stealing, kidnapping, and\ndetaining an innocent man, Anthony Burns, with the intention of\ndepriving him of what the Declaration of Independence calls his\nnatural and unalienable Right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.\nMr. Burns had done no wrong or injury to any one--but simply came to\nMassachusetts, to possess and enjoy these natural rights. Marshal\nFreeman had seized him on the false charge of burglary, had chained\nhim in a dungeon contrary to Massachusetts law,--there were irons on\nhis hands.\n\nIt is said he was a slave: now a slave is a person whom some one has\nstolen from himself, and by force keeps from his natural rights. Mr.\nBurns sought to rescue himself from the thieves who held him; Marshal\nFreeman took the thieves' part.\n\n(2.) Was there any effectual mode of securing to Mr. Burns his natural\nand unalienable Right except the mode of forcible rescue? Gentlemen of\nthe Jury, it is very clear there was none at all. The laws of\nMassachusetts were of no avail. Your own Supreme Court, which in 1832,\nat the instigation of Mr. Charles P. Curtis, sent a little boy not\nfourteen years old into Cuban Slavery to gratify a slave-hunting West\nIndian, in 1851, had voluntarily put its neck under the Southern\nchain. Your Chief Justice, who acquired such honorable distinction in\n1836 by setting free the little girl Med from the hands of the\nCurtises, in 1851 spit in the face of Massachusetts, and spurned her\nlaws with his judicial foot. It was plain that Commissioner Loring did\nnot design to allow his victim a fair trial--for he had already\nprejudged the case; he advised Mr. Phillips \"to make no defence, put\nno 'obstruction' in the way of the man's going back, as he probably\nwill,\" and, before hearing the defence sought to settle the matter by\na sale of Mr. Burns.\n\nGentlemen, the result showed there was no chance of what the United\nStates law reckons justice being done in the case--for Commissioner\nLoring not only decided the fate of Mr. Burns against law, and against\nevidence, but communicated his decision to the slave-hunters nearly\ntwenty-four hours before he announced it in open court! No, Gentlemen,\nwhen a man claimed as a fugitive is brought before either of these two\nmembers of this family of kidnappers--who run now in couples, hunting\nmen and seeking whom they may devour--there is no hope for him: it is\nonly a mock-trial, worse than the Star-chamber inquisition of the\nStuart kings. Place no \"obstructions in the way of the man's going\nback,\" said the mildest of the two, \"as he probably will.\" Over that\ndoor, historic and actual, as over that other, but fabulous, gate of\nHell should be written:--\n\n     \"Through me they go to the city of sorrow;\n     Through me they go to endless agony;\n     Through me they go among the nations lost:\n     Leave every hope, all ye that enter here!\"\n\nThe only hope of freedom for Mr. Burns lay in the limbs of the People!\nAnarchy afforded him the only chance of Justice.\n\n(3.) Did they who it is alleged made the attack on the Marshal, or\nthey who it is said instigated them to the attack, do it from any\nwicked, unjust, or selfish motive? Nobody pretends it--Gentlemen, we\nhad much to lose--ease, honor--for with many persons in Boston it is a\ndisgrace to favor the unalienable Rights of man, as at Rome to read\nthe Bible, or at Damascus to be a Christian--ease, honor, money,\nliberty--if this Court have its way,--nay, life itself; for one of the\nfamily which preserves the Union by kidnapping men, counts it a\ncapital crime to rescue a victim from their hands, and Mr. Hallett,\nwhen only a democratic expectant of office, declared \"if it only\nresists law and obstructs its officers ... it is treason ... and he\nwho risks it must risk hanging for it.\" No, Gentlemen, I had much to\nlose by my words. I had nothing to gain. Nothing I mean but the\nsatisfaction of doing my duty to Myself, my Brother, and my God. And\ntried by Judge Sprague's precept, \"Obey both,\" that is nothing; or by\nJudge Curtis's \"Standard of Morality\" it is a crime; and according to\nhis brother it is \"Treason;\" and according to, I know not how many\nministers of commerce, it is \"infidelity\"--\"treasonable, damnable\ndoctrine.\"\n\nNo, Gentlemen, no selfish motive could move me to such conduct. The\nvoice of Duty was terribly clear: \"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto\nthe least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.\"\n\nPut all these things together, Gentlemen. Remember there is a duty of\nthe strong to help the weak: that all men have a common interest in\nthe common duty to keep the Eternal Law of Justice; remember we are\nall of us to appear one day before the Court which is of purer eyes\nthan to love iniquity. Ask what says Conscience--what says God. Then\ndecide as you must decide.\n\nThe eyes of the nation are upon you. The Judges of this Honorable\nCourt hold their office in Petty Serjeantry on condition of wresting\nthe Laws and Constitution to the support of the fugitive slave bill,\nand of preventing, as far as possible, all noble thought which opposes\nthe establishment of Despotism, now so rapidly encroaching upon our\nonce Free Soil: they hold by this Petty Serjeantry--a menial service\nnot mentioned in any book even of \"Jocular Tenures.\"\n\nIf you could find me guilty--it is not possible, only conceivable with\na contradiction,--you would delight the Slave Power--Atchison,\nCushing, Stringfellow, and their Northern and Southern crew--for to\nthem I seem identified with New England Freedom of Speech. \"Aha,\" they\nwill neigh and snicker out, \"Judge Curtis has got the North under his\nfeet! Mr. Webster knew what he was about when putting him in place!\"\n\nEnglish is the only tongue in which Freedom can speak her political or\nreligious word. Shall that tongue be silenced; tied in Faneuil Hall;\ntorn out by a Slave-hunter? The Stamp Act only taxed commercial and\nlegal documents; the fugitive slave bill makes our words misdemeanors.\nThe Revenue Act did but lay a tax on tea, three-pence only on a pound:\nthe Slave-hunters' act taxes our thoughts as a crime. The Boston Port\nBill but closed our harbor, we could get in at Salem; but the Judge's\nCharge shuts up the mouth of all New England, not a word against\nman-hunting but is a \"crime,\"--the New Testament is full of\n\"misdemeanors.\" Andros only took away the Charter of Massachusetts;\nJudge Curtis's \"law\" is a _quo warranto_ against Humanity itself.\n\"Perfidious General Gage\" took away the arms of Boston; Judge Curtis\n_charges_ upon our Soul; he would wring all religion out of you,--no\n\"Standard of Morality\" above the fugitive slave bill; you must not,\neven to God in your prayers, evince \"an express liking\" for the\ndeliverance of an innocent man whom his family seek to transform to a\nbeast of burthen and then sacrifice to the American Moloch.\n\nDecide according to your own Conscience, Gentlemen, not after mine.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, I must bring this defence to a close. Already\nit is too long for your patience, though far too short for the mighty\ninterest at stake, for it is the Freedom of a Nation which you are to\ndecide upon. I have shown you the aim and purposes of the Slave\nPower--to make this vast Continent one huge Despotism, a House of\nBondage for African Americans, a House of Bondage also for Saxon\nAmericans. I have pointed out the course of Despotism in Monarchic\nEngland; you have seen how there the Tyrants directly made wicked\nlaws, or when that resource failed, how they reached indirectly after\ntheir End, and appointed officers to pervert the law, to ruin the\npeople. You remember how the King appointed base men as Attorneys and\nJudges, and how wickedly they used their position and their power,\nscorning alike the law of God and the welfare of Man. \"The Judges in\ntheir itinerant Circuits,\" says an old historian,[226] \"the more to\nenslave the people to obedience, being to speak of the king, would\ngive him sacred titles as if their advancement to high places must\nnecessarily be laid upon the foundation of the People's debasement.\"\nYou have not forgotten Saunders, Kelyng, and Jeffreys and Scroggs;\nSibthorpe and Mainwaring you will remember for ever,--denouncing\n\"eternal damnation\" on such as refused the illegal tax of Charles I.\nor evinced an express disapprobation of his tyranny.\n\n[Footnote 226: In 2 Kennett, 753.]\n\nGentlemen, you recollect how the rights of the jury were broken\ndown,--how jurors were threatened with trial for perjury, insulted,\nfined, and imprisoned, because they would be faithful to the Law and\ntheir Conscience. You remember how the tyrannical king clutched at the\nPeople's purse and their person too, and smote at all freedom of\nspeech, while the purchased Judges were always ready, the tools of\nDespotism. But you know what it all came to--Justice could not enter\nupon the law through the doors of Westminster Hall; so she tried it at\nNaseby and Worcester and with her \"Invincible Ironsides\" took\npossession by means of pike and gun. Charles I. laid his guilty head\non the block; James II. only escaped the same fate by timely flight.\nIf Courts will not decree Justice, then Civil War will, for it must be\ndone, and a battle becomes a \"Crowning Mercy.\"\n\nGentlemen, I have shown you what the Slave Power of America aims\nat,--a Despotism which is worse for this age than the Stuarts' tyranny\nfor that time. You see its successive steps of encroachment. Behold\nwhat it has done within ten years. It has made Slavery perpetual in\nFlorida; has annexed Texas, a Slave State as big as the kingdom of\nFrance; has fought the Mexican War, with Northern money, and spread\nbondage over Utah, New Mexico, and California; it has given Texas ten\nmillions of Northern dollars to help Slavery withal; it has passed the\nfugitive slave bill and kidnapped men in the West, in the Middle\nStates, and even in our own New England; it has given ten millions of\ndollars for a little strip of worthless land, the Mesilla valley,\nwhereon to make a Slave Railroad and carry bondage from the Atlantic\nto the Pacific; it has repealed the Prohibition of Slavery, and spread\nthe mildew of the South all over Kansas and Nebraska. Ask your\ncapitalists, who have bought Missouri lands and railroads, how their\nstock looks just now; not only your Liberty but even their Money is in\nperil. You know the boast of Mr. Toombs. Gentlemen, you know what the\nUnited States Courts have done--with poisoned weapons they have struck\ndeadly blows at Freedom. You know Sharkey and Grier and Kane. You\nrecollect the conduct of Kidnappers' Courts at Milwaukie, Sandusky,\nCincinnati, Philadelphia--in the Hall of Independence. But why need I\nwander so far? Alas! you know too well what has been done in Boston,\nour own Boston, the grave of Puritan piety. You remember the Union\nMeeting, Ellen Craft, Sims, chains around the Court House, the Judges\ncrawling under, soldiers in the street, drunk, smiting at the\ncitizens; you do not forget Anthony Burns, the Marshal's guard, the\nloaded cannon in place of Justice, soldiers again in the streets\nsmiting at and wounding the citizens. You recollect all this--the 19th\nof April, 1851, Boston delivering an innocent man at Savannah to be a\nslave for ever, and that day scourged in his jail while the hirelings\nwho enthralled him were feasted at their Inn;--Anniversary week last\nyear--a Boston Judge of Probate, the appointed guardian of orphans,\nkidnapping a poor and friendless man! You cannot forget these things,\nno, never!\n\nYou know who did all this: a single family--the Honorable Judge\nCurtis, with his kinsfolk and friends, himself most subtly active with\nall his force throughout this work. When Mr. Webster prostituted\nhimself to the Slave Power this family went out and pimped for him in\nthe streets; they paraded in the newspapers, at the Revere House, and\nin public letters; they beckoned and made signs at Faneuil Hall. That\ncrime of Sodom brought Daniel Webster to his grave at Marshfield, a\nmighty warning not to despise the Law of the Infinite God; but that\nsin of Gomorrah, it put the Hon. Benj. R. Curtis on this Bench; gave\nhim his judicial power to construct his \"law,\" construct his \"jury,\"\nto indict and try me. Try me! No, Gentlemen, it is you, your wives and\nyour children, who are up for swift condemnation this day. Will you\nwait, will you add sin to sin, till God shall rain fire and brimstone\non your heads, and a Dead Sea shall cover the place once so green and\nblossoming with American Liberty? Decide your own fate. When the\nJudges are false let the Juries be faithful, and we have \"a crowning\nmercy\" without cannon, and the cause of Justice is secure. For \"when\nwicked men seem nearest to their hopes, the godly man is furthest from\nhis fears.\"\n\nYou know my \"offence,\" Gentlemen. I have confessed more than the\ngovernment could prove. You are the \"Country:\" the Nation by twelve\nDelegates is present here to-day. In the name of America, of mankind,\nyou are to judge of the Law, the Fact, and the Application of the Law\nto the Fact. You are to decide whether you will spread Slavery and the\nConsequences of Slavery all over the North; whether Boston, New\nEngland, all the North, shall kidnap other Ellen Crafts, other Thomas\nSims, other Anthony Burns,--whether Sharkey and Grier, and Kane and\nCurtis, shall be Tyrants over you--forbidding all Freedom of Speech:\nor whether Right and Justice, the Christian Religion, the natural\nservice of the Infinite God shall bless our wide land with the\nnumberless Beatitudes of Humanity. Should you command me to be fined\nand go to jail, I should take it very cheerfully, counting it more\nhonor to be inside of a jail in the austere silence of my dungeon,\nrather than outside of it, with a faithless Jury, guilty of such\ntreason to their Country and their God. But, forgive me! you cannot\ncommit such a crime against Humanity. Pardon the monstrous figure of\nmy speech,--it is only conceivable, not also possible. These Judges\ncould do it--their speeches, their actions, that Charge, this\nIndictment, proves all that--but you cannot;--not you. You are the\nRepresentatives of the People, the Country, not idiotic in Conscience\nand the Affections.\n\nGentlemen, I am a minister of Religion. It is my function to teach\nwhat is absolutely true and absolutely right. I am the servant of no\nsect,--how old soever, venerable and widely spread. I claim the same\nreligious Rights with Luther and Calvin, with Budha and Mohammed; yes,\nwith Moses and Jesus,--the unalienable Right to serve the God of\nNature in my own way. I preach the Religion which belongs to Human\nNature, as I understand it, which the Infinite God imperishably writes\nthereon,--Natural Piety, love of the infinitely perfect God, Natural\nMorality, the keeping of every law He has written on the body and in\nthe soul of man, especially by loving and serving his creatures. Many\nwrong things I doubtless do, for which I must ask the forgiveness of\nmankind. But do you suppose I can keep the fugitive slave bill, obey\nthese Judges, and kidnap my own Parishioners? It is no part of my\n\"Christianity\" to \"send the mother that bore me into eternal bondage.\"\nDo you think I can suffer Commissioner Curtis and Commissioner Loring\nto steal my friends,--out of my meeting-house? Gentlemen, when God\nbids me do right and this Court bids me do wrong, I shall not pretend\nto \"obey both.\" I am willing enough to suffer all that you will ever\nlay on me. But I will not do such a wrong, nor allow such wickedness\nto be done--so help me God! How could I teach Truth, Justice, Piety,\nif I stole men; if I allowed Saunders, Jeffreys, Scroggs, or Sharkey,\nGrier, Kane, or in one word, Curtis, to steal them? I love my Country,\nmy kindred of Humanity; I love my God, Father and Mother of the white\nman and the black; and am I to suffer the Liberty of America to be\ntrod under the hoof of Slaveholders, Slave-drivers; yes, of the\njudicial slaves of slaveholders' slave-drivers? I was neither born nor\nbred for that. I drew my first breath in a little town not far off, a\npoor little town where the farmers and mechanics first unsheathed that\nRevolutionary sword which, after eight years of hewing, clove asunder\nthe Gordian knot that bound America to the British yoke. One raw\nmorning in spring--it will be eighty years the 19th of this\nmonth--Hancock and Adams, the Moses and Aaron of that Great\nDeliverance, were both at Lexington; they also had \"obstructed an\nofficer\" with brave words. British soldiers, a thousand strong, came\nto seize them and carry them over sea for trial, and so nip the bud of\nFreedom auspiciously opening in that early spring. The town militia\ncame together before daylight \"for training.\" A great, tall man, with\na large head and a high, wide brow, their Captain,--one who \"had seen\nservice,\"--marshalled them into line, numbering but seventy, and bad\n\"every man load his piece with powder and ball.\" \"I will order the\nfirst man shot that runs away,\" said he, when some faltered; \"Don't\nfire unless fired upon, but if they want to have a war,--let it begin\nhere.\" Gentlemen, you know what followed: those farmers and mechanics\n\"fired the shot heard round the world.\" A little monument covers the\nbones of such as before had pledged their fortune and their sacred\nhonor to the Freedom of America, and that day gave it also their\nlives. I was born in that little town, and bred up amid the memories\nof that day. When a boy my mother lifted me up, one Sunday, in her\nreligious, patriotic arms, and held me while I read the first\nmonumental line I ever saw:--\n\n     \"SACRED TO LIBERTY AND THE RIGHTS OF MANKIND.\"\n\nSince then I have studied the memorial marbles of Greece and Rome in\nmany an ancient town; nay, on Egyptian Obelisks have read what was\nwritten before the Eternal roused up Moses to lead Israel out of\nEgypt, but no chiselled stone has ever stirred me to such emotions as\nthose rustic names of men who fell\n\n     \"IN THE SACRED CAUSE OF GOD AND THEIR COUNTRY.\"\n\nGentlemen, the Spirit of Liberty, the Love of Justice, was early\nfanned into a flame in my boyish heart. That monument covers the bones\nof my own kinsfolk; it was their blood which reddened the long, green\ngrass at Lexington. It is my own name which stands chiselled on that\nstone; the tall Captain who marshalled his fellow farmers and\nmechanics into stern array and spoke such brave and dangerous words as\nopened the War of American Independence,--the last to leave the\nfield,--was my father's father. I learned to read out of his Bible,\nand with a musket he that day captured from the foe, I learned also\nanother religious lesson, that\n\n     \"REBELLION TO TYRANTS IS OBEDIENCE TO GOD.\"\n\nI keep them both, \"Sacred to Liberty and the Rights of Mankind,\" to\nuse them both \"In the Sacred Cause of God and my Country.\"\n\nGentlemen of the Jury, and you my fellow-countrymen of the North, I\nleave the matter with you. Say \"Guilty!\" You cannot do it. \"Not\nGuilty.\" I know you will, for you remember there is another Court, not\nof fugitive slave bill law, where we shall all be tried by the Justice\nof the Infinite God. Hearken to the last verdict, \"INASMUCH AS YE HAVE\nDONE IT UNTO ONE OF THE LEAST OF THESE MY BRETHREN, YE HAVE DONE IT\nUNTO ME.\"\n\n\nEND.\n\n\n\n\nERRATA.\n\n\nPage 19, line 16 from  top,  instead of _rest_, read _government_.\n \"   23   \"   10   \"    \"       \"    \"  1618, read 1215.\n \"   76   \"    2   \"    \"       \"    \"  _Aoncilia_, read _Ancilia_.\n \"   78   \"    3   \"  bottom,   \"    \"  _not_, read _or_.\n \"   84   \"   11   \"    \"       \"    \"  _promoting_, read _perverting_.\n \"   89   \"   18   \"    \"        omit   _his_, before _vengeance_.\n\n\n\n\nOTHER WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.\n\n\nA DISCOURSE OF MATTERS PERTAINING TO RELIGION. 1 Vol. 12mo.\n    New Edition will appear in December.                         $1.25\n\nAN INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. From the German of De\n    Wette. 2d edition. 2 Vols. 8vo.                               3.75\n\nCRITICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS. 1 Vol. 12mo. New Edition\n    will soon appear.                                             1.25\n\nOCCASIONAL SERMONS AND SPEECHES. 2 Vols. 12mo.                    2.50\n\nTEN SERMONS OF RELIGION. 1 Vol. 12mo.                             1.00\n\nSERMONS OF THEISM, ATHEISM, AND THE POPULAR THEOLOGY. 1 Vol.\n    12mo.                                                         1.25\n\nADDITIONAL SERMONS AND SPEECHES. 2 Vols. 12mo.                    2.50\n\n\nPAMPHLETS.\n\nTWO SERMONS ON LEAVING THE OLD AND ENTERING THE NEW PLACE\nOF WORSHIP. (1852.)                                                 20\n\nDISCOURSE OF DANIEL WEBSTER. (1853.) Cloth.                         50\n\nA SERMON OF OLD AGE. (1854.)                                        15\n\nTHE NEW CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. (1854.)                             20\n\nTHE LAWS OF GOD AND THE STATUTES OF MAN. (1854.)                    15\n\nTHE DANGERS WHICH THREATEN THE RIGHTS OF MAN IN AMERICA. (1854.)    20\n\nTHE MORAL DANGERS INCIDENT TO PROSPERITY. (1855.)                   15\n\nCONSEQUENCES OF AN IMMORAL PRINCIPLE. (1855.)                       15\n\nFUNCTION OF A MINISTER. (1855.)                                     20\n\nTWO SERMONS IN PROCEEDINGS OF PROGRESSIVE FRIENDS. (1855.)          15","title":"The Trial of Theodore Parker: For the \"Misdemeanor\" of a Speech in Faneuil Hall against Kidnapping, before the Circuit Court of the United States, at Boston, April 3, 1855, with the Defence","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":119431}