SENATE.] Trial of Judge Peck. [DEC. 22, 23, 1830. The House of Representatives came into the Senate was accordingly printed. Upon the exhibition to him by Chamber and took their seats. Mr. McDUFFIE resumed the floor, and concluded his opening speech, commenced yesterday, against the respondent. [The remarks made on both days are embodied above, instead of dividing them, as delivered.] Mr. BUCHANAN then offered the documentary evidence in behalf of the prosecution. The Court then adjourned. WEDNESDAY, DEC. 22. Mr. BUCHANAN, one of the honorable managers, of one of the printed copies of the argument, he said that it was the same. The demurrer was subsequently withdrawn; and the District Attorney filed his answer to the petition of the claimants. While taking the deposition of one of the former Lieutenant Governors of Upper Louisiana, Judge Peck mentioned that he had read, or had caused to be read to him, the argument of Mr. Lawless, a copy of which that gentleman said he had sent to him before that time. When the court again sat, Judge Peck directed an issue to try the question, whether such a concession as The Senate again resolved itself into a Court of Im-that under which the plaintiffs claimed the lands in quespeachment. The day was occupied in receiving the testimony of LUKE E. LAWLESS, and in examining him. Before the cross-examination was finished, the Court adjourned. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23. At twelve o'clock the Senate again resolved itself into a High Court of Impeachment. tion had ever been made? It was found that it had been made; such as it was set forth to be in the petition of the claimants. The cause then came on upon its merits and the proofs. Mr. Lawless again argued it very much at length. This was in the spring of 1825. The court took the case under advisement, and reserved it for future decision. He was absent, and the judge decided it in his absence. Mr. Lawless was not present when the decision The cross-examination of Mr. LAWLESS was resumed, was made; but Judge Peck postponed making up the reand continued during the whole of the sitting of this day. cord for taking an appeal until the counsel returned. In the course of that examination, both yesterday and to- When he returned, the record was made up, the appeal day, a variety of points were raised, and argued with great taken, and the appeal bond given. This was in Decemability by the Managers and the Counsel for the respond- ber, 1825. In March following, about the 30th, he saw, ent, on the admissibility of certain questions propounded in the Republican newspaper, published at St. Louis, an to the witness. The most important of these, and that article headed, “Peck, Judge," and found it to purport the decision of which will probably protract the cross- to be an opinion or argument in justification of the decree examination at least a day or two, was the point, whether of the District Court entered in the case of Soulard's heirs Mr. Lawless should be required to say, whether certain against the United States. designated passages in the opinion of Judge Peck, in the In the It appeared to him to contain a great many errors, in case of Soulard's heirs, were the parts of that opinion fact and in doctrine. It appeared to him to be calculated upon which he based the assertion, made in the publica- injuriously to affect the public opinion upon that and a tion of "A CITIZEN," that Judge Peck had assumed the variety of other similar claims, in which he was concerned position, "that, by the Ordinance of 1754, a sub-delegate as counsel. The article was anonymous, and he looked under the Spanish Government of Louisiana was prohi- on it as an argument not presented by the Judge, when bited from making a grant of lands in consideration of his opinion was delivered. It produced a great sensation, services rendered, or to be rendered?" The Senate, after tended to depress the hopes of his clients, and to depreingenious and able arguments by Mr. BUCHANAN and Mr. ciate considerably the value of their property. It appear STORRS, in behalf of the Managers, and by Mr. WIRT, in ed to him rather to be an inquiry of what the law should behalf of the respondent, decided, by a vote of thirty-two be, than a peremptory decision of what it was. to ten, that the question might be put, and must be an- opening of that opinion, the Judge expressed doubts as swered. This will, it is supposed, lead to a similar exami- to the law, and seemed to feel as if he were wandering nation of the witness in relation to the grounds upon through a wilderness to reach the desired object. Further which he advanced all the propositions contained in his discussion seemed to be invited of the points involved in publication on the opinion of Judge Peck, for which he that decision. Taking all these considerations into view, was committed and suspended from practice by the and believing that as a citizen, independently of his cha judge. racter as counsel, he had an undoubted right to point out The narrative part of the testimony of Mr. Lawless will the errors in the published opinion of the judge, and to afford the means of information to the general reader as prevent, as far as he could, the injury they were likely to to the circumstances which have led to this impeachment. produce, Mr. Lawless took up his pen, and wrote the arIt is therefore subjoined. Let it be remembered, that ticle signed "A Citizen," which was published in the the heirs of Soulard filed a petition in the District Court Missouri Advocate and St. Louis Enquirer, of the 8th of for Missouri, of which the respondent is and was the April, in the same year. Shortly after that the District Judge, to try the validity of their claim to ten thousand arpents of land, under a concession alleged to have been issued by Trudeau, the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Louisiana, to Antoine Soulard, the ancestor of the petitioners. Mr. Lawless was the counsel in the case. Court sat by special adjournment. He attended, and took his place in court. Upon taking his seat, and disposing of some business, the judge pulled a newspaper out of his pocket, stated what paper it was, and asked, with apparent emotion, who was its editor, addressing himself, as LUKE EDWARD LAWLESS, Esq. having been called and Mr. Lawless thought, particularly to the District Attorney, sworn, gave a historical narrative of the proceedings, so far or to the bar generally. Mr. Lawless replied, that he as related to the case of Soulard, in the District Court of knew who was the editor of the paper, and that it was the United States, for the State of Missouri, under the act one Stephen W. Foreman. He believed, from his manner, of Congress of 1824, enabling the claimants to lands in that the judge had in view the article which he had writ Missouri and Arkansas to institute proceedings to try the ten; and he was perfectly willing that it should be brought validity of their claims, and in relation to the circumstances up for discussion. The judge asked Mr. Lawless if he which had led to his commitment and suspension by that would swear to the fact as to the editor. He said he would, court. He testified, in substance, that, in the case of Sou- and was accordingly sworn. Describing the article, Judge lard's heirs against the United States, he had, as counsel Peck dictated a rule upon the editor, to show cause why for the plaintiffs, argued it on a general demurrer. It he had published it. The rule was served upon the editor, was thought by some of the profession whom he consulted, and Mr. Lawless volunteered as counsel for him, he being that it would be well to have his argument printed; and it the author of the article, and considering it his duty to DEC. 24, 27, 28, 1830.] Trial of Judge Peck. [SENATE. Mr. defend the editor. He applied to no other person to ap- to him, as he understood him, for the purpose of enabling pear for him. Mr. Lawless urged the editor by no means him to purge himself of the alleged contempt. to give up the author, using every argument that he could To this the witness replied, that he did not require any to satisfy him that it was his duty not to yield on such an interrogatories to be propounded to him; and, if prooccasion. He appeared in court the day after the order pounded, he should not answer them. He did not recollect was issued, and defended the editor on all the grounds whether he then stated any reasons to the court for dewhich suggested themselves to his mind; on the ground clining. He tendered exceptions to the decision of the of the perfect truth of the article, and of the absence on judge, with his reasons, which the judge refused to file. its face of all intention to commit a contempt. In demon- An order was then made out for his commitment to prison strating the truth of the article, he recurred to the pub- for twenty-four hours, and for his suspension from praclished opinion of the judge, to all that the article con- tice in that court for eighteen months. A copy of the tained, and pursued the same course of argument, with a order was put into the hands of the deputy marshal, and few exceptions, as far as his humble abilities would per- the witness was conducted to the jail of the county of St. mit, which had been taken by the honorable Manager Louis, locked up in a room where common felons had who had opened this case. He produced all the authori- been imprisoned, as he was informed and believed. ties which he could rake up on the occasion, to show that Soulard and Mr. Rector accompanied him, and were the publication of "A Citizen" was not a contempt. Im- locked up in the room with him. After witness had been mediately after concluding his argument, which, he there some time, he called for the jailer, and requested thought, had occupied more than one day, he left the him to show him the order of commitment, which he did. court; and he understood that Mr. Geyer, a gentleman of After he had examined it, he determined to petition the the St. Louis bar, had also afterwards stepped forward in circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus, in order to apdefence of the editor. ply for a release, on grounds which he thought he had When Mr. Lawless returned into court, he found discovered in the order itself. The judge of that court Judge Peck about to make the rule absolute for an at-granted the writ, and decided to discharge him from pritachment upon the editor. Considering that the judge son, on the ground that there was no seal to the order or appeared to point at him as the author of the article, in- signature of the judge. He was accordingly discharged, asmuch as the rights of his clients were involved in the and heard no more on the subject from Judge Peck. An case, he changed his view of the course which the editor order was also made out to suspend him from practice for ought to pursue, and assented to the giving up of his own eighteen months, and he was not restored until his suspenname as the author. Mr. Foreman was then discharged sion had expired by limitation. It appeared further, from from the rule, and a rule was made on Mr. Lawless, to the testimony of the witness, that he was a native of Ireshow cause why an attachment should not issue against land; that he left that country in 1810; that he went to him, and why he should not be suspended from practice France, and that he came to the United States in 1816. in that court for having written the article as set forth in [It is said that he was an officer in the army of Napoleon Mr. Geyer, Mr. Magennis, and Mr. at the battle of Waterloo.] He declared his intention in Strother, members of the bar, appeared before Judge the Marine Court of New York, as soon as he arrived in Peck, the next day, he believed, and argued the matter that city, to apply for a certificate of naturalization as an as his counsel. When they attempted to demonstrate the American citizen; and he accordingly obtained his certiintrinsic truth of the article of "A Citizen," they were ficate at St. Louis, in 1822. He had been admitted to stopped by the judge, told that he had decided and dis-practise in Kentucky, both by Judge Johnson and Judge posed of that question, and that it was not open for further Barry, the present Postmaster General of the United argument. They then proceeded to discuss the questions States, and moved on with the tide of emigration to St. of pure law on the merits of the case. Their authorities Louis, in Missouri. and arguments on that point were overruled by the judge, who ordered the article to be read to him, paragraph by paragraph, by Mr. Bates, the District Attorney, and proceeded to examine and comment upon each paragraph as it was read. The manner of the judge, in treating the subject, was exceedingly vehement; he was more impassioned than he had ever seen him. In his observations, he permitted himself to use expressions which Mr. Lawless considered offensive to him as a man and a gentleman. up to the hour of adjournment. It reached only to the The witness felt himself irritated by them, and perhaps sixth specification in the publication of "A Citizen." his countenance exhibited evidences of that irritation. He The searching ability displayed by Mr. WinT on the ocapprehensive that he might betray his feelings by casion was met by unusual vigor, talent, and decision, on some expression or gesture, and he thought it best to the part of the witness. leave the court. He, therefore, asked his friend, Mr. Geyer, if he thought it would be a contempt for him to leave the court while the judge was speaking: Mr. Geyer thought no contempt could be inferred from his leaving He rose up and left the court, and went to the Circuit Court for the county of St. Louis, then sitting, before which it so happened that a case, in which he was the attachment. Was the court. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 24. After despatching several private subjects, and spending some time in Executive business, The Senate again resolved itself into a Court of Impeachment. The cross-examination of Mr. LAWLESS was continued The Senate adjourned till eleven, and the court till twelve o'clock, on Monday. MONDAY, DECEMBER 27. The Senate again resolved itself into a High Court of Impeachment. Mr. WIRT, the leading counsel for the respondent, reemployed as leading counsel, was about to be tried. It sumed and concluded the cross-examination of Mr. Law was the case of some slaves, who had sued Peter Choteau LESS. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28. After the transaction of some minor business, HENRY S. GEYER, a member of the Missouri bar, the SENATE.] The Presidency.--Trial of Judge Peck. [DEC. 29, 30, 31.--JAN. 3, 4, 1831. other member of the Missouri bar, were examined, and Tox RECTOR, witnesses in behalf of the impeachment, cross-examined, as witnesses on behalf of the House of were then called, sworn, examined, and cross-exmined. Representatives. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 29. THE PRESIDENCY. The certificate of naturalization of Mr. Lawless, the protest of the Spanish Lieutenant Governor of Upper Louisiana, against the regulations of Morales, and sundry other papers, were produced as evidence. Mr. BUCHANAN then said, that the Managers for the House of Representatives here rested the cause of the United States. Mr. MEREDITH renewed his application for a suspension of the trial until Monday. On motion of Mr. TAZEWELL, the court determined to adjourn over to Monday next, at twelve o'clock. The Senate adjourned till to-morrow. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 30. The Senate was principally occupied, this day, in the consideration of Executive business. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 31. THE PRESIDENCY. Mr. DICKERSON rose to offer a joint resolution to amend the constitution, so as to limit the service of any individual in the Presidency to two terms. He was understood to say, in substance, that, according to the existing article of the constitution on the subject, a President was eligible, by re-election at successive terms, for life. Usage had hitherto restricted the period of presidential service to two terms. Washington had refused to be elected for a third term; and his example, which had become a kind of law, had been followed to the present time; but it was a law so weak as to render it liable to yield to the pressure of any ambitious incumbent, who might desire to continue in office. In the Federal Convention, by whom the constitution had been framed, the principle of limiting the continuance of the President in office to a single term of seven years, had been carried The joint resolution to amend the constitution in relaon more than one occasion, but it was as often evaded. tion to the Presidential term of service, submitted on Some had been in favor of more terms than one; others Wednesday by Mr. DICKERSON, was read a second had supported the election of a President during good time, and referred to a select committee, consisting of Mr. behavior. These preferred a number of terms to a single DICKERSON, Mr. WHITE, Mr. FORSYTH, Mr. BURNET, term, and had united in the adoption of the present pro- and Mr. KNIGHT. vision. The usage of two terms had been so long continued, that he was disposed to adopt it as a part of the constitution. It had been approved by popular opinion, and a joint resolution to that effect had, some sessions ago, been almost unanimously sanctioned by a vote of the Senate. If, however, the Senate should, at this time, prefer a single term of seven, or even of six years, he The honorable JOHN C. CALHOUN, Vice-President should have no objection. He then submitted the follow- of the United States, appeared this day and took the ing joint resolution, promising, at the proper time, to as-Chair as President of the Senate. sign his reasons in its favor: After the transaction of some morning business, the Se"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of nate resolved itself into a High Court of Impeachment. the United States of America in Congress assembled, two- In consequence of the death of a daughter of Mr. WIKT, thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following the leading Counsel of Judge Peck, the Court of Imamendment to the constitution of the United States be peachment, on motion of Mr. TAZEWELL, adjourned proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, which, to twelve o'clock on Wednesday next. when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the constitution: "That no person, who shall have been elected to the office of President of the United States a second time, shall again be eligible to that office." TRIAL OF JUDGE PECK. At twelve o'clock the Senate again resolved itself into a High Court of Impeachment. The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of Executive business, and remained upwards of three hours with closed doors. Adjourned to Monday. MONDAY, JANUARY 3, 1831. Mr. LIVINGSTON submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That nothing contained in any of the rules for conducting impeachments, made on the eleventh day of May, 1830, shall be so construed as to prevent any Senator, when he shall give his vote on the question of guilty or not guilty on any article in an impeachment, from assigning his reasons for such vote. The Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business, and spent upwards of two hours on it, and then adjourned. TUESDAY, JANUARY 4. THE IMPEACHMENT. Mr. MEREDITH announced the absence of his friend and colleague, [Mr. WIRT,] in this case. He had been called home to Baltimore by the dangerous illness of one of his children. He felt the embarrassment of his own situation, occasioned by this unpleasant circumstance. To be The resolution submitted yesterday by Mr. LIVINGSdeprived of the aid of his colleague at any time, or on TON, explaining the rules to conduct impeachments, so any occasion, would to him be a cause of regret; but in a as to allow any Senator to assign his reasons for his vote case of this magnitude, so interesting to the respondent, on the question of guilty or not guilty, was taken up. and so interesting to the community, to be deprived of his Mr. L. said that the resolution was predicated upon services was a source of deep regret. What he should, a doubt whether the rules adopted in May last did, or therefore, propose, with the consent of the managers on did not, allow Senators to assign their reasons for the the other side, was, that they should proceed to finish the votes they might give on the pending impeachment. He examination of the witnesses, on the part of the United was rather indifferent than otherwise as to the fate of States, and then that this honorable court should adjourn the resolution. Its object was to settle the doubts which over to Monday next, to await the return of Mr. Wirt. existed on the subject; and that object would be attained, Mr. BUCHANAN said, that the managers on the part of whether the resolution should be rejected or adopted. the House of Representatives would acquiesce in what- Both sides of the question presented difficulties. The ever the court might determine to be its pleasure on the Court consisted of forty eight members; and if every member were to express his sentiments, after the Mana CHARLES S. HEMPSTEAD, EDWARD CHARLESS, and WHAR-gers and the Counsel for the respondent had been heard, occasion. JAN. 5, 1831.] Navigation and Commerce.--Trial of Judge Peck. [SENATE. The a great deal of time would be consumed. On the other to state the grounds of defence on which the respondent hand, the right to speak on the occasion was one which he considered a proper privilege; and he was, upon the whole, disposed to affirm it. At the suggestion of Mr. FORSYTH, the resolution was laid upon the table until to-morrow. NAVIGATION AND COMMERCE. The bill to abolish the charge of ten dollars for pass ports and four dollars for clearances granted to ships and vessels bound to foreign ports, and to repeal the duties on cinnamon and other spices, was taken up. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading After the consideration of Executive business, the Senate adjourned. relied, with the evidence to support that defence. transaction which had produced this impeachment could be told in a very few words. The respondent, as judge of the District Court of the United States in Missouri, had pronounced an opinion in a case of very great importance, and had been induced to publish that opinion in one of the would more fully be shown in evidence hereafter, that the newspapers of that country. It was already in proof, and opinion had been published not only at the request of the members of the bar, but of those persons generally who were interested in the case. One of the counsel conMr. SMITH, of Maryland, said that the first section of cerned in it had thought proper afterwards to publish, this bill had been reported by the Committee of Finance] anonymously, under the signature of "A Citizen,” not a in consequence of the representation in the report of the fair criticism upon it, but a bare enumeration of what he Secretary of the Treasury, that our navigating interest termed the errors of the Court, some of its principal was in a depressed condition. The charges for passports errors in fact and in doctrine, some of the assumptions of and clearances had been imposed in 1796, when we were the judge, without assigning any reasons to sustain the in want of revenue, and for one or two other reasons charge. This publication, to the mind of the respondent, which the honorable Senator stated. The revenue of the appeared to be a gross and palpable misrepresentation of Government was now abundant; and to take off these his opinion, calculated to bring his court into disrespect; charges, which amounted to a very small annual sum, and he proceeded to attach and punish its author for the would afford some little relief to the merchants. The contempt. After a patient hearing of two or three days; second section of the bill was also predicated, in part, on after giving to the counsel of the author every opportu the report of the Secretary, in which it had been stated nity to defend him, and to him every opportunity to purge that nothing was, in fact, derived from the duties on himself of all intentional disrespect to the court; after the spices. From some cause or other, the drawback on peremptory refusal of Mr. Lawless to answer the interrogathese articles amounted to more than the duties. More, tories propounded to him, and his reassertion of the truth of therefore, was lost to the Government than was gained his publication, Judge Peck had sentenced him to twentyfrom that source. Spices had become a necessary of life, four hours' imprisonment, and to a suspension from pracand were freely used in every family, however poor; and tice in his court for eighteen months. For this the reas the duties on them yielded nothing to the treasury, he spondent had been charged with a high misdemeanor, and could perceive no reason why they should not be repeal- with the wilful and malicious exercise of an arbitrary ed, and why the bill should not pass. to state the facts and evidence by which the respondent and oppressive judicial power. Mr. M. then proceeded would be able to establish the positions, that a contempt had been committed by Mr. Lawless; that the court possessed a legal warrant to punish him for the contempt; and that, if not, the judge was influenced, in the case, by a sense of official obligation and duty, and not by the wilful, malicious, and arbitrary motive and intention imputed to him in the article of impeachment. He gave a history and character of the land claims, and the transactions out of which this impeachment had grown; the arduous and Mr. MEREDITH rose and opened the grounds of de- perilous difficulties which the respondent had to encoun fence. He said that the honorable manager, who had ter in the exercise of his jurisdiction over the alleged constated the case for the impeachment, had properly advert- cessions claimed under the Spanish authorities, and the ed to its great importance, both to the respondent and frauds, meditated and apprehended, against which he had the community. To the respondent personally, it was to guard. He described the case of Soulard, which had undoubtedly of very deep interest, in its character and its led to this impeachment, as a select and test cause, and consequences. He was charged with the exercise of an said that it required no prophetic spirit in the judge to arbitrary, oppressive, and usurped judicial power, from foresee the dissatisfaction which an adverse decision would malicious motives, to the great disparagement of public produce in all the claimants. It would extinguish their justice, and to the subversion of the liberties of the peo- hopes, as long as the decision remained unrepealed, or the ple of the United States. If this charge were sustained court unchecked. Accordingly, general dissatisfaction by this honorable court, the respondent would be doomed and dismay on the part of suitors did ensue. The Judge to meet not only the lasting reproaches of his fellow-citi-postponed the enrolment of his decree in the case, to ena zens, but the grievous consequences of removal from of ble Mr. Lawless and his associate counsel to put in their fice, and, at the discretion of the court, sentenced to a exceptions to it, or to furnish further argument upon it. perpetual ostracism from the confidence and honors of his This was declined by them. The judge published his country. Considerations of this kind entitled him to the opinion. The motives for its publication were summed most serious, calm, and dispassionate deliberation upon up in his answer to the charge in the article of impeachhis case. Other considerations called for cool and candid ment. He perceived that such publications were usual examination. The surest safeguard of the liberties of the both in England and America, and saw no impropriety in people was to be found in the firm and independent ad- the practice. On the contrary, the branch of law involved ministration of justice; and it became them to look to the in the case was new; its grounds had not been fully argued safety of that portal which the constitution had placed at the bar, and it was proper that they should be fully around the judicial authority of the country. If the doc-opened for the deliberate consideration of counsel; it was trine on which this impeachment had been supported right that their clients should see the reasoning of the were sustained, questions would arise out of the case of court on the subject, and, if satisfactory, that they should deep and lasting importance. His duty on the occasion be saved from any further expense. It was proper that was an exceedingly simple one; it was within prescribed they should see that the court had not hastily and inconlimits, and to these he should confine himself. He had siderately assumed the principles upon which the opinion WEDNESDAY, JAN. 5. At twelve o'clock, the Senate resolved itself into a High SENATE.] Trial of Judge Peck. [JAN. 6 to 12, 1831. was founded, but that it had conscientiously, upon facts action only in colors of resentment; not by witnesses and arguments which it could not resist, come to its con- who were hostile, or who were present in court only at clusion in the case. Upon these reasons, the respondent intervals while the case was pending; but by calm, disinconfidently relied for the justification of the publication of terested, and intelligent witnesses, who were present his opinion. Eight days after, it was followed by the pub- during the whole or greater part of the time, that the lication of "A Citizen," in another newspaper. In this, manner of the judge was not more vehement than it usually the respondent saw a gross and palpable misrepresenta- | had been when his mind was deeply exercised on any subtion, calculated to bring ridicule and contempt upon the ject; that it was as mild as any judge who had ever graced court, to provoke the resentment of the claimants towards the bench; that the language he used on the occasion was the judge, and to break down the court by the force of addressed to the publication, and not to its author; and public opinion. Was the respondent justified in these ap- that, in fact, he looked beyond Mr. Lawless, to other and prehensions? Notwithstanding the gloss put upon the sub-higher considerations, in awarding the attachment and ject by the comparison which the honorable manager punishment to which he had been sentenced. [Mr. McDUFFIE] had instituted between the opinion of the judge and the publication of Mr. Lawless, the respondent relied upon a candid examination and comparison by this honorable court. [This is but "a bird's-eye view" of the speech of Mr. M.] ROBERT WASH, Esq. a Judge of the Supreme Court of Missouri, was then called, sworn, and examined as a witness in behalf of the respondent. At the conclusion of his testimony The Court adjourned over till twelve, and the Senate till eleven o'clock, to-morrow. He would be able to show, by gentlemen familiar with the case, that he was by no means singular in attributing| misrepresentation to the publication of "A Citizen." Men of intelligence, lawyers, acquainted with all the facts and doctrines of the case, looking with a single eye to see whether misrepresentation was to be found in the publication or not, would establish the fact. These same witnesses would show the effect of this misrepresentation. of Impeachment. THURSDAY, JANUARY 6. After the transaction of some minor business, at twelve o'clock, the Senate again resolved itself into a High Court If Mr. Lawless's publication could be considered an accu- JOHN K. WALKER, of St. Louis, and Mr. PETTIS, & rate representation of the conclusions to which the court member of the House of Representatives, were called, had come in that case, they were so preposterous, so ab- sworn, and examined as witnesses, in behalf of the resurd, that nothing but ignorance--an ignorance amounting spondent. Then adjourned. to idiocy--nothing but downright corruption, could have influenced the judge. The effect of the misrepresentation had been to destroy confidence in the court; the disappointment of the claimants was converted into hostility to the judge; and so great had been the distrust and dissatisfaction, that memorials were sent to Congress, the object of which was to deprive the court of its jurisdiction over the claims, and to transfer it to another tribunal. FRIDAY, JANUARY 7. The Senate again resolved itself into a Court of Impeachment. J. B. C. Lucas, W. C. CARR, and JESSE E. LINDELL, were called, sworn, and examined in behalf of the respondent. Judge WASH was re-examined in part. The court then adjourned to Monday. The Senate ordered two opinions of Judge PECK to be printed, and also adjourned to Monday. MONDAY, JANUARY 10. If, therefore, the respondent saw, or this honorable court should believe that he conscientiously thought he saw, an evil design in the author of the publication, what course would they say was left him to pursue? Painful as it was, there was but one course for him to take; and that was to guard the sacred trust committed to his charge,vate bills, the Senate again resolved itself into a High After disposing of petitions, résolutions, and some priand to punish the contempt as he had punished it. In this, Mr. M. contended, that the respondent had been justified by immemorial usage; by the inherent power of the courts; by a power which, although sometimes questioned, had remained untouched in every political strug gle that had taken place; untouched in every constitution Court of Impeachment. Mr. MEREDITH apologized for the absence of Mr. WIRT, occasioned by indisposition, SAMUEL MERRY, in behalf of the respondent, were, with The deposition of EDWARD BATES, JOHN BENT, and and agreeably to a decision of the court, received and read the exception of certain parts expunged by agreement, as evidence. Judge CARR was again called and re-examined; and two or three other witnesses gave their testimony. The whole evidence was closed, with the exception of some papers in the General Land Office. TUESDAY, JANUARY 11. that had been adopted in the country. It was justified by American precedents, by the best lawyers and purest patriots that ever adorned the bench. It would be shown, in due time, that the power had been exercised by all the State courts; by the highest court in the Union; by the Circuit and District Courts of the United States, in cases far more doubtful than this. The respondent was justified, in treating and punishing the publication as a contempt, not only by the statute and common law, but by the law The Senate again sat as a Court of Impeachment. universal, by precedent, by the decisions of all the courts The sitting was consumed in the production and examiin the country. But, if he were not so justified, had he nation of documentary evidence and oral testimony in the been governed by the malicious intention imputed to him case of Judge PECK. The honorable Mr. BENTON was in this impeachment, what motive could he have had? He called to prove the correctness of certain extracts transhad not had any personal disagreement with Mr. Lawless. lated by him from a Spanish ordinance into English. CoNo previous quarrel had occurred between them. No lonel LAWLESS, Mr. GEYER, and one or two other witlurking resentment existed. All their measures with messes were re-examined. Finally, at about four o'clock, each other had been of a perfectly amicable nature. Was it was announced by the managers for the House and the a malicious motive to be found in the character of the re-counsel for the respondent, that the evidence was closed, spondent? It would be shown that he was mild, concilia- and that they would proceed with the argument to-morrow. tory, and equable in temper; respectful and patient in his deportment towards all--to the members of the bar, the subordinate officers of the court, and to suitors. Was Adjourned. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12. such a motive to be inferred from the transaction itself? The Senate again resolved itself into a High Court of It would be proved, not by those who could see the trans-Impeachment. |