Stephen H. Branch's Alligator, Vol. 1 no. 17, August 14, 1858

Transcriber Notes
Volume I.—No. 17.SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 1858.Price 2 Cents.
For want of room we omit the evidence and insert summing up of counsel for defendant, remarks of Mr. Branch, sentence by the Recorder and opinions of the Press:
Mr. Ashmead continued to read from the same book, contending that no indictment should be smuggled into a Grand Jury room as this had been. The Mayor, or the Governor, or His Honor on the Bench had no right to adopt a system denied to the meanest citizen; and in their anxiety to punish crime, they should take care that they did not strike a blow at the liberty of the community, nor should Judicial Legislation take away the rights of the citizen. The Jury should take care that this man was not made a victim through the variation of the Grand Jury from the usual course; but they should follow the example of English Grand Juries, and take care how they struck a blow at Constitutional rights. He next referred to the noble speech of Robert Emmet, before Lord Norbury, who several times attempted to stop the criminal when speaking before he was sentenced. He said: “Though I am to be sacrificed, I insist that all the forms be gone through.” Let the Jury, then do as Emmet did to Lord Norbury—make the Mayor go through the forms. (Here McKeon smiled.) And though the District Attorney should smile at these remarks, this matter was serious, and a laugh and a sneer were not an argument. He referred to the case of the libel of MacIntosh, where, it was asserted, there was on one side a Napoleon, the ruler of the greatest empire in the world, and on the other, as in this case, a poor and obscure citizen; yet in that case a British Jury taught future generations a lesson, and showed an example which an American Jury should endeavor to follow.
Mr. Ashmead next read from the revised statutes, showing that an accused person should have a preliminary examination before being indicted, and contended that a great privilege had been taken from his client, and by this means a blow had been struck at the liberties of the citizen. He alluded to the fact that Mr. Draper had not been before the Grand Jury at all, and yet this poor man had been indicted for a libel on him; this was a proceeding which, if sanctioned by the Jury, would establish a perfect tyranny by breaking down all the safeguards of the law which surrounded the citizen. He insisted that the prosecution had taken away every privilege from this man, and environed him by a wall, so that he could not escape, by getting up this Trinity of indictments. These three indictments were united so that one should support the other. The Recorder had said that Mr. Draper was old enough to take care of himself, but wisdom didn’t come with length of year, and certainly Simeon Draper was not bred in the school of Chesterfield, for he forgot common courtesy by saying the alleged libel was a lie. Mr. Ashmead then commented on the conduct of the prosecution in putting in only one half of the libel in the indictment, and keeping out that part which had a foundation in truth, which he said was a piece with the remainder of these proceedings. Such conduct struck a serious blow at our free institutions, and as Erskine said if such proceedings were to obtain, our halls of justice would be turned into altars, and the poor victim would be immolated at the shrine of persecution.