The Sages and Heroes of the American Revolution

by L. Carroll Judson

In 1778 the British Parliament devised a stratagem by which they hoped to create a division among the patriots. Printed papers were circulated among the people containing conciliatory and flattering propositions and announcing the appointment of commissioners to perfect these inglorious terms of peace. So ingeniously were these papers worded that it was deemed necessary to prepare an answer. This important task was imposed upon Mr. Chase. Most ably did he perform his duty. He unmasked the base hypocrisy of the scheme—exposed the delusive gull-trap to the consuming fire of sarcastic logic—poured upon it the burning lava of ridicule and raised the indignation and scorn of the people against it to ninety degrees above zero. So well was it received by Congress that a larger number than usual was ordered printed and a resolution passed recommending all the clergy to read it to their congregations after service on Sunday. Like all the other plans the British ministers devised to enslave the colonies—it recoiled upon their own heads with all the force of fearful reaction.

This brilliant display of talent closed the congressional labors of this devoted friend of liberty. He retired crowned with the rich honors of an able statesman, sage, patriot and honest man. He had stood firm at his post—a faithful public servant, a bold advocate for freedom, a safe counsellor in every emergency, a fearless champion when danger pressed, an ornament to his country, a terror to the enemies of liberty. As a working man he had no superior—as a debater he had few equals. Without the mellifluous elocution of a Cicero—free from pleonastic parade—he spoke forcibly, reasoned closely, demonstrated clearly, deduced conclusively. He sought to inform the judgment, enlighten the understanding and convince by sound argument. Until the close of the struggle for freedom he continued to render efficient service to the glorious cause and then resumed his profession in the full enjoyment of the confidence of his constituents and the consolation of an approving conscience.

Soon after the close of the Revolution Mr. Chase was employed by the state of Maryland to prosecute a claim for bank stock in England and obtained for it six hundred and fifty thousand dollars. His journal shows that he was a minute observer of men and things. His high legal attainments, scholastic and legislative reputation, gentlemanly deportment, thorough business habits—combined to make a favorable impression upon parliament, the English courts and barristers generally. He was absent less than a year and accomplished more business than some would have done in five. On his return he again took his place at the Bar.

In 1786 his worthy friend, Col. Howard, conveyed to him a square of ten lots in the city of Baltimore near the site of the public buildings, on condition of his locating there. He accepted the proposition and changed his residence to that city. This square is bounded by Eutaw, Lexington, Fayette and Paca streets. The mansion-house built by Mr. Chase is still owned by his descendants. In 1788 he was appointed Chief Justice of the new criminal court organized for the county of Baltimore. The same year he was a member of the Maryland Convention that ratified the Federal Constitution. In 1791 he was appointed Chief Justice of the General Court of Maryland. In 1796 he was appointed an Associate Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States by President Washington which dignified station he filled with great ability to the time of the illness which terminated his life. He was considered one of the ablest judges upon the bench. When he presided in the lower courts his decisions, when carried up to the higher legal tribunals, were seldom reversed. His expositions of law and charges to juries were plain, learned, luminous, logical, profound. His manner was forcible, impressive, commanding. With all this lustre clustering around him, encircled by the sacred halo of great and acknowledged services in the cause of Independence, still green and fresh in the memory of millions—Judge Chase was placed in the crucible of unrelenting ostracism prompted by political animosity created by the lofty independence of thought and expression constitutional with him and which prompted him to act a bold and conspicuous part when the vials of British wrath were poured out upon our bleeding country. As I shall attempt carrying him through his persecutions unscathed the critical attention of the reader is requested. He was a federalist—I am an old school democrat and go for the compromises and our UNION.

In January 1804, John Randolph obtained the passage of a resolution in the House of Representatives of the United States instituting an inquiry into the official conduct of Judge Chase. As a hypocritical salvo the name of Judge Peters was joined with his. No one was more competent and no one could be more persevering than was Mr. Randolph in his gigantic efforts to destroy Judge Chase. The committee to which the resolution was referred reported on the 6th day of the ensuing March, acquitting Judge Peters and recommending the impeachment of Judge Chase, the real object of political revenge. On the 26th of the same month articles of impeachment were reported based upon the following premises.

In 1800 Judge Chase presided on the bench of the U. S. Circuit Court at Philadelphia, assisted by Judge Peters of the District Court of Pennsylvania when and where John Fries was put upon his trial a second time for high treason against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, owing to some informality in his previous trial before Judges Iredell and Peters. Having been fully informed of the points of law at issue and of the proceedings at the first trial, Judge Chase had prepared an elaborate exposition of the law upon treason without referring to a single fact in the case. With the approval of Judge Peters he furnished a copy to the counsel for defendant, the District Attorney and reserved one for the jury after the trial should be completed. Messrs. Lewis and Dallas, counsel for the prisoner, affected to consider this a pre-judgment of the case and permitted Fries to be tried without the aid of counsel—unquestionably intending and successfully succeeding in creating a general sympathy that procured his pardon immediately after conviction. Fries subsequently called on Judge Chase and thanked him for his impartial and generous course upon the trial. The whole matter was then looked at in its true light—a ruse of ingenious counsel. No one attributed bad motives to the bench. The approval of honest clear-headed Judge Peters is conclusive proof that Judge Chase was judicially right—prima facie evidence that his motives were pure. He had written an opinion upon the law—not upon the facts of the case. This he had frankly furnished to the counsel—not to the jury before the trial. He was bound to explain the law to the grand jury before they should proceed to their business—to the traverse jury when he gave them their charge. This constituted the first charge in the articles of impeachment.

Shortly after the trial of Fries he presided at Richmond, Virginia, when and where one Callendar was tried under the Sedition Law for publishing a libel upon the President. During the trial Judge Chase refused the admission of certain testimony offered on the part of the prisoner which exasperated those who were opposed to the law in question. He honestly believed the law salutary as a check upon the venality of the press—others thought differently. Right or wrong—his oath of office bound him to act under the law so long as it remained in force. That his decision was legally correct must be presumed from the fact that under the great excitement then existing no writ of error was taken in the case. This formed the foundation of the second charge.

From Richmond he proceeded to New Castle, Delaware, where he presided, aided by Judge Bedford. In his charge to the grand jury he gave his views frankly upon the Sedition Law that they might fully understand what constituted a breach of its provisions, knowing that one or more cases of its violation would come before them. As an illustration he alluded to certain matter published in a high-toned party paper printed in that district that violated the provisions of this law. This gave great offence to the opposite party. The allusion to the paper was legal under any circumstances by way of explanation but may be considered uncourteous until we understand that it went immediately into the hands of the grand jury as testimony which made it in all respects a legitimate document to be alluded to by him. Ingenuity could not then nor with its prolific growth could it now construe the act into a pre-judgment of the case. The publication was before him—he alluded to that but to no individual. It was clearly a violation of the meaning and intent of the law—who published it was left for the jury to determine if they could. This constituted the ground of the third article of impeachment.

In delivering his charge to the grand jury in 1803, Judge Chase made sundry remarks upon the polities of the day reflecting upon certain acts of the democratic party. This was a surplusage of duty but not cause for impeachment. It resulted from his sanguine temperament, the great political excitement of that period—not from any impurity of motive. He believed laws had been passed for party purposes that were unconstitutional. If he was in error then, his position has often been verified since. Freedom of speech is a constitutional privilege—he used the same liberty practised by his opponents and which was not then trammelled by the obnoxious Sedition Law. It was not a proper time or place to read a political lecture but it does not follow that his designs were corrupt or his conduct criminal. The ermine of a judge is not beautified by being powdered with the farina of politics—his right to think and speak upon the subject none will question. If he speaks at an improper time and place it is an error—not a crime. He animadverted upon the change of the right of suffrage in the constitution of his own state to which he had strong objections. With him many of the devoted patriots of the revolution deemed the elective franchise unsafe with ignorant men who did not fully comprehend and appreciate their rights. The reasons for this opinion grow less as intelligence increases. In some of the states a property qualification is still necessary to entitle a man to vote and in others he must be a freeholder to entitle him to hold certain town offices. An anxiety to preserve the government pure unquestionably pervaded the bosom of Judge Chase.

In concluding his charge he spoke strongly against the changes that had been made in the judiciary system of the United States. He attributed them to party politics—deemed them personal in their object and not conducive to public good in their operations. As these related to his official duties they were legitimate points for remark. It was a matter of course that a man like him should comment freely and severely upon what he conceived a personal and public wrong. He never dined at the half-way house. In all that has been presented I can find nothing to impugn the honesty of his intentions or the purity of his motives.