2. In 1816, in Massachusetts, there occurred the celebrated case of Commonwealth vs. Bowen, to which I shall again refer in a subsequent part of this defence. These are the facts. In September, 1815, Jonathan Jewett was convicted of murder in Hampshire county, Massachusetts, and sentenced to be hanged on the 9th of the following November. He was confined at Northampton, and hung himself in his cell on the night preceding the morning appointed for his public execution. George Bowen was confined in the same jail, in an apartment adjacent to Jewett's, and in such a situation that they could freely converse together. Bowen repeatedly and frequently advised and urged Jewett to destroy himself and thus disappoint the sheriff and the expectant people. He did so, and the coroner's jury returned that he committed suicide. But nevertheless, Bowen was indicted for the wilful murder of Jewett. It was charged that he "feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did counsel, hire, persuade, and procure the said Jewett the said felony and murder of himself to do and commit;" or that he himself murdered the said Jewett by hanging him.
At the trial Attorney-General Perez Morton contended that Bowen "was guilty of murder as principal;" and he cited and relied chiefly on the following authority from the Reports of our old friend Kelyng.
"Memorandum, that my brother Twisden showed me a report which he had of a charge given by Justice Jones to the grand-jury, at the King's Bench barre, Michaelmas Term, 9 Car. 1, in which he said, that poisoning another was murder at common law. And the statute of 1 Ed. 6, was but declaratory of the common law, and an affirmation of it. If one drinks poison by the provocation of another, and dieth of it, this is murder in the person that persuaded it. And he took this difference. If A. give poison to J.S. to give to J.D., and J.S. knowing it to be poison, give it to J.D. who taketh it in the absence of J.S., and dieth of it; in this case J.S., who gave it to J.D., is principal; and A. who gave the poison to J.S., and was absent when it was taken, is but accessory before the fact. But if A. buyeth poison for J.S., and J.S., in the absence of A., taketh it and dieth of it, in this case A., though he be absent, yet he is principal. So it is if A. giveth poison to B. to give unto C.; and B., not knowing it to be poison, but believing it to be a good medicine, giveth it to C., who dieth of it; in this case A., who is absent, is principal, or else a man should be murdered, and there should be no principal. For B., who knoweth nothing of the poison, is in no fault, though he gave it to C. So if A. puts a sword into the hands of a madman, and bids him kill B. with it, and then A. goeth away, and the madman kills B. with the sword, as A. commanded him, this is murder in A., though absent, and he is principal; for it is no crime in the madman, who did the fact by reason of his madness."[149]
Mr. Morton also laid down this as law, "the adviser of one who commits a felony of himself is a murderer." He might have added, "the adviser of one who breaks into his own house is a burglar."
Chief Justice Parker—who once declared that the jury had nothing to do with the harshness of a law—charged the jury that the important question for them was, Did Bowen's advice induce Jewett to kill himself? if so, they were to find him guilty of wilful murder! "The community has an interest in the public execution of criminals [the crowd having an interest in the spectacle] and to take such an one out of the reach of the law [by advising him to self-destruction] is no trivial offence." "You are not to consider the atrocity of this offence in the least degree diminished by the consideration that justice was thirsting for its sacrifice; and that but a small portion of Jewett's earthly existence could, in any event, remain to him."[150]
There was no doubt that Bowen advised Jewett to commit suicide; but the jury, in defiance of the judge's charge and Mr. Kelyng's law, nevertheless returned "Not Guilty."
Here, Gentlemen, is a remarkable instance of a judge, in private a benevolent man, perverting his official power, and constructing the crime of murder out of advice given to a man to anticipate a public execution by privately hanging himself! The law relied on was the Memorandum of the charge to a grand-jury made by a judge who notoriously broke the fundamental laws of England, by declaring that the king had a constitutional right to imprison, at will and as long as he liked, any of his subjects without trial, even members of Parliament for words uttered in public debate; and also the right to levy ship-money contrary to the Acts of Parliament. This charge was made in the tyrannical reign of Charles I. in 1634, by a tyrannical judge. There was no report, only a memorandum of it, and that not printed till seventy-four years after! It had not the force of law even then: it was only the memorandum of the "opinion" of a single judge, not even the "opinion" of the full court. The memorandum is contained in Kelyng's Book, which Lord Campbell calls "a folio volume of decisions in criminal cases, which are of no value whatever, except to make us laugh at some of the silly egotisms with which they abound."[151] On such authority in 1816 would even a Massachusetts court, with a judge who was a kindly man in private, dash away the life of a fellow-creature,—with such mockery of law! But, Gentlemen, the jury at that time did not slumber; they set the matter right, and did justice spite of Judge Kelyng and his "law." They made nothing of the judge's charge!
Gentlemen of the Jury, I will now mention some cases of gross injustice perpetrated by the Federal Courts of the United States.
The tenth article of amendments to the Constitution provides that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People." The Constitution itself confers no Common Law Jurisdiction on the Government. Neither the People nor their Representatives had ever decreed the Common Law of England to be a part of the law of the United States. Yet, spite of the absence of positive enactment and the express words of the above amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court at once assumed this jurisdiction. In 1799, Chief Justice Ellsworth said, "the Common Law of this country remains the same as it was before the Revolution;"[152] and proceeded on that supposition to exercise the powers of English Judges of Common Law, undertaking to punish men for offences which no Act of Congress forbid. You see at once what monstrous tyranny would follow from that usurpation. Had the English Common Law power of punishing for "seditious libel," for example, been allowed to the Federal court, Gentlemen, you know too well what would follow. But this monstrous assumption was presently brought to an ignominious end; and strange as it may appear, by one of the judges of the court itself. Samuel Chase of Maryland, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, had been an Anti-Federalist and a strong State-Right's man, as such insisting on a strict construction of the Constitution. Singular as it may appear he was made a Judge in 1796, and what is yet more surprising, in 1798, declared "the United States as a Federal government, had no Common Law," and thus ended this claim.[153] But tyranny did not end; nay, he himself, a man of uncommon powers and legal attainments, became a most atrocious example of Judicial despotism.