Mr. Lyon was found guilty, and punished by a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for four months. The "Seditious Libel" would now be thought a quite moderate Editorial or "Letter from our Correspondent." His imprisonment was enforced with such rigor that his constituents threatened to tear down the jail, which he prevented.[158]
3. In 1799 Thomas Cooper, a native of England, residing at Northumberland, Pennsylvania, published a handbill reflecting severely on the conduct of President Adams. He was prosecuted by an Information ex officio, in the Circuit Court for Pennsylvania, and brought to trial before Judge Chase, already referred to, charged with a "false, scandalous, and malicious attack" on the President. Mr. Chase charged the jury, "A Republican government can only be destroyed in two ways: the introduction of luxury, or the licentiousness of the press. This latter is the more slow, but most sure and certain means of bringing about the destruction of the government." He made a fierce and violent harangue, arguing the case against the defendant with the spirit which has since become so notorious in the United States courts in that State. The pliant jury found Mr. Cooper guilty, and he was fined $400 and sent to jail for six months. He subsequently became a judge in Pennsylvania, as conspicuous for judicial tyranny as Mr. Chase himself, and was removed by Address of the Legislature from his seat, but afterwards went to South Carolina where he became Professor at her college, and a famous nullifier in 1830.[159]
4. In 1799, or 1800, Mr. Callender, a native of England, then residing at Richmond, in Virginia—a base and mean fellow, as his whole history proved, depraved in morals and malignant in temper—published a pamphlet called "The Prospect before us," full of the common abuse of Mr. Adams and his administration. He was indicted for a false, malicious, and seditious libel, and brought to trial before Judge Chase who pressed the Sedition Law with inquisitorial energy and executed it with intolerant rigor.[160] As he started for Richmond to hold the trial, he declared "he would teach the lawyers in Virginia the difference between the liberty and the licentiousness of the press." He told the marshal "not to put any of those creatures called Democrats on the jury,"—it does not appear that he had his own Brother-in-Law on it however;—"he likened himself to a schoolmaster who was to turn the unruly boys of the Virginia courts over his knee and give them a little wholesome chastisement."
Some of the ablest lawyers in Virginia were engaged for the defence. But they could not secure any decent regard to the common forms of law, or to the claims of justice. He would not grant the delay always usual in such cases, and indispensable to the defence. He refused to allow the defendants' counsel to examine their most important witness, and allowed them to put none but written questions approved of by him! The defendant was not allowed to prove the truth of any statements, alleged to be libellous, by establishing the truth of one part through one witness and of another through a different one. He would not allow him to argue to the jury that the law was unconstitutional. "We all know that juries have the right to decide the law as well as the fact, and the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land." "Then," said Mr. Wirt, "since the jury have a right to consider the law, and since the Constitution is law, it is certainly syllogistic that the jury have a right to consider the Constitution;" and the judge exclaimed, "a non sequitur, Sir!" "Sit down, Sir!" Mr. Wirt sat down. The judge declared "a right is given to the jury to determine what the law is in the case before them, and not to decide whether a statute is a law or not, or whether it is void, under an opinion that it is unconstitutional." "It appears to me the right now claimed has a direct tendency to dissolve the Union." "No citizen of knowledge and information ... will believe, without very strong and indubitable proof, that Congress will, intentionally, make any law in violation of the Federal Constitution." "If such a case should happen, the mode of redress is pointed out in the Constitution." It was obvious that Congress had made laws in violation of the Constitution, and he insisted that the jury should enforce those laws against their own conscience. After all his violent injustice he of course declared "the decisions of courts of justice will not be influenced by political and local principles and prejudices." The packed jury found the prisoner guilty. He was fined $200 and sent to jail for nine months.
But Virginia was too high-spirited to bear this. Nay, Gentlemen of the Jury, the whole Nation then was too fond of justice and liberty to allow such wickedness to proceed in the name of law. "Virginia was in a flame;" the lawyers "throughout the country were stung to the quick." They had not been so long under the slave-power then as now. At this day, Gentlemen, such conduct, such insolence, yet more oppressive, rouses no general indignation in the lawyers. But then the Alien and Sedition Laws ruined the Administration, and sent Mr. Adams—who yet never favored them—from his seat; his successor, Mr. Jefferson, says, "I discharged every person under punishment, or prosecution, under the Sedition Law, because I considered and now consider, that law to be a nullity as absolute and as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image."[161] Judge Chase was impeached by the House of Representatives, tried by the Senate, and only escaped condemnation by the prejudice of the political partisans. As it was, a majority were in favor of his condemnation. But the Constitution, properly, requires two thirds. Judge Chase escaped by this provision. But his influence was gone.
The Alien and Sedition Laws, which sought to gag the People, and make a Speech a "misdemeanor," soon went to their own place; and on the 4th of July, 1840, Congress passed a law to pay Mr. Lyon and others the full amount of the fine and costs levied upon them, with interest to the date of payment: a Committee of the House had made a report on Lyon's case, stating that "the law was unconstitutional, null, and void, passed under a mistaken exercise of undelegated power, and that the mistake ought to be remedied by returning the fine so obtained, with interest thereon."[162] Just now, Gentlemen, Judge Chase and the principles of the Sedition Law appear to be in high favor with the Federal Courts: but one day the fugitive slave bill will follow the Alien and Sedition Bill, and Congress will refund all the money it has wrenched unjustly from victims of the Court. There is a To-morrow after to-day, and a Higher Law which crushes all fugitive slave bills into their kindred dust.
Gentlemen, allow me to vary this narrative of British and American despotism by an example from a different nation. I will refresh you with a case more nearly resembling that before you; it is an instance of German tyranny. In 1853, Dr. Gervinus, Professor of History in the University of Heidelberg in Germany, published this little volume of about 200 pages,[163] "An Introduction to the History of the 19th Century." Mr. Gervinus is one of the most enlightened men in the world, a man of great genius for the philosophical investigation of human history, and enriched with such culture and learning as is not common even in that home of learned men. His book, designed only for scholars, and hardly intelligible to the majority of readers even in America, sets forth this great fact,—The democratic tendency of mankind shown in all history.
Gervinus was seized and brought to trial on the 24th of February, 1853, at Mannheim, charged with publishing a work against constitutional monarchy, intending thereby to depose the lawful head of the State, the Grand Duke Charles Leopold, and with changing and endangering the constitution, "disturbing the public tranquillity and order, and incurring the guilt of High Treason." In short he was charged with "obstructing an officer" and attempting to "dissolve the Union," with "levying war." For his trial the judge purposely selected a small room, though four times larger than what now circumscribes the dignity of this Honorable Court; he did not wish the people to hear Gervinus's defence. But I will read you some extracts from the preface to the English translation of his book:—
"I offer nothing purely theoretical or speculative, and as few opinions and conclusions as can possibly be given in a historical narrative. The work finally reaches a period when the Present and the Future become its subject, and when therefore it can no longer relate any events of history which have been completed; and is confined to the simple statement of the Fact that opposite opinions exist, and may yet be advanced, concerning the problem of the Future. These opinions are themselves weighed against one another, but their value is not determined by dogmas, or phrases, or declamations, but simply by facts. If the balance incline towards a more liberal form of government, towards democratic institutions, and therefore towards self-government, and the participation of the many rather than of the few in the affairs of the State, I am not to blame, nor is it my ordinance, but that of History and of Providence. My work is only (what all historical narrative should be) a vindication of the decrees of Providence; and to revolt against them appears to me neither pious in a moral point of view, nor wise in a political. That which is proved by the most remarkable facts of History, will not be altered in the smallest degree by the suppression of my work, or by my condemnation. The charge on this head is an absurdity, since no rational end can be attained by it. It aims at the suppression of a truth which, should I not tell it, will be ever louder and louder proclaimed by the Facts of History.