It has been objected that the judge misconducted himself towards the counsel during the trial of Callender in various instances, which it has been argued proceeded from a desire to convict and punish the traverser, howsoever innocent. I will observe with great deference, that if in the opinion of some gentlemen the judge did not act with becoming politeness to the counsel, it is not a high crime or misdemeanor that may be examined or tried in this honorable Court. But I trust, upon a view of the circumstances as they have been given in evidence, that this Court will be of opinion that the respondent behaved to the counsel with sufficient propriety. One of the counsel, Mr. Wirt, offered to the Court a syllogism, to which the honorable judge promptly replied in a technical phrase of logic, and this excited in the audience some diversion. When another of the counsel, Mr. Nicholas, was speaking on the favorite topic of the right of the jury to consider the constitutionality of the sedition law, he was not interrupted by the judge. But Mr. Nicholas has been proved to have been always civil, always respectful to a court of justice, consequently the Court would be civil to him. A third counsel, Mr. Hay, who was extremely desirous, as he has himself testified, to make an oration, not only for the purpose of satisfying the jury but the audience that a jury had a right to judge of the constitutionality of the sedition law, was interrupted by the judge, who denied his position. Mr. Hay had stated other matters during the trial which appeared to the judge to be erroneous. He had stated that a jury in this case of Callender, was the proper tribunal to assess the fine, in which he had been corrected by the Court; that one of the jurors, Mr. Basset, was not qualified to serve, &c. His zeal in the cause of liberty and the constitution made him pertinacious in some things which the judge pronounced to be errors. It was no wonder then that such an advocate was stopped and often interrupted by the Court. If any thing was done amiss by the judge during the trial, it was his desiring Mr. Hay to proceed in his own way, and promising to interrupt him no more let him say what he would; but this circumstance plainly evinces that the interruptions did not arise from corrupt motives. It may truly be said that Judge Chase, in his behavior to counsel, was “all things to all men.” To the logical Mr. Wirt, he was logical; to the polite Mr. Nicholas, he was polite; to the zealous and pertinacious Mr. Hay, he was warm and determined. If the counsel had conducted themselves with propriety towards the Court there would have been no interruptions; but when the judge found that the opinions of the bench were slighted, and that the conduct of the bar had a tendency to mislead and influence the public mind against a statute of Congress, he endeavored to turn their sentiments and reasoning into ridicule, and he produced by his wit a considerable degree of merriment at their expense, of which no doubt Colonel John Taylor, who has proved it for the prosecutors, was, from his natural temper, a full partaker.
You are now about to set an example in a case of impeachment which will have a most important influence in our country. It will be an example to the tribunals in the several States who like you possess the power of trying impeachments, and who may learn from you by what rules the doctrine of impeachment is to be regulated. It will be a polar star to guide in prosecutions of this kind. You are about to set an example to the ordinary tribunals of justice in every corner of the United States. They will know how this high Court has done justice between the House of Representatives of the American nation and a single individual, and hence they may learn how to do justice to the most weak and friendless individual, when accused in their courts by the most powerful. An upright and independent judiciary is all-important in society. Let your example be as bright in its justice as it will be extensive in its influence. If the people shall find that their confidential servants, the House of Representatives, have brought forward an accusation against another of their servants for high crimes and misdemeanors in his exalted office, which after a fair and patient hearing has not been supported by evidence, it will afford them pleasure to hear of his honorable acquittal, and such, may it please this honorable Court, will be, I trust, the result of your deliberations.
Saturday, February 23.
Mr. Martin.—Mr. President: Did I only appear in defence of a friend, with whom I have been in habits of intimacy for nearly thirty years, I should feel less anxiety on the present occasion, though that circumstance would be a sufficient inducement; but I am, at this time, actuated by superior motives. I consider this cause not only of importance to the respondent and his accusers, but to my fellow-citizens in general, (whose eyes are now fixed upon us,) and to their posterity, for the decision at this time will establish a most important precedent as to future cases of impeachment.
My observations thus far have been principally with a view to establish the true construction of our constitution, as relates to the doctrine of impeachment. I now, Mr. President, will proceed to the particular case before this honorable Court; and, in the first place, I agree with the honorable Managers, that there is a manifest difference even between the credibility of witnesses, and the credibility of testimony, for, I admit, if witnesses are equally credible, and some swear that words were uttered, or acts were done, and others, that they did not hear the words, or that they did not see the acts done, the presumption is certainly in favor of the positive, and against the negative testimony. But this must be admitted with considerable restrictions.
If immediately after a transaction, there is a full and clear memory of the words spoken, or the acts done, there is great reason to credit the testimony; but, even in that case, if there are a number of persons equally respectable, having equal opportunity to hear and see, and who were attentive to what took place, and none of them heard or saw what is testified by a single witness, there would be great reason to suspect the affirmative witness to be mistaken; more so if the transactions had happened for some years antecedent to the examination.
But, as to Heath, we do not contradict him merely by negative testimony; we contradict him by a series of positive facts which my honorable colleague (Mr. Key) has detailed, proved by characters, whose veracity cannot be doubted, which positive facts incontestably show that what he swore never could have taken place. And, here again, permit me, sir, to make a further observation, that, where a person is charged criminally for words he is supposed to have uttered, those words ought to be proved with precision. Every witness on this occasion, who hath been examined as to expressions used by my honorable client, either on the one or the other charge, which are held as exceptionable, declares he cannot pretend to recollect the express words uttered by the judge, but only to state what at this distance of time he can consider the amount of what was said. Nay, Messrs. Lewis and Dallas declare further, that they cannot pretend to say with accuracy, what part of the conversation, of which they give testimony, took place on the first or the second day, or in what order. Such kind of testimony, therefore, ought to be received with great caution, and not to be considered as conclusive.
Having laid down these general principles as to the relative rights and duties of the Court, the bar, and the jury, I shall proceed with my honorable client to the State of Pennsylvania.
It was known that John Fries, charged with treason, had, on a former trial, been found guilty, and that a new trial had been granted upon a suggestion, which I hope will not become a precedent, will never be a rule for decisions. When I say this, I mean not to detract from the merit of that highly-respectable character who presided, and who granted the new trial. His conduct flowed, I am convinced, from his humanity; his was the error of the heart, not of the head. It was an honest, nay, an amiable error. My honorable client knew, when he arrived at Philadelphia, that the trial of Fries was to take place that term. He has been acknowledged by the honorable Managers, to be a gentleman of the highest legal talents. In this they have only done him justice; and have been as prodigal of their praise as his warmest friends could have wished. It would have given me great pleasure if they had been as just in expressing their sense of his integrity. He had been in the practice of the law for forty years, and also a judge for a number of years, and for about six years, I believe, presided in the criminal court of Baltimore County, where, during that time, there were more criminal trials probably than in any other court in America. I believe I speak moderately, when I say, that I have attended, on behalf of the State, at least five thousand criminal trials in that court. From those circumstances it is to be presumed that he was not deficient in knowledge of what related to criminal proceedings; but would he have acted the part of an upright judge, if he had not endeavored to make himself master of the law of treason, when a case of that nature was about to come before him; particularly the law of treason, as it related to levying war against the United States, or in adhering to those who levied war against them, which is the only kind of treason that our constitution acknowledges; although I have heard, I must own, of treason against the principles of the constitution, and treason against the sovereignty of the people—words well enough suited to a popular harangue, or a newspaper essay, but not for a court of justice.
When Judge Chase arrived at Philadelphia he had the advantage of perusing the notes of Judge Peters and the district attorney, relating to the former trial; he thereby became well acquainted with all the points at that time made by the counsel for Fries; and Mr. Lewis has sworn, that all the points which were intended to have been made before Judge Chase, had been made at the former trial. Why then should the Court either wish, or be obliged to hear counsel again on the law? In two previous cases the law had been settled. Judge Patterson, a gentleman of the first abilities, mild and amiable, whom no person will charge of being of a vindictive, oppressive disposition, and who certainly has more suavity of manners than my honorable client had, after a most patient and full hearing, where eminent counsel attended, decided the law as it was decided by the respondent. Judge Iredell, whose encomium has been most justly given us by the Managers, a gentleman of great legal talents, than whom no worthier man has left this for a better world; and who, while living, honored me with his friendship, after having heard Messrs. Lewis and Dallas, and after full and patient investigation, gave, in the case of Fries himself, a similar decision; in both which opinions Judge Peters perfectly coincided. Under these circumstances, Judge Chase, who had no doubt of the propriety of those decisions, to prevent waste of time when there was so much business to transact, and to facilitate the business, thought it best to inform the counsel on each side, that the Court considered the law to be settled, and in what manner. For which purpose they delivered to the clerk three copies of their opinion, one for the counsel on each side, the third to be given to the jury, when they left the bar. On this subject, Mr. Lewis, in his testimony, said it was to be given to the jury when the counsel of the United States had opened, or after he had closed the pleadings, but he believed the last. Mr. Rawle is clear that it was to be given to them, when the case was finished, to take out with them.