The Court decided that the reading must be confined within some reasonable limits. That the District Attorney might read such editorial articles, or parts of them, as he saw fit, and the counsel for the defence might read any other parts, or the whole, if they chose. The advertisement was of course rejected, but reading of other parts was continued.
The District Attorney afterwards offered evidence, under the third count of the indictment, to put in certain tracts with pictures upon them, which was objected to upon two grounds. First, that the count was insufficient, as it did not specify any libellous publication and did not declare that the offence was against any person, or government, or people, which was said to be an essential form of indictment; and, second, because the whole of the tracts, papers, and pamphlets, were illegally obtained from the prisoner.
The defendant's counsel then read the warrant under which Crandall was apprehended, which authorized the officers to take the person of the prisoner, and to search his papers; and contended that such search warrant was illegal—that a man's private papers were sacred from search.
The objection was resisted on the ground that the objection was made too late. It should have been taken at the outset of the trial, or before the magistrates—that the warrant (which was admitted to have been made by the District Attorney) was proper, and conformable to the law which admitted of search in the premises and in the persons of thieves and counterfeiters for the tools and implements with which they were enabled to commit their crime—and that it was competent to use the evidence which had been obtained, although it was illegally gotten in the first instance.
The Court was of opinion that the evidence was competent, on the principle upon which evidence might be given of stolen goods found in consequence of confession, though the confession might be forced from the prisoner by threats or evil treatment. The confession might not be evidence, but the fact of finding the stolen goods could be proved to the jury.
The Court also overruled the objection to the form of the count, and did not consider it so imperfect as to authorize them to reject evidence offered under it.
Key then went on to prove that certain libels found in the possession of the prisoner were circulated in the District.
Gen. Hunter identified one of the tracts as a copy of one sent to him through the post office, marked one cent postage, both the tract and envelope of which having been burnt. He thought it strange the postage from New York should be only one cent. It was about the time the city was inundated with abolition papers.
Coxe objected to the testimony, if the paper was destroyed.
Key was called as a witness by Bradley, and testified that the paper handed