The result of the submission to the Grand Inquest for the United States inquiring for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the August Term, 1851, was that they found true bills for treason against the following persons, which indictments were, on October 6, 1851, remitted from the District Court to the Circuit Court:
The District Attorney then moved for a venire to issue to the marshal, who was commanded to return 108 jurors, of whom 12 were to be summoned and returned from Lancaster County, where the offenses charged were perpetrated.
The selection of jurors for this trial, under all the conditions we have tried to sketch impartially, was a delicate and difficult task for Marshal Roberts—in view of his well-known political opinions and of his personal and partisan affiliations with Thaddeus Stevens, chief counsel for the defense from start to finish. The character and associations of the members of the panel may be gathered to some extent even now from the attitude assumed toward them by counsel on either side. In a subsequent chapter will be briefly epitomized the disposition made of those whose names were called. Keeping it in mind, the author, from a large historical acquaintance with the leading men of that period in the counties of the State from which this panel was chosen, does not hesitate to say that it was high above the average in intelligence and all other requisites for important jury service; that it was eminently representative and an altogether fit and fair enrollment. This opinion is not only now justified, but it is fairly demanded by reason of the criticism Attorney General Brent made in his report to Maryland’s Governor upon the disadvantage to which the prosecution was subjected in the personnel of the venire.
During their stay in Moyamensing the prisoners suffered for a time from lack of heat and ventilation until conditions were remedied. Some of them were confined in the Debtors’ Apartments. Witnesses deemed necessary to hold were detained by the Government under pay of $1.25 per day to them. Peter Woods relates that Ezekiel Thompson and Henry Simms engaged so frequently in loud prayer that outsiders were attracted to the prison walls to listen to them from the adjoining sidewalks. By November 15th it transpired that two witnesses, Peter Washington and John Clark, detained in the Debtors’ Apartments, had escaped. David Paul Brown said one of them was important for his client Joseph Scarlet, while the United States was insistent that it needed them also. Mr. Brent finds cause for suspicion and complaint in the allegation that they got out without breaking a lock through inside treachery, of which he “cheerfully” acquits Marshal Roberts; but neither throughout nor after the trial does Mr. Brent present himself as an altogether cheerful person.
CHAPTER X.
“The Treason Trials.”
Differences of Opinion Among Counsel for the Government—A Brilliant Array of Lawyers—Selecting Twelve Men, “Good and True,” from a Large Venire—The Prisoners Arraigned and Pleas Entered.
In the so-called official report of the Castner Hanway trial, which involved the final disposition of all the treason cases, it is fitly stated by the author and editor that “the ability which marked the trial throughout, the patient attention of the judges, the eloquence and learning of the Counsel, and the full examination of every matter of fact and law in any manner involved, gave to the trial a deep and abiding importance, such as will make its perusal interesting to the general reader, and of indispensable use to the Legal Profession.” It is not to be expected, however, that a detailed report of these proceedings or a presentation of their technical aspect falls within the scope or prescribed limits of this sketch. Those desirous of perusing them can get access to Mr. Robbins’ report in many libraries; lawyers will find the case reported for their special benefit in Vol. II of Wallace’s Report of Circuit Court Cases for the Third District, pp. 134-208. The report of Attorney General Brent and the message of Governor Lowe, in the Maryland State Documents, 1852, constitute an interesting history of the facts and valuable discussion of the law; and Mr. Jackson’s reply undoubtedly corrects and modifies some of the impressions that the complaints of the Marylanders would tend to create.