Subsequent reports of the trial indicate increased attendance, especially of “ladies dressed in Quaker garb.”
Continuing his speech on the following Monday the Attorney General waxed eloquent over the glories of the Union and the perils to national peace that lay in resistance to law and in the refusal of any one section to accord to another its legal rights. He read from Webster’s speeches and Washington’s farewell address and from Judge Iredell’s charge on the trial of the Fries cases. He referred to the presence in Court by Hanway’s side of his devoted and affectionate wife, who it seems had sat with him during the trial. While the gallantry of the Maryland lawyer constrained him to express his admiration and respect for “the afflicted lady of this prisoner,” he warned the jury against being controlled by “the spell of that female influence which is more potent than the eloquence of counsel,” and contrasted the situation of Mrs. Hanway with that of Gorsuch’s wife “who, as a widow, is now mourning the loss and lover of her youth and the prop of her declining years.” He played upon the color of Scarlet’s name; he denounced the coroner’s inquest, lauded the chivalrous courage of Edward Gorsuch, pictured with skillful hands the combat at the Parker house and the “diabolical malice” of those who mangled the victim of that occasion after they had killed him. He insisted that both Lewis and Hanway had been guilty of treason and that they had incited the blacks to make armed resistance to the law of the land.
To Mr. Read was assigned the responsible duty of replying immediately to Brent, which he did in a speech occupying nearly three days in the delivery and, as the reporter observes, “marked throughout by eloquence and profound learning, being a thorough and complete dissertation on the law of treason, and which riveted the attention not only of the Court and jury, but of a crowded auditory.”
It was expected that Thaddeus Stevens would follow him, and the public interest which attached to his speaking was probably greater than that attending any of the other counsel; but for some reason he declined speaking in the cause, and Mr. Read was followed by Senator Cooper, who represented not only the State of Maryland, but the Gorsuch family. He expounded with the ability of a profound lawyer the constitutional definition of treason and applied it to the facts of the case, which he insisted fully, amply and distinctly proved the overt act of treason. In the cases of contradiction between Lewis and Kline he declared that Kline was supported by the testimony of all the Maryland party, while Lewis stood alone, and Lewis was an interested and therefore discredited witness. His peroration was an earnest plea for the Union and against anything that would affect its stability or endanger its peace. In Websterian strain he closed as follows: “The eyes of the world are upon the constellation in its banner. Its stars are the beacons of liberty. Let us then, for our sakes, and for the sake of liberty in other lands, guard it as the Ark of the Covenant was guarded of old. Let no hand deface it. Let the day never come when it shall be rent in twain; when one cluster of its stars, separated from the other and beaming in different banners, shall be borne over adverse and conflicting hosts; but let it remain as it now is, ‘the Flag of the Union,’ still waving over the heads of united freemen, obedient to the same laws—laws supported by all, sustained by all, vindicated by all, in every section of the country.”
The argument of the case closed with Senator Cooper’s speech and he was immediately followed by Justice Grier’s charge to the jury. After the judge had made a general exposition of the law, he paid a high tribute to the manner in which the case had been conducted on both sides by counsel. He framed the issues to be determined by the jury as two-fold, involving first the question as to whether Hanway participated in the offenses proved to have been committed, and, secondly, if he did so, was his offence treason? In undertaking to vindicate the reputation of the people of Pennsylvania he left no doubt as to his own individual views upon the subject of the anti-slavery agitation then prevailing, and the following extracts from his charge, which were savagely resented at the time of their utterance even by those who were satisfied with his legal conclusion, are reported to have been uttered in a shrill and piping voice, which added to the intensity of their expression:
“With the exception of a few individuals of perverted intellect, some small districts or neighborhoods whose moral atmosphere has been tainted and poisoned, by male and female vagrant lecturers and conventions, no party in politics, no sect of religion, nor any respectable numbers or character can be found within our borders who have viewed with approbation or looked with any other than feelings of abhorrence upon this disgraceful tragedy.
“It is not in this Hall of Independence, that meetings of infuriated fanatics and unprincipled demagogues have been held to counsel a bloody resistance to the laws of the land. It is not in this city that conventions are held denouncing the Constitution, the laws, and the Bible. It is not here that the pulpit has been desecrated by seditious exhortations, teaching that theft is meritorious, murder excusable and treason a virtue.
“The guilt of this foul murder rests not alone on the deluded individuals who were its immediate perpetrators, but the blood taints with even deeper dye the skirts of those who promulgated doctrines subversive of all morality and all government.”
He practically disposed, however, of the whole case and took its further consideration from the jury by his announced legal conclusion that the offense did not arise to that of treason. His summing up on this branch of the subject practically concluded all of the cases. It was as follows:
“Without desiring to invade the prerogatives of the jury in judging the facts of this case, the Court feel bound to say, that they do not think the transaction with which the prisoner is charged with being connected, rises to the dignity of treason or levying war. Not because the numbers or force was insufficient. But 1st, For want of any proof of previous conspiracy to make a general and public resistance to any law of the United States. 2ndly, Because there is no evidence that any person concerned in the transaction knew there were such acts of Congress, as those with which they were charged with conspiring to resist by force and arms, or had any other intention than to protect one another from what they termed kidnappers (by which slang term they probably included not only actual kidnappers, but all masters and owners seeking to recapture their slaves, and the officers and agents assisting therein).