AN

ACCOUNT
OF THI):

TRIAL
OF

THOMAS

COOPER,
OF

NORTIIUMBERLAND ~·
ON

CHARGE

A

LIBEL

oF

AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
TAKEN
WITH

IN

A PREYACE,

BY

P1HNTED

SHORT
NOTES,

THO MAS

EY JOHN BIORE-N,
S TREET,
FOR THE

Api-il

HAND.
AND

APPENDIX,

~OOPER

.

NO. 83, CHESNUT
AUTHOR,

1soo.

 ,,C

.... J'

1._

PH E FACE

.

I have looked over the following account of my trial: fo far as
my memory ferves me, it is as accurate as fuch a publication can be,
except perhaps in Mr. Rawle's reply; which without meaning to
pay the Attorney General of the di:flricc, any unneceffary compliment, was in my opinion delivered in neater language than is reported here : the reporter accounts for this from the difficulty
of hearing Mr. Rawle. I am prettyfure there is no fubftantial error in any part of the publication.
I have thought it a duty to
myfelf to ad<l the notes and appendix; the public will judge of
their contents.
The Citizens of this Country may learn fome ufeful leffons
from this trial ; and principally, that if they mean to confult their
own peace and quiet, they will hold their tongues, and refirain
th~ir pens, on the fubjecc of politics : at lea:fl during the continuance of the SEDITION LAw; a Law, which I do not think "the
powers that be," will incline to abolifh. As it is, the plaineft
truths, and the mofi notorious facl:s, may be controverted and denied; and the innocent and well-meaning afferter of them, may
be driven with impunity, to fpend his time and ex~aufi his finances,
in procuring proof ftricl:ly legal of what no man in common life pretends to doubt. Long before my trial I forefaw this: and fiate<l
as an infiance in point, the very cafe of evidence that acl:ually occureel refpe8-i.ng the claim of Robbins. (vide the effay on the Sedition Law, in my political effays.)
I was previoufly determined, not to be put to the trouble and
expence of fending for evidence from Danbury to Charleftown ;
or to be kept under Dionyfian tyranny, from court to court, and
from term to term, with the fword of the law fufpended over my
head, dependant on the tender mercies of an ex-officio accufer to
fpare the thread.
I preferred to ascertain whether the evidence
that common fenfe would not rejecl:, was likely to be admitted on
a political trial. I preferred final to preliminary punifhment, nor
did I want to fuffer the· crafty malignant kindnefs of a noli-prosequi when my proofs were known to be compleat. Let the reader
confider the clanger of uttering a truth, when he finds that I
could not fubflantiate the notorious affidavit of Jonathan Robbins,
wi~hout fending 7 50 miles for the copy of a record, which Mr. Pickering fo firangely omitted to procure.
Reader, when you have
perufed this trial, :fhut the book, and reflecl:. I dare not fiate the
conclufions with which it is pregnant, but which mufl: force themfelves with melancholy convicl:ion on your mind: afk yourfelfhowever, is this a fair fpecimen of the freedom you expecl:ed to derive.,. from the adoption of the Federal Confl:itution? And whe-,
:ther the Men who can fancl:ion thefe proceedings, are fit objecl:s
of re-eleaion?
THOMAS
COOPER.
Prifon of Philadelphia, May Ht. 1800.

 PROCEEDINGS
IN

THE

CIRCUIT

COURT
OF THE

HELD

IN

THE

CITY

OF PHILADELPHIA,

OF PENNSYLVANIA,

APRIL

FOR

THE

DISTRICT

11, 1800.

Agaimt Thomas Cooper, Esq. of Northumberland, under the AEl
of Congress, passed July 14th 1798, intitled " An A8 in ad" dition to the Acl intituled " An A8 for the punishment of
" certain crimes against the United"States," commonly called
the SEDITION LAW.

ON

Wednefday, the 9th of April 1800, Mr . Cooper was informed
by Mr. Hall the Marlhal of the Court, that a writ was iffued againfl: him
for a libel. Mr. Hall wilhed to know when it would be convenient for
Mr. Cooper to attend at judge Peters's on the occafion, and the next
morning at IO o'clock was fixed for that purpofe. On attending there,
judge Peters £hewed Mr. Cooper a paper, of which the following is a
copy: The publication of it appeared to be attefl:ed by John Buyen, Efq.
of Sunbury in Pennfylvania*.
TO

THE
TO THE

PUBLIC.

PRINTER.

SIR,
C,

'\

I lhould not condefcend to anfwer anonymous !lander, but the informa ■
tion on which the falfhcods contained in the following paragraph are
grounded, muft have been originally derived from the prefident himfolf.
l cannot believe him capable of fuch mifreprefentation, for I flill think
well of his intentions, however I may difapprove of his conduct: but the
following narrative will {hew that fome of his underlings are capable of
any thing.

* The paffage1 printed in italic in the lafl pat·agraph, -were thofefa!dled for
proficution. The ot/Jer affirtions in tbis parag1·aph were not included in tke
indiflment.
·

 ( 4 )
From the Reatling WeeklyAd'Vtrti.ferof O!io~er26, 1799.
COMMUNICATION.

" Tl,l}mtuCooper'saddrefs to the readers of the Sunbury and Northumberland Gazette of which he was editor, having been republifhed in this
State, with an introducl:ion, approbatory of the piece, a correfpondent
wifhes to know if it be the fame Thomas Cooper, an Englifhman of whom
the following annecdote is related? lf it is, every paper devoted to truth,
honour, and decency, ought to give it a thorougk circulation.
"Not many months ago, it is faid, a Mr. Cooper, an Engli/hman, applied to the Prefident of the United States to be appointed "agent for
fettling the refpecl:ive claims of the citizens and fubjecl:s of this country
ahd Great-Jlritain."
In his letter he informs the Prefident that although
(he Thomas Cooper) had been called a Democrat, yet his real political
fentiments are fuch as would be agreeable to the Prefidcnt and government
of the United States, or e·xpreflions to that elfecl:. This letter was accompanied
with another from Dr. Jofeph PriefHy, who did not fail to alfure the
Prefident of the pliability of his friend Cooper's democratic principles.The prefident, it is faid, rejecl:ed Cooper's application with difdain, and
Prieftly's with frill-ftronger marks of forprife, faying, it is faid, as he threw
the letter on the table, does he think that I would appoint any Engli/hman
to that important office in preference to an American ?-What was the confequence? When Thomas CooRer found his application for a lucrative office under our prefident rejecl:ed,. he writes in revenge the addrefs which
appeared in print, and dt. Prieftly exerted his influence in difperfing this
very addrefs, which he muft know was the offspring of difappointment and
revenge! ! !
" The addrefs is as cunning and infidious a production as ever appeared
in the Aurora or the old Chronicle, and as for impudence, it exceeds or at
leaft equals, Porcupine himfelf. Priell:ley and Cooper are both called upon
to deny the above.narrative.
A recourfe to the letters themfelves would
eftabli{h the accuracy of this anecdote even to a fyllable."
Yes; I am the THOMAS COOPER, alluded to; luckily poffeifed of
more accurate information than the malignant writer of that paragraph.
from whatever fource his intelligence was derived.
About the time of the appointment of commiffioners under the Britilh
treaty, docl:or Rofs, who had feduloufly brought about an intercourfe of civility between Mr. Li!lon and myfelf, urged me to permh him to apply on
my behalf to that gentleman for one of the appointments that muit then
t1ke place, He preffed on me the folly, as he termed it, of my confining
myfelf to Northumberland, his earneft wilh to fee me fettled in Philadelphia, antl the duty I owed my family_to better my fituation by_every means
in my power. He ft.ited that mr. L1!lon he knew thought highly of me,
and though the poll:ot the fifth commiffioner was probably then difpofed of,
there mull: be an agent for the Briri/h claimants; an office which from my
fituation as a barrifter in England, and my know ledge of mercantile tranf-

 actions, I was p~c~Uarly fitte_dto fill•. I replied that he probably over-rated
Mr. Lifton's opinion, and his own influence, and that at all eYents my
known political opiniona muft render it equally improper for Mr. Lifton to
give, and for me to acc~pt, any office i.;vhateverconnecl:.ed with ~he R~tifu
imerefts. That Mr. Lifton and I unaerftood each other on this queft1on,
and had hitherto .ivoided all politics whatever. That being an American
I ihould not obj eel: to any office under this government, if I could fairly
obtaip it; but that I would never confent to any application to Mr. Lifton..
Through Mr. Coleman's intereft, Mr. Hall of Sunbury, was complimented with the offer of being appointed agent of American claims. On
mentioning to Dr. Prieftley one night at fopper that Mr. Hall had declined
it, Dr. Rofs's perfuafions occurred to me, and I faid that fuch an office as
that would have foited me very well. Dr. Prieftley replied if that was the
cafe, he thought he had fome intereft with Mr. Adams, with whom he had
long been acquainted, and who had always exprefied himfelf in terms of
the higheft friend/hip : that as he never intenqed to aflt any favour of Mn
Adams for himfelf, I might as well let h~ try for Qnce to afk one for me.
On my objecting that M.r. Adams's politi1:s and mine were probably very
different, Dr. Prieftley uedared that this fo far from being an objeaion,
might be an inducement in my favor ; for if Mr. Adams meant to be the
.li □ ler of a nation, inftead of the leader of a party, he would be glad of an
opportunity to exhibit foch an inftance of liberal coiiducl. At length I
confented, exprefsly requefling Dr. Prieftley to take care that Mr. Adams
lhould not mifrake my politics. In confequence of this conver(ation Dr.
I_>rieftleywrote the following letter ; not a few moll,ths, but above two
years ago.
,Auguft 12, 1797.
Dear fir,
It was far from being my intention or wifh to trouble you with the requelt
of any favours, though it is NOW in your power to grant them ; and it is
11otat all probable that 1 fuall ever take a fecond liberty of the kind. .B1,1,t
circumftances have ar.ifen which I think call 1o1pon
me to do it once, though
not for myfelf but a friend. The office of agent (or American claims was
offered Iunderftand to Mr. Hall of Sunbury, and he has declined it. If
this be the cafe, and no other perfon be yet fixed upon, I {hall he very happy
if I could ferve Mr ·. Cooper, a man I doubt not of equal ability and poffeffed of every other qualification for the office, by recommending him. It is
true that both he and myfelf fall in the langilage of our calumniators, under the defaription of democrats, who are ftudioufly reprefcnted as enemies
t0 what is called GOVERNMENT,
both in England and here. What I have
done to deferve that ,character you well know, and Mr. Cooper has done
very little more. In facl: we have both been perfecuted for being friends
to American liberty, and our preference of the government of this country
has brought us both hither. However, were the accufations true, I think: .
the appointment of a man of unqueil:ionable ability and fidelity to his truil:,
for which I would make myfelf anfwerable, wou,]d be truly fuch a mark of
foperiority to popular prejudice as I fuould expect from you. I therefore
thqik it no unfa.vorable ~ircumftan,e in the recommendation. That you

 6

)

will aa according to your bell: judgment I have no doubt, with refpec1 to

this and other affairs of infinitely more moment, through which I am perfuaded you will bring the country with reputation to yourfelf, though in
circumftances of foch uncommon difficulty, perhaps with lefs eafe and fatisfaclion than I could wilh. With my earnefi: wifhes for the honour and
tranquillity of your prefidency, I am, &c.
JOSEPH PRIESTLEY.
This letter was accompanied by the following from myfelf.
SIR,
On my expreffing an inclination for the office which Mr. Hall has declined, Dr. Priefi:ley was fo good as to offer his fervices v.ith you on my
behalf.
Probably the office will be filled, 'ere this letter can reach you: probably there may be objeclions to nominating a perfon not a native of the
country: probably the ohjellion mentioned /,y Dr. Priejiley may t·eojonaMybe
deemed of weight in my injlance. Be all this as it may, I fee no impropriety
in the prefent application, to be appointed agent of American claims, for it
is fiill poffible I may foppofe more weight in the objeclions than they will
be found to deferve. If it lhould fo happen that I am nominated to that
office, I £hall endeavour to merit the charaeler the doctor has given me,
and your efteem. I am, &c,
THOMAS COOPER.
appeal to the cowardly
not
do
I
?
not
or
MAN,
Is this the letter of a
p,opagator of anonymous falfehoods, but to the public. What is there
in it, of vanity or fervility ? Do not thefe let&ers take for granted that I
am a democrat, though not a difturber of all government; and that what I
am I fuall remain, even though it be deemed a reajonable o6jeEtionto my
appointment ? Is this, or is this not, adhering to my principle, whatever
becomes of my interet1:?
Nor is it true that my addrefs originated from any motives of reveng~.
Two years elapfed from the date of thofe letters before I wrote any thing
on the politics of this country. Nor did I recollect them at the time.Nor do I fee the objeclion to ta!(.ing any fair means of improving my fi.
tuation. This is a duty incumbent , on every prudent man who has a fa.
mily to raife, and which I have already too much neglecled from public
motives : nor can any office to which I am eligible in this country, recompence me for the ·offers I rejeeled in its favour. But it is not in the
power of promifes or threats, of wealth or poverty, to extinguifh the political enthufiafm which has atl:uated my conduct for thefe twenty years.The prudence of middle age and the claims of duty may make me cauti•
ous of facrificing my intereft, but they cannot induce me to facrifice my
principle.
Nor do Ifie any impropriety in making this reque.ft of Mr. Adams. At
that time he had jujl entered into office; he was hardly in the i11fancy ofpolitical mijlake: e'Venth'!fe who doubted his capacity, thought well ofhis intentions.
He had not at that time given the public to underftand that he would befl:ow no office but under implicit confo.-n1ity to his political opinions. He
had not declared that "A Republi<;an Government may mean airy thing;"

 ( 7 ).
he had not yet fanaioned the abolition of trial by jury in the alien law, or
entrenched his pubric characler behind the legal b_arriersof the [edition law.
Nor were we yet /addled with the e>:penceof a permanent na<vy, or threatened
under his aujpices with the exijlence of a ftanding army. Our credit was not
yet reducedJolow as to horrow money at 8 per cent in time of peace, 'J.Vhilethe
unnecejji1ry 'lliotence of official exprej/ions might juftly ka'Uepro'lloked a war.
Nor had the political acrimony which ftill"poifons the pleafures of private
fociety been fofiered by thofe who call themfelves his friends and adherents;
nor had the eminent fervices of Mr. Humphreys at that time received their
reward. Mr. Adams had not yet projetled his Emhajfies to Prztjfia, RnJ!ia, and
the Suhlime Porte ; nor had he yet interfered as Prejident of the United States
to injluenc1 the decijions of a Court of Juftice.
.A.fh-etch of authority whzch
the Mon:zrch of Great Britain would harue jhrunk .from ; an t11te1:ference
<t,;ithout precedent, againjf la<1.vand again.ft mercy ! This melancholy caje of
Jonathan Robbins, a natiruecitizenof America,.forcihfy imprq)ed /,y the Britijb
,,md delirutred up <V,Jifh
the adruice of Mr. Adams to the mock trial of a Brit;jb
court martial, had not yet aftoni[hed the repuhlican citizens of this .free cauntry.
A ca.fl too little knocr»n, hut b<1.vhich
tb.epeople ought to he.fully appri.zed hifare
the eleaion, and they {hall be.
Moft affuredly had thefe tranfactions taken place in Augull: 1797, The
Prefident Adams would not have been troubled by any requell: from
THOMAS COOPER.
NORTHUMBERLAND,
Nov. 2, 1799.
Mr. Cooper gave bail for his appearance at the enfo.ing court, himfelf in
1000 dollars, and Ifrael lfrael, efq. in the like furn.
On the fecond day of the court (Saturday) the grand jury found the following bill of indiclment (prefented ex officio by William Rawle, efq. the
United States' attorney for the diftricl: of Pemifylvania) a true hill.
CIRCUIT COURT of the United States for the Pennfylvania diftricl:
April term, 1800,
'
The United States }
rus.
Indictment for a feditious libel.
Thomas Cooper,
INDICTMENT.
The grand inqueft of the United States of America, iu and for the Pennfylvania diftricl, upon their refpective oaths and :Jlirmations, do prefent,
that Thomas Cooper, late of the dill:ricl: of Pennfylvania, attorney at law,
~cing a perfon of a v.icked and turbulent difpofition, defigning and intend.
mg to defame the Prefident of the United States, and to bring him into
contempt and difrepute, and to excite againft him the hatred of the good
people of the United States, on the zd of November, 1799, in the diftricc
aforefaid, and within the jurifdiclion of this court, wickedly and malicioufly did writ_e, pri1,t and publilh a ~alfe~fcandalous and malicious writing
againll: the faid Prefidcnt of the Umted States of the tenor and eJfetl followin_g, that is to fay:-"
Nor do I [-himfelf the faid Thomas Cooper
meam~g] fee any impropriety in making this requell: of Mr. Adams :
[meamng John Adams, efq. Prefident of the United States J at that time he
had jull: entered into office, he [meaning the faid Preiident cf the United
States] was hardly in the infancy of ·political miftake: even thofe who

 ( s )
doubted his capacity [ meaning the capacity of the faid Prefident of "the
United States] tho't well of his f meaning the faid Prefident of the United
States J intentions. And alfo the falfe, fcandalous and malicious words of
the tenor and effetl: following, that is t'o fay :-Nor were we [meaning the
people of the United States] yet faddled with the expencle of a permanent
navy, or threatened under his [ meaning the faid Prefident] aufpices with
the exiftence of a ftanding army. Our credit [ meaning the credit of the
United States J was not yet reduced fo low as to borrow money at eight per
cent. in time of peace, while the unnecelfary violence of official expreffions
might juftly have provoked a war.
And alfo the falfe, fcandalous and malicious words of the tenor and effecl:
following, that is to fay :-Mr. Adams [ meaning the faid Prefident of the
United States] had not yet projected his [the faid Prefident of the United
States meaning] embaffies to Pruffia, Ruffia and the Sublime Porte, nor had
he [the faid prefident of the United States meaning] yet interfered as
prefident of the United States to influence the decifions of a court of juf•
tice-a f!:retch of authority which the monarch of Great Britain would
have fhrunk from-an interference without precedent, againf!: law, and
againf!:mercy. This melancholy cafe of Jonathan Robbins, a native citi.
zen of America, forcibly impreifed by the Britifh, and delivered up with
the advice of Mr. Adams [ me;i.ningthe faid prefident of the United StatesJ
to the mock trial of a Britifh court-martial had not yet af!:onifhed the republican citizens of this free com:itry; [ meaning the United States of
America J a cafe too little known, but of which the people ( meaning the
people of the faid United States of America] ought to be folly apprized
before the election, and they fhall be,"~to the great fcandal of the prefi•
dent of the United States-to the evil example of others in the like cafe
offending againfl the form of the acl: of the congrefs of the United States
in fuch cafe made and provided, and againf!: the peace and dignity of the
faid United States.
W. RAWLE, Attorney-General •.
JoHN BuYERs, efq.
·
Witnefs,

D. CALDWELL,
To this bill of indictment Mr. Cooper put in the plea of not guilty, and
alfo pleaded the truth of the fads in juf!:ification. He directed fubprenas
to be i{foed for the Prefident of the United States, for Timothy Pickering
Efqr. Jacob Wagner, (a clerk in Timothy Pickering's office,) and John
Davenport Efqr. Member of Congrefs. Previous to directing the Subprena;,', he !lated to -the court, that he underfl:ood it had been cufiomary,
and was confidered as a proper praB:ice to prevent any quefl.ion arifing on
the fubjeB:of privilege, that when a member of the Legifiature was intended to be fubpcenaed during feffion, for the court from whence the fubprena iffoed, to write to the Speaker of the Houfe requef!:ing tha(the Houfe
would permit the proct:fs to be ferved. Jf that were the praa:ice, Mr.
Cooper begged the court would be pleafed to conform to it in the prefent
·
inllance on his behalf.
Judge Chafa. I know of no fuch practice and no fuch privilege. I do
1t0t know that any fuch p1·ivilcge is given by the Conftitution, and if it be

 ( 9 )

not given there, I cannot give it. I do not like feaing precedents of this
nature. 'The court will do its duty, and dirccl proccfs to be ilfued upon any
man whatever his fituation may be, if the law does not exempt him from
it : I !hall certainly write no fuch letter.
Mr. Rarwle. I believe Sir, the praclice has been to apply in th:it manner. I believe the Judges of the fupreme court of this ftate after deliberation, determined on the expediency of proceeding in that way to avoid giving occafion for any difpute on the fubject.
Judge Peters. When I was the Speaker of a fingle Legiflature, I have had
letters of that kind addrelfed to me for a fimilar purpofe.
Mr. Dall,u. I beg leave to fuggefr to the court, that the practice of writing to the Speaker in fuch a cafe was adopted to avoid the difficulty that
might arifc from the clalhing of jurifdiaions : If a fubprena were ferved on
a member of the Legiflatue during feffion, and he did not choofe to attend,
mull: be attachment; andattachthe nextprocefoofthecourt(ifprayedfor,)
ment cannot be enforced without arreft: But the members of the Legi/lature are privileged from arreft during feffion.
Judge Chace. Sir, the court thank you for your fuggeftion as Amicus
If
Curi~ ; but we iliould take care to avoid this clailiing of jurifdiclions.
the member fobprenaed during the feffion would not attend, we would ilfue
no attachment, we wonld put off the caufe till his attendance could be compelled. Mr. Cooper may take out his fubprena's, we fhall write no fuch
letter.
Judge Peters. I wilh it to be underftood that in my opinion, no fuch
procefs ought to inue to members of the Legiflature during feffion; for I do
not approve of ilfuing procefs which we cannot enforce.
Mr. Cooper on coming into the court on Wednefday morning (the time
appointed for bringing on the trial,) enquired if his fobpa:na's had been
fcrved, and particularly the fobprena direcl:ed to the Prefident of the United
States.
Judge Chace. No Sir; the clerk of the court fhewed us your directions
to him, to fubprena the Prefident of the United States, and we directed
him noc to iffue the fubprena ; we thought the proceeding very improper.
lvlr. Cooper. Will the Court have the goodnefs to hear me on that quefiion?
Judge Chace. Certainly Sir; go on.
Mr. Cooper. I did not expecl: (may it pleafe the court) that any ohjection would have been made to iffuiug this procefs to procmc the attendance
It is the duty of every good citizen for the furtherance
of the Prefident.
of juftice, to give his tefiimony when duly called upon for that purpofe by
the procefs of a court of juftice. Before 1 determined on applying for this
fobprena, I examined (as it was my duty to do) the Confiitution cf the United States, to difcover if any privilege of exemption from this procefs
was given to the Prefident by that Conlh:ution : 1 could !ind none; If d1e
the gentleman whofe duty it is to conclucl: this profecution, or the court will
be kind enough to point out any luch exemption, l fhall mofi willingly retracl my error: but if the ConJlitution and the laws of our country confer no
foch privilege on the Prefident, it is not in the power of this court to fopply what they have omitted: notwithHanding the app lication to the 1..ourt on

B

 (

IO )

Monday !all:, for a letter to the Speaker, proceeded from myfelf, l was I
glad to hear the opinion of your Honour that you would not undertake to I
confer privileges which the Confl:itution had not granted: if no fuch exemption then can be claimed in your opinion hy any member of our Legiflature, why fhouid it be affumed by the Prefident r if the Conftitution does
.not give him this privilege of exemption, I may claim the fubpcena as a
matter of right.
There is a farther and a peculiar re2fon in this caufe, why t~e Prefident
even if he had this privilege lhould not claim it as againfl: myfelf; if I call
Who has he to
him into this court, who compels me to do it? Himfelf.
blame for the trouble I may occafion him by his attendance here? Himfelf.
The publication for which I am indifted is not a voluntary eifufion, it was
forced from me-I was compelled to write it in vindication of my own characl:er, groffiy and falfely attacked in confoquence of a difclofurc on the
part of the Prefident, of what I cannot but deem private correipondIt is from information then, proceeding direaly or indirecl:ly from
ence
himfelf, that J was firft compelled to appear before the public, and am now
dr agged into this court to vind~cate my d1<tracl:eragain ft anonymous flaneler
for no other, for this reafon may it pleafe the
an d legal accufation .-If
cou rt, in mv or,inion the Pre/ident ouo·bt to apoear. Nor in fuch a country
as this, do fc~ why this exemption fhou!d b~ granted to om: man and not
to another. This is, and I hope, will long continue a republican country.
A government of equal rights and equal Laws .-Bu t the privilege now
claimed is out of harmony with thefe e'iual principles of republican goverment ; and I hope the dccifion of the court in the prefent cafe, will authorto believe that no man in this country, is poffelfed of a fituation fo eleize
vated as to be above the Laws, or of any privileges paramou;1t to ju/lice.
Judge Chace. \Ve have heard you Sir; patiently ; and tn confideration
of your being without counfel, we have permitted you to fay wh2t we
would not have fuffcred any counfel to advance: Sir, we confider your fi.
tuation, but you have totally miftakcn the whole bufinefs. It is not upon
the objccl:ion of privilege that we have refofed this fobpcena : This court
will do its duty againft any man however elevated his fituation may be.are of opinion that in the cafe of a proYou have mifraken the ground.-We
fecution for a libel tending to bring the Prefident of the United States into
contempt, he cannot be compelled to appear at all. What? !hall you
bring the Prefident on fuch an profecution, into this court to prove your
charges ? to a!k him, did you do fo and fo ? nJ;ere you guilty of maladrniniHration? Sir, this cannot be permitted, and if you had been _a lawyer
you would not have made the requeft.
M. Cooper. I have great deference for the opinion of the Court, but this
is a new point: will the Court be good enough to hear me upon it?
Judge Chace. I-fo Sir; the Court will not hear you after they have given
their decifion : It was a very improper and a very indecent requeft.
Mr. Cooper. I a/fore the Court, I am not guilty of intentional impropriety. But a preliminary quet1ion will ari!c between Mr. Rawle and me
not connected with the fohfl:ance of the lndicl:m::nt : canuot I have the benefit of the Pretident's teflimony on that queHion ?
Judge Chace. No Sir; He cannot l:ie brought here at all upon this Trial.
Are you ready to proceed,

i

us

 (

II

)

Mr. Cooper. I beli~ve Sir, I !hall be.
The Jury were then called, but before they were fworn, Mr. Cooper
fugo-elled to the court that fome of the paffages charged in the indictment
wer~ grou!'lded upon certain addreifes to the Prefident in the fomrner of one
thoufand fe~·en hundred and nintey-eight, and the anfwers thereto ; that he
had applied to Mr. Rawle to admit as evidence of thofe documen ts, the
publications of them in the common news-papers;
that he meant to ufe
Fenno 's paper for the purpofe; that Mr. Rawle at firfi confeuted, but bad
£nee written him a note retr;;tling that a/Tent, that if the court ihould decide when the caufe had gone half thro, that fuch evidence on the part of
the defendant was inadmif!ible, he would i:Je compeiled co move the court
to put off the ca ufc tili he could procure rhe bcfl: evidence, the nature of
the cafe would admit of, an<l which Mr. Rawle feemed to infifl on, namely
official copies of thofe documents.
_ .'"fudge Cha ce. Wilen the q uefiion corr.es before us we will cconfider it. In
the mean time you rnuft go on your own way and judge for yourfelL
Btit, Mr. Rawle, what objeEtion have you to admit the news-papers to be
rearl. (that is fo far as they are relevant to the quefiion,) if you have no
reafon to fufpecl their accuracy?
. 111r. Rawle. I beg leave to /late to the court, that on Mr. Cooper's applying to me on this fubjeEt, I at firft confented, but afterwards l retracted that confent for the reafons affigned in the following ietter which I fent

him,

Sir,
Upon further confideration of the reqoeft ycu made to me this morning
a, to admitting the printed addrefies to, and anfoers from the Pref1dent
of the United States on your trial, lam apprehenfive fome inconvenience
may refult from it as it is impoffible for me to be certain whether inaccui:acy in fome infl:anccs or defign in others, may not have rendered the printed accounts unfaithful uanfcripts of the originals.
I am therefore under the neceffity of recalling my affent, even under
the limitations that were connected with it,' and of informing- you that the
evidence neceffary for your defence mufl: be adduced in the t;!ual and legal
form.
I truft that fo lhort :i fpace of time ha s elapfcd finc e our communication
that no inconvenience to you will refolt from it, but {hould it be the .::afeI
fuall make no oppofition to a commenfu rat e prolong.!tion of the time previous to the trial, fo that you may be as folly p1epared as if the converfation
of this morning had not taken t3lace.
I am Sir,
vour moll: obedient fervant,

.
April 15th.
To

THOMAS

1800.

fouro'clock

CooPER.

Efq.

the court will fee therefore th:it
evidence of this kind.

W. RAWLE.

P. M.

I cannot properly

affent to the admifiion of

Judge Paers. It is qu;te time enough fur us to decide this quefiion ·,.-h.:n

it coml'S regularly before uo.

 { 12)
Mr . Cooper. If that be the cafe I mufl: not in point of prud ence fubjrcl:
myfelf to the hazard of being deprived of a molt material part of my tefiimony on a legal objection; and tho' I think the evidence I offer could be
legally fupponed , * yet I rnuft run no rifk: I therefore pray the court to
defer the tri al until I can procure office copies.
Judge Chace. Will you be ready on Saturday Sir?
.Mr. Cooper. If I can procure the copies I {hall.
· Jud ge Chace. Sir, that is not the quefl:ion. If your evidence is not rea•
dy we !ball judge of that, then.
M1·. Cooper. I !ball be ready on Saturday.
The court met A1pril 19th. at9o'clock.
Mr. Cooper addreJfed the court as follows,
The court may perhaps remember the propofals I made to the Attorney
General reipelting fome public documents, which I meant to give in evidence as they were publi!ned in a new s-paper wherein all the-alts of government were ufoally inferted: that paper was Fenno's United States Gazette.
The Attorney General t thought it his duty to object to this kind of evidence, fince either from defign or inaccuracy, miftakes might take place in
the publications .
I was extremely defirous at that time to have met the charge fubftantially;
the court however, thought Mr. Rawle might inlifl: on my producing official
copies of fuch docum ents as were neceffary for my defence.
In conformity to this expecl:ation, I have endeavoured to procure thofe
copies without delay. Much of the fup,pofedlibel is founded on ·expreffions
contained in certain addreJfes to the Prefident in the fommer of one thoufand
feven hundred and ninety-eight, and his anfwers thereto. On the autho1·ity therefore of the cafe of the Ki ng vs. Holt, in 5th. term, repom page
442. I applied by letter to the Secretary of State, who returned for anfwer the next morning that there were none of thofe addre11esor anfwers depofited in his office ; on receiving this information I fent direltly the
following no~e to the Prefiden t,
No. 61. ff7alnut near Dock,Street.
Sir,
Being inc!id ed for a fopFofed Libel in the circuit court of the United
States now fitting in Philadelphia, I find it neceJfary to apply for official copie s of the papers of which I tranfmit an inclofed lifl:. I applied yefterday
afternoon to the Secretary of State, who has jufi: now fent me word they
.ire not to be found i:i his office.
] beg therefore that your Excellency would have the goodnefs to direct
your fecret:uy to make them out for me as expeditioufly as poffible, and to
accept c,f the prefent application as legal notice of my requeft.
I am,
your excellency's obedient fervant,
THOMAS COOPER.

t o whi ch I received no anfwer that day. The next morning conceiving
there was a mode of expediting the bufinefs, I fent my fon to purchafe a
'V Holt 5 T. Rep. 442. hereafter quoted.
M r. Rciwle dtt! n&t underjfand at jirjf as he afterwards informed me,
t hat 1 meaat to u/eFcrmo's p aper, or he would have admitted it.

* See thi ra/e of Rex

t

 13

)

book purporting to be " A [election of addreffes and anfwets to and from
the Prefident of the United States in the year one thoufand feven hundred and
ninety eight," with this book I fent to Mr. Shaw, (the private fecretary ta
the Prdident,) the following note,
Mr. Cooper prefents his refpeth to Mr. Shaw, aud being defirous of fa~
ving time and trouble, takes the liberty ef fuggefting whether the collection of addrelfes and anfwers herewith fent, might not be collated with the
originals, and then copies would only be neceifary of thofe wanted by Mr,
Cooper, which the volume does not contain.
Mr. Shaw returned the following anf wer:
Mr. Shaw informs Mr. Cooper, that he will not receive any information
concerning anfwers to addreffes from this houfe.
April I 8th. 1800.

Judge Chace. I foppofe you mean the Prefident's houfe? was he there at
that time ?
Mr. Cooper. He was at the Prelident's houfe.-Under the c;ircumllances
I have related, I do not think it poffible for me fafely to go o.n, while the
perfon who may fairly be confidered in fome degree as my profecutor, holds
in his poffeffion the legal evidence on which I mull: reft my defence. Nor indeed is Fenno's paper quite accurate, for in a collated copy, procured _ for
me by Colonel Lyon from the office of the S~cretary of War, I find manufcript co~reftions, altho' they are not very material.
1 prefume there is the fame law for Mr. Rawle as for me, and as he objetted to the produtlion of news-paper evidence in the firft inftance, fo may
1, on the fame grounds: tberefore I move the court to put oJf the trial
until I can procure the papr.rs required.
Judge Chace. You are miftaken in foppoling the profecutor of this indictment is the Prefident of the United States. It is n©foch thing.-It is at
the fuit of the United States you are inditled, for publilhing a falfe fcandalous and malicious libel, with intent to defame the Prefident of the United
States.-Nor
do I underJfand that the Attorney General objetl:ed to your
producing the teftimony you mentioned.-But your miftakes mull fal'J on
yourfelf.-You rnuft take the chance.-Nor
had you a right to make thefe
affertions unlefs you had proof that would bear you out in them.
If in making thofe alfertions you relied on the public papers it was at your
own rifle ; and it was your own fault not to have had authentic copies.
You think that you have a right to obtain official copies of what may be
neceffary for your Defence, you are greatly miftaken, •. No law that
I
know of, authorizes you to require them, and I fee no reafon why the proper
officers lhould give copies.
You fuppofe that the offices of government ought to be open to your infpetl:ion-it is not fo-even if you had thefe copies the court would determine on their admiffihility as evidence. If y()u offer news-papers, the
court will determine whether they can be given in as evidence or not. If

'" Seethe caft of theJbip Colum!ms, and the All, pated in the .Append
fa·.

 you wilh to abide by your own judgment, you mull: ftand or fali by it. But
do not take it for granted that you may examine witnelfes or produce
evidence that has nothing to do with the caufe.
Mr. Cooper. Since the court is of opinjon that 1 cannot produce this evidence, which I confider as m:!terial to my Defence, and as I am not fully
prepared for trial, expecling that I could obtain this evidence, I wifn
the trial to be put off on other grounds.
'Judge Chace. [f you can fhew good grounds the court will confent to
'
put it off.
Mr. Cooper. I have Subpcenaed fcveral members of the LegiJlature, but I
am apprehenfive they deem it inconfiftent with their duty to aftend, and I
am given to underftand that there is a difference o.f opinion on this queftion:
whether they will appear when cdled l know not. lf they do not, [ fear
I cannot go on.
The court enquired of the Madhal whether he had Subpcenaed the witneffes? On being a'lfwered in the affirmative, they directed the witneffes
to be called, viz.
Timod1v Pickering,
· Jacob Wagner,
John Davenport,
Albert Gallatin,
Thomas Pinckney,

Robert Goodloe Harper,
Edward Livingfion,
Colonel Matthew Lyon,
John Langdon.

No one appeared.
Court. Mr. Pinckney has infol'med us that he will attend.
l,fr. Cooper. As the evidence of fome of thefe gentlemen is material, I
wilh the court to put of my trial, until 1 can procure their attendance.
Court. Sir you m11ftmove it upon affidavit, and then the court will confider of it. But take care it wrn juftify you.
(The fubfi:a:1ceof the affidavit was: that the witneffes therein named
who had been Subpcenaed and did not attend, were material witneffes, and
who the Defendant underftood and believed were capable of giving teftimony of facts maerial to the iffue joined).
After the affidavit had been read, the court faid :
This affidavit is not fufficient, you do not Hate your reafons why you believe they are material witr;eftes. As you are without Counfel the court
Had Counfcl offered this affidavit we
will fhew you more indulgence.
fhould not allow any ex?lanatcry affidavit to be made, but we ihall allow
you to make one. Therefore take time for your affidavit.
Whiill: Mr. Cooper was preparing his affidavit, Judge Chace ( after fame
converfacion with a gentleman near him faid) I am inclined to think ,he
witndfes will ali atte .nd. Therefore call them, I am informed that they
will all attend. Mr. Harper and Mr. Gallatin were in court, we had
better fenJ for them. We mull: no doubt pay attention to the conveniences
of the houfe.
Judge Peters. If the gentlemen will voluntarily appear, it is well; if
not, we cannot compel them.
Court (to the Mar/hall) Go and aik them if it is convenient to attend?

 { 15 )
Judge Pttm. I have feen feveral of them.
They will attend.
The ofli,cer fays thev will attend.
Mr. Coop;r. If th:it be the cafe I have
no objecl:ion; but as I did not
expect my tri:il to commence this morn
ing, my papers are not here. Will.
the court permit me to go for them ?
Court. No doubt Sir, no doubt.
Mr. Cooper On his return into court faid,
I do not know whether the
witneffes whom I have fubpcenad will
attend or not, but at all events I. am
ready to go on upon the proofs I have.
Court. Call the Jury.
Nl,.MES OF THE JURY,
Andrew Whelen, Forema11.
Samuel Evans,
George Holften,
Henry Pe;iper.
Abraham Bickley,
George Ellig,
Charles Defuler,·
William Guier,
George Slough,
Ely Canby.
William Young,
Peter Shyner.
\,V. RAWLE, Attorney General
Began by obferving that the Defen
dant fiands charged with attempts
which the practice and policy of all civiliz
ed nations has thought it right
all times to punilh with feverity. \Vith
having pub!i{hed a falfe fcandalous
and malicious attack on the ch:uacter
of the Prdident of the United Sta~cs
with an intent to excite the hatred and
contempt of the people of this
country againft the man of their choice.
It was much to be lamented that every perfo
n who had a tolerable facility
at writing fnould think he had a right
to att1ck and overfet thofe authorities
and officers whom the people or this
country had thought fit to appoint.
Nor was it to be endured that foui
and infamous fa!fohoods fhould be
uttered and publifued with impunity
:igainil: the Prdident of the United
Scates, whom the people thernfelves h.i.d
placed in that high office, and in
which he has acted with fo much
credit to himfolf and benefit to them.
Thomas Cooper !lands charged ia the
indictment as follows-(here
the Attorney General read the indictment)
It wa~a feofo of public duty that
called for this profecution.
1t was neceifary that :in example !houl
d be
made to deter others from mifleading the
people byfuch falfeandde&matory
publications. There was a peculia1ity
in the mannera.lfoof this publication;
we generally obferve that perfons who
take thefe liberties, endeavour to
avoid punilhment by {heltering themfdve,
under fiditiolls lignatures or by
concealing their names; but the Defen
dant acted very differently.
Being
of the profeffion of the law, a man of
e<iucation and literature, he availed
himfelf of thofe advantages for the purpo
fe of diffemic,iting his dangerous
productions in a remote part of the count
ry where he had gamed inffoence.
Such conduct mull: have arifcn from the
bafoll: motives. lt ·vouid be proved
to the Jury that at the time of this
publication, the Defrmhnt went to a
magifirate and ackm>wledgcd it to be
his producl:ion in the fame formal
manner as if it had been a deed.
A conducl: fo grofsly improper, had
occurred in no inlhrnce within his
recollection and the manner con!hcuted
no flight aggravation of the otreuce,

 (

16 )

refhain the libellous
for the law to interfere and
againft the higheft
Indeed it was high time
lf
itfe
nd
long permitted to exte
fpirit which had been fo
ers.
the management of
and moll: deferving characl
m the public has entrufl:ed
To abufe the men with who
confidence of the
the
n
to withdraw from ther
s,
cern
con
l
ona
nati
r
thei
inefs, was in diretl: opooconducling the public buf
people, fo neceffary for
fs of this kind were t~ be
chie
good citizen. Mif
fition to the duties of a
informed, and a man of
the country around is lefs
dreaded in proportion as
nd the mifchief which
exte
to
er
pow
it more iii his
encourage the idea,
fenfe and education has
not
uld
Government lho
he is inclined to propagate.
for if this condutl: was
te fuch atrociou, conduB:,
endangered.
that they would not profecu
be
ld
wou
ntry
peace of the cou
of oppret1ion, and
allowed to pafs over, the
idea
difcontent to a fancied
Error leads to difcontent,
already happened,
had
ch
whi
es
:anc
infl
ch the two
that to infurreclion, of whi
,
jury
the
well known to
were alarming proofs, and
from publications of
mull: determine whether
s,
zen
citi
as
,
jsry
the
; and whether it
That
red
nge
nda
e
'
not
was
the country
them and the
ore
bef
this kind the profperity of
laid
was
n a cafe of this nature
the evidence
and
was not their duty, whe
law
g in fuch a verdicr as the
ernment of
gov
the
on
law was applicabie, to brin
cks
atta
of
d
w, that thefe kin
would warrant ; and fhe
ty.
be fuftered with impuni
the country, were not to
ch you will be pleafed
is founded on a fl:atute whi
t
men
icl:
ind
s
Thi
Court.
to read to the iury.
s the act as follows:
Attorney General here read tted, That if any perfon {hall write, print,
ena
her
furt
it
be
d
.An
Sec. II.
tten, printed, uttered,
caufe or procure to be wri
fl: or aid in writing,
utter or publifh, or !hall
wingiy and willingly afii
malicious writing
or publiihed, or fliall kno
and
us
dalo
fcan
e,
lifhing any falf
either houfe of
or
printing, uttering or pub
tes,
Sta
d
ernment of th, U nice
States, with
ted
Uni
or writings againll: the gov
the
States, or the prefidentof
faid congrefs,
the
of
the congrefs of the United
fe
hou
er
eith
or
government,
intent to defame the fai.i
them, into contempt or
to bring them or either of
or
nt,
fide
pre
faid
the
of them, the hatred
or
inll them, or either or any fedition within the
clifrepute ; or to excite aga
up
ftir
to
or
tes,
the United Sta
of the good people of
therein, for oppofing
any unlawful combinations
ite
exc
to
or
tes
Sta
ted
Uni
of the prefident_ of ~he
United States, or any acl
of the powers m him
or refilling any law of the
or
,
law
h
fuance of any foc
fl:, oppofe, or deUnited States, done in pur
refi
to
of the U flited States, or
hofl:ile defigns
any
t
veiled by the con11itution
abe
or
age
our
enc
; or to aid,
or governple
peo
r
feat any fuch Jaw or act
thei
tes,
infl: the United Sta
of any foreign nation aga g thereof convicl:ed before any court of the
, bein
ment,__then foch perfon
puni{hed by a fine not
fdiclion thereof, !hall be
not exceeding two
United ,States having juri
ent
nm
lars, and by imprifo
dol
nd
ufa
tho
two
ing
eed
exc
.
perfon be
years.
and declared, That if any
.i
c':e
ena
her
furt
it
be
afor~fai~,
l
libe
Sec. III. And
any
ing
for the writing or pub)ifh
caufe, to give 1n
the
profecated under this act,
of
tnal
the
n
upo
defendant,
it fhall be lawful for the
tained in the public2.tion
the truth of the matter con
evidence in his defence,
caule, !hall have a right
the jury whu !hall try the
charged as a libel. And

 (

17 )

to determine the la_wand the facl:, under the direction of the court, as m
other cafes,
John Buyers, [worn.

examined by Mr, Rawle .

Do you know this piaper? (hands a paper to him)
A. Yes.
Court. Look at the back of it?
.Q; Who brought that paper to you ?
A. Thoma s Cooper.,
~ At what time?
A. The evening of the fixth of December, 1799.
Court. Where ?
A. At my my hqufe at Sunbury. He came to me at the door of my houfe.
Alked me to walk in. We walked in. This was between candle-light and
da y light. He atk.ed for a candle. He perufed this paper, which I have
in my hand, pointed to his name, and faid, this is my name, and I am the
author of this piece.
There was nothing further pa/fed, only he faid, this 'may fave you trouble
another ti me. I knew very well what he meant by it.
~ Did you give intimation of this to any one?
. A. I gave it to Mr. Rawle's Deputy, who profecutes for the United
States .
Crofs-examined by Mr. Cooper,
~

SZ:Had not you and I been in the habit of frequently joking each other
upon political fobjecl:s ?
A. 0 yes-very often.
· Th.e Attorney genera] here read that part of the publication which is in•
eluded in the indicl:ment, for which reafon it is omitted here.
MR. COOPER's

DEFENCE:

Gentlemen of the Jury,
Ifit were true, as it is not true, that in the language of the attorney general
of the difiricl:, I have been guilty of publi!hing with the bafefl: motives a
foul and infamous libel on the character of the Prefident; of exciting againfr
him the hatr ed and contempt of the people of this country, by grofs and
malicious falfehoods-then indeed would it be his duty to bring me before
thi , Tribunal, it would be yours to convict, and the duty of the court to
punifh me. But I hope in the courfe of this trial,' I fhall be enabled to
prove to your fatisfaclion, that I have publiil1ed nothing which truth will not
ju!rify. That the a/fertions for which I am indicted are free from malicious
imput ation: and that my motives have been honefi and fair.
You wilJ obferve, Gentlemen of the Jury, that the law requires it to be
proved as a necelfary part of the charge, that the paffages for which I am
juqiB:ed fhould be falfe and fcandalous, and publi!hed from malicious
motives: and before you will be able, confill:ently ~ ith your oaths, to con via upon this indictment, you muft be thornughly fatisficd tha t both thefe
parts of the charge are well found\<l. No r dot>sit appear to me that the

C

1

 expreffion of the aa:, to bring the Prefid ent into contempt, can be fulfilled
of
if the accufation, as in the prefent infl:ance, related to an examination
his pu6lic conduct, and no improper motives are imputed to him. And that
I have carefully avoided imputing any impropriety of intention to the
of
Prefident even in the very paper coll?plained of-that theuniform tenor
my conduct and language: has been to attribute honefl:y of motive even
where I have fl:rongly difapproved of ,the tendency of his meafures, I can
abundantly iliew.
GeJltlemen of the Jttry, you, and all who hear me, well know that this
country is divided, and almofl: equally divided, into two grand parties;
ufoally termed,whether properly or imp roperly, Federalijfs and Anti-Federalijfs: and that the gov erning powers of the country, are ranked in public
thefe divifions, the one willies
opinion under the former denomination-of
of the Executive ; the one
powers
the
diminilh
to
other
the
to increafe,
thinks that the people, (the Democracy of the country) has too much, the
is
other, too little influence on the meafores of government: the one
the
Navy:
t
permanen
a
and
army
fl:anding
a
to
hoitile,
friendly, the other
one thinks them nece!fary to repel invafion s and aggreilions from without,
a
and commotions within; the other, that a wdl organized Militia is
is
navy
a
that
and
protect,
could
army
an
that
fufficient fafeguard for all
more dangerous and expenfive than any benefit derived fr<lm it can compenfate : the one, thinks the liberties of our country endangered by the
licentioufnefs, the other, by the refl:rictions on the Prefs: Such are fome
among the leading fe'atures of thefe notorious divifions of political party.
It •is evident, Gentlemen of the Jury, that each will view with ajealous
eye the poiitions of the other, and that there cannot but be a bias among
the partizans of the one fide, againll: the principles and doctrines inculcated
by the o ,her. In the prefent inftance I fear it cannot but have its effect:
in
For without impeaching the integrity of any perfon direcl:ly concerned
Sedition
the
under
that
ftate,
fairly
may
I
trial,
prefent
the
the progrefs of
Law, a defendant, fuch as I ftand before you, is placed in a fituation unknown in any other cafe.
Directly or indirectly, the public, if not the private character of the
Prefident of the United States is involved in the prefent trial. Who
of
nominates the judges who are to prefide? the juries who are to judge
the
?
jury
the
of
g
fommonin
the
has
the evideace? the Marl11al who
Suppofe a cafd of arbitratioh concerning the property of any
Preiident.
one of you, where the ad vorfe party Oiould claim the right of nominating
the perfons whofe legal opinions are to decide the law of the quefl:ion, and
of the very man who fhall have the appointment of the arbitrators? what
would you fay to foch a trial ? and yet in fact fuch is mine, and foch is the
trial of every man who has the misfortune to be inElicted under this law.
But althou gh I have aright to prefume fomething of political bias againfl:
,
1ny opinions, from the court who try me, to you who fit there as jury111en
1 am ilill fatisfied you will feel, that you have fome fome character tofopport
nnd fome character to lofe; and whatever your opinions may be on the
fubjecls alluded to in the indictment, you will reverence as you ought the
facred obligation of the oath you have taken.
Gentlemen ofthe 'Jury, I acknowlege as freely as any of you can, the neceility of a certain degr.::e of confidence in the executive Gcwernment of the

 ( 19 )
Country. But this confidence ought not to be unlimitted, and need not be paid
up in advance; let it be earned before it be repofed; let it be claimed by
the evidence of benefits conferred, of meafures that com pell approbation, of
conduct irreproachable.-It
cannot be exacl:ed by the guarde<l provifions of
Sedition Laws, by attacks on the Freedom of the Prefs, by profecutions, pains, and penalties on thofe which boldly exprefs the truth, or who
may honeflly and innocently err in their political fentiments.-Let this required confidence be the meed of defert, and the public will not be backward to pay it.
·
But in the prefent ftate of affairs, the Prefs is open to thofe who will
praife, while the threats of the Law hang over thofe who blame the conduct of the men in power.-Indifcriminate
approbation of the meafures of
the executive, is not only unattacked, but foftered and received with the
utmoil: avidity.-While
thofe who venture to exprefsa fentiment of oppofition mufi do it in fear and trembling, and run the hazard of being dragged
like myfelf before che frowning tribunal, erected hy the Sedition Law.Be it fo ; but forely this anxiety to protea public characl:er, mufi arife from
fear of attack.-That
conduct which will not bear inveftigation will naturally ihun it; and whether my opinions are righ,t or ,-vrong as they are
il:ated in the charge; I cannot help thinking they would have been better
confuted by evidence and argument than by indiclment.-Fines
and imprifonment, will produce conviclion neither in the mmd of the foiferer.
nor of the public.
Nor do I fee how the people can exercife on rational grounds their elecl:ive
franchife, if perfecl: freedom of difcuHion of public characters be not allowed.-Eleclors
are bound in confcience to reflecl: and decide who befl:deferves their foffrages ; but how can they do it, if thefe profecutions in terrorenr clofe all the avenues of information, and throw a veil over the groil"efi mifconducl: of our periodit;al rulers.
Gentlemen of the Jury;
After having offered thefe preliminary remarks, I fuall give an account
of the paper on which lam accufed, and then proceed to examine the
tharges of the indiament in the order in which they are laid : much that
I intended to have advanced I mufi relinquifh, that I may not trefpafs too
long on your time, or weaken the effecl of my own defence by fatiguing
your atteation.
The fcored paper now handed to me by the attorney-general, foggeils
an obfervation, which, though trite, i s material. U pan the plan ufoally
adopted in thefe ex officio accufations, a good Chrifiian might eafily be
proved an arrant atheifl:. " The fool hath faid in hi£ heart there is no
God."
Take the four Jail:words an!l they are atheiii.ica] : take the fentence and it is fcripture. So, take the marked paifages in this pap\:r and
they may perhaps be forced into fomething like improper imputation
againil the pr efident : ta~e tqe paper itfelf, and the very firll paragraph is
a plain and pofitive approbation of his intention. Though [ mufi acknowledge, that however upright I might formerly have believed his motives
of acl:ion, I cannot upon reflection, pay that tribute to his condutt or his
motives on the prefent occa!ion.
The general circumHances that gave rife to the paper I now hold are

 (

20

)

the/e : Dr. Priefi!ey, a man whofe name implies a greater combination of
learning, fcience, and ability, of important difcovery, of exertion for the
benefit of mankind, and of private integrity, than any other man now living can boaft-whofe conduct towards me in the inftance detailed in this
paper is praife fufficient to bear up my mind againft any confequences
which the prefeut trial can produce-had long been an acquaintance and an
intimate acquaintance of Mr. Adams in England and in this Eountry. The
letters of the latter to dr. Prieil:ley are full of ftrong expreffions of friendfhip and ell:eem. Relying upon thi, long intercourfe of cordiality between
them, dr. Prieftley urged me to permit him to write to Mr. Adams on the
fubjecl: of a vacancy mentioned in this paper, and which as you will have
it before you when you retire, l 11iallnot read at length. This application was from one friend to another; upon the face of it a confidential
communi cation; although containing nothing but what might do credit
Mr. Adams, however, did not think it fo
to all the parties concerned.
on his part has been founded. the
difclofure
fome
from
and
;
ial
confident
bafe and cowardly ilander which dragged me in the firll: inllance before the
public in vindication of my moral and political character, and has at length
dragged me before this tribunal, to protect, if I can, my perfonal liberty
and my private for tune againll: the legal attack of an ex oJlicioinformation.
Hence it is evident, gentlemen of the jury, that this is not a voluntary, but
an involuntary publication on my part: it has originated not from motives
of turbulence and malice, but from [elf.defence; not from a defire of attacking the character of the prefident, but of vindicating my own. And
in what way have I done this ? My motives, my private character, my
public characler, were i;he obj eel of falfehood and calumny, apparently
founded on information of high authority. In reply, I give credit to the
intentions of the prefident, I fay nothing of his private character, and I
attack only the tendency of meafures notorious to the world, which having
been known to difapprove publicly, I was charged with being ready from
motives of intereH, to approve privately. I think, gentlemen, you cannot help feeling this contrail: of behaviour, and if the prefident is fatisfied
,
with his fide of the picture l am with mine.
The FIRST article [elected for accufation is; that at the time I allude
to, he was hut in the infancy of political nzifl~ke. Why this expreffion /hould
have been fixed on as feditious I know not, unlefs it be that quem deus <Vuft
perdere prius dementat; for have we adv~nced fo far on the road to defpotifm
in this republican country. that we dare not fay our Prefident may be mift;:,ken? Is a plain citizen encircled at once by the myfterious attribute of
political infallibility the inftant he mounts the prelidential chair? If fo,
d1en indeed may it be feditious to fay he is miftaken; but before you can
condemn me for this kind of [edition you mull: become catholic believers
in this new-fangled doctrine of infallibility. I know that in England the
king can do no wrong, but I did not know till now that the Prefident of
the United States had the fame attribute.
I have faid (and [ am accufed for faying it) "that e<Venthofe who douhtea
l s it a crime to doubt the cahis capacity thought well of his intentions."
pacity of the Prefident? Suppofe I had faid that there were fome who did
not give him credit for capacity fofficient for the office he hold s, is that a
crime r Or if in them, is it a crime in me, who have not faid it? Nor can

 (

21

)

the word capacity here be fairly conftrned into
any other than a comparative meaning; for forely no one who has read
his Defence, as it is called,
of the American Conftitut1on, or who refletl
s that he has had abilities
enough to raife himfelf to his prefent fituation,
can fay that he is devoid either of indufrry or talents. But tho(e who voted
for his opponent muft
have believed Mr. Adams of inferior capacity
to that gentleman.
Of that
number was I ; of that number was at leajl
one-half of the people of the
United States. 1f it be a crime thus to have
thought and thus to have
fpoken, l fear I /hall continue in this refped
incorrigible.
But if of two
confl:rufl:ions the one is abford, improbable
anti unfavorable, furely it
fhould be rejecl:ed in favour of that meaning
which was moll: likely to
have occurred, and which in its effecl:s will do
leaf!: injury to a defendant
like myfelf. This is common, this is leg:il charity
.
Nor had we yet under his aufpices, 6een/addled
with the expcnce of a perma/ nent na'Vy,
Gentlemen is it true or not that we are faddle
d with the expence of a
permanent navy? ls 'it neceifary that I fhould
enter into a detail of authorities to prove that the fun fhines at noon day?
But farther, is it true that
we incur this expence under his aufpices arid fancri
on ?
I have before me two publications, the one the
Gazette of the United
States, publifhed by Mr. Fenno in this city;
and another in a form more
portable and convenient, purporting to be a felecti
on of addreffes and anfwers to at1d from the Prefident during the fomm
er of 1798. Not having
been able to procure office copies of the docum
ents I wi/hed to refer to, I
mull offer in evidence fuch publications as I can
find ; that clafs of publications, upon which in facL the mind of the public
is ufually made up; and
upon whofe authority the electors of this countr
y determine the characters
whom they honour with their foffrage. lnJecd
if the opinion that foll
from the court this morning be accurate, that
no man lhould hazzard an affertion but upon fofEcient and legal evidence,
and if documents from the
public offices in proof of notorious facts are
required as foch evidence,
then are the mouths of the people compleatly
!hut up on every queftion of
pub lic conduct or public character: but I canno
t he! p thinking it a fair
and reafonable pofition, that a defcn<lant in fuch
a cafe as this fhould be
permitted · to offer to the jury any evidence that
appears &c) him a fufficient
ground for his aifertion, and let them decide on
its credibility.
Judge Chace. What is it that you fay fir
fell from the court? They
have not yet decided what was or what not proper
evidence for you to adduce. The court faid if you thought the public
documents at your fervice you were mifl:aken. If you undertake to
publifh without having proper evidence before you tojul1ify your aiferti
ons, you do it at your own
rifk. Moll: a/furedly in common traverfes you
could not offer the evidence
you mention. But we acknowledge that in
fi.1cha cafe as this greater latitude may be given. If you fay the pre/ident
did write a letter you mull:
prove it. We fhould incline to admit gazettes
,md ac1s of public authority and notoriety: you might read the fpeech
of the Prefident to both
houfes of congrefs in evidence. If you want
to prove that the Pre/ident
advocated a navy, you may read the journals
of congrefs or any authentic
public document.
Mr. Cc:ip!'r.• If 1. am defeated in my endeavors to
procure thefe docu~

 (

22

)

can procure; and where there is no
ments, I mull offer fuch evidence as I
e why the publications I offer
motiv
nable
reafonable fufpicion or affig
allude to, the probability is in favour
fuould mifreprefent the tranfacl:ions I
printers of them are feverely puof their accuracy; efpecially when the
mill:ake in detailing the public
grofs
or
nifhable for wilful mifreprefentation
acts of government.
things from Mr. Cooper who is
Judge Peters. I admit a great many
t from others.
without counfel, which I would not admi
and every thing you plea(e.
thing
any
read
may
J11dge Chafe. You
extracts : Anfwer of the prefiwing
Jvlr. Cooper. Then read the follo
Marine Society. ( Patriotic addreffes
dent to the add refs of the Bofi:on
Bofi:on, 1798) p. 93. "Floating bat·
at
m,
printed for John and W. Folfo
my favourite fyfi:em of warfare and
" teries and wooden walls have been
years. I have had
-THREE
NTY
TWE
for
try
" defence for this coun
nt moment howprefe
the
At
.
lytes
" very little fuccefs in making profe
as merchants and mariwell
as
aton
cultiv
ral,
gene
in
s
" ever, American
your
fource of focurit y and protection, and
« ners, begin to look to that
sn
opini
the
ding
exten
in
t
effec
and
" affiil:ance will have great influence
:ice."
pracl
the
g
li!hin
efi:ab
and
g
ducin
" in theory, and intro
the Prefident to the young men of
To the fame purpofe is the anfwer of
friends, to arms: cfpecially by fea, to
Bofi:on. " To arms then my young
refort ; for fafety againfl: dangers
us
let
diretl
" be ufed as the law fhall
by truth, reafon or jufl:ice.'' Pat,
" which we now fee cannot be averted
add. p. 38.
dent the Secretary of the Navy.
In unifon with thefe opinions of the Prefi
refs early the next feffion (2d JaR.
Mr. Stoddart, prefented a report to cong
feventy-fours, as many frigates,
12
of
navy
a
I)
(P·
1799) recommending
er part (p. 2 and I 6) he reanoth
in
:
ls
and twenty or thirty frnaller veffe
exifting eftabli!hment .the
urs to
commended an addition of 12 feventy-fo
our moll: ferious attenve
defer
art
Stodd
Mr.
by
Some of the reafons given
d that our navy is
denie
be
not
will
Surely after thefe ftatements it
tion.•
mendation of the
recom
fay exprefs
eftablifhed under the fancl:ion, not to
Prefident.
no expreffion of blame againfi: the
In the paffage thus indicl:ed, there is
motive or conduct to the Prefioper
impr
of
tation
meafure, nor any impu
rfoge of conftrucl:ion : I did
fubte
this
dent on account of it ; but I fcorn
probation of the meafure: I thought
mean when l wrote it to imply a difap
frill. I have elfewheret fl:ated my
fo
think
I
it objecl:ionable at the time;
we are protecling our commerce
reafons for this difapprobation, and why
p. 2. " Whethe,· this ftcurity can
• The pttjfager I allude to are theft. Rep.
and our own coafl ; and whether the
" he a.ffarded unlifs we are ahfe to comm
without it, are quejlions that merved
preft
he
long·
can
" union of all thejlates
ion of American legijlatori. I
derat
conft
" rit the mrjl ji:rious and atter.th.1e
ps delicate topic.
"forbear to dwell on this fruitful, perha
he to pre'Vent in'Vajion-to prote{t our
ohjeB
our
" P. 3. Thus then, whether
erpeace-to mq/ntain peace hereafter~• commerce-to obtain a Jpeedyand prop
of our country, to guard againjl thr
part
y
e'Ver
to
ity
" or hy affording Jecur
difunion," f.:fc.
from
t
{' long train of il/J which mull: reful
, Philadelpl?i(l,
pbell
Cam
hy
d
blijhe
ti.,pu
?11e
arith
Political

t

 at double its worth : I /hall not therefore detail my reafons
for this opinion,
but appeal to you, gentlemen of the jury, if I have the
misfortune of differing in opinion with the Prefident on this fubjecl:, as
wifer heads have
done before me, whether I ought to be indicted and punifhe
d for this di!:
agreement. Our opinions are not in our own power;
they are the inevitable refult of fuch evidence and argument as we happen to
light upon : at all
events, let me alk., have I proved the facl:s as ftated or
not? If 1 have, you
cannot find me guilty confiftently with the law that has
been read to you,
or the oaths you have taken.
It is farther imputed to me as a crime, that I have faid,
under the aujpices
if the Prejide11twe are threatened with the exijlena
of a jlanding army.
I feel it very difficult to prove facl:s fo notorious as thofe
I am Cilarged
with afferting. Gentlemen of the jury, have we or have
we not a ftanding
army ? Is it or is it not fancl:ioned with the approbation
of the Prefident ?
Independent of his official approbation giving to our militar
y eftablifhment,
he has certainly expre!fed himfelf voluntarily much in
favour of the meafure. Is his reply to the addrefs of the young men
of Bofion, pat. add .
p. 37, he fays, that "this country never appeared to
him to be in greater
" danger than at that moment from within or withou
t-never
more ur" gently excited to affume the funcl:ions of foldiers."
And to the ftudents
of Dickinfon College, pat. add. 240, he hopes, that none
but thofe who
feel a natural genius and difpofition ~o martial exercife
" and exertions will
ever be called from the field of fcience," &c. Thefe
are certainly evidences of his approbation of a military force diftina from
the militia; evidences confirmed by the repeated official ftatements and
reports* of the prefent executive department on the fame fubject. Withou
t his approbation
we could not have had a ftanding artny, and to the inhabit
ants of our towns
and villages who have eyes and ears, no farther proof than
the ufe of them
is neceffary that we have one.
This meafore, like the former, I certainly meant to inculpa
te; and if I
moft fincerely difapprove it, I lball not hold an opinion
unconfirmed by ancient or modern hiflory, or by teftimonies of weight among
the dead and
the living, whofe authority Mr. Adams himfelfwiil not
difallow. Is itne- •
ceffary for me, gentlemen of the jury, to enumerate the
many governments
in ancient and modern hiftory called republics, which
a frandino- military
force has overthrown, and converted into defpotifms rt
No mai can have

* Thereport of .Colonel M'Henry to thePrefident , of Decem
and hy him recommendedto the conjideration of cong;refs,contem her:24, 1798,
platesan army of
50 , 000 men, to put tts onfafe ground. 1
jhall extra{! from the report of Colonel
M'Henry of 5th January to the Prefident and the, 13th
of February, 1800 to
congrefs, hereaftei·.
t Timotheus overthrew the liberties of Corinth; Agathocles of Syracu.fe;
Pytjlratus of Athens, Marius and Sylla, with their contend
ing armies deluged
Rome i11hiood. C,ejar hy his army compleatedthe dejlrull
ion of its government,
Under the emperorsthe prcetorian guards hccame the difpofa
rs of the empire.--Let the reader confider the injlanccs of Gujlwvus Eric/on in
Sweden, of Francis
Sforza in Milan; of Oliver Cromwell and gen. Monk
in England, and the
recent conduit of Buonaparte in France, and denyif he can
the natural hojJility
6et'l.11ernan flrll!P and liberty,
·

 ilior perufed any of the modern difcu
read hiil:ory without remar!drtg it,
we ourfelves
Are
d,
erate
enum
them
ng
findi
' ons on this fubjectt without
attending them, or are the particuunacquainted with the inconveniences
a c~untry as ours fo deep -and diffuch
i~
y
_arm
lar objections t~ a il:a~ding
thmk not; I think I may fafely
I
?
on
ficult as to reqmre diffofe 1lluftrat1
difof recent events in fupport of the
venture to truft to your recollecl:ion
any form, or
in
army
ding
ll:an
a
on
call:
to
t
approbation, I certainly mean
of
except perhaps the dubious necerEty
to any extent, or on 1my pretence,
acl:ual invafion.
every man who hears me will lifGeneral Walhington, who(e opinions
mia decided enemy of thefe kind of
ten to with refpecl:ful attention, was
, December
-refs
cono
of
es
houf
both
to
ch
fpee
litary ell:ablifhm~nts. ln his
of a
g recommended certai; meafures
:1793, he apologizes thus for havin
exbe
l:s
objec
fuch
arrangements with
militarr nature: " Nor can fuch
republican
of
ds
frien
ell:
warm
the
of
ufy
" pofed to the cenfore or the jealo
hands of a MILITIA,
They are incapable of abufe in the
« government.
of the force of the
fitory
depo
the
g
beir~
in
pride
« who ought to poffefs a
l to every military
equa
gy
ener
of
ee
deJ;r
" republic, and may be trained to a
and moll: delibelall:
that
Again-[n
States."
« emerJ;encyof the United
countrymen, he
his
to
efs
addr
ell
farew
his
rate act of his moll: ufefol life,
the neceffity of
avoid
wiil
they
Hence likewife
expreffes himfelf thus-"
ofgovernfa1·m
any
ents which under
" thofe over~rown military ell:abli/hm ichare to be regarded as particularly
'1.vh
" ment are ina'!!picious to liberty, and
general \Vafhty." Such are the fentiments of
cc hojtile to repuMican liber
l iar opportunities
pecu
him
gave
that
life
ic
publ
a
ington toward the clcfeof
all
has Mr . Adams himfelf been at
of judging OH this fubjecl:.* Nor
of
m
fyll:e
ern
mod
the
to
be at prefent
times fo favourable as he feems to
and) cc one
Engl
to
ding
(allu
he,
fays
"
feen,
il:anding armies. " We have
at
ffed of ample and fertile territories
" of the firll: nations in Europe, polfe
erce with the whole
comm
a
of
ad,
abro
s
inion
dom
" hotne, and extenfive
which ever beth, and the grea tell: naval power
cc world, immenfe weal
of the people
r
powe
the
rved
n, who have fl:ill prefe
cc longed to any natio
trial by jury,
the
by
for,
g
ndin
conte
been
have
" by the equilibrium we
,
army. The people of England alone
" and by con/fantly refuJinKa /randing
d
bloo
the
of
nce
expe
the
legiflature, at
" by preferving their !hare in the
led their kings to curb the nobility
" of heroes and patriots, have enab
y.''-t
" without gi-ving him a flanding arnr
turet•
s in particular, to which 1 may <ven
t Gordon and Trenchard' s ti-aller's
llive.
in-ve
e's
Burk
reply to Mr.
add my own continuation in Coop
.
2,
No.
ndix,
appe
See
ft tJ
*
falls.
bis
than
y
theor
his
in
t Mr. Adams is certainly more accue rate
read the hijlory of England, pai·tiettfarprijing to me that any man can ha'V
that country and the houfl of comof
rchs
larly the quarrels between the mona
the
gethe Third; the 'Variousprotejfs of
mo11S,from PFilliam the Third, to Geor
es; the obftrvaarmi
ng
andi
fl
of
t
jid,jd
the
on
lords
minorities in the houfaof
ajfert
ls of Gordon and Trenchard, and yet
tion in Cato's Letters, and the 1;•aE
was
ge
pajfa
e
abov
the
and at the time
tbat there czvasnoflanding a1·1nyin Engl
and are enlijled
Engl
in
ery
joltii
the
that
krww
s
cwritten. Did not Mr. Adam
al?
annual, and the appropriations annu
for life, although the mutiny bill is

 ( 25)
Hence then we fee that whatever the Prefident may be now,
the tim~
has been when he was not an advocate for a flandi?J.g army; if
the Prefident has thought fit to change his opinion, Hill I hope it is i10 crime
in me,
to have retained mine. The next charge, is that which refpe8:s
tr.>eprojected E11,6affiesto Pmjjia, Ruff.a and the SuMime Porte. Mr. Pickering
who is
on the bench with the court, can prove the perfons appointed,
the date of
their appointment, and their fa!aries. But this will be to occupy
time i,t
proving a matter of notorit:ty, and I feel now difinclined to enter
into all
the details of conclufbn which the fa.tis he could tell us would
lead me to.
I have much yet co go through ; J feel the effect of in ten urtion,
and therefore without reforting to his te!hmony, 1 !hall obferve very briefly
in the
firil: place, that the obvious tendency of thefe appointments,
belide providing for thofe who are nominated to them, is to put us in a way
of being
drawn into the vortex of European po!itics and European quarrels,
with
which we have nothing to do: zdly. That they arecommerlially
u!eiefs;
the commerce of this country to thofe places does not fornilh proht
enouglJ
to pay the expenfes of our diplomatic and confular eftablilhm
ents there.
3dly. That they have hitherto produced no national benefit whatever
, fo far
as the the pubiie yet know ; and 4th] y. I am, as a citizen of this
country, a
fincere convert to the doctrine of Gener3.l 'N a!hington in his
farewell
addrefs. Hear his words : " The fir fl: rule of conduB. for us
in regard
" to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations
to have
'' with them as little political connexion as poffible ; fo far
as we have
" formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfeB. good
faith : here
'' let usjlop. Europe has a fet of primary interefl:s, which to us have
no11e
" or a very remote relation.
Hence !he mufl: l:e engaged in frequent cor." troverfies, the caufes of whic!~ are effcntially foreign to our
concerns.
« Hence therefore it mull: be unwile in us to implicate
ourfelves by artificial
" ties in the c,rdinary viciffitudes of her politics, or in the ordinary
cornbi" nations and colliiions of her frieud!hips or enmities," again:
" why
" forego the advantages of fo peculiar a fituation ? why quit our
own fl:and
" upon foreign ground? why by interweaving our defl:iny with
that of
'' any part of Europe, entangle our peace and profperity in
the toils of
" Europeanambition,
rivalfhip, intereil:, humour or caprice.
'Tis our
" true policy to /l:eer clear of all permanent allial'lces ~ith any
portion of
" the foreign world: fo far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to
do it ; for
" let me not be underftood as capable of patronizing infidelity
to exilling
" engagements.
But in my opinion it would be unwife to extend them.'~
Here then, Gentlemen of the Jury, do I 11:and before you, indicted
for
being an advocate for thedodrines,
folemnly and deliberately recommended to his fellow citizens, by GEORGE WASH rn CTON.
But wt hacue borrowed mo11ryfays this paper of mine, at 8 per
ce11t£,z
time of peace.-Have we or have we not? If we have, am I l!uilty
of a.
crime in making the aifertion? or can yon really deem it neceffitry
that I
Jhould adduce proof to eft-ahli/h this fact? But perhaps Mr. Attorney
General may fay, r meant to imply a cenfure .on the Prefident for
his fancl:ion
to this meafurc: ! did fo.-f think the caufes of tile Loan,
the meafures
that produced it, Jiad a tendency u1Jfavuurable to the interefl: of
the country: I have already urged what J. had to fay on Ollr permanent
navy, and
our ftan<ling army, anu therefore I fliall not repeat the objection
,.-1
think

D

 ( z6 )
the loan was extravagant, for in no period of war do I recolleB: that Great
Britain has ever offered this high interefL I think the intereft thus given
improper, as a fant:tioning of ufury by Government, while onr laws reprefs
it individually, I dread the principles of all Loans; for I abhor a funding
fyl1:em and a nJtional debt.---lf thus to think be a crime, l mull: patiently
do T fee why this expence fuould have been
abide the punifhmcnt.-Nor
made necetT.try by any previous meafures, while th e ftate of our finances
Mr.
was fo unfriendly to any expenditure th at could have been avoided.-If
Gallatins book on the finances of this country, be not authority, it ought to
page 48 and the fobfcqnent pages of that book, you may find that
be.-In
about the time when General \Valhington declined and Mr. Adams accepted the Prelidency, our receipt and expenditures about balanced each
I
other; they were in round numbers 6½million of dollars per annum.
hold now in my hand the report of the commi'.tee of ways and means of
February z I ft. 1800, pnblilbed by order of the houfe of Reprefentatives of
Congrefs, from page 15 whereof it appears that the eftimated revenue for
the year 1800, is only 9,301,258 dollars, while the efiimated expence is
exI 5,393,034, leaving a deficiency of above 6 million of dollars ! As the
ample of borrowing at 8 per cent is now fet; time only can lbew us
how much of this alarming deficiency is to be made up by fuch loans, at
this enormous interefl:. If this he the pric(of borrowing in time of peace
what will be the intereft demanded in a period of war ! Is this giving a
proof of our fl:rength, or of our weaknefs?
exprej/ionsmight ha'lJe
when thP.'lJiolmceof 0.1,ficial
This money was borron.JJed
pro'lJokeda '11Jar.
the court will concede that Vattel's Treatife on
Gentlemen of the 'Jury,
the Law of Nations, is a book of acknowledged authority : and from that
book I will read a quotation or two. "Nothing is more oppofite to the
"duties of humanity nor more contrary to the fociety which ihould be cul" tivated by nations, than offences or aclions which give a jufc difpleafure
Every Nation therefore Jhould carefu lly avoid giving any
" to others.
at
« real offence: I fay a real ; for fhould he who manifefl:s a difpleafure
" our behaviour when we are only ufing our rights or fulfilling our duties,
" he is to blame, not we. OfFences excite foch afperity and rancour between
" nations, that we lbould avoid giving room even for ill grounded offences,
" when it can be done withont any inconveniency or failure in our duty.
" It is faid that fame medals and <lull jel1:s, were what irritated Lewis XIV
and were the chief caufe of his expedition
cc againfl: the United Provinces,
16i2, by which that Republic was brought to the brink of
"in
L. z. Ch. I. § I g.
" ruin."
Again, L. 3. Ch. 4. § 65. "Jn fo civilized an age, it may be unnecef" fary to oblerve, that in thefe pieces, pu':Jli!hcd on account of a war, all
" opprobrious wor<ls are to be avoided, together with every expreffion in" dica!ing hatred, animality, and rage, as thefe can. only excite the like
A prince, both in hL d1fcourfes and in his
in the enemy.
"fentiments
He is to ref peel:
molt noble decency.
the
o~ferve
to
ought
" writings,
" himfelf in the perfon of his equals: and though it is his misfortune
" to he at varia~ce with a 1,1ation,Ahall he inflame the quarrel by offen/ive
" expreilions, and thus deprive himfelf of the hopes of a fincere reconcili,,and in their
" tion? Homer's heroes called each other dog and drunkard,

 wars they obferve no mam:er of decorum, they were filled with the moll:
brut;il outrages.
Frederick Barbarofia with other Emperors, and the
« Popes their enemies, treated each other ,vita the fame roughnefs and
" violence. Let us congratulate our age on the fuperior gentlenefs of its
'' manners, and not deny us an empty politenefs, cufl:oms which have
« confequences truly beneficial.''
Thus far Vattel ; and I moll: fincercly wi!11it were in my power to congratulate my follow citizens ·of America, and the adminiflration of our
country, with having uniformly preferved that tone of fuperior gentlenefs, and beneficial politenefs, fo wifely recommended by our author .
.8L1tI have no fuch congratulations to make ; and it is to me a very nnpleafant talk to detail, Lhough in my own defence, thofe official expreflions
on the part of the Pre/ident, which have given undoubted caufe (and in my
opinionjuH caufe) of offence to France. I /hail pafs by the abberations from
decorum of language which I might quote from the documents of fecondary
officers, and confine myfelf however unpleafantly, to thofe which the Pre/1dent himfelf has thought fit to furnilli or to fanclion. I have manf of
tnem to adE!uce; but I feel fatigue ; and it is a talk too irkfome to wade
through the whole collection.
Gentlemen o.fthe Jury,thefe are expreffions refpeEting the characlers and
conduct of the French rulers, and of the French nation, that I am about to
quote. I know that reflections have be•m thrown upon many perfons in
this country, efpecially if they are not natives, as too much addit1:e<l to
French politics. I hope it will not be improper to obviate that Higma in
my own cafe: nor do I know how to do it but by quoting a paJfage publi111ed by myfelf, when this imputation and this trial could not have been in
cont~mplation.
lvlr. Ra-wle. Does the court co.nceive this can be evidence?
Judge Chafe. Surely not : but let Mr. Cooper read what he plea(es.
Mr. Cooper. By no means: I lliall not deliberately avail myfelf of what
is not evidence, and perhaps this is not ftrifrly fo.
flut, Gentlemen of the Jury, in a caufe like this, fo completely political,
I know the bias that may arife from the(e collateral fofpicions and party
imputations; and Twifh if I can, to meet and to refute them as they arife.
In the prclent inftance, if they are entertained by yoll, they will be ill
founded and unjuft. I am American enough to feei that both the belligerent
powers have fornifned us with a jull: rnufe for war, if common prudence
had not forbidden our refortingto it. (To Mr. Rawle) s'i.JImy extr?.ets contain references to Fenno's Gazette, but as the fcledion of addrcffes is more
handy than the filec on the table, I will ufe it tili you wifh to fee the Paper
icfolf refpecl:ing any of my quotations.
In the Pre/ident'~ anfwer to the addrefs of che inhabitants of the town of
Arlington and Sandgate in Bennington county Vermont lPat. ad. p I I, Fenno July 2, 1798) he fays," I have feen in the condutl: of the French nation
" for the JaH 12 years, * a repe,ition of their chJrader difpl;iye,l under
«

«

"' In the Prejident' s ina11K11ral
faeech o.fMarch 4, 1797, he.fap ·' if a perfanal efleem for the French nation formei in a ref1:,e11:eof fcve" years
chiefly among, and a fincere dejire to preji:r-ve the frlt' na'Jhip -which ha, 6, m fa
muck for the honour and in ter~!l o.fbeth natiom, t5 c ."

 ,

( 28)
Louis the 14th. ·and little more, excepting the extravagancie~ which
have been intermixed with it of the wilde!l: philofophy that was ever
profeffed in this world fince the building of Babel and the Fables of the
Giants who by piling mountains on mountains invaded the 1kies. If the
fpell is broken, let human nature exult and rejoice."
In the add refs of the Mayor, Aldermen &c. of the city ofVergennes in
Addifon county Vermont, patr. ad. 14. Fenno July 12, 1798, there is the
following pafiage: " The perfidious republic which boafls of its terror
" and prowefs to us is more terrible in vice and impieties than in arms."
Jn his anfwer the Prdident replies " your oppofition to that policy,
" if indeed it can be called policy, which is equally deil:ructive of perfons
" thin gs and nations, does honour to your underil:and ing and di(pofitions."
In p2ge 35 of the Pat. ad. the fame kind of language is ufed in an
addrefa from the young men of Boil:on, wherein they fay " at a period
'' when a powerfnl and petfidious nation afpiring to the dominion of the
w, world, annuls in the career of her pride all l: onds of national amity.
In the addrefs from Concord in Mai'fachufets pat. ad, 49. " they cordi" ally acquiece in the vigorous meafores adopted by our executive towards
.., an afpiring power, who unprovoked, encouraged the piracy and perfidy
" of Gothic darknefs and Vandal barbarity ; who has perpetrated crimes
" unparralleled in the hi!lory of man ! ]:\'ranee grafping at univerfal domi" nation has abandoned every moral and religious principle, trampled on
" facred faith, fported with national laws, and demanded pecuniary ex" actions which bankrupt our nation and make us /laves inil:ead of a free
" and independent people."
Mr. Ra•wle. I do not want to interrupt Mr. Cooper, but (I prefume
from inadvertence) he has read the addreffes to the Prefident as if they were
the anfwers of the Prelident. I do not think he wilhes to miilead, but this
is improper, I do _not find that the aniwer to the addrcf~ of the young men
ot Bolton * contarns the pa!fage he has qnoted.
Judge Chafe. I wifh Mr. Cooper.to do and fay whatever he choofes ; go
on Sir.
Mr. Cooper. If I have committed a miil:ake I am very forry for it, but I
have committed none : where this language is permitted or encouragedwhere the anfwers re-echo or ,tpprove the addrefies, that approbation amounts to an adoption by the Preftdent. For inftance, in the anfwer to the
laft addrefs I read, the Prefident begins " Gentlemen, I thank you for this
" add refs, Your encomiums on the executive authority of the government
"is in a high degree flattering." Sir, I have a right to contend that this retort
complimentary, on the part of the Prcfident, is a direcl: approb,,tion of the
language of the add refs. I need not however refer to the addrefies at all,
for 1 have eno:igh among the anfwers in the twenty other infiances J have
feletl:ed, compleatly to ellablil11my pofition ; not that a few cafes of harfh
anrd intemperate language, have inadvertendly efcaped through warmth
of temper and a fenfe of national provocation, but that they have been
fyfiematically, perfeveringly, indulged in.
But I begin to grow weary of this caufe; and I.feel difinclined to fatigue
"
"
"
"
"

* Lord Ker,yon has decided 5 Term
tJnjwers are matters of State,

Rep. 44:, t!.,at both addreffes and

 rnyfelf and you fii!l more by wading through this colleclion of unpleafant
and irritating expreffion: nor do I thinkit wortL while to employ my time
and yours in contending every technical objection. I did not fully ex peel: foch
frequent interruptions, on a trial of this nature, or to have fought my way,
per tot am6ages, per tot difc1·imina rerum. l fhall quit therefore the paper
of extracts t l hold in my hand, and quote no more of them. But thete a4<lreifes and anfwers are not the only foundations of the a!f:rtions I made.
The French thernfel ves have complained of this v10lent lan;;uage and unjdl: accufation of their principles and conduct. They have felt the indignity~ and have exprefsiy made it an olylacle to negotiation. In page 19 of
the inftruclions to the Envoys, &c. publi!hed by the Secretary of StHe, in
conformity to the refolntion of Congrefa of June 22, I 79$, •hole .Envoys
inform us that « M. Y. took out of his pocket a French tranfid.tion of the
" Prelident's fpeech, the parts of which ohjeB:ed to by the Directory, were
'' marked agreeably to our requefl: to M. X. and are cont a:.nd in the
" exhibit A," (this exhibit I need not read at length: it wit be found in
p. 24 of the book 1 am quoting.) " Then he made us the fecond fet of pro" pofi.tions, which were dictated by him and written by M X. in our
" prefence, and delivered to us, and which tranfiated from the French are
'· as follows: There is demanded a formal difavowal in writing, de" claring that the fpeech of the Citizen Prelident Karras Jid not contain
" any thing offenlive to the governmer.t of the United States, nor any
thing which <leferved the epithets contained in the whole par e-graph.''
In another part of the fame page the envoys tell us M. Y. informed
them that " the directory were extremeiy irritated on account of fome f'a~ts
of the Prefident's fpeech."
Now, gentlemen of the jury, that fpeech is
rnildne_fs itfelf compared with the extracls I have read, and was prepared
to read to you fr.om the addrdfes and anfwcrs of the Prefident, publifhed
in the fame month with this very book.
1n page 92 the Envoys give us a tran/lation of the letter of M Talleyrand, the minifier of foreign relations, to them . ln p. 97 there is the fol·
lowing paragraph of that Jetter. " The newfpapers § known to be under
" the indirecl: controul of the cabinet, have, lince the treaty, redoubled
the inveclives and calumnies againfl: the republic anJ againfi her princi" pies, her magifirates and her envoys. Pamphlets openly paid for by the
" minifter of Great Britain, have re-produced in every form thofe infults
" and calumnies, without a ftate of things fo fcandalous ever having attract:" ed the attention of the government which might have reprdfcd it. On
" the contrary the government itfelf was intent upon encouraging this fcan" dal in its publie acls. The executive direclory has {een itfelfdenou iced
" in a fpee1shdelivered by the Prefident in the courfe of the month of May
" laft (0. S.) as endeavouring to propagate anarchy and divifi.on within
" the United States. The new- allies which the republic has acquired,
" and who are the fame that contributed to the independence of Americans
" have been equally infolted in the official correfpondencics that have been
" ~ad~ public, or in the newfpapcrs. In fine, one cannot help difcover" rng m the tone of the fpeech and of the publications which have juJt

t Vide Appendix no. 3
§ See Appendix No, 4.

 (

30

" been poi11ted out, a latent enmity which only waits an opportunity tQ
" break out."
Gentlemen of the jury, after the ferious manner in which the tone of official expreilions had been noticed by the French nation-after it was made
was the prudence or propriety
an avowed obfl:;1cleto negociation-where
of a perfevering reiteration of language foch as I have read to you ? For
my own part, l cannot help thinking fuch conduct in a publiccharafler rafh
and indecorous, and highly deferving the reprehenfion l have expreffed.
The next and Jail point, that which /eems to be the mo.!l ferious of all,
is, the interference of the Priftdent in the decijion of a court of ju/lice in the
cafa of Jonathan Rcbhins.
This cafe has received foch full and foch ,·ecent difcuffion ; it has been fo
much talked of in congrefa, and \I ritten of out of congrefs, that I do not
think it necdEiry to enter into all the details of evidence and argument
which would have been neceffary could I have prefomed you unacquainted
with the fobjetl:. I !hall, however, prove to you, gentlemen of the jury,
that there has been foch an interference on the part of the Prefident, that it
was not only without, but againl1 precedent and againlt law; and if fo,
you will alfo conclude with me that it was again le mercy. Here is the meffage of the Prefident tocongrefs on the cafe of Jonathan Robbins, authenIn page 5 • Mr. Pickerticating the communications of Mr. Pickering.
ing llates, that he had communicated Mr. Lillon's application to the Prefide11t, and that Nalh (Robbins) is charged, as it is undcrftood, with piracy
and murder, committed on board a. Britilh frigate on the high feas ; the

* Philadelphia, June 3d, 179~·
S:'r,
lvlr. Lilon, the minijler of his BritaHnic majefty, has requefted, that Thom:zs
Najh, n.»howas a Jeaman on board the Britijh frigate Hermione, and ,who be
is iRformed is n,;w a prifaner in the jail of Charlefton, Jhould he defi,vered up.
I ha'Ve_/lated the matter to the Priftdent of the United States. He confiders
an ojji:nce committed on board a public )hip of war, on the high faas, to ha'Ve
Geencommitted n.»ithin the jurijdiclion of the nation to whom the Jhip belongs.
Na/h, is charged, it is unde1'flood, with piracy and murder, committed by
him on board rhe aho'Ve-mentioned Brit{/h frigate, on the high faas, and conjequently " within the jurifdic7ion" of his Britannic majejfy; and therefore, hy
the 27th article of the treaty of amity with Great-Britain, Najh ought to be
delivered up, as requefted by the Britijh minijler, provided fuch evidence of
his criminality be produced, as by the laws of the United States, or of
South-Carolina, would juftify his apprehenfion and cornmitm:nt for t~ial,
if the offence had been committed within the jurifdic:1ion of the Umted
hereof authoriud me to communicate
States. The Priftdent has in cr,1!feq11ence
to you " his ad-viceand requeft'' that Thomas Na/h, may be de/i<vered.up to the
conjid or other agent if Great-Britain, who )hall appear to ,·ecei'Ve him.
I ha'Ve the ho,10rto be, Ge. Ge.
TJMOTHY PICKERIA'C.
(Signed)
The honorabie Thomas Bee, efq. }
fudge if the dijfrilt o.f SowhCar&lina.

 31 )
Prelident gives his opinion on the fubject of ju~ifdicrion, ~nd <;n the conftruclion of the claufe of the treaty ; and authorizes Mr. P1ckermg to communicate the Prefident's ADVICE and RE~JEST
that Nafh fhould be
delivered up. Now , gentlemen, without entering into any argument on
the queftion of territorial jurifdiction; or the conftruction of the claufe of
the treaty-without going into the point that the crime of piracy gave jurifdiaion to the court here-I reft my affertion that the Prefident interfered
improperly on this; that if he had authority to do what he did, he would
not have ad--vi/ed and req1a/J-ed,but RE Q__U1 RED Ai- !• D I RE c TED : an ad vice
may be rejected; a rea__ueltmay be refuted, without attaching blame to the
perfon who by this language is permitted to exercife his own judgment and
inclination.
Either the Prefident had authority to interfere or he had not;
if he had authority, the language fhould have been peremptory and not
fubjecl: to excufe or evafion. lf he had not authority he Jhou!d not ha'Ve interfered at all. But it is as evident as language can make it, that the Prefident doubted of his own jurifdiclion ; advice and requeft is the expreHion
of hefitation and diftruft; he felt the impropriety of his conducr at the time,
and his language bears the impreffion of his feelings.
I might have made enquiry by teftimony into the circumll:ancesattending
the trial of the failors from the Hermione before his honour Judge Chafe,
in New-Jerfey.
In thofe cafes we hear of no foch interference, though
1 have underftood they were precifely fimilar to that under difcufficn: but [
really feel myfelf too much exhaufted to go into any verbai tel1imony on
this head of the charge, though I had much to examine.
Court. Then if you do not mean to examine witneifes, the gentlemen
who attend on this occafion need not be detained .
Mr. Cooper. Certainly not now: I mufl: relinquifh my intentions, for I
fhall not be able to go through with them.
Court. .Sir, the court do not want to prefs you; they will w:iit for an
hour if you wilh it to give you time to recruit your !l:rength.
1'dr. Cooper.,, I am much obliged to the court, and to the gentlemen who
have attended; but I !hall proceed and finifh as foon as I can.
I have faid this was an interference th2.t the monarch of Great-Britain
would have l11nrnk from. Let the cafe be pointed out if it cau, whe,. a monarch of Great-Britain has made fuch an attempt,
1 know of none; .:nd
1 know alfo enough of the law and of the fpirit of that country, to be 13.tisfied, that no fuch attempt would be ventur ed on there.
It is without precedent--! fay fort her, it is again!l precedent. l hc!d in my
hands the cafe of the United State, vs. judge Lawrence (p. 42 of 3 Dal!.
Rep.) The fub!l:ance of that cafe is this : Capt. Darre of the French vc:!fd
le Perdrix, abandoned his foip, became rdident at New York, w::s claimed as a deferter by the Conful of the French Republic, an<l required to be
delivered up under the 9th art. of the confular convention between the
United States and france, which authorizes the mutuai delivery of deforters
to the confols or vice confu!s of the refpeclive Countries, on dem:md m:Hle
in writing to the Courts, Judges, and officers comp etent ; and ou proof by
the exhibition of the Ship'i Roll, that the perfons required were part of the
Crews. The French confol could not prod i.ce the origmal regifkr or role
d'equipage, but a copv only: this, Jud?"e Lawrence thourrht inrufficient
evidence underthe cla~fe of the Conventi~n.
The Miuiik~ of the French

 ( 32 )
Republic then applied to the executive, complaining of the refofal, ;;nd
" the prefent motion was made in order to obtain the opinion of the Su" preme Court (of the U.S.) upon the fubject for the fatisfaction of the Mm " ifter. After counfel were heard in oppofition to the motion" the Attorney
General (Bradford) in reply premifed that the Executive of the U. S. had
"no inclination to prefs upon the Court any particular confl:rutlion of the
"article on which his motion was founded, but as it was the wifh of our
" Government to preferve the purell: faith with all nations, the Prdident
"could not avoid paying the higheft ref peels and the promptcll: attention
"to trie reprefentation of the Minifter of France, who conceived that the
"decifion of the diftrict Judge involved an infraction of the conventional
"rights of his repub]i<:, *u *,. In the prefent cafe from the nature of the
"fubject as well as from the fpirit of our political confl:itution, the Judici" ary department is called on to decide. For it is cfiential to the indepen" dance of that department, that judicial miftakes fhould only be corrected by
"judicial authority. The Prefident therefore introduces the queftion for
"the con!ideratiou of the Court, in order to infure a punctual execution of
"the Laws, and at the fame time to manifell: to the world the folicitude of
"our Government to preferve its faith and to cultivate the friendf'nip and
'' ref peel of foreign nations.
Here then in bothcafes, (the conH:itutional powers of Gen. Walhington
and Mr. Adams being the fame) a foreign Conful claims a Man to be delivered up under a Claufe ofa treaty. The claim in bovh cafes is made to a.
diftrict Judge: in both cafes the foreign Minifier afterwards a;,piies for the
fame purpofe to the Prcfident of the U. S. and at this point, the Similitude
ends. For Gen. "\Vafhington did not hazard an opir.ion of his own or exert
executive influence in favour of the application from the french minii1er, but
Adams did haintroduced the quejiio11for the co11jiderationof the Court-Mr.
zard hisown opinion in favour of Mr. Liflon's application, and advifed and
requefted Judge Bee to conform to it. Gen. \Vafhington "had no inclina" tion to prefi upon the Court any particular conjlruflion of the clauft in the
Treaty" Mr. Adams not only inclined, but indulged his inclination in prefsing upon .Judge Bee that confl:ruclion of the claufe in the Treaty which was
moil: favourable to the Britiih claim. Gen. Wafhington deemed it "e_ffintial tc the independenceof the Judicia,:y Department, that judicial m~!Jakes
Adams not fo tender of ju"jhould 6e corrd/ed 6y judicial authority"-Mr.
diciary honour and independence, boldly fatisfied the fcruples of Judge
Gen. Wafhington "from the nature of the
Bee by executive aurho:ity.
"Juhjt-fl, aJ «.»ellaJ from the Spirit ~/ ourpolitical Conjlitutio11" left the ju-•
nature of the fobjett and
diciary department to decide the qudl:ion-Tbe
the fpirit of our political Confiitution, were no obftacles to,Mr Adams; he
decided the quefiion himfelf without being refl:rained by the one confider:i.tion or the other. Jn the c~ifeofcapt. Barre, Gen. Wafhington had a pretence for interfering, which Mr. Adams had not; for it was the application
the
of the confol alone that gave jurifclicl:ion to Judge Lawrence-whereas
charge of Piracy in the cafc of Robbins brought him compleatly within
tiie jurifdiclion of our Courts, even tho' it had been legally eitablifhed that
he was a native fobject of the Briti(h monarch. Gen. Wafhington acted
in a new cafe ; he had no previous decifion to guide his conduct ; he can

 ( 33 )
counter to no precedent of authority, to no cafe in point ; no charge of
Piracy gave undeniable jurifdit1ion: even though his good fen(e had not
prevented his interference with Judge Lawrence, the miibke ~ight in him
have been forgiven-But Mr. Adams had a precedent to go ',y ; he haq
law to guide his conduct? the cafe in point was within the compafs of his
inforIJ?ation ; the exam pie fet by his predeceffor,
Gentlemen of the jury, after thefe ohfervations it will be for you to decide whether I have a!ferted too much in faying that Mr. Adar:1sinterfered
wi~hout precedent and againfl:law-might I not have been juftified had I gone
a little farther!' if he did fo, it was again!l mercy, for the man was hanged.
In this meifage of the Prcfidcnt there are certificates from certain perfons of the town of Danbury denying that any man or any famil)' of the
name of Robbins had been known for many years within that town. There
are two or three :!ingular circumftances attending thefe certificates.
l'.fr. Rawle. This is information fobfequent to the libel.
Judge Chafe. Is not the whole of the Mefiage of the Prefident fobfequent
to the publication charged in the indicrment ? If fo, how can it be evi 7
dence ? Sir, you had not this evidence before you when you wrote that
paper.
.
Mr. Cooper. Sir, the point in qnefl:ion is, the truth orfal:fahoodof the
charge. I had evidence fufficient before me when I wrote it; fufficient to
fatisfy my own mind: what if I have flill better evidence now? ls tl1e fac;:
the lefs true becaufe the Prefident confirms it? The facts had been publilhr
cd in almo!l every paper of the United States-they were detailed a~
length in a publication then before me, and now on the table, by a mofl:
rcfpecrable member of the Senate, Mr. Charles Pinckney; which I do not
offer in evidence becaufe I know it will be obj.,aed to. Befides this,
I have already flared that thefe fat1s are and mull: be to the jury, matters
of recent ancl public notoriety: they are fo ref:rred to by Mr. Pickering in
his own report : they !-:aveboen given in all the debates in Cong refs lately
publi1bed, and even now daily publifhing ; and I haye a right, as 1 think,
to adduce this mefiage, at leaft as additional and cor·ro6orati'Ve teftimony.
But the ilfue between us is, TRUE or NOT TRUE; the iffue is not,
had I the 6ejl evidence at the time I wrote or not. \Vhatever e,·idence I
poffeifed at the time I wrote, it is enough for me at this time, to
prove that what I wrote was and is true: and the me/fage goes directly to
this point.
Gentlemen of the Jury, I fay there are two or three fingular circumftances attending thefe certificates. They alfo, are far more liable to this
objeclion than the evidence I have olfered ; for they have been preifed
into the fervice, long after the publication df .Robbins's affidavit that he
was a native American. Thefe certificates do not ftate that no foch family
as Robbins, was known in the neigh6ourhood of Dan6ury, as I fincerely believe may yet be proved. ,..- The time of the enquiring into this facl:is
alfo curious : ·while Robbins was ;div~, while he claimed (for Iagain
repeat it as a notorious facr, and a facl referred to by Mr. Pickering himfelf in the firft page of the Report, that he did cla.im) to be a native

*

Vide appendi~No. 5.

E

 ( 34 )
American, no enquiry was thought necelfary: while he could have
an opportunity to repel by evidence a counter affidavit, none was
made:
nay the Judge himfelf appears to have thrown the confide ration of citizenfr,ip out of the queftion.--Butnow,
when Robbins has been delivered up and executed--when
the enquiry can d@
him no fervice, and he is no longer alive to direct or to benefit by
it, it has become an important quellion ! The induftry of Mr. Pickering
has be~n exerted to bring us proof from all quarters, from Connecl:icut to
Jamaica: the guarded evidence of the wife men of Danbury, and the difin•
terell:ed teftimony of Sir Hyde Parker are fet in anay againft the claim of
Robbins. The Prefident tranfmits this accumulation of irrefragable proof to
Congrefs; our Reprefentatives debate upon it; and the citizenfuip of Robbins at length becomes a quell:ion moil: material to be afcertainedt ; If the
evidence I have offered is objecl:ionable, what fuall we fay to Mr. Pickerings authorities? It is well that Congrefs is not fcrupulous about the admiffibility of teftimony : It is well that the evidence contained in the Prelidents melfage on this part of Robbin's hifl:ory, was not fubjecl:ed to as many tells as I have had to combat!
Gentlemen, I do contend that this is not like a trial on a matter of property, where every technical objecl:ion to evidence is admiffible. That evidence which does in fuel:, and ought in reafon, to decide your political conducl: when yon are Ollt of that box, i:; the kind of evidence which ought to
decide mine; and it is unreafonable in my opinion on a political trial to re quire any other ; or to harrafs a -defendant by putting him to the enormous
trouble and expence of travelling from one end of the Continent to the other,
to bring forward legal evidence of a facl: which nobody doubts before hand.
I do contend, Gentlemen of the Jury, that there are, and may be certain
facl:a of public politics fufficiently notorious to obviate the nec~llity of
legal proof, and whofe notoriety, is itfelf a matter of facl:, which may in
all cafes be fafely left to a Jury to judge of.
The affidavit of Jonathan Robbins fo often publifued, fo commonly
known, whofe authenticity has never been fcrupled, tho' its veracity has
lately been denied, is one of thofe notorious fads that fall within the fpirit
of the preceding obfervations. While Robbins lived, it was uncontradiB:ed
by equal evidence; indeed it is fo !till : l had reafon to give credit to it at
the time I wrote, and I believe in the probability of it now.
Gentlemen, I have gone through all the charges ; and I am fatisfied that
I have brought in fupport of my afi'ertions, the befr evideuce the nature of
my cafe would admit of.-It is true by reforting to Danbury for depofitions
and to Charles Town for records, I might have made the evidence in the
]aft charge, more com pleat ; but I did not and do not think them necelfary
·to produce further convicl:ion on yoar minds, than you feel on the fubjecl:
already. This is an important point under the law in queil:ion. If foch
Hrictnefs of tefl:imony is required, there is an end at once of all political converfation in promifcuous fociety. The time, the labour, the difficulty, the

t Why ? becaujethe ajjidavit of RohMns, and the imprij/ion made hy Roh1,in' s claim mujl he wmteratled.
But is not tbe pains thus taken, fu ll evidence
<;/the Notonety of the claim!

 expence, the harraffment and fatigue, of mind as well as of body, which
fuch doclrine would occafion, to every citizen whom a corrupt adminifl:ration might determine to ruin, would be an engine of oppreffion of itfelf
fufficiently pow~rful to eftablifh a perfecl defpotifm over the prefs ; and
would be a pumlhment for innocence before trial, too fevere to be inflicted
on (edition itfelf. I think you muft feel the truth of thefe remarks : the pro~
ceedings on this trial, irrefiftibly foggeft them.
Gentlemen, if the affertions I have made are true, whatever the motives
of them may be, you cannot find me guilty. But I think it impoffiblc if
you confider the paper all together that you can afcribe the publication of it
to malice: it is on the force of it not voluntary but compelled. I have in
the very outfet of the paper fpoken well of the Prefident: l have been in
the habit of thinking his intentions right, and his public conduct wrong :
and that this has been the general ten nor of my language and behaviour, I
believe I can even now bring proof enough from among my friends and
my neighbours. Mr. Cooper calls two witneifes.
Judge Chafa. This is not nece!fary: it is your conduct, not your charafter that is in queftion. If this profecution were for a crime againft the
United States, you might give evidence t-0your character and !hew that you
have always been a good citizen, but this is an indictment for a libel againft
the Prefident, where your general characler is not in queftion.
Mr. Cooper. I am fatisfied.-I
fuall fatigue the Jury no Ionger.-But
reft my defence here.

Mr. RAWLE, in ,·eply:Gentlemen of the Jury,
The defence you have juft heard is one of the moll: extraordinary and
unexampled I ever remember to have witneifed in a court of jullice. lt
is no lefs than to call into decifion whed1er Thomas Cooper, the defendant,
or the Prefident of the United States, to whom this country has thought
proper to confide its moft important interefts, is heft qualified to judge wJ.1ether the meafures adopted by our government are calculated to preierve the
peace and promo te the happinefs of America. This, however, does not
feem to me the real point which you are to try; and I fuall therefore (under direction of the court) proceed to ftate what 1 conceive to be the queftion which you, Gentlemen of the Jury are now called upon to determine.
Thomas Cooper is charged in the Indiclment with having publifued a falfc;
frandalous and malicious libel with intent to defame the Prefident of the United States and to bring him into contempt and difrepute, and to excite
againft him the hatred of the good people of tlciiscount1 y. In the aEt whicfl
defines this offence, and points out the puniihment, a liberality of defence
is gi\ ·en, unknown I believe in any other Country * where the party is tried for a libel on the Government.
Here, the defendant i~ allowed
under the third feclion cf that a&, to give in evidence the trutp. of the
matters charged as a libel in the publication, and the Jury have a right to
determine the Law and the faEt qndcr the diretl:ion of the Court. The

* Mr. R awle forgatthat tbejqme defence is ;:iven in Enif and under "V..'hat
ism/led Mr. Fox' s /n'/1.

 ttue fpiti't of the Law is that the defendant !hall not be found guilty ofpublifhing defamatory wriLings, ,unlefs they be falfe, nor altho' they may be
falfe, ihall he be cbnfidered as guilty under the law, unlefs the intent of the
publication appear to be m·alicious.
That fuch publication has proceeded upon a knowledge of the truth, he
is permitted to give as matter of e.vidence; and if true, it mull: be allowed
to go far to fatisfy the minds of the Jury, that the malicious motives imputed to him are not true. · In private all:ions for fiander, where a man feeks
pecuniary rearefs for the injury . his character has fuJbined, the defendant is
entitled to give in evidence as a defence to the action, the truth of the
words fpoken or die written libel; and if the truth of the affertions be proved, it will amount to a juftilication. There is no difference then between
the defence that may be fet np to an aclion of fiander, or libel on a private
perfon, and that which is permitted under the law whereon this indicl:ment
is grounded.
•
The defend.ant has undertaken to fatisfy the mind of the Jury that in this
publication he had no malicious intention againJl the Prefident of the United States; I join iifoe with him on the point, and req ueit your particular
attention to it. He al!edges that he did not impute improper motives to
the Prelident, and attempts to fubftantiate his allegation by referring you to
his declaration in the outfet where_he fays that " l tannot believe him (the
Prelident) capable of fuch grofs m1freprefentations, fpr I frill think weil of
his intentions, however [ may aifapprove of his conduct," but to this l
!hall add that he goes on and concludes with a paragraph, evincing in the
clearefl: manner a fettled delign to perfuade the public that the Prefident of
the United States is not fit for the high office he bears, and of this you mull:
be fully convinced from the whole teno• of the expreffions which have been
read to you in the Indicl:ment.
It is very far from my views to prefs hard upon any part of his long arlclrefs to you, or to make ufe again.ft him of any unguarded expreffion,
which on more delibernte conlideratiort he mighthave omitted or corrected;
yet when I cannot but obferve from the whole tenor of his prefent argument, as well as from his publication, that his object i; not fo much to convince you Gentlemen of the Jury, that his afsertions are true, as to call an
~nmerited reflection on the general characl:er and conduct of the Prefident,
I cannot help fufpecting him of the motives .he difclaims, and I mull do my
duty by expoling the delign as well as the fallacy of the juftification he has
fee up.
The defendant has ufed a little obforvation refpecl:ing the feparating in
the indicl:ment the text ,from the context, as I believe he was· pleafed to ttr:n
it ; and argued that by this means the moll: upright intentions and laudable
expreffions might be perverted from their true and obvious meaning. Such
an infinuation however is not calculated to influence your minds. In framing an indiclrnent it is my duty to leave out matters of little importance,
and to introduce thofe circumftances only that are truly and legally reprehenfible: and he well knows that he can read if he pleafes the whole of the
publication, and that you will have it with you when you confider of your
Verdict.
You will judge therefore whether by this obfervation it was his,
or whether it is my defign to confound and perplex the fenfe.

 ( 37 )
Whether the refleffions he has thrown upon the condua of Government in

fo manyinlbnces throughout his defence a~ well as in his publication, evince

the regard he profelfes to entertain for the intentions of the Prefident, is to
meas it will he tO you extremely dubious; nor have thofe profeflions beenconfirmed by the fingular manner in which he has cited and [elected the pa{fages
on which his defence has been grounded. Throughout the quotations he has
made, particularly from the addreffes to the Prefident, and the anfwers to
them, there has been a feries of mifreprefentations which it will be my duty
to obferve upon when I com,eto confider that part of the charge and his vindication of it. But it is fair to obferve that if from the perufal of partial extracl:s and palfages felecl:ed from various publications he has thought proper
to publi{h a libel, fuch as that for which he is indicted againfi: the character
of our Prefident, there is no excufe for his conduct ; ifon the other hand he
had the whole of the publications before him, and has extratl:ed from them
partially andjunfairly, his conducl: is frill more reprehenfible, and there is the
lefs excufe, as it is evident, and as you Gentlemen of the Jury, muft have
obferved, that he is a man of talents and letters.
Mr. Cooper has thought proper to take up the feveral pa{fagcs of his
publication in the order in which they Hand in the indicl:ment, and in replying to what he has faid I !hall follow t he order he has purf ued.
I pafs over the paffages refpecl:ing the incapacity of the Prefident, and
the infancy of political miftakes as of no great importance, and proceed to
that part of the publication which accufes our Chief Magiftrate of having
fanaioned and promoted, a permanent navy, a ftanding army, and a loan
at the high intereft of 8 per cent in time of peace, whila the unnecdfary
violence of official expreffions might juf1:lyhave provoked a war.
Here then the implication againfi: the Prefident is that at the fame time
when he was unnecelfarily plunging us into a War he promoted a Navy,
a ftanding _Army, and borrowed money at an exorbitant intereft, the one
meafure calculated toenllave and the other to oppre(s. But Gentlemen, how
has thedefendantlhownthis, what proof has he offered that thefe are meafores
for which the Prefident in particular is blameable? Need I recall to your reco!leB:ion the Summer of the year I 798 when in confequence of the di fgraceful and infulting treatment and rejection of our envoys by the French Government, the Citizens of this Country from every part of the United States
addrelfed the Prefident approving his meafures and pledging their fopport? Amongfi: others the Marine fociety at Bofron came forward congratulating the American Nation thc:t their beloved Wa!hington has been fucceeded by a Man who treads with eqt1al fi:eps the honeft plain and ftrait
road fo ftricl:ly follQwed by that wife and able fi:atefman.
II\ this particular cafe gentlemen, with your permiflion I will read the
whole of the ;infwer (reads the anfwer from Patriotic Addrelfes, page 95.)
Now gentlemen I appeal to you, was it notjnatural and becoming, that in anfwering the addrefs of a marine fociety, the Prefident fhould dwell upon the
topic mofi:congenial to their inftitution? Thofe who do not look with aje;i.lous eye on every action and catch with a propenGty to blame at e\'ery
word he utters, thofe who know the charatl:er of that gentleman in private
life, and who have impar tially witnelfod his unremitting endeavours to pro-

 mote the defence and welfare of his country can furely 6nd nothing but what
they may fincerely praife in the anfwer I have ju/l: read to yon.
The next palTage Mr. Cooper has quoted is from the addrefs of the
young men of Ballon: this addrefs and the anfwer has been ufed for two
purpofes to fupport; his pofition that the Prefident had recommended a navy
and an army. Gentlemen I will read the whole of the anfwer (reads from
page 370 Patriotic Addrefs.) I confefs I was much furprifed to find that after the Preiident had recommended them to follow the "example of their
fathers, one of whofe firll: principles it was to unice in themfelves the character of citizens and foldiers, and efpecially to preferve the latter always
fubordinate to the former." I was very much furprifed to find that fuch an
anfwer could be quoted as reprehenfible.
To arms then my young friends to arms efpecially by fea, to /;e ujed as
the law diref/1. Gentlemen can fuch fentiments fo honell:ly guarded, be
tortured into proof of the Prefidents intention to plunge us into a war, to
introduce a fl:anding army and a permanent navy? Gentlemen thefe are not
theconclufions you will draw. The paternal care of the Preli dent has hitherto happily watched over this country, and he knew and wifely fignified the
time when we ought to be prepared for thofe gloomy events, which we had
too much reafon to expect. Whether the adduction of thefe paffages can fupport the defendant in his defence againfl: a malicious libel you are the heft
'
judges.
The defendant has read to you a palTage culled from ;the anfwer of the
Prefident to the fl:udentsof Dickenfon college, wherein he hopes that none of
them but fuch a~ feel a natural genius and difpofition to martial exercife and exertions, will ever be called from the pleafing walks of fcience
to repel any ,ittack on their rights, liberties and independence: furely gentlemen if a moderate and affectionate fentiment of this kind, is to be tor
tured into an approbation of a military force or a fl:anding army, the moft
innocent expreffions are not fafe from perverlions. I cannot however forbear to remark with how little propriety the defendant has compl<1inedof
pa!fages being felected from his publication for indictment without the
context as he calls it, when his whole defence refts upon pa{fages thus picked ant, to foit the unfair and malicious purpofes of his defence, an epithet
which I feel myfelf entitled to ufe, when l confider how that defence has
been conducted and on what it refts.
But gentlemen of the jury, the defendant mull: have very little knowledge of the exifting circumfl:ances of this country,,. when he talks tQ you
* Either Mr. Rawle or I, mu.ft ha'Ve -very little knowledge if the exijling
circumflancn if this country . I fea,· he i1 liahle to the retort, 1mttato nomine de
te fabula narratur. The term ftanding army 'VJegot from England, when it is
applied to a military force in continual and not in periodical dijcipline like the militia. In that country there ha1 been a ftanding army i. e. a continued military
force independentif the militia for 1 5o year 1 at leaft; the men are enlijledfar
lift and yet the 1m1tinybill under which that force exifts i1 annual. Dou Mr.
Rawle know or does he not, that in tb1 5 year-army of thi1 country a1judge
Chafl 'IJJOUldcall it ,-the men continue to be enlijledfor 5 years from the date
of their enliftmeut. So that at the end if 2 ye,an for injlance, a ma11i~ not enlijied for 3 year1 but /till for 5yean ! Does Mr. Ra'!-vle know that tbu u co_fl·
farmahle to the recommendatiom of the Secretary at war in hi; report tranfm,tto Congrejs 1 yh Jan11ary lafl? and that the recruiting injlrutlions are to
~
this purpoft?

c»

 39 )

of a ftanding army •. 1:here neither is nor can be a ftanding army in this
country the appropnauons for the pay of the army cannot be made for
more th;n two years at a time, nor has the Prelident more to do with the
army than the Congrefs or the Senate,t and the reflections thrown upon
your firfr magil'lrate are equally applicable to your reprefentatives. A man
fo ignorant of the fubje~, or whofe reading has been fo carelefs, is v_eryunqualified to call:a reflethon on the conduct of our government, or to intlruct
the people on the nature and tendency of the meafures of adminiitration.
With refpect to the loan at 8 per cent. if money has been borrowed at
that rate of intereft, of which however the defendant has produced to you
no proof, it has been done under the authority of Congr efs .and their mea•
fores" in this refpect the Prefident has fanctioned as he had a right to do,
and as I think (confiding in his wifdom and integrity) he has rightly done.
Gentlemen, I do not pretend to be a judge of the propriety of this meafure. The Defendant fays no other country has borrowed at fo high a
rate ofintereft in time of peace; but neither is he qualified to judge of this
any more than myfelf; thofe who are qualified and who have been appointed for the purpofe, have judged for the nation; and I am fati sficd as I
-doubt not you are. But to raife furmifes and folpiciona of the wifdom and
defign of meafures of this kind, which he cannot know fufficient of to explain,
or the people to uaderftana, is evidence in my opinion that his deiign at
lea!!: was to excite the hatred of the good peopl e of this country againft
their Prefident.
The Defendant proceeds to charge the Prefident with unneceffary violence of official expreffion that might juftly have provoked a war. Gentlemen, you all of you know the provoking and unj1,1ftifiablecondutl: of the
French Nation towards our envoys : the repeated defigns and attempts
of this country to procure an adjuftment of di.fferences on equitable ground s,
and the firange and unexampled propofitions made in return by the Government of France. It is not for me to dilate upon thefe topics, or on the
depredations fubfequently committed by that N ation on the American Commerce, you all of you know, y-::>
u all ~f you muft have felt in fome d egr ee
the confequence of her injuftice : the Pr efident, far better acquai nted with
thefe proceedings againft Amer ica and the tendency of them, made ufe of
fuch exprelfions as the ftate of the country and the fenti men ts of the people
required. Of this he was the heft judge, and I doubt not in this infiance
as in every other of his wife and patriotic adminiftration he judged for the
heft. The Defendant however ftill wifer than the Prefidentjudged otherwife, and has accordingly ventur ed to advance before the public the harfh
Crimination we are now confidering.
Gentlemen, the Defendant has quoted p,iifages from the addrcfs of the
inhabitants of Vergennes in V erm ont. I ha ve before remarked to you
the Jingular , and I think the unfair method of fele..:l:ionthe D efendant has

t res he had: for the meajures originat ed f rom the Juggeftions in his jpeeches
to Cong,·ejs, and the reports of his Secretary of r<»llr.
" Mr. Ra w le probably f org ot that the P rejident was auth ori'K'.edto horro-w
uponJu ch terms, and co•tdit ions as he thought mojl ad'Vantageous to the United
Sta/fl ; and tha t the rate of intereft 'Was the mraji 1re ofthe E:xeculi'lie D epariment.

 ..

( 40

adopted; and the impropriety of ftating the fentiments of the addrefs itfelf
as if it were the anfwer of the Prefident and attributable to him. I will rea<i
you the paffage ( reads it.) no foch pa{fage appears in the anf wer of the Prefident, and whether the fentiments-contained in it are true or not, they purport to be the fentiments of others and not of the Prefident. Such is the
way in which this Defence has been conduB:ed, I will not go through the
reft of Mr. Coopers quotations, becaufe I do not think they have produced
any effecl:on your minds or on the minds of the Court, which it is neceffary
for me to obviate.
The Defendant next recurs to the complaints of the French Government
to,our Envoys of the Expreffions in the Prefident's Speech. No doubt Gentlemen, it was the imereft and the inclination of the French Executive to
raife up fome frivolous objeB:ion to the conduB: of our Government that
they might have fome plaufible pretext to jull:ify their own.
But lam fully fatisfied as I hope and believe you are, that the Prelident
of the United States had fufficient foundation for all that he has faid on the
conduB: of France toward this country, and [ /hall leave you to judge for
yourfelves whether he or the Defendant are the moft proper to decide what
conduct or language ought to have been adopted on fuch provocation.
The i.ext and moft ferious part of this I ndicl:ment is that which relates to
Thomas ·Na!h, or, as he has been called, Jonathan Robbins. Gentlemen I
· will read you the paffage in th~ Indicl:ment (reads it ..) Now Gentlemen it
is-important for you to remember the remote part of the country where
this libel was publi!hed, and the clafs of people among whom it was diffeminated, ,. and confider what muft be the effect of_.llflertions thus boldly
advanced and ftrongly ftated. Mr. Cooper eithl)'.{had evidence before him
of the facl:she has afferted refpeaing this Na!h or Robbins, or he had not.
If he had no evidence-what £hall we fay of a man deliberately propagating
among an ignorant people, libels of the moll: ferious nature and accufations
againft the higheft characters, which ifhe does not know to be falfe he cannot know to be true r ln fupport of his a!fertions he has read to you the
Meffage of the Prefideot of the United States on the fubject ~f Thomas
Nafh, or rather he has read in detached parts in a mutilated mannerthe Let•
ter of Mr . Pickering: it is obfervable that he could not have had this evidence before him at the time he wrote, and yet t-his is the only evidence he
has olferecl to the court in his own defence on this part of the charge.
llfr. Cooper. I do not with improperly to interrupt Mr. Rawle, but I
did Hate, that I had other evidence before me : that the faB:shad been verv
generally publilhed in the newspapers of every defcription : that they wer~
commonly known and much difcufied : that I offered the Meifage of the
" Mr. Rawle is miftaken in hij • ideas of the people of Northumberland
counl_J. They• are as t:apaMe· of judging as the generality of the people here.
There are Jome men there ,who hold the Jame politics with Mr. ~a7,1..fe( not
meaning to include hiJ deputy) of ar much 1tatursl talent and as much legal ac·
quirement, aad as ready to defend the meajures oftbe go-vt1rnment without pa),
as hefar the fee.1 he recei'Ves. But the goodJe11jilofthe people is a full 6alance
for the combination of talent dt·vote,i to rhe meafure, ofadmim/lration.

 ( 41
Prcfident as addidonal and corroborative te!timony · of w'.1at was very
generally known to the public. Beftde this, I had before me Mr, Pinckney's
letters containing all the facl.s : thefe alfo were pubiifhed in the papers before they were _coikd cd in a pamphlet, and that pamphlet was publifhin Auguil: I 799; while the paper indicted was not publifhed till November 1799.
Judge Chafe. Sir you muft not indirectly accufe the court of want of in~u lg e!1ce: t?ere has not been any evidence denied you : you may even go
rnto trelh evidence now, if you pleafe. ·
Mr. Cooper. Sir l do not complai;1 of want of indulgence.
Mr. Rawle; in continuation: Since the defendant has thought fit to read
only a part of Mr. Pickerings letter, I will read the,, hole of it (Reads mr:
Pickering's letter before given in a note.) You ·obferve gentlemen of the
jury, that Mr. Cooper omitted all th;,t paifage beginning with "Provided
no evidence of his cri\Jlinality, &c." This opinion, given by the Preficlent,
was confirmed by the vote of the Houfe of Reprefcntatives in rejecl:ing a
motion criminating his conduct;
and it would be confirmed by Mr.
~ooper himfelf as a lawyer, if he had duly conftdcred the fubje'--9:, if h1s
·opinions had not been warped by the influence of his political prejudices.
But gentlemen, fuppofethe Prefident had ' not done his duty, as he didthat he had not directed this Na!h to be delivered up, then would the party
oppofed to his adminifiration, have raifed an outcry as loud, and perhaps
better founded than they_have made already.
No conduct of the Prefident
however wife, no motives however pure, could fcrcen hi:n from the attacks
of party fpirit. But he has honefily endeavoured to preferve the good faith
of the country by carrying a treaty into effect, and I t1 ufl: he will receive the
•applaufe of impartial and competent judges for his behaviour on that
occafion.
Gentlemen you have attended to the words of this charge.in the inditl:ment, and you cannot but be impreffod that they convey on the face and in
the very tenor of them, a conc!ufive proof of a mala mens, of a malicious
and deliberate intention to injure t!1e charat1er of th~ l'refident; no man
can read them without receiv ing this impreffion from the pernfal.
I have not touched on the article re!pcll:ing the cmb:i!lies to Pruilia,
Ruffia, and the Porte, becaufe 1 did not think it of impornnce fuHi~ient tu
occupy much of your time. l11dccd, l believe no embaffy was ever fent
to Rullia. * There is enough for your confide ration again fl the ddendanc,
without dwelling on thefe !effer articles of the inditlmenc.
• Gentlemen I h;ive no perfonal animofity •againft Mr. Cooper, but I have
infiituted this profrcution becaufe I thought it my duty fo to do, and I mufl:
make thofe remarks · which the fame duty calls forth.
The defendant has e11deavoured to foew that his publication was without malice, but his conducl with '(quire Buyers and his exp:·ctlions in that
publication prove otherwife; the nature of his defence, though he has
ftated his opinion of the good intention of the Prefident, cviden.tly /hews
You
that he meant to juHify his own conduct and langu;,gc throughout.

or

* But it ,was projecled ( my exp,·ejJion) Mr. Ki11g'"l,;a:authori zed
with the Ru.ffian ambr.gador on the ju6jetl.
F

t2

con.fer

 ( 42 )
Gentlemen of the Jury under the dire ft ion of the court, will decide whether he has prefented to you fuch a jufl:ification as will entitle him to your
verdict in his favour.

----~---JUDGE

CHASE's

Gentlemen of the

Jury.

Charge to the GRAND

JURY.

(A.)

WHEN men are found raili enough to commit an offence fuch as the
Traverfer is charged with, it becomes the duty of the government to take
care that they thould not pafs with impunity-It
is my duty to ll:ate to you
the law on which this indicl:ment is preferred, and the fobftance of the acc ufation and defence .
Thomas Cooper the Traverfer flancls charged with having publiilied a
falie fcandalous and malicious libel againft the Prefident of the U nitcd
States in his official characler as Prcfident.
There is no civi lized country
that l know of that does not puni!h foch offence&; and it is necdfary to the
pC'ace and weifare of this country, that theie offences fhouid meet with th eir
proper punithment, fince ours is a government founded on the opinions and
c0nfidcnce of the people. The Reprefentatives 'and the Prefident are chofen by the people.
It is a government made by themfel ves ; and their
officers are chofen by themfelves; and therefore if any improper law is
enacted, the people have it in their power to obtain the repeal of fuch law
or even of the conftitution
itfelf if found defective, fince provifion is
made for its amendment.--Our
government therefore is really republican,
the people are truly reprefented fince all power is derived from them-it
is
a government of reprefentation and refponfibility-all
officers of the go.
vernment are liable to be difplaced or removed, or their duration in office
limited by e]dlion at fixed pP.riods-there is one department only, the judiciary, which is not fubject to foch removal; their offices, being held
" during good behaviour" and therefore they can ouly be removed for
mifbehaviour.
All governments which I have ever read o!· heard of punith libels againil:
If a man attempts to dcfiroy the confidence of the people in
themfelves.
their officers, their fupri;me magiftrate, and their legiflature, he eJfdtmJly
A republican government can
fops ,he foundation of the government-(B)
only be deftroyed in two ways; the introduction of luxury, or the licenA. The rearer is requelred to pay attention to this charge: it is accuralely taken.
Some of the points worthy of obfer Yation, I have made 010rt notes upon; others I
m11ft difcufs in mv letter to the fudge .
B.
I would a!k the Judge, · whether if the Supreme Magifirate adopts meafores inconii/lent with the p ublic intere/1, it is not the duty of every good citizen
lO cxpof'e him to the public? and wherher there may not be a Government fli!J exilrfr,g altho' the Chief Magi(inte and every Member of the Legiilature were changed ?
what is the ufe of Election in a free Governmer.t, liut for the People to exprefs whe.
lher their Supreme Magiilrate and their Legiflaturs defervc their funher conficlcnce

or not?

 (

43

tioufnefs of the pre(s. (_C) This latter is t~e more flow put mofi fore and
_The,
certain means of br ingrng about the de[huchon of the government.
l egiilatur e of this country knowing this maxim, has thought proper to
pafs a Jaw to check this licentiou!ne!s of the prefs-by a claufr in that l2w
it is enatled (rea ds the fecond fcclion of the [edition law.)
It muft therefore be oblerved, Gentiemen of the Jury, that the intent
mufi he plainly manifeH; it is an important word in the law, for if t here
is no fuch intent to defame, &c. there is no olfencc created by that law.
Thomas Cooper then, ftands indicted for having publi!11ed a f.dfe ic~ndalous and malicious libel upon the Prefidcnt of the United St ates w1th
intent to defame the Prefident, to bring him into contempt and difrerure,
and to excite againfi him tl.ie hatred of rhe good people of the United
This is the charge: The Traverfer has pleaded Not G uilry, and
States.
has alfo pleade d in
that he has not publifhed, &c. with thefo views-he
jufl:ification (which the law provides for) that the matters aHcrted by him
are true, and th:it he will give the fame in evidence.
It is incumbent on the part of the profecution to prove two facls,
l fL That the Traverfcr <lid publiih the matters cont aine d in the indictment.
zd. That he did publifh with intent to defame, &c.
For the intent is as much a fac.t as the other, and mufl: be proved in the
fame manner as other facts ; and mufl: be proved as il:ated in the law of
mere publication is no offence; and in making up your verCongrefs-the
dict, though you confider them feparately, you mufl: take the whole tenor
and import of the publication, .fince the offence is com'.11itte,:l by the two
coupled together.
Firft then as to the publication.
The facl:of writing and pubii01ing is clearly proved, nay in facl:, it is
is proved to have taken place ac Sunbury a contiderable
not denied-it
di!l:ance from the feat of government : It appears from the eviaf'nce, that
the Travnfer went to the hou(e of a jufi:ice of the peace with this paper,
whom, c;>fall others, he ought to have avoided, ( D) For he mufl: know
, hat it was the duty of the julhce of peace to deliver it immediately to
He did fo. It was indecent to Jethofe who adminifter the government:
liver foch a paper to a juflice of the peace , and the manner in which it
it was dque in joke as the
was delivered was yet more outrageou s-if
there wa~
improper-but
very
fiill
was
it
imply,
to
wi!h
would
Traverfer
the fame folemnity in his expreilion " this is my name, and l am the author
of this hand-bill" as if the Traverfer was going to part with an ellate.This conduct lhewed t~at he intended to dare and defy the government,
and to provoke them, and his fubiequent condutl: fatisfies my mind, that
polition, I would afk, rfl:. what Government
C. On this mofl: extraordinary
ever was ddhoycd l>y the lincentiouf ncls of the Prt:fs? 2ly. what Government ev,-r
was defl:royed by Luxury ? 3ly. whcthcr a Handing army has not been the principal
caufe of the defl:rucl.ion of every Government ancient or modern that approached
to a Republic ?
D. l; it a crime that I do not /helter myfelf under anonymous lignature?
that what I do, I do openly ? This mau liad al re3dy been employed as tht: too: of
me : I kenw it. 1 fe lt myldf confcia party fecretly to hunt out evidence :.igai1,1fl:
ous of no crime: was it criminal in me to bwtcr the official zeal of a party runner I

 44

)

fuch wa~ his difpofition.- F or he juftifies the publication in all its parts,
and declare s it to be foun ded in truth-it
is proved moll clearly to be his
pllblic ation. lt is your bufinefs to confider the intent as coupled with that,
and view the whole together:
You mull take that publication and compare it with the indictment, if there are doubts as to the motives of the
Traverf er he has rem oved them, for though he Hates in his defence that
he does not arraign the motives of the Prefident, yet he has boldly avO\fed
that his own motives in this publication were to cenfure the conduct of the
l'refident, which his conduct, as he :hought, deferved.-Now
Gentlemen,
the motives of the Prefident in his official capacity, are not a fubject of
enquiry with yon. Sh .ill we fay to ~he Prefident, you are not fit for the
government of this country? [t is no apology for a man to fay, that he
beli eves the Prefident to be honeft, but that he has done acb which prove
him unworthy the confidence of the people, incapable of executing the duties of his high itation, and unfit for the important office to which the people have elected him-the motives and intent of the Traverfer, not of the
Prefatent is the fobjett to be enq11ired into by you.
Now we will confider this libel as pub!iCT1edby the defendant, and obferve what w~re his motives.
You will find the Traverfer fpeak:ing of the
Prefident in the following words: " Even thofe who dot1bted his capacity,
thought well of hi s intentions."
This the Traverfer might foppofe would
be confidered as a compliment as to the intentions of the Pn:f dent, but I
have no doubt that it was meant to carry a fling witli it which fhouid be
felt; for it was in fubfiance faying of the Prefident, "you may have good
intentions, but l doubt your capacity." (E)
He then goes on to fay, " Nor were we yet faddled with the expence of
a permanent 1.avy, nor threatened under his (the Prelident's aufpices)
·Nith the exiilence of a Handing army. Our credit was not yet reduced fo
·,·.v as to borrow mcney at eight per cent. in ti111eof peace." N ow G cni~:11en, if thefe things were true, cfo any one doubt what effect they
.l'-.i 11lcl h1;•e on the public mind r If the people believed
thofe thing s wh:it
,,o uld be the confequ ence .-What,
the Prefident of the United Scates
·1ddle us with a permment navy, encourage a !landing army, and borrow
,no ney at a large premium? And are we told too that this is in time of
.-~ace? lf you beli~ve this to be true, what opinion can you, Gentlemen,
:.Jrm of the Prefi:lent? O ne obf ervation mull: llrike you, viz. That thefe
c ,1,1rges are made not only again !t the Prefident, but againfl yourfelves who
•·.d't th e Houle of R eprefcntatives, for thefe acl:s can not be done without
. ,l: having- been approved ,of by Cong refs. (F) Can a navy be built, can
.,, arn,y be raifcd, or money borrowed, without the confent of Congrefs r
s is the firfl: time th e public have been informed, that it is a crime to
!... »,bE ,t Thi
th e CJpacity of a l' rdident . hit not a good rea fon for refnfin g to vote for a

. ·rn rh a, voi, do 11\.J:his capacity for the Of!-ice ? I voted for the Elcdoral Ticket
, ie.l' lly tn i,[r. Jeffrrl i:,n at th e lafl: El ection, becaufe r doubted J\'Ir. Adam's capaci: y to fiili l;l e otli ce Ile now holds : I did not then doubt his intentions.
I hope I
•iu!J Jin vc ;:n opp or tu nity of voting again, a11d the fame reafon that decided me be, ,re , w,ll go fai' to decid e my vote aga in.
r. If J udi;e Ch:i.fc h ad read as he ou gl1t to have <lo ne the Aet of Congrefs
·,+ 1t in g tu th,; Lt au, he would 11,i.ve found that the ra te uf [uterdl: was
left tu the
,·.xccutivc, and that no fobf equcnt approbat i on was made ncccifary.
0

 (4.S'
The Prefident is further charged for that " the unnecelfary violenc~ of
his official exp~eilions might juftly have provoked a war." !his is a very
ferious charge rndeed-what, the Prelident by unneceffary v10lence plunge
th.is country into a war! and that a juft war? It cannot be-I fay Gentlemen again, if you believe this, what opinion can you form of the Prelident? Certainly the worft you can form: You would certainly confider him
totally unfit for the high ftation, which he has fo honourably filled am!
with fuch•benefit to his country. (G)
The Traverfer Hates that under the aufpices of the Prefident '' our credit is fo low that we are obliged to borrow money at eight per cent. in
time of peace." I cannot fopprefs my feelings at this grofs attack upon
the Prelident-Can this be true? Can you believe it? Are we now in time
of peace? ls · there no war? No hoftilities with France? Has ihe not cap•
turcd our veffels and plundered us of our property to the amount of millions? H:is not the intercourfe been prohibited with her? Have we not
armed our veffds to defend ourfelves, and have we not captured feveral of
her veffels of war? Although no formal declaration of war has been made,
is it not notorious that actual hoftilities have taken place? And is this then
a time of peace? The very expence incurred, which rendered a loan nee effary was in confequence of the ·conduct of France. The Traverfcr
therefore has publi{hed an untruth, knowing it to be an untruth.
The other part of the publication is much more olfenfrve: I do not allude to his a/fertions relating to the embafiies to PruHia, Ru/lia and the
Sublime Porte. They are matters of littie confequence, and therefore I
Jhall pafs over them. The part to which I allude is that where the traverfer charges the Prelident with having influenced the judiciary depart•
ment. I know of no charge which can be more injurious to the Prelident
than that of an attempt to influence a court of judicature: the judicature
of the country is of the greateft confeq uence to the liberties and exitl:ence
of a nation. If your conftitution was deHroyed, fo long as the judiciary
department remained free and uncontrouled, the liberties of the people
would not be endangered. (H.) Suffer your courts of judicature to
be dell:royed-there is an end to your liberties. The traverfer fays that
this interference was a tl:retch of authority that the monarch of Great-Rritain would have lhrunk from; an interference without precedent, againfi:
Jaw and againtl: mercy. Is not this au attack, and a moft ferious attack on
the charatler of the P relident ?
The traverfer goes on thus-"
This melancholy cafe of Jonathan Rob" bins, a native citizen of America, for~ibly impre/fed by the l!ritifh, and
" delivered with the advice of Mr. Adams to the mock trial of a Britifu
" court-martial, had not yet aftonifued the republ ican citizens of this free
" country! A cafe too little known, but of which the people ought to b
G. I afk again,
is it criminal for me to difFer in opini on from Judge Chafe,
and to think Mr. Adams unfit for the high l1ation he fills r What becomes of the very fouudation of our ele,:livc rights, if we are liable to punifhment for confiderng a
c;hief Magi!1rate unfit for his fituation ? how many people in 1his cou!ltry are there,
who cannot help th ink ing thus of Mr. Adams? I fincere!y beleive a large majo,ity.
He may be a very gc.od man and a v~ry fenf:hle man, and yet not fit for his !ituat10n.
H. So, prt',ided our Judges are upright, the Liberti es of th e People would
not be endangered tho' our Legiflatures were aliolifhe d, am! we had:. l,rriditary
Tyrant on the Throne !

 fully apprized before theeleclion, and they SHALL be.'' Now gentleH
men, there are circumfiances in this publication which greatly aggrav ate
traverfer does not only tell you that the Prefident interthe offence-The
fered to influence a court of jufl:ice without precedent againll: law and
againft mercy; but that he fo interfered in order to deliver up a na6ve
American citiz~n to be executed by a Britiih court-martial und,:r a mock trial,
again!!: law and againfl: mercy. Another circumfl:ance is adduced to compleat the picl:ure-He tells you that this Robbins was not o:1ly an American,
but a native American, forcibly impreffed by the Briti!h; and yet that the
Prefident of the United States, without precedent, againl1 law and againft
mercy, interfered with a court of jultice, and ordered this native American
I can fcarcely
to be delivered up to a mock triai by a Britifh court-martial.
conceive a charge can be made againfl: the Prefident of fo much confeBut, fays Mr. Cooper, he has done
quence, or of a more heinou~ nature.
it : I will ihew you the cafe in which he has done it-It is the cafe of JonaIt appears then that this is a charge on the Prefident, not
than Robbins.
only falfc and fcandalous, but evidently made with intent to injure his charaEler and the manner in which it is made is well calculated to operate on
the paffions of Americans, and I fear fuch has been the effecl:. If this
charge were true, there is not a man amongfl: you but would hate the Prefident; I am fore I ihould hate him myfelf if I had thought he had done
this. Upon the purity and independence of the judge~ depends the exiftThey
cncc of your government and the prefervation of your liberties.
are only accountable to God anci their
fhould be under no influence-they
prefent judge. are in that fituation.
own confciences-your
Thcr,e is a little circumftance which the attorney-general in his obferva•
/
tions to you omitted to ftate, (1) but which I think it right to · recall
to your rccollecl:ion, as it appears with what delign the traverfer made this
In this altufion to Jonathan Robbns he expre(sly tells you
publication.
thi~ is" acafe too little known, but of which the people ought to be fully
« apprized before the eleclion, and they }hall be." Here then the evident
defign of the traverfer was, to atoufe t_!iepeople againil the Prelident fo as
I think it right
to influence their minds ag1infl: him on the next eleclion.
to explain this to you, becaufe it proves, that the traverfer was actuated by
f improper motiv~s to make this charge againft the Prefident. (K.)-I. In England the Judge is confidercd not as the actllfer but rather as the
I never
even where he has counfel.-Illlt
advocate for a defendant on a profccution;
knew him fupply the omiilion, of an Attorney General, ?.nd argHe the caufs againft
a prifoner, and dwell upon every minute circumflance of aggravation.
K. I never knew before that it w.is criminal to diftufs the political conduct of
a pubtic character to inOuence the public either for or again ft fuch pllblic character.
Would it be criminal to write a panegyric on Mr. Adams againft the next clccrion?
or muft eYery man be indi<..9:edwho does not fpeak or write in his praife if at all? I
DID mean to inflllence the elecliou as far as l could. I DID me,m, without imputing imprope,· motives to l\.1r. Adams, to Hate it as my opinion that he was compariI PRINT THIS TRIAL NOW, not merely to vinditively unfit for his fituatiou.
cate my own character, lrnt to onen the eyes of the public 10 the tendency of mcafores tount~nanced by Mr. Adan;s, and to the ftrangt duL'lrincs advanced 1.)yhis ad]1ercnts, fo that the peop e may be informed again{/ tbc next elctli•n. And l folemnly
call upon them to juctge whether Trials of this kind do r~t <l;fgrace the adminiftr:ttion
of Mr, Adams; and tend materially to abridge the freedom of the prefs, by punifh.
ing th,;ife who utter what they co:ifc:ientiouOy believe to be true.

 ( 47 )
It is a very heavy charge, and made with intent to bring the Prefident into
contempt and difrepute, and excite againit him the hatred of the people of
the United States.
The traverfer has read in evidence a report made bythe Prefideut to the
houfe of reprefentative, and a letter written by the fccretary of .fl:ate to
fhew that the prefident had advifed and directed this Robbins to be given
up; but fobfequent fac\s could not excufe the traverfer for what he had
written before. (L.)
Now, gentlemen, with regard to this delivery of Jonathan Robbins, I
am clearly of opinion that the Pre/ident could not refofc to deliver him i:;p.
This fame Jonathan Robbins, whofe real name appears to have been N:ifh,
( M.) was charged with murder committed
on board the Hermione
Britilh {hip of war. This Naill beinv. di.fcovered in America, the Britifh
minifter made a requi/it io n to the Prefident that he fhould be delivered up.
Then we mnft enqL1ire whether the Pre/ident was obliged to give him up?
By the 27th article of the treaty with Great-Britain,
it is fl:ipulated, " that
" either of the contr acting parties will <leli~
to juftice all perfons
" (who being charged with murder or forgery ~itted
within the jurif" ) diction of either, /hall feek an afy lmn within any of the countries of the
" other, provided this /hall be done only on foch evidence of criminality
" as according to the laws of the place where the fogitive or perfon fo
« charged !hall be found, would juflify his apprehen/ion
and commitment
" for trial, if the offence had been there committed."
If the Pre/ident
therefore, by this treaty was bound to give this Nafh up to jull:ice he was fo
bound by law; for the tre2.ty is the law of the land: if fo, the charge of
interference to influence the decifions of il court of juil:ice, is without
foundation:
the reafon Nhy this article was inferted in the treaty is evident
-Murder
is a crime againil the laws of God and man, and ought never to
be committed with impunity.
Forgery is an offence affecting all commer•
cial countries, and fhould never go unpu niihed; ;ind theretore every government, efpecially a commercial one, acb wifely in delivering fugiti ves
guilty of foch crimes to juf:ice.
Na:fh was charged with having committed
murder on board a Britifh /hip of war: now a difpute has ari(i::n whether
murder (N.) committed on board fuch a ll1ip of war was committed
within the jurifdiction of Great-Britain, I have no doubt as to the point.All veffels, whether public or private, arc part of the territory and within
' the jurifdiclion of the nation to which they belong.
This is according to
the Jaw of nations.-All
nations have this jurifdiclion, and the reafon is
L, l appeal to the legal public wl,ethe r this be law: whether the ilTue being
ot not TRUE, any competent evidence to prove the truth, does not go to

TRUE
ilTue.

M. How does the Judge know thi s? is there any thing likepro,fof
this in
the Prefident's Meflage? Is the bare alfen iou of Mr Pickering at fecond, third, or
fourth hand, concluft ve evidence? or is th is taken as a matter of notoriety? Throughout the whole of Mr. Rawle's reply, and the Judge's charge, a number of political
and other facts are tak~n for granttd upon the grrw1J l!f notoridy, of which not a particle
the of evidence appe~1·ed on the tri al.
N. I f11all tak e an opportunity pr efent!y of recalling to the Judge's recollec•
tion what h, ought to hav~ ftated to the jury, that the·cha rge wa~ piracy as well as

murder.

 obvious, for every country carrying- on commerce is anfwe rable to other
nations for the conduct of their fobjec1:s on the ocean. Were it not fo,
crimes committed on board veffels of war would go unpunifhed; for no
This perfon then was charged with
other country can claim jurifdiclion.
murder committed on board a Britiih /hip of war. 1 fay it was committed
By the conftitution (!ince the
with in the jurifrliction of Great Britain.
treaty is the law of the land) America was bound to give him up: but who
is the perfon to deliver up a fogitive according to that article in the treaty?
The prefident was the only. perfon to take the proper fieps and to take cognizance of the bnfinefs- He reprcfents the United States in their Loncerns
with foreign powers: this affair could not be tried before a court of lawNo court of juftice here has jurif<lidion over the crime of murder committed on board a llritiih !hip of war. Now, as a requifition was made to thf!
Prefident on the part of the Bt·itilh government to deliver this man up, it
became neceffary to know whether there was fufficient evidence of his crijudge of the court of Carolina was
minality purfuant to
ire into the evidence of hi s criminality : he
therefore called upon
was the infirument made ufe of by the Prefident to a(certain that facl::
(0) his delivery was the neceffary alt of the Prefident which he wa~
by the treaty and the law of the land bound to perform ; and had he not
done fo, we {hould have heard louder complaints from that party who are
inceffantly oppofing and calumniating the government, that the Prefident
had grofsly negfecl:ed his duty by not carrying a folemn treaty into eJfecl:.
Was this then an interference on the part of the Prefident with the judiciary without precedent, againft Jaw and againft mercy ; for doing an acl:
which he was bound by the law of the land to carry into effect and over
which a court of juftice had no jurifclicl:ion? (P.) Surely not; neither
has it merited to be treated in the manner in which the traveder has done
defence of greater novelty 1 never heard before.
in his publication-A
Take this publication in all its parts, and it is the boldeft at tern pt I have
He afferts that Mr. Adams has
known to poifon the minds- of the people.
countenanced a Navy, that he has brought forward meafures for raifing a
traverfer is certainly a fcholar, and
ftanding army in the country.-The
bas !hewn himfelf a man of learning, and has read much on the fubjecl: of
But to affert, as he has done, that we have a ftanding army in this
armies.
country, betrays the rnoft egregious ignorance, or the moil: wilful intenof
(~) We have two -defcriptiom
tions to deceive the public.
have an army which is generally called the
armies in this country-we
this be a·fianding army?
Weftern army, enlifled for five years only-can
We have
,vho raifes them ? Congrefs. Who pays them I The people.
alfo another army, called the provifional army which is enliftcd during_ the
of thefe can with any propriety
exill:ence of the war with Frnnce-neith~r

t'.iJt~y.-The

O. Ts' this true? Did the Prefident in the firfl. iofl.anca direcl J,,dge Bee to
afcertain that L~t? Bnt Judge Chafe perhaps means this confl~uc'livdy : bnt i~ this
true? For was it deemed his duty by Ju dge Rec:, or was it required by the l'ref ,dcnt
that the fa..:]:thus afcertaincd fhouid he tranfmittcd? No: the appliclltion of Mr.
Lifion fuggdled the rnndu.:t of the Prclident.
P. Yet the Supreme Court fcems to have thought othcnvifc in the United
States, vs. Judge Laurence.
Q_ I fhat: conlidu thefe affertions prefently.

 ( 49 )

be called a !1:andino-army-In faa ive cannot have a fianding army in this
country the Conllituti-on having e.\-prefsly declared that no appropri
ation
!hall be' made for the fuppo'.t of an army longer than two vear s-Therefore as Congrefs may appropriate money for the fupport of the army
annually and are obliged to do it only for two years, there ~an
be no
flandino-army in this country nntil the Con!l:itution is firft deftroyed.
The~e is no fobject on which the people of Ameri/,:a feel more alarm,
than the eftablifiunent of a fianding army. Once perfuade them
tha, the
gov.:rnment is attempting to promote foch a meafure, and you
deftroy
their confidence in the government. Therefore to fay, that under
the
a.ufpices of the Prefident, we were faddled with a !1:anJing army,
was
direcl:ly calculated to bring him into contempt with the people, and
excite
their hatred againft him.
It is too much to prefs this point on the Traverfer. But he deferves
it.
This publication is evidently intented to miJlead the ignorant, and
inflame
their minds againft the Pre!ident, and to influence their votes on
the next
election.
The Traverfer fays, he has proved that the Prefidenthas advocate
d-a
fknciing army-how has he proved it ? There is no ftanding army
; I
have before ftated the army is only raifed for five years, and during
the
exifting differences-He tells y.ou, Mr. Adams is a friend to the dlabli!hment of a navy-I wonder who is not a friend to a navy which is
to protect the commerce and power of this country.
The Traverfer has, to prove thefe points, read to you many extracts
from the addreffes and anfwers to the Prefident. He has felected a
number
of paffages which he a{ferts, prove the approbation of the Prefident
to the
creation of a navy, and forming a ftanding army. But we are to recolled
gentlemen, that when in confequence of the unjuft proceeding of
France,
the great mafs of the peopie;thought proper to addreis the Prefiden
t, ex.,.
prefiing in thofe addreffes fentiments of attachment and confiden
ce in
the Prefident, and their determination to refill: the oppreffion of the
French.
government : the Prefident replied to them in anfwers which generally
were the echo of their fentiments, and in fact his expreffions were as
general as the nature of the addrerres would permit-Therefore
the Traverfer
ought to have blamed the addrefiers, and not the Prefident.
The
Marine Society of Bofton, as old feamen, addrefs the Frefident in
favour
of a navy, the Prefident in reply thinks a navy _is the proper defence
of the
country.
I believe, gentlemen, in ~hefir!l:part of my charge I made remarks
on
the affertions of the Traverfer, that the Pre/ident bad borrowed momev
at 8
per c·ent. in time of peace. Therefore it will n~t be neceffary to
en'large
on that point.
You will pleafe to notice, gentlemen, that the Traverfer in his defence
muft prove every charge he has made to be trnc; he mull:prove
it tu the
marrow.
If he aiferts three things, and proves but one, he fails-If he
proves but two, he fails in his defence, for he muft prove the whole
of his
affertions to be true. If he were to prove that the Preli.dent had
done
every thing charged again!l: him in th_efirft_·para~raph of the eu,bl1ca
tion~ :
though he ihould prove to your fatisfacuou, that the Prehcent
hact 1a.
G

 ( 50 }
terfered to influence the decifions of a court of ju1ice, that_ he had delivered up Jonathan Robbins without precedent, againll: law and againll: mercy,
this would not be fofficient, unlefs he proved at the fame time, that
Jonathan Robbins was a native American, and had been forcibly impreffed,
he fails thereand compelled to ferve on board a Britifh f11ip of war.-If
'fore, gentlemen, in this proof, yot1 mull then confider whether his intention in making thefe charges againfi the Prefident were malicious or notIt is not neceffary'1 for me to go more minutely into an inveftigation of the
mull: find the publication,
You muft judge for yourfelves-you
defence.
and judge of the intent with which that publication was made, whether it
was malice or not? If you believe that he has publifned it without
malice or an intent to defame the Prefident of the United States, you
he has proved the truth of the facts afferted by him
mull: acquit him-J.f
you mull: find him Not Guilty.
After the jury had returned with a verdict of GUILTY:Judge Cbafa. Mr. Cooper, as the jury have found you v1ilty we wifh
to hear any circumfi:ances you have to offer in point of the mitigation of the
fine the court may think proper to irnpofe on you, and alfo in extenuation
We ihould therefore wilh to know your fituation in
of your punifbment.
t will be proper for you ta confider
life in regard to your circum!lances-1
of this : as you are under recogn izance, you will attend the court fome time
·
court !lppointed Wednefday.)
the latter end of the week-(The
Proceedings 011 Wednejday, April 30. 1800.
·
Judge Chafa. Mr. Cooper, have you any thing to offer to the court previous to palling fentence.
Afr. Ccoper. The co urt have defired me to offer any thing relating to my
circumftances in mitigation of the fine, or any obfervation that occurs to me
-in extenuation of the offence. l have th ought it my duty (not for the purpofe of deprecating any punifhment which the court may deem it proper to
inflict, but) to prevent any accidental or apparent harfhnefs of punilhment
on part of the court, for want of that information which it is in my power
to give. For this reafon therefore, and that the court may not be mifle:d,
I think it right to fay th·1t my riroperty in this country is moderate. That
commercial failures there, have lately
fomc refou rces l had in England,
my practice: that practice imprifonon
principaLy
depend
l
that
off:
cut
Be it fo. I ,have been accuil:omed to make facrifices
ment will annihi]dte.
to opinion, and l Cdn make this. As to circumfiances in extenuation, not
being confcious that 1 have fet down ought in malice, I have nothing to
·
extenuate.
Judge Chafa. T have he-ard wha t yon have to fay. I am forry you did
not think prcper to make an aJndavit in re gard to your circumftances, you
are ,J. perfec"t ftranger to the court, to me at Jeaft. I do not know you perfonally-1 know nothing of you more than having lately heard your name
perfon knows the political difputes
mentioned in fome publicatioi,.-Every
which have exifted amongH us, It is notorious th at tl1t>reare two parties
have taken one ftdein the country; you have !lated this yourfclf.-You
•We do not pretend to fay th at you have not a right to ex:.irefs your fentiments, only takini; care not to injure the characiers of thofe to whom you
MC <-ppofcd.

 ( 5I

)

Your circumfiances ought to have been difclofed on affidavit th:1t the
did we
court might have judged as to the amount of the offence ;-nor
want to hurt you, by this open difclofure.
Mr. Cooper. I have nothing to difclofe th:1t I am aihamed of.
Judge Chafa. Jf we were to indulge our OWDideas, there is room to
fufpecl: :hat in cafes of this kind, where one party is again!l: the gov ernment, gentlemen who write for that parry wouid be indemnified againfl
any pe.:uniary !of~; and that the party wouid pav any fine which might be
You muft. know, I fuppofe, before yon
impofed on the perfon convicted.
made any publication of this kind, whether you were co be fupported hy a
party or not, and whether you would not be indemDifred again!l: any pecuniary lofs-if the fine were only to fall on yourfelf, I would confider your
circumfl:ances, but if I c0uld believe you were fupported by a pqrty inimical to the government, and that thry were to pay the fine, not you, l would
go to the utmoft extent of the power of the court. l underil:and you have
a family, but you have not thought proper to fiate that to the C(1urt. From
what I can gather.from you, it appears, that you depend on your profeilion
for fupport-we do not wi!h to impofe fo rigorous a fine as to;be,beyond aperfons abilit~es to fupport, but the government mull: be fecured againfi thefe '
ma!icio.us attacks. Yon fay that you are not conlcious of having acl.cd
from malicious motives. It may be fo; faying fo, we muft believe youbut the jury have found otherwile: you are a gentleman of the profeffion,
of fuch ca?acity and knowledge, as to have it more in your power to miflead the ignorant. I do not want to opprefs, but I will reftrain, as far as I
can all foch licentious attacks on the government of the country.
Mr. Cooper. I have been alked by the court whether in cafe of a line
I folemnly
being impofod upon me, I fhall be fopported by a party-Sir
aver that throughout my life, here and elfewhcre, among all the political
quel1ions in which I have been concerned, I have never fo far demeaned
rnyfelf as to be a party writer. .1never was in the pay, or nnder the fopport of any party-there is no party in this or ;any other country. that can
there arc any perfom here
offer me a temptation t0 prolhtute my pen.-[f
who arc acqu,.inted with what l h;ive publifhed, they mull foe! and be fatisfied tfon l have had higher and better motives, than a party could foggeft.
J have written to the bell: of my ability, what I have feriouily thought
would conduce to the general good of maDkind. The exeniom of my talents fuch as they are, have been unbought, and fo they !hall continuethey hwe inrleed been paid for, but they have bef'n paid for by myfelf,
and by myielf only, and fometimes dearly. The public is my debtor, and
wh,it I have paid or fuffered for them, if my duty !hould again call upon
me to write or to acl, I frtall again moll: readily fobmit to. I do not pretend to have no party opinions, to have no predilecl:ion for particular d@fciptions of men or of meafores; but I do not at1 upon minorconfiderations: I belong here as in my former country to the great party of manWith n::gard to any offers which may have been made to me to
kind.
enable me to difcharge the fine which may be impofed, I will Hate candidly to the court what h:1s paffed, for I wiih not to conceal the tru,.h: I have
had no p1evious communication or promife whatever, I have fince had no
fpecific prornifes of money or any thing elfe. I wrote from my own fugge!tions. But many of my friends have in the expectation of a verdicl:

 againft me, come forward with general offers of pecu{l.iary afiiflance:
thefe offers I have hitherto neither accepted nor rejected. If the court
fhould impofc a fine beyond my ability to pay, 1 fhall accept them without
hefitation, but if the fine be within my circumfiances to difcharge, [ iliall
pay it myfelf: But the infinuatiom of the court are ill founded, and if
you fir, from mifappr ehen/io n, or mifinformation have been tempted tQ
make them , your rr:i!bke fhould be corrected.
.
'judge Peters. I think we have nothing to do with parties-we are only
to confid er the fobjecl before us-I wifh you had thought proper to make
an affidavit of your property-I
have nothing to do, fitting here, to enquire
whether a party in whofe favour you may be, or you, are to pay the fine.
I {hall only confider your circum!l:ances, and irnpofe a fine which I think
adeqm,te; we ought to,avoid any opprcffion. It appears that you depend
chiefly upon your profel1ion for fopport. Imprifonment for any time would
tend to increale the fine, as your family would be deprived of your profellional abilities to maintain them.
Judge Chafl. We will take time to confider this. Mr. Cooper you
may attend here again.
Th urjday. Mr. Cooper attended and the court fentenced him to pay~
fine of four hundred dollars : to be imprifoned for fix months, and at the
end of that period to find forety for his good behaviour, himfelf in a thou fand, and two foreties in five hundred dollars each,

APPEND IX, No. I.
Lijl

of the

Grand Jury:

Jofeph Copertl1waite, foreman
Ifrael Whelen
Jofeph Ball
Wm. Turnbu!I
lames Read
Andrew Tybout
William Montgomery
Peter Browne
Jon a than Jones
John Lardner
Perer Wikoff
Daniel Smith
William Warner
James Craig
Benjamin Bartholomew
Philip Wager
David Denny
Robert Smith
'William Hall
James Crawford
Cafper W. Morris.

APPENDIX. No. IL

Extrafls from a Plan far the gmeml arrangement of the .Miliiia ofth e Uni:ted States, made 6y H. Knox, Sceretary for the Department of f/7ar, and ap•
pro'Vedb)' General Wajhington date i 8th. January I 790.
The introduction 6th. page. It is the intention of the prefent
attempt to fuggcit the mofl efficient fyllem of defence which may be compatible with the interefl:s of a free people &c.
The modern praclice in Europe with ref peel to the employment of Jl:anding armies, has created foch a mals of opinion in their favour, that even

 ( 53
philofopJ1ei;s :.\fldthe ad_vocates of Hberty hiwe frequently COllJdfed the~r
ufe and 11eceility111cert ain ca(es.
Bqt whoever ferio1.1llyand candidly ell:im«tes the power of diicipline and
the tendency of military habits, will be co11!hained to confefs, that whatever m:iy be the efficacy of a flanding army in war, it cannot in peace be
conli,dered as friendly to the rights of hunum nature, &c. But any argument on this bead may be conlidercd as unneq.f\a,ry to the enl~ghtened Citi•
zens of the United States.
A fmall corps of well difciplined and well informed Artilerifts and En~
gineers, and a legi on for t~e ftoti;&ioJ1 of the frontiers a,n,d th,e 1.11,1,gazines
and arfenals, are all the :71ilitar1, ejlablifhmtnt which, may be required for
the prefent ufe of the U mted ::itates.-The pri'Vates of the Corps to be enlifted for a certain period, an,d after the e:,,piration of which to return to
of the people.
the 11?-afs
is to be regarded as the capital fecuPage 7. An enere:etic national 111iliti1J
rity of a free republic; a,nd 11ota fl anding 9rmy, fo~i,ning a diiiincl: clafs
iii, the community.
lt is the introduction and diffufion of vice and corruption of manners. iu~
to the mafs of the pcopl,~, that renders a ila,nding a,rmy necd)."ary.-It is
when public fp,irit is defpifed, and anric<:!, indolence a[)d efferoinacy of
mq..rµier.spredominate, .ind grevent the elhblifhr.ient of inH:itu.tions which
wop)d elevate the minds cf ~he youth in tbe paths of virtue and honour,
,d~ng army is formed and rivetted for ever, &c·
that a /l:a,n
If it lhould be decided to reject a flan<;ling-army for the military branch
of the government, as poffeffing too fierce an°afpect, and being hofl:ile to the
principles of liberty, it will follow that a well-conftituted militia ought to
be eitablilhed, &o.
Such were the feQtiments of Geni;ral Wa/hington's Secretary at war.Let us now tun) to tl;ie opinions of Mr. Adam's Secretary at war.
I have already noticed the report of the Secretary at war, ofDecelt)ber
2,_4th. I 798, and the force therein me,ntioned, of 50,000 men.
In hi, report tra11£.I1ittcdby the Preiider:t to Congrefs 13th. January 1800,
the re i~ «n elaborate plan for a m,il~mry Academy: he flares the ex.pence of
the two regiments of artilleriiis and engineers, as they now Rand oµ the,
fobmits the preceding plan as eflentia) to the
ejlablijhment (page 23)-He
improvement of our military ell:ablilhm<;nt.( page :z.+)-He confiders the
volunteer aifociations as a referve bocly to rci11force our regular army.He rc:commends enliftments for 5 years in fotqre, if it Jhould be deemed expedient to keep up a peace eiiablithment more extended than , befon:, (page
27 )-He fiates in page 35 the pofitions of the exifting regular force, and
fpeaks of the four n;giments of lnfantry and the tw.o CCJmpaniesof Cavalry
on the permanent e/Jab!~/hment.
His letter (13th. February I Soo.) to the chairman of th~ Committee of
Congrefs on fo much of the fpcc:ch of the ~refident as rela,ie to a a.Jjjle11tof
national defence, is a laboured ex,pofition of the inut,ility and inefficacy of a
mi litia, and the abfurdity of relying on this means of defence.-In the very
outfet he declares "Tbat it is not c;onceived the United States w.ill ever be
" difpofed to place their reliance for defence againft a foreign invading ene" my on militia alone, but that they will at all times main~aiv a body of rePage
" gular troops commenforate with their abiiity to maintain them."
5 and 6 of that letter are occupied in arguments againft the malitia fyftem

 5+)
the whole letter is a recommendation of a permanent efiabliflimel)t of regular troops.--The reports are recommended to the ferious confideration s of
Congrcfs by Prefident Adams ; and the letter to the Chairman, is a comment on that part of the Prefident's fpeech which gave rife to the Committee.
From thde extraas the public mull: draw their own <;onclufions.-Had I
produced all the evidence in my power on the various charges in the indietment, the day would hardly have fofficed for the defence; and the patience
and attention of the Court the Jury, the auditors and ID)lelf, would have
been exhauftc.·d long before the cio!e.
The troops on the permanent ell:abli!hment or what Judge Chafe would
call the five year army are now enlill:ed for five years from the date of their
enlijimmt
APPENDIX No. III.
Extra<'lsfrom Addrejfes to the Prejident and anjwers thereto during 1he
Jammer of I 798.
Anfwer to the addrelfes of Dedham anc! other towns county of Norfolk,
Maffachufotts. Patriotic addreifes, p. 79, Fenno's Gazette, Augufl: 9,

1790.
" That we have thought too well of France, and France too meanly of
us, I have been an eye and ear witnefs for twenty years . .;,."" For delaying counfels tfie confiitution has not made me refponfible, but while I
am entrnfied with my prefent powers, and bound by my prefent obligations, you /hall fee no more delufive negociations. In my opinion, as
well as yours, there is no alternative between war, and fubmiffion to the
executive of France.
Anfwer to the addrefs of the Boflon Marine fociety. Pat. Add. p . 69.
"The French revolution has ever been incomprehenlible to me. The
" fobfl:ance of all l can underfl:and of it is, that one of the pillars of the
" ancient monarchy, that is the army, has fallen upon the other two, the
" nobility and clergy, and broken them both down; the building has
" fallen of courfe, and this pillar is now the whole edifice. The miiitary
" fopport has [wallowed that of Adam and all the refi. ff the example
" fhould be followed through Ru rope, when the officers of the armies begin
" to quarrel with one another, five hundred years more of Baron's wars
" mav focceed. If the French therefore will become the enemies of all
" ma~kind by forcing all nations to follow their example, in the fobver" lion of all the political, religious and focial infiitutions, which time, ex" perience and freedom, have fanaioned, they ought to be oppofed by
" every country that has any pretenfions to principle, fpiric and pa" triotifm.
Addrefi of the Inhabitants of Sunbury and Northuml:erla11d-Pat. Add. 229,
Fe11no-May 30, 1798.
" We fee her in facl as a Mount 1·E"tnacafl:ing from her principles which
Her com" have a tendency to confume religion, virtue and liberty.
,, plai1;ts of the treaty made between Great -Britain :rnd this conn try we
Anfwer" confidl?r as the wicked pretence for plunder :ind piracy."
" I wif.h it were in my power to foften your piclure of thofe who injure
" an<l infolt us.''
In the anfwer to the addrefs of the ftudcnts of Dickinfon College, pat.
"
"
"
"
"
"

 t (

55

add. 240 , Fenno, J uni: 30, ~798. " It is ~ queflion w~ether even an equi" table treaty, under iuch c1rcumftances of rndecency, mfolence and tyran" ny ought ever to be ratified by any nation."
Anfwer to the add refs of the officers of the Militia of Newcaflle county." The.re is too much reafon to believe that an unbounded ambition for uni" verfal empire, and an infatiable avarice of money united with the deli" rium of victory and a fanguine confidence that they are at leaf!:for a time
" the malters of the world, have dictated their infufferable arrogance, tram" pling alike on their own conftitution and the rights of their people, on
" the law of nations and on the faith of treaties."
Anfwer to the add refs of Harrifon county, Virginia, pat. add. p.316-" It is impoffible to be at peace with fraud and violence, with defpotifm,
" anarchy and impiety. A purchafed peace would continue no longer than
" you continued to pay ; and the FIELD of BATTLE at once is prefer" able to a courfe of perpetual and unlimitced contribution.''
The following paffage is fo liable to be confl:rued as a confeffion of Mr.
Adams's leaning toward the l3ritifn, that it is impoffible it fhould not have
given offence to_the power with whom we are now negociating:
Anfwer to the addrefs from Concord in Mailiichufetcs, pat. add. 5 1,
Fenno, Augufl: 16, 1798. " As I have ever wil11ed to avoid as far as ne" ceffity and prudence would admit, every concealment from my fellow" citizens of my ,real fentiments in macters of importance, I will venture
'' to 11ikyou whether it is conf1ftent with the peace we have made, the
" friendfnip we have ftipulated, or even with civiiity to exprefs a marked
" refentment to a foreign power (Great-Britain) who is at war with ano" ther, whofe ill will we experience every day, and who will very proba" bly, in a few weekE, be ackncwledged an enemy in the fenfe of the law
" of nations: a power too which invariably acknowledged us to be a na" tion for 15 years; a power that has never had the infolence to reject your
" ambaifadors; a power that at prefent convoys your trade and their own
" at the fame time."
I ihall clofe this col!eB:ion with the Prefident's famous defcription of republican government. He had alreadv told the Hofl:on Marine Sociecy that
the French revolution had ever been incomprehenfible to him.
Addrefs of the Artillery, Cavalry, Infantry and others, inhabitants of
Rutland,in Vermont, Yenno, July 3, 1798. " But when /he denounced
" her God, an4 paid a mock of adoration to a harlot; when ihe murdered
" or banithed without caufe or without trial her bell: citizens; when inand
" fl:eadof ufing her arms in her own defence, !11einvaded, conGJ_uered
« pillaged weak and divided ftates around her, our charity was loll: in the
" enormity of her crimes, and fober men prefaged to us that a nation dif" regarding all ties of religion and morality, and the obfervance of its
" own conllitution and laws, would &c. &c. &c."
Anfwer. " The words republican government which never have been
" and n~ver can be g~nerally d~fgraced in the minds of men witho~t danger
" of umverfal defpoufrn have 1mpofed on many who had ,,ery imperfect
" ideas under them : as there are none in our language more indttermi" nate, they may be interpreted to mean any thing. A repub lican govern•
" rne nt for 30 millions of people mull: be very well digefied, or it wl be

 " more arbitaty ahd tyranl'lical than <iefpotiftn itfelF. The monarchy of
" France was freedom in comparifon with anarchy."
'the public muft
judge how far thefe fpecimens of irritating language are defenfible. Might
they not as well have been avoided? Is it from futn exprefliohs that Mr.
Adams can claim to be re eletled to the Prefidency of a republican government?
APPENDIX No. IV.
I do not know of any legal proof that Fenno 's paper is under the controul
of the cabinet here, or that Cobbett was paid by the B ritifh Miniiter.
Mr. Talleyrand however is not the only perfort who has made afitnilar
accuiation as to thefe papers. On the 29th of March I 798 'Mr. Giles, in
Congreis, faid, " Gentlemen talked of news-papers, he would fay a word
"on that fubjecl: therr are two papers in this city ·whic:h not only breath~
"defenfive but 0ffenfive war of the worfl: kind. One of thefe papers he be" lieved was pariicularly countenanced by the governmenr. The other was
"printed by infamous fcoundtel, a BritHh fubjecl:, a paper which he was
" forry to Jincl much countenanced. This paper not only breathes war,
« but exterminating
war. And this paper iifuing from a Briti{h prefa,
« fpre;ids its baneful influence thtough the cotlntryHe proclaimed this
« fact, and he fhould think himfelf a: traitor to his country if he did not
" proclaim it ." This e,mafr is to be found it1 Porcupine's Gazette ot
April 3, i798, and in Fenn.o's Gazette of March 3-1 1798, withbut
remu!<. or cohtradiction in either.
·
The rreliminary quefl:ion to which 1 alluded, when 1 moved for a
Subpcena for the Prelident, was the authority ofFenno's Gazette, which!
wanted to qu0te ; and I wifhed for the teftitnony of the Prefident to that
point, that l ,night bring the evidence of that paper frill more compleatly
within the cafe of Rex vs. Holt, 5 T. Rep. 442. The Prelident however
efaaped the train of quefl:ions which this fobject would have b-rought on.
The pamphlet alluded to by Mr. Talleyrand, feems to have been thit
fcurrilot1s production of Cobbett Le Gros Mou squiton Diplomatique, or
the Diplomatic Blunderbufs: a fatire on Mr. Adet, the then French
rninifl:e; to the United States. The advertifement of his pamphlet witn
ftill more infnlting language, in Brown's Philadelphia _Gazette of Nov. 26
1796, is now bdore me.
·
APPENDIX, No. V.
In the True American of 11.pril14 1800, Mr. Gallatin, whefe caution as
,u,ell as acutenejs is ju_fjiciently ,well kiw·..vn to the public, is Jlated to have e:.:prejfed hin!felf to this purpoje :
The Danbury certificates Jo much relietl on amounted only to negati'Ve proof
which was nu proof wbate'/Jer; and in oppvjition, if not to theft certiflcafes,
at leajl tv the i11ferenctsdrawnf,wn them, he ,would Jay that he had information, from authority ;ujjicieflt to ha'Ve con'Vinted him and Juj/icient to ju:flijy
his repeating it on thif floor, that there had been a family, 6y the ndme of
Robbin,, fi-ving either in the town of Dan!mry or in its immediate neighbourhood, a, tho' they had rnlio'Ved many years ago to another ff ate; that the man
calling himfllf Jonathan Robbi,1s, if ht did really belwg to thtrt family,
/hould ha'Ve Juppojtd the place of his 6irth to be Danbuty, although it might
be tin next tMvn to it, tbm heJbordd h;;,urm«rk the mijlcdle in hi; relatiM t~ a '

 57
"place q,vhichhe had left in his infancy, could by no means iwualidare bis tejlimony. On the other hand, if the man who had been deli'Vered up did not belon_,zto tbat Jami/y, ifbewasnotRob6ins,
butNajh the Jrijhman, ho-w bad
it happened that he jhould, Jo jfrangely ha'Ueguejfed at the place where the
family c;,,.)ho.fe
name he had ajfiuned had rejided perhaps more than twentyyean
before ? He, the jitppo.fed Najh, in the Jitjf place obtains a notarial protection
date_d at_ Ne'Lv-York in l 795, bythe name of and Jigned Jonathan Robbins,
jlatzng -hzm to be a nati'Ve qf Conne{ficut, but without fpecij)ihg the to-wn. In
1799 in open court before Judge Bee, his, thejttppoftd Na/h's hand writing
appearsJimilar to theJignature of Robbins affixed to the notarit1l proie{!ion; he
at the Jame time, by his aff.da,uit, dejignates the to•wn of Conne8icut, wher1
he pretends to ha'Ue been born ; and although that to-wn was not dejignated in
the prote!lion he mz1f be/uppo.fed to ha'Ve obtained fraudulently, yet he di';uines
eith11rthe identical to•wn ,where a Robbins family had formerly reJided, or one
adjoining to it."
This led me to makefurther enquiry, and I had reajim to belie-ve that Mr.
J • Da·uenport was capable of gi'Ving information rifpe!ling the uncertain
limits of the town of 1Jan6ury at tbe time -when Robbins might be prifumed to
ha'Ve lived there, and e'VC?tthat jliCh a family did formerly li-ve in the town or
the neighhourhood. I find on Jubfequent enquiry that Col, Lyon has not con'Vetfid dire{!& with the hrother of Jonathan Robbins, but that his neighbour
Dr. Sh_aw has con'Ver:JedwitiJ a man of the name of Robbins, cwho declared
himje!,f to ha'Ue li'Vedformerly near Danbury, who had a brother named Jonathan, whom he underflood went tofea.
It is a 'VeryJingular faff, that an illiterate lrifhman jhauld heJo well ah!,
to coneeal the tone and dialefl of his country, t1s to pajs for a moment for a
Conneclzcut man? And yet while the cauft wa, pendi11gbefore Judge Bet,
the prima facie e'Vidence was, that he was an American . 171cbrogue has
ne'Veryet been urged in proif.
I take this opportunitJ'of mentioning that the other members ~f the Hoefe of
Reprefentati'Ves were called, in expeiiation that zt would be necd}a1yflr me,
( as Mr. Gales thefhort ..hand r.vriter is in North Carolina) to authenticate certain declarations and expr~!Jionsi11the CongrejJionalRegijfer which 1 had mark' ii
f or ufe, and 10 gi'Ve information on Jome other points which lfully intended to
ha'Ve brought forward.
But I /0011 found it imp~!Jiblewi1h prudence or ejfed,
to take Juch •wide ground. 1 thank the Gentlemenfor their attendance.

APPENDIX

No. VI.

ToJhvw that Dr . Prirj!!ey had a right to make ufe of the freedom rJJith Mr •
.Adams which · has gi'Vett riji: to this tri ;,l, I quo:ethefollowing extracts from th,
letters of jJ,J,-.Adam, to Dr. A·iejfly. 1 thmk t!Jis necejfary in 'Vindzcatioll of
the charaller of Dr. Prie.ft/y himfi!f, and it is &'Videntthere is nothing m
theft extracts but what wil{ do honour to both.
.
.
" The people themftlves c/.ue
ji:e are capatle of per:Jecutznga Pneftly, as antJtber peopleformerly perfecuted a Socrates."
Letter of Feb. 19 1 792.
" By a compliment ,which I hold very precions in your Jamiliar letter; ttJ
the inhabitants of Birmingham, 1 am emboldened to_hope_you-will ~o_t ~e dij:
pleaftd to recei'Ue anothtr copy of my Defence ejpectallyas that wmc/J w as
prejented to you formerly has proba~!y bad the h1Jnour if )haring tke fate of.your

H

-

 library. Col. Smith will take one frotn New York; and prejent i~ t~you,
1b1d.
with mJ'_fincere'Ueneration."
" Although it would gi'lle me great pleafure tofee ;·ut in America, _yet I
cannot hut think your renwval would be a great lofi to the political and lzterary
May 12, 1793.
world."
" But if any arrangement, of the poji-ofjice, or othe1·pro'Vijionoccurstoyou,
I begyou would mention it to me, for as I confider mankind in general under
obligations to Dr. Priejily, I Jhali as oneof them thinkit my duty to do whate•ver may be in my power to contrihute to his con'Ueniencein life or his comfort in
Nov. 21, 1794.
this country.

TO JUDGE

CHASE.

SIR
I addrefs you, on the fubjea of my trial, becaufe the Doctrines and afrertioos I objed to, were particularly delivered by you. And tho' ju<lge
fat upon the Bench, you were the prefiding judge and prominent perPe·
.i delivering the opinions that were given.
fr
l nope this appeal to the public on the points whreon we differ, will not
be deemed improper. Lord Mansfield fobmitted to have his Doctrines attacked and fcrutinized* and you may be as liable to err as he was. Indeed notwithftanding the farcafms thrown out againft my profellional talents
(with what propriety we iliall foon fee) they can hardly be called in quef~ion for differing in opinion from judge Chafe or judge Peter~, who not only differ from each other but from themfelves. You Sir, are averfe to confidering the common law as part of the law of the United States; t judge
Peters admits it-you incline to i!fue but not to enforce, fobpcenas to members of the Legiflature; judge Peters is againft i!fuing a procefs he cannot
enforce-you, think it right not only to rake for granted the exiftence of
political parties, but tluo' my fine, to tax the one in favour of the other;
judge Peters more wifely, does not prefome to know any thing but what
pall~s in Court, or to care whether 1 pay a fine with the Money in my pocket, or with the Money I may borrow-Both of ye in my cafe, (like the
Senate in Duane's) determined a new point without condefcending to
hear argument upon it: Yoa did the fame afterward in the cafe,of Fries, by
pre-determining with the deliberation of a written opinion, the legal queftion of treafon ; and yet the next day your recalled you papers, withdrew
your refufal to hear counfel on the point, and preffed them againft your
own folemn decifion, to tread without fear, the forbidden ground. After
" By Andre~.» Stuart in the Angleajea cduje, «nd in the Douglas cau.fe,
By Mr. Fearne in the rn/eof Perrin and Blake.
t lYhoe-ver will take the trublc of jien!fing thai fine Jpecimen of unanfwerab/e reajoning hy Mr. Maddifon, The Proceedings of the //irginia Aj/embly on
the arfwers if Jundry States, & c. ( Printed by Carey, Philadelphia) will be
about the commonlaw forming a part of the law of
Jatisjied_that _thequejfiQ11
the United Sta/is, isJettiedas far as fauud argum.nt can/i:ttle it.
0

 59 )
condccl fo wavering
differences of opinion fo repeated and fo recent-after
your infinuations refpectthat
a«ert
to
e
ventur
fafely
may
I
ive,
indecif
and
t prefumption. \Vhile
ing my legal capacity may be controverted withou
inclination to fobmit
my
it
feel
I
and
I am in court, I know it is my duty,
authorized to proare
you
ns
decifio
ra
Cathed
ex
the
to
nce
with defere
ders of the laws,
expoun
.l
tution:
confi:i
the
to
nounce ; but that deference
defence their erroneous
does not deprive me of the right to call up in felf
.
opinions before the more folemn tribunal of the Public
us.
I !hall now proceed to the points of difference between under procefs of
nt
Prefide
the
of
nce
attenda
the
to
right
a
d
I. I claime
the court.
decifion of a court, I
When an opinion is once fettled by the deliberate
travel over beaten
to
l
counfe
permit
to
not
right
are
think the Judges
have been already
that
ons
objecti
and
ents
ground, or to re-urge the argum
l declined making
maturely confidered and fettled: it was for this reafon
n law, though r had no
any objection to the conftitutionalicy of the {editio
to common fenfe and
appe.il
I
But
on.
objecti
doubt of the validity of that
ufual for a court to
or
proper
to profeffional experience, whether it is either
ent, when reargum
g
hearin
t
withou
point,
ul
doubtf
a
decide a new and
the court was
of
n
decifio
the
er
Wheth
quefted by a party concerned?
t, cannot be defended.
fubjec
the
on
me
hear
to
refufal
your
not,
or
right
larly on the decifion of
Patience is required in a judge at all times, particu
ment, and particuindil:1
an
on
ant
new cafes, particularly toward a defend
s fhould have ineration
confid
thefe
All
f.
himfel
for
pleads
he
larly when
then occurred
that
ations
obferv
ing
follow
the
to
duced you to have liftened
to me.
a falfe and malicious
Your objection was, that being an indictment for
to give te.Rimony at
upon
called
be
not
could
he
libel againft the Prefident,
might make him
that
ns
queftio
all : for it was improper to fubjecl him to
ation.
miniftr
mal-ad
of
f
accufe himfol
here. That there
1. reply firfi:, that the Prefident is not the profecutor
to this indiclment, and it
party
legal
a
as
him
ering
confid
for
ground
no
is
United States on the
might be brought without his confent. 1t is not the
but the United States
r,
Coope
s
Thoma
t
profecution of the Prefident againf
, againft Thomas Cooqffecio
ex
l
Genera
ey
Attorn
the
of
ution
profec
the
on
ed.
pei-. Not being a party therefore, he might be examinis not legally a parhe
I fay fecondly, that it is frill further evident that
to have a profecutor
ty, for I could not demand, on fuch an indit1ment,
indorfed.
the Attorney Gel fay thirdly, that ex-qffecioinformations may lie, where
to fupport the profecution
injured
perfon
the
upon
call
to
right
a
has
neral
and farther that profccuby giving telhmony on behalf of the U niced State~:
by a defendant, wh~need
xamin
crols-e
tors or indil:1ments are liable to be
0nly are) in fopport of
comm
very
they
as
(
ces,
eviden
as
called
are
they
ver
honour would avail
your
of
ons
objecti
the
that
So
their own profecution.
e: but as I doubt
practic
known
and
on
in a confiderable degree againft comm
in chief, I do
ation
examin
the
of
out
ed
xamin
crofs-e
be
could
they
whether
not reft on this argument.
fuch as would inFourthly, the queftions put, need not have been
fuppofo 1 had afke,
inftanc
For
s.
anfwer
the
by
ation
crimin
duce any legal

 ( 6o )

cd the Prelidcnt, did you dire& ~he prefent profecution ? di~Mr. Stodd~rt
confult you on his report refpechng the Navy? Was you pnvy to and did
you approve of Colonel Mc'Henry's reports on the army ? Did Mr. Lifton or any perfon on the part of Great Britain, apply toy<'"' under the Treaty for the delivery of the Hermione failors, tried before Judge Chafe in the
Jerfeys? was there any communication between you and Judge Bee, previous to Mr. Liftons letter ? Were you apprifrd of the caie of the U uited
States vs. Judge Lawrence ? Surely the anfwers to thofe and many other
que/hons relevant to the ilfue that might be framed, need not have included any .kgal .crimination. For that is the point: a man is not relieved
from a queftion becaufe it may tend to fhew that he has been miftaken or
faulty ; if the anfwer does not fubjecl. him to legal reproof, the queHion
may be put.
Fifthly, I think I had a clear right to his evidence on a preliminary and
collateral q ueftion ; for inftance, as we have no Gazette as yet printed by
Royal authority in this country, I wanted to fhew that the Prefident had
countenanced and given authenticity to Fenno's Gazette. I wanted to bring
my evidence completel-r within Rex v Holt. The Prefident I believe could
have enabled me to do this, and furely foch queflions as this point would
have required, could not be objcEted to as within the reafon of your decifion.
Sixthly, Nor did your own ideas on the light in which the Prdident
was to be confidered fcem quite clear: This rejeEttion of his tefl:imony r.:v idently goes on the foppofition that he would Mve appeared too mi.,ch in
the character of a profecutor, and yet you decided that I was mitbken i.i
confidering him in th at light. But your honour millook me : l knew t1a t
he was not die legal, but I had a right to look upon him as the aclu:il profecutor.
l know that men of eminence at the bar think you were wrong in deciding the point againll: me ; but it may admit of doubt, for the ca1e is new,
and no analogous cafe can occur under Fox's Libel Bill.
But can it ad• · of doubt whether you ought to have heard arguments
on fo new a po: .
II. You deni... that I had any right to copies of of!kiai dccuments.You faid you knew of no law that would entitle me to them.
Be good enough Judge Chafe to read the fo]lo-,ing extracls from the aft
of Congrefs entitled "An ac1 to provide for the fafe keeping of the alts,
" records, and feals of the United State~ and for other purpofes."
« Approved September 15th. 1789.
"Sect. 5 The faid Secretary ( of State) fhall caufe a feal of office to be
" made for the faid department (of State) offoch device as the Prdidcnt
" of the United States fhall approve ; and all copies of records and paper,
" in the faid office, authenticated under the fai<l feal £hall be evidence
" equally as the original record or paper."
The next feel.ion prefcribes
the fees to be paid by perfons requiring copies, viz. 10 cents per 100 words,
and 2 5 cents for the feal.
I take the liberty of referring you next to the cafe of Rex vs. Holt. 5 T.
R. 442. fo often quoted, wherein Lord Kenyon declares "That the Ga.
" zette is evidence of many acls of ftate, cannot be doubted."' u·)h1< Thefe

 (

61

)

" are acts done by and to the King in his regal charac.ler : they are the ad" dreJfes of different bodies of fnbjecl:s going to offer their loyalty at the
« foot of the throne and received by the King in his puhlic capacity.« '.lheythen hecome alls of State, and offuch acts announced to the public
" in the gazette, the gazette is evidence in courts of jufl:ice.
Hence l had a right to demand copies ofthefe as PUBLIC PAPERS.
Take the trouble of reading the following determination of Dr. James
Marriot in the cafe of the Ship Columbus.-Collecl.
jurid. page 68.
" On the opening of this caufe it was fugge!ted by the counfel for Mr.
« Le Mefurier, that frequent applications had been made by him to Go.
" vernment for a copy of the order of counfel.-Now
if foch an order had
" exi!ted ar.d had been produced it would have preve nted this flood of Ii" tig,ition. Mr. Le Mefurier would not have heard fo many brilliant ar" guments either for or againll: himfclf, nor the court have had the fatio-11e
" of watching them with extraordinary attention.-In
any caufe, wh~re
" the crown is a party, it is to be obferved, that the Crown can no more
" withhold evidence of documents in its poJfeffion than a pri'Vate perfon." If the court thinks proper to order the produdion of any public in!l:ru" ment, that order mufl: be obeyed.-It
wants no Infignia of authority de" rived from the Crown.- The order wi:11enforce itfelf.-For
if a party
"Ji,ing rifufts to produce ll necejfarydocument, what follows ? He Jhaii take
" nothing by his petition.''
All this was before me on the table ; the reference marked.-Why
did
I not quote it ? Becaufe I (hould have been again liable to the charge of
impropriety and indecency and perhaps with additional reproach, for again venturing to doubt your honours decifion.-We are now before the
public-let
them judge whether you or I more deferve the profeffional farcafms yon thought fit to aim at me.
III. The documents I read feemed permitted on the part of your honours rather as a matter of indulgence than of right. I was without counfel, and you were gracioufly pleafed to permit me co fay and to quote many
things that a profefiional advocate would have been rell:rained from. The
chief evidence I wanted was Fenno's paper; in which all my quotations
were marked; though Yufed the felethon of addreifes for temporary convenience.
Now I fay, I was not obliged to your honours for the permiffion to read
Fenno's paper-For
I fl:, I contend Hill that on a political trial that evidence
to which the public confi:antly reforts is primafacie evidence to go ro a
jury. :idly, Fenno's Gazette approaches fo near to the cafe of a Royal
Gazette that it is hardly difiingui!hable.
It is a paper approbatory of
the meafures of government.
Fenno is printer to the fenate; and had I not
been rell:rained from examining the Prefident, I think I could have proved
that Fenno was his printer tpo. But 4thly, it was the heft t'Vidence the nature if the cirrnmftances would admit, for the higher grades of evidence
were refofed me by your honours' decifion, and by the iiliberal conduct of
Mr. Adams. If I was interdicl:ed from procuring better, this became the
belt
IV. You denied the Prefident's mcffage to be evidence, becaufe I had it
not by me at rhe time I wrote.-I think this objection is foun<led on a miftake of the iffue, which was, true or not true generally; without reference

 (

,

6z

)

to time. But having dwelt on this before I fhall not repeat my argumen ts here.
V'. My allegation that the notori~tyof political facl:, was a proper cir trnmll:ance to be judged of by the jury, feemed evidently by your mann er,
to. be permitted out.of indulgen_ce and compaffion_, whi!e on my part I fubmmed to \\ hat pafied, out of deference to the high character with which
you were cloarhed; but a man mull: be very ill read in the trials for [edition, and mull very carelefsly .have attended to Mr. Rawle's fpeech and
your charg e, not to be convinced that notoriety of political facl: mull:
fometime s be taken for granted: how far it ought to avail, is circumll:ance
If on trial where characl:er can be given in evidence-if on
to the jury.
on trials refpef ting
trials as in England on prefcriptive road-caufes-if
n1arriage, common reputation may be ftated as evidence, how much more
proper is it on the general facl:s of public politics. The hardfhip and abfordity of infifiing on 11:riB:legal evidence in foch a cafe, is in my opinion
too glaring to be enlarged upon.
VI. You objecl to charging the navy on the Prefident, and yet you muft
have known, that the meafure was grounded on the Prelident's fpeeches
:i!..!fifacit per alium facit per fl. That it
and on Mr. Stoddard's report.
is a permanent ell:ablilhment appears from the purcha{e of woods and iflands
for the ufe of the navy. See the reports and acts of Congrefs relative to
the navy. But if it met with no more than his fancl:ion, my pofition was
true, independent of the proof I adduced.
VII. I muft join iifue with you on the fubject of the army, though I _
much diflike the har!h terms wherein you have expreifed the alternative. I
think you are wrong; for, 111:,a 11:andingarmy, as I have before ftated, is
a body of troops exifring in permanent difcipline in contradillincl:ion to the
periodical difcipline of militia forces. The term is Engliih, ufed in this
fenfc by every author who has written on the fubjecl: in that country, and
p arti cular! y in the legi!lative debates and the lords' prote!l:$.
idly, The appropriations for the ftanding army in that country as well
as the mutiny bill, are annual, as appear~ by the annual " Difiribution of
Grants," prefented to the houfe of commons of Great-Britain.
3dly, The foldiery there are enlill:ed for life, although the appropriations arr -.,nual. Here they are enlilled on the PERMANENT ESTABLISHNo man is
1800,p.35)forfiveyears.
l'Henry'sRep.13thJan.
MEW
fupply
and
fucceffion
regular
a
is
there
years-hence
4
or
3
2,
1,
.or
enlifitkept up. So are the infl:rucl:ionsof enlifiment.
4thly, The Terms made ufe of for that army in the reports of colonel
M'Henry, and in the acl: of congrefs entitled, " An an acl to afcertain and
-fixthe Military ell:ablilhment of the United States," are ell:ablilhment, permanent e!lablilhment, to keep up by enliftments, kc. You ought to have
known this. The five-year army is not a five-year army, but a permanent
army, where every foldier enlill:ed, is enlifled for the term of five years from
the date of his enliftrnent.
VIII. I cannot account for your mode of arguing the cafe of JoN A1 HAN ROBBINS, but whoe\·er attended the trial will be able to account
why I did not examine you on the bufinefs of the Hermione feamen indicl:ed
for piracy before you in Jerfey. How happens it in the iirft place that you
fo ftrang ely omitted to notice the prominent charge of Piracy? A charge
that came before yourfelf in the cafe of the other feamen of the Hermione ;

 a charge that came before Judge Bee in R~bbin~'s ca[e, that was fpeci5c_ally
recognized by the Prefident and by Mr. P1ckenng m the meffage nouced
by myfelf, and which you mufl: know gave indifputable jurifdicl:ion to the
circuit court. Surely you ought to have known, and ought not to have
omitted this fl:rong point.
A pirate is defcribed as llojfis humani <!;meris. Moll. I. 1. c. 4. § I,He is not an offender againfl: a particular country, but again fl:all countries,
and therefore all countries have jurifdicl:ion. This doctrine is recognized
in the following cafes of Englilh law : ,, The king of England hath not
" only an empire anel fovereignty over the Britilh feas for the punilhrnent
cc of piracy; but in concurrence with other Princes and States, an un•
" doubted jurifdiclion and power in the mofl: remote parts of the world.
« If any perfon therefore, native or fo[eigner, Chrifiian or infidel, Turk
" or pagan, with whofe country we ar~ in amity, trade or correfpondence,
" fhall be robbed or fpoiled in the narrow or other feas, whether the Medi" terranean, Atlantic, Southern or any branches thereof either in this or
" the ocher fide of the line, it is piracy within the limits and cognizance of
" the admiralty fefiions. Sir Ch. Hodge's charge. Old Bailey 8. w. 3.
"Hawk. pl.c. 152, of Dahlin ed. 17d8."
cc The Captain of a French merchantman, having put into a port in Ireland, was accufed by his crew of robberies on the feas, and fled. His
{hip and goods were confidered as having belonged to pirates. The French
confuls prefented memorials requiring the caufe to be remanded to the natural judge, as was pretended, in France. But the king and his counfel
finally adjudged that he was fufficiently founded in point of jurifditlion,
to confilcate the fhip and goods, and to try capitally the captain himfelf,
had he been in hold; the matter of Renvoy being a thing quite difufcd
among princes; and as every man by the ufage of our European nations is
jujl iciable in the place where the crime is committed, fo arc pirates, being
out of the protection of all laws and privileges, and to be tried in what
part foever they are taken. 2. Wooddefon, § 4z8. Sr. Leo!. Jenk,
Rep. 714.
The jurifdiaion having thus attached to the Circuit court, and having
been acted upon, ought not to have been furrendered at the advice or requell of any man whatever.
Had the crime been murder alone, as your charge implies, I incline to
~hink your doctrine would have been well founded. But you know, or
ought to know, that where an inferior crime flows from a fuperior, the
former is merged in the latter. Thus, Trefpafs is merged in 1''elony, Affault and Battery, in Riot. In the firft fethon of Molloy's chapter on piracy, he defrribes a pirate as a fea thief: hoftis humani generis, who, to
enrich himfelf, either by forprife or open force, fets upon merchants and
others trading by fea, ever fpoiling their lading, if they can by any means
get the mafl:ery, fometimes bereaving them of their li'Ves, and finkin g their
fhips "'*""*againfl: thefe, any prince hath power to make war, though they
be not fubjea to his government. Molloy L. I. c. 4. § 1, Grot. de Jur. •
Belli. L. :z. c. :zo. § 40.
Hence it appears, that the collrt had jurifdicl:ion : that the court acted
upon it: that the court in11ead of deciding upon argument, adopte, I the
opinion of the executive on two judi cial queitions : that the court !i[lcncJ

 to and atled upon the advice and rcqueft of the executive in a cafe within
judicial authority.
Again. Why was it that you did not notice the very 11:rongcafe of the
United States and Judge Lawrence r lf it did not apply, why not fay for
If it did, why not allow its proper forcer Why give room to foppofe it
was too il:rong to be controverted r
IX. I complain of improper conduct in your fumming up againft me: I
fay (fubmitting co public opinion) that it is not a part of a judge's duty to
argue a caufe againft a defendant on a penal profecution-to notice the
omiffions of an Attorney General-to dwell upon circumflances of aggravation-to
omit !hong points of the defence, or to let the jury pe1ceive a
bias in the mind of the court. I fay this is notorioufly againfl the practice of
the linglijh Bench at leafi. It might have been pleafing to Mr. Pickering
on your right hand, to Meffrs. Read, Harper, &c. on your left, to Mr.
Tracy behind you, to Mell.rs. Shaw, Stoddart and Mc'Henry in front of
you, but I think, the public will not regard it with the fame encomiaftic
placidity.
X. And that I may not omit any of the points of difference between us,
I !hall ilate that, tho' your objection to the generality of my affidavit, was
perhaps in ftricl:nefs of law defrnlible, yet it was not conformable to the
pracbce I have witneJied in the courts here: where a party is not entitled
according to the rules off prachce, to put off a caufe, and where an inconve•
nience will a1·ifo to his opponent from deferr ing it, or where there is
ground to fufpelt intentional delay, there the courts always require a fpe·
cial affidavit, going to the point s that the abfent witneJies are required to
prove; but where no affecl:atiou of delay is imputable, and where a party
has not claimed the caufe to be defrrred before, a general affidavit is not
ufually objected to.
·
I had a right from the common indulgence, to have put off my trial till
next term, aud therefore was compleatly within the equity of what_I underfi:ood to be, the rnle of practice here : but I !hall not deny your nght to
inli!l: as you did, though it was certainly ftretching the law to the utmoll."'
Your charge of indecency for prefumino- to offer arguments againfl: the
deci/ion of the court, prevented me from ufingat that time the authorities in
~y power. But you have now an opportunity, i~ you pleafe, of defrendrng mto the arena of the public, a mark of attentwn on my part that you
owe to the fituation you fill. You have thrown out the challenge of profe!lional imputation and it is accepted.

THOMAS COOPER.
Prifon of Philadelphia, May

1, 1800.

"' In the cafe of the Kii.g v. Ta;,cly and Morris, Feb. 12, 1799, in the King's Dench
of Ireland," the d€fendants were again brought up,'' and their co:infe i mov~d to
po!\ponc the trial till next term, tlating the abfence of fevcral matena l w1tnefles at
Hamhurgh.
i'hough in.tbis cafe it {houl<l appear that the prifoncrs were brought
up at the fecond term, which I was not; though the affidavit did not ltate that the
witneffcs had been fought for or ferved with procefs, whi ch mine .lid; alt hough
there wa& reafonable doubt wt.ether they could be procund at all-a doubt wlu ch
did nol exi(l in my cafe; though the offence there, wa s rnu~h h)gher than the char~e
againft me,yet the attorney general ohjc&ing to the l~g:;l iu~c:en cy of the atfidavtt,
~llow<:d the trial to be put off ou tba\ ground.
This cafc 1s reported by Brown,

l'hil. Gaz. April :21, 1800,

ERRATUM.
In the title page this trial i; jai d to be printed for the author : this is a
mijfd, e: it is fJ!)f pri nted J~r m!. T, C.