Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

TRIAL

ОР

DAVID FROTHINGHAM,

FOR A

LIBEL ON GENERAL HAMILTON.

NEW YORK OYER AND TERMINER, 1799.*

THE substance of the indictment was, that with a design to injure the name and reputation of General Hamilton, and to expose him to public hatred and contempt, and to cause it to be believed that he was hostile and opposed to the Republican Government of the United States, the defendant had published a libel, in which it was alleged that General Hamilton was at the bottom of the efforts to purchase the Aurora; that Mrs. Bache had refused to sell her paper in consequence of the said efforts, because, in the hands of General Hamilton, or his agents, it would be employed to injure republicanism; and secondly, ' that the libel insinuated and intended to cause it to be suspected, that General Hamilton, while Secretary of the Treasury, had corruptly speculated; and, lastly, that the libel insinuated, and intended to cause it to be suspected, that Mr. Liston, the British minister, and General Hamilton were united in an effort to purchase the Aurora- that for the execution of this design, General Hamilton received of the British minister secret service money of the king of Great Britain, and that this partnership with Mr. Liston in the purchase of Mrs. Bache's paper, was to answer corrupt purposes of the British monarch. The case was opened on Nov. 16, 1799.

The counsel on the part of the prosecution were Mr. Josiah Hoffman, the attorney-general, and Mr. Colden, assistant attorney-general. Mr. Brockholst and Mr. Edward Livingston were concerned for the defendant. Neither Mr. Colden, nor Mr. E. Livingston, however, took any part in the case.

To prove the publishing of the paper charged as a libel, the assistant attorney-general was examined. He said, that in consequence of a letter he had received from General Hamilton,† and from a desire to

In making up this report, I have relied on-besides the minutes of the court-the New York Spectator, of Nov. 25, 1799, and the Aurora of the same date, the first well known as a federal, and the second as a democratic, organ.

This letter was as follows:

New York, Nov. 6, 1799.

SIR "Greenleaf's New Daily Advertiser" of this morning contains a publication entitled "Extract of a letter from Philadelphia, dated September 20th," which charges me with being at the "bottom" of an "effort to suppress the Aurora" (a newspaper of that city), by pecuDiary means.

avoid directing the prosecution against a woman, and a widow, he called on Mrs. Greenleaf, and informed her that if she would point out the real editor or conductor of her paper, he alone should be made responsible for the offence. That Mrs. Greenleaf denied she was at all concerned in the management or direction of her press. That she introduced the defendant as the person who was accountable for whatever was printed under her name. That after hearing from the assistant attorney-general the object of his visit, and after having examined the libel mentioned in the indictment, the defendant said, he expected no one but himself was answerable for any publication which appeared in the Argus, observing, however, that the offensive article in the present case was copied from another paper, and that he had no concern in its publication.*

General Hamilton was then offered as a witness on the part of the prosecution, First, to explain some of the innuendoes in the indictment, and secondly, to prove that every part of it was false. He was objected to by the defendant's counsel.t

The court admitted Gen. Hamilton to explain the innuendoes, but declared that the law not allowing the truth or falsehood of a libel to be controverted on a trial for that offence, they would exclude all testimony as to those points on either side, even if there were consent of counsel.‡

It is well known, that I have long been the object of the most malignant calumnies of the faction opposed to our government, through the medium of the papers devoted to their views. Hitherto, I have foreborne to resort to the laws for the punishment of the authors and abettors, and were I to consult personal considerations alone, I should continue in this course, repaying hatred with contempt. But public motives now compel me to a different conduct. The designs of that faction to overturn our government, and, with it the great pillars of social security and happiness, in this country, become every day more manifest, and have of late acquired a degree of system which renders them formidable.. One principal engine for effecting the scheme is, by audacious falsehoods, to destroy the confidence of the people in all those who are, in any degree, conspicuous among the supporters of the government;—an engine which has been employed in time past with too much success, and which, unless counteracted, in future, is likely to be attended with very fatal consequences. To counteract it is, therefore, a duty to the community.

Among the specimens of the contrivance, that, which is the subject of the present letter, demands peculiar attention. A bolder calumny; one more absolutely destitute of foundation, was never propagated. And its dangerous tendency needs no comment; being calculated to inspire the belief that the independence and liberty of the press are endangered by the intrigues of ambitious citizens aided by foreign gold.

In so flagrant a case, the force of the laws must be tried. I therefore request that you will take immediate measures towards the prosecution of the persons who conduct the enclosed paper. With great consideration, I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, A. HAMILTON.

JOSIAH HOFFMAN, Esq., Attorney-General; in his absence,

C. COLDEN, A. A. General.

The report in the N. Y. Gazette says:-"The attorney-general had stated to the jury, in opening the cause, that he would not avail himself of the law which prohibited the defendant from giving in evidence the truth of the libel. He now challenged the defendant to show that there was room even to suspect that any part of the offensive publication was true. The defendant's counsel declined to do this." This, however, must be too broadly stated, as it is not likely that in a case so hotly contested the prosecution would close without proving its innuendoes; and then-on the defendant not asking to go at once to the jury on the ground of a failure of evidence, but declining to justify-taking up its case again, and supplying the missing testimony.

The report in the N. Y. Gazette says, that the defendant's counsel acknowledged “that he did not pretend to have any testimony whatever to the truth of the allegation in the publication charged as a libel, and that for his own part he believed it to be a mere fabrication." Of this acknowledgment no trace appears in the report in the Aurora.

The report in the Aurora says:-"He was asked what was generally understoood by

The defendant's counsel took the ground that Mrs. Greenleaf ought to have been the person prosecuted for the libel, if it was one, and not the defendant, who was only her journeyman; and secondly, that the publication was no libel.

Mr. Justice Radcliff, (with whom was the Mayor and Recorder,) after cautioning the jury against the influence of party spirit in a case so apt to excite it, stated in substance that this was a prosecution under the common law of our country, by which we and our ancestors had been governed from the earliest times; that according to that law he who published a writing or printing, or even a picture tending to expose a man to hatred, contempt or ridicule, was guilty of the offence charged against the defendant. The inquiry of the jury, he said, would be whether the piece mentioned in the indictment was calculated to expose Gen. Hamilton to the hatred and contempt of his fellow citizens, and if it was, whether the defendant had published it. By innuendoes the indictment had explained the offensive publication to mean that Gen. Hamilton was not a Republican; that he had corruptly speculated while he was Secretary of the Treasury, and that he was in league with the British Minister, and received moneys from the British king for purposes inimical to the form of the government which was adopted by the United States, and which by the Constitution was guarantied to each particular state.

The words might mean more than they expressed, and it was the business of the innuendoes to give or express the whole or true meaning. The jury were to judge from a due consideration of the publication, whether such was the case in this indictment, and whether the indictment expressed the meaning of the publication as it would be taken by men of common understanding. Upon this subject the court were unanimous, and had no doubt. They were of opinion that the innuendoes were just, and that the matter was libellous. Upon the second point also the court was explicit, that the defendant, even as a journeyman, was liable to the prosecution. But there could be no doubt as to the distinct manner in which he had assumed all responsibility. The jury, after being out about two hours, returned with a verdict of guilty.

The judgment of the court was, "that the said David Frothingham, the aforesaid defendant, for the said offence whereof he is convicted, pay a fine of five hundred dollars, and that he be imprisoned in the Bridewell of the City of New York, for the term of four calendar months; and it is further ordered, that he stand committed until the said fine be paid, and until he enter into a recognizance, himself in $1,000, and two securities, each in the sum of $500, or one competent security in the sum of $1,000, conditioned for the good behaviour of the said defendant, for the term of two years after the expiration of the said imprisonment."

secret service money, being very well versed in the vernacular tongue. He found some difficulty in the explanation, but gave it as his opinion that it meant money appropriated by a government, generally, for corrupt purposes, as it respected the country and government in which it was to be distributed, but in support of the government which gave it! He was then asked if he considered the Aurora as hostile to the government of the United States? And he replied in the affirmative! This closed the testimony."

TRIAL

OF

ISAAC WILLIAMS,

FOR

ACCEPTING A COMMISSION IN A FRENCH ARMED VESSEL, AND SERVING IN SAME AGAINST GREAT BRITAIN.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE CONNECTICUT DISTRICT.

HARTFORD, 1799.*

THE indictment charged, that Isaac Williams, of Norwich, in the County of New London, in said district of Connecticut, a citizen of this United States, did, without the jurisdiction of any particular State, viz: at Guadaloupe, in the West Indies, on or about the twentieth day of February, A.D. 1797, he, the said Isaac Williams, then being a citizen of the United States, accept from the Republic of France, a foreign state, and then enemy to the King of Great Britain, and at open war with said king-said king then was, and ever since hath been, in amity with said United States-a commission and instructions to commit acts of hostility and violence against the said king and his subjects, all of which is contrary to the twenty-first article of the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation then existing between Great Britain and the said United States, &c.

On the trial, it was admitted on the part of Williams, that he had committed the facts alleged against him in the indictment, but, in his defence, he offered to prove that, in the year 1792, he received from the ConsulGeneral of the French Republic, a warrant, appointing him third-lieutenant on board the Jupiter, a French seventy-four gun ship; that, pursuant to this appointment, he went on board the Jupiter, and took the command to which he was appointed; that the Jupiter soon after sailed for France, and arrived at Rochefort, in France, in the autumn of the same year;

The report in the text is substantially taken from the Connecticut Courant of September 30, 1799, the record having been resorted to, in addition, for the purpose of giving greater precision. The charge of the Chief Justice is the same with that given in 1 Tuck. Black. part i. App. 436, and in 3 Wheat. 82, with the exception that the omissions in the latter reports are supplied in the text.

that at Rochefort he was duly naturalized in the various Bureaux in that place, the same autumn, renouncing his allegiance to all other countries, particularly to America, and taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of France, all according to the laws of said Republic; that immediately after said naturalization he was duly commissioned by the Republic of France appointing him a second-lieutenant on board a French frigate called the Charont; and that before the ratification of the treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and Great Britain, he was duly commissioned by the French Republic a second-lieutenant on board a seventy-four gun ship, in the service of said republic; and that he has ever continued under the government of the French Republic down to the present time, and the most of said time actually resident in the dominions of the French Republic; that during said period he was not resident in the United States more than six months, which was in the year 1796, when he came to this country for the purpose merely of visiting his relations and friends; that, for about three years past, he has been domiciliated in the island of Guadaloupe, within the dominions of the French Republic, and has made that place his fixed habitation, without any design of again returning to the United States for permanent residence. The Attorney for the District conceded the above mentioned statement to be true; but objected that it ought not to be admitted as evidence to the jury, because it could have no operation in law to justify the prisoner in committing the facts alleged against him in the indictment. This question was argued on both sides by Mr. Pierpont Edwards for the United States, and Mr. David Daggett for the prisoner,

Judge LAW (district judge) expressed doubts as to the legal operation of the evidence; and gave it as his opinion, that the evidence, and the operation of law thereon, be left to the consideration of the jury. Judge ELLSWORTH, the Chief Justice of the United States, stated his views nearly in the following language:

The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the Revolution. The present question is to be decided by two great principles; one is, that all the members of civil community are bound to each other by compact. The other is, that one of the parties to this compact cannot dissolve it by his own act. The compact between our community and its members is, that the community will protect its members; and on the part of the members, that they will at all times be obedient to the laws of the community, and faithful in its defence. This compact distinguishes our government from those which are founded in violence or fraud. It necessarily results, that the members cannot dissolve this compact, without the consent or default of the community. There has been here no consent-no default. Default is not pretended. Express consent is not claimed; but it has been argued, that the consent of the community is implied by its policy-its conditions, and its

acts.

In countries so crowded with inhabitants that the means of subsistence are difficult to be obtained, it is reason and policy to permit emigration. But our policy is different; for our country is but sparsely settled, and we have no inhabitants to spare.

Consent has been argued from the condition of the country; because

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »