The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Boston [Mass.]) 1770-1772, 1772-02-27
For the MASSACHUSETTS SPY.

Fer tbf injbeti0u ofC A. Gus.
7 HAVE been much q ,rifcd at the con-
L duel of fope poop who feem dttt,-
mined to fupport and il fy their fuperiors
at ali events. But mode of defence is
peculiar. Not vindj nins them on the re-
al msrn of their actions, they are obliged to
fetch arguments from iome lite inafew0eieS
in the writings of thoie who have taken
the freedom to cenfurc. Such is the cafe
with the Ceutnel and his opponents. He
thought the conduct of the Supcriour court
with refpe6 to Richardfon, was alarming
Much more 10 were the rea(ons they gave
for iuch conduct. Bob Short inRead of
indicating the yS0IsnI, only nibbled at
certain sVOrdt in one of his numbers, pet
fe6ty immaterial, and which the CentInel
frankly gave up. Chs he then gave up and
does again as he is of opinion, neither the
aHfb~itirs he quoted, nor the run q his a'ga-
menf dspsndtd on the idsaJ thoie words con-
ge'. After him appeared C4uGdicus. In
aead of pro6ting by the 6insdtvI and mat
fsntion Of his predec for, he has purified the
lame path. He has been fomething vio-
lent in his lalute; we wilIreturn the COM
pliment, and lee the public judge of the
weight of our metal.
Methinks Caufdicus nigh, have Gpared
the trouble of filling up whole column in
playing with the poor words 6 receive" and
" rejeef," becaufe as he oblerves :" frank
ly own they are improper" Although |
do this, utterly deny the conlequencc he
would draw herefrom, I" that overthrow
what laboured to eftsblfh BY the aafbui-
ties there cited::" And my reafon is be-
caufe it is falGe that thefe authorities only
prove that the court ought to have Teceiv-
ed the verdict. Let an impartial reader un-
biafed by fear, affection or bopt Of rerUar6,
take his pen, and as frequently as he fees
theie words syaJf them, and the number
will NOT be in the leaf mEfii0tsd Let Us
iCsufidicus, realon calmly aud generouly.
You allow the court did not enter up
judgment. Supplying then this 10 be the
ground of thefe numbers, (which affirm was
the JSh ground, that the rsesn they
gave for this conduct, was that the
jury had mif0ksu the law, and therefore
their eonjciEness would not allow them to
condemn a man whom the law, ar fbfy
thought, acquitted. If you allow me this,
do not care ftraw about rsniVing or rtjfSf-
ing rhe verdict on this EppgGti'u. The au-
thorties are pertinent: they all prsvs, and
were brought say to prove, that the jury
had rigbf to cor lider the law, and it they
miRook, il was a matter that respected their
Olvn csnlfisneG, not the conduit of the court.
Every authority broaght tended tOb'iS to
this point. flo the words +" receive" and
reject" were a furplufage, and this con-
cefIion does not weaken my aEtbsrifiH.
Now affirm this was. the rt0jSn the court
gave, and IetCauGdlcus prove the contrary.
If then my authorities were brought to
weaken fbif real ,andare pertinent, andifit
10 immaterial whether the words g receive"
and " reject " RaHd or fall, Caufidicu. mua
think him(elf little too haffy in ailerting
that have been dshbsrafeIy attempting to
impofe a dssUa right faIihood on the public.
I declare as an honef man that the words
g receive " and rsjsa were perfectly
unssigned. This ] affirm: CauiIdieus thinks