Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1803-09-22
SPEECH OF Ms. eros WELLS coUNEsL,

SPEECH OF Mr.. CRCS& ELLIS COUNEoL,
On Bis nial far a hbel9gaiast Mr. Jsfeysou,
Mr.. Van Ness beg<n by stating that in cases
Oflibel, the jury had the power and the right to
Judge of The law and the fact. That they, and
they alone, were the sole Judges between the pub.
lie AID the defendant That If was their province
to determine, fyn, Was The defendant the author
crpublisher OF the alledged libel Secord, Was
the publication in question calculated to disturb
the peace of the people of this state-to excite
sedition And, third, Was it published with
malicious, seditious, and diabolical intent Mr..
Van Ness contended that these questions must be
determined by the jury in the affirmative, before
they could ever pronounce the defendant guilty of
the crime charged IN the Indictment. Ia speech
of some length, he expatiated upon the above to-
pics. He argued with irresistible force, thar on
the very face of the publication there was ample
eviderce against every presumption of malice. II
VS. introduced to correct false charge made
against the federalists in tie Bee. He read the
charge from tie Be-, Wis The burden of the
federal song now is that Me-. Jefferson paid Cal
lender for writing against sc late administration.
he then read the publication, TO wit:
Holt says, the burden Of the Federal song IS
that Mr.. Jefferson paid Calender for Writing a.
sainst the late administration, This IS wholly
false. The charge is explicitly this: Jefferson
pad Calender for calling Washington traitor,
a roOter, and periufer-For calling Adams a
noary headed incendiaYy; ara for most grossly
sandefirg the private characters OF n'en, who he
well knew were yirtuous. These charges, not a
democratic editor has yet dared, or ever viii dare
to meet IN an open and manly DISCUSSION
11c consended that the publication was merely
acorreetlon OF the above falsehooa in the Bce--a
true statement Of what the g burden of the fe-
deral song" actually was and challenge to an
open and manly discussion. There was not even
charge made by tbe defendants against the presi-+
dent be says, the charge made b. the fsderalisrs,
was not as Holt had represented and he then states
Whist that charge really was-to wit :-that 6 the
Charge made by the federalists IS explicitly this,
&c. Now, he asked, if sash charge had not been
mace Yss-it had rurg through every corner
OF the continent. 1t had been published at the
very seat of government. Caaepdef had publish
Cd repeatedly, that MIR. Jefferson paid BIN for
Whiting the Pespe6t before U.s. He bad pub
hshed letter from Mr. letters ~ TO himself, ap
proving of the book, and offering him Fifty dollars.
tie then took NJ the 6 Prospect before Us, /" ad
statedthlt in thas book Washington and Adams
were charged wi.h the very crimes mentioned IA
he affidavit. Mr.. Spet Ger objected tothe read
ing of any thing tsour the Prospect before us.'
The coufs enforced slie objections apddetefn,'n.
ed thar it should not BE- read Mr.. Van Ness
then cantended that Sufficient appeared to do
away every preteaee Of malicious intent in. the
defendant. that sAe charge had been Published
10 almost every federal paper, could not be uened.
And all that the PUBLICATION in question stated,
was that tact. Wherhsr lie cIiarrr Wa tr,fA or