The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1826-11-02

leave no doubt OF It's being unfOtmded: and
he affects vet not to be satisfied, when in
Justice | was not bound to produce any
certificate whatever, and If ! had not,
ought not To have been affected ut all by
the insnuation.
So much for the carping remarks Of Mr.
Potter, as 10 the evidence given in support
of my vndication. AS TO the two cases.
the Block-Island suit, and the George
Washington libel, he does not attempt to
invalidate my statement Of the circumstan-
ces but controverts my legal right to do
what | did in those cases.
In the first place, | would ask how Mr..
Potter, came by the authority which he
assumes of deciding upon my legal rights
in these cases: who constituted him A.
Judge and n final Judge of those rights?
what pretensions has he to set himself up
as such Judge; never heard that he.
was so profoundly read in the Law; was'
such a master of the science, as TO be.
deemed an oracle Of the lava Lord
Coke. Indeed, Lord Coke never assumed
so much autocratical authority as Mr..
Potter has done. His opinions we're never
deemed either by himself or others, autho-
rity any further than they were supported
by authority. I speak not of his Judicial,
but Of his extra judicial opinions.
Is the dictum Of Mr. Potter, 10 settle
what the law is, on any given point, espe-
cialy in n case in which he is personally
interested hope not, for the sake of those
who have the misfortune TO be involved in
contests with him. Again ask, who was
! to decide the question, as to my legal rights
in those cases? Was to decide il myself,
and according 10 my own conviction or
was to apply to Mr.. Potter to decide it
for me III were to decide il for myself,
as surely was, how could decide it 9TH
erwiso than did ? To say that the Unit
cd States Attorney had no right to stipu-
late for the indemnity Of the u. 5. or to
stipuate for the indemnify Of the prosecu-
tor in any case, is u proposition that car
res absurdity on the face of 1T; and ifin
any case he might so stipulaie might
IN these cases. But suppose Mr.. Potter
right in his opinion, and that ! was mrs !
taken, what then Is n mistake in opinion
TO be imputed us a moral delinquency? Is !
inialibIlity Of opinion to be eXacted, on the |
penalty Of Mr.. Potter's dcnunciati0n and
condemnation and is his own opinion TO /
he the test Of that intallibility: But Mr.. |
Potter assumes not only that his dlctum |
shall settle what the law is ON this point. |
but insists that a different opinion shall in
vOlvc the party entertaining it IN all the |
consequences Of moral delinquency ! !
protest against this doctrine.
In the Block Island cases, commence !
the suit, on the information Of private IN |
former. settled it by h.s consent, find |
ing there that the persons that he pointed !
ont as Witnesses would not testify as he !
expected they would. I settled it upon |
the principle Of obtaining Gn indemnity to |
the u. 5. for costs and expenses, and |
nothing more was obtained Mr. Potter !
SAYS a large sum was obtained. Then he
knows what sum otherwise he would /
have no right TO say it was large or small.
Why does he not then state the sum. Be
cause he knows that by stating IT he would
put down his own calumny ot once. But
by vague statement, by calling IT n large
sum, he expects to produce an impression
which he knows the fact would not war
Tlnt.
As to the case of the George Washing
ton, settled it for the lniormer, and at
his request, and for his indemnity. as
have before stated, and under the circum-
stances which | have mentioned more than
once. ! conceived | had Il perfect right
to do this; | still conceive that | had. Mr..
Potter says, and il is curious specimen
of his legal knowledge, that in libei for
a private Iniormer he (the informer) must
be the I.ibellant. Does not this profound
lawyer sec that this would be contra
diction in terms; How could he be that
trjcaie Iniormcr Which | describe him TO
be. If he were the Libelant Surely It was
perfectly competent for the Collector 10
libel in his own name for the private In
inmcr. But all this is immateral. The
question Is, was there private lnforner
IN tins case II there were, he had an in-
tcrest. And furthcr--whcther 4 had Il
right to act for him There can be no
doubt on either point. The proof OF the
fact Is abundant, and the right is self ev' !
dent. The same thing was done IN "ther ,
districts, as | have tho means of proving /
and was, as believe, done III all the DIS ,
trcts of the u. s. But if were mlstak-
en-, it was amistake ofopinon, not crime,
not mlsdCmsanor.
Now a few words as 10 Mr.. Potter's =,
yross pervcrsons and misrepresentation !
o deceive and To- produce false impress ,
SION. These are too numerous 10 admit
)f complete detail here; bat | will Sc
ect few of them. The first thing shall :
notice is his misrepresentation az TO the !,
sum TO be received in payment of fcosts.- y
He would have il understood tina. this was :
merely the. sum mentioned in the Clerks
examined the files in the !,
Office, at any rate he ought to have exam
med them before he hazardcd any ssser-
ton on This subject, and ~ he examined u
inc files, he saw that there were t,co H. y
JeiS in the case. lie saw also that there u
vas one account of expenses in the cases a
Of what was included in the n
10