Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1831-01-07

and had been induced to publish that opinion IN
one of the newspapers Of that country. 1t was
already in proof, and would more FULLY he shewn
in evidence hereafter, that the opinion had been
published not only at the request OF the members
of the bar, but of those persons generally who
were interested in the case. Oac OF the Counsel
concerned in it had thought proper afterwards to
publish, ANONYMOUSLY, under the signature OF
s. A Citizen" not fair criticism upon 1t, but
bare enumeration of what he termed the errors
of the Court. some of its principal errors IN tact
and in doctrine, some Of the assumptions OF the
Judge, without assigning any reason 10 sustain
the charge. This publication, to the mind OF the
respondent, appeared to be gross and palPable
Misrepresentation Of his opinion, calculated to
bring his court into disrespect; and he proceed
ed to attack and punish its author for the con-
tempt. After patient hearin" Of Two or three
DAYS; after giving to the Counsyl - The author
every opportunity to defcn,! him, and % him eve
nv opportunity TO purge hlnse.i # ali Intentional
disrespect to the Court; a!tei ne peremplory
refusal Of Mr.. Lawless to answer the 'n'erroga-
tories propounded to him, and has "r-asoer'.oa OF
the truth of his publication. Judge Peek had sen
fenced him to twenty-four hears Imprisonment,
and to suspension from practice III his >"urt f1t
eighteen months. For this the respondent had
been charged with hIgh misdemeanor. and with
the wilful and malicious exercise OF an arbitrary
and oppressive judicial power.
Mr.. MEREDITH then proceeded to state the
facts and evidence by which the respondent
would be able to establish the POSITIONS, that
contempt had been committed by Mr.. Lawless;
that the Court possessed legal warrant 10 punish
him for the contempt, and that, if not, the Judge
was influenced, in the case. by sense of official
obligation aud duty, and not by the wiful, ma
lciOus, and arbitrary motive and intention i'm
puted to him in the article nf impeachment
He gave history and character OF the land
claims, and the transactions out OF which this
impeachment had grown; the arduous and peril
Gus difficulties which the respondent had 70 en-
counter in the exercise of his jurisdiction over
the alleged concessions claimed under the Span
ish authorities and the frauds, medtated and APP
pretended, against which he had TO guard. lie
described the case of Soulard, which had led to
this impeachment, as select and test cause, and
said that it required no prophetic spirit in the
Judge to forsee the dissatisfaction which an adj
verse decision would produce in all the claimants
1t would extingush their hopes, as long as the
decision remained unrepealed, or the Court un-
checked. Accordingly, general dissatisfaction 4
dismay on the part of suitors did ensue. The
Judge postponed the enrolment of his decree III
counsel to put in their exceptions to it, or to fur
nlsh further argument upon it. This was de-
clined by them The Judge published his opin-
ion. The motives for its publication were sum-
med up in his answer to the charge in the article
of impeachment. He perceived that such pub
LEGATIONS we're usual both in England and Ame-
RIGA, and saw no improperly in the practice
On the contrary, the branch Of law involved in
the case was new, its grounds had not been fuyar-
gued at the bar, and il proper tibet they should
be fully opened for the deliberate consideration
of counsel; it was right that their clients should
sec the reasoning of the Court on the subject,
and, if satisfactory, that they should be saved
from any further expense. 1t was proper that
they should see that the Court had not hastily
and inconsideraely assumed the principles up
on which the opinion was founded, but that it
had conscentiousIy, upon facts and arguments
which it could not resist, come to its conclusion
in the case. Upon these reasons, the respondent
confidently relied for the Notifications of the pub
location of his opinion Eight days after, it was
followed by the publication of "A CItizen," in
another newspaper In this. the respondent saw
gross and palpab!c Misrepresentation, calcu
lated to bring ridicule and contempt upon the
Court, TO provoke the resentment of the claim
ants towards the Judge, and to break down the
Court by the force OF public opinion. was the
respondent justified in these apprehensions?-
Notwithstanding the gloss put upon the subject
by the comparison which the honorable manager
Mr. McDuFrrE] had instituted between the
opinion of the Judge and the publication of MIR.
Lawless, the respondent relied upon candid ex-
animation aud comparison by this honorable
Conrt.
lie would be able to show by gentlemen famil-
ar'with the case that he was by no means siugu
lar in attributing misrepresentation to the pub
LEGATION of ga Citizen" Men of intelligence,
LAWYERS, acquainted with all the facts aud doc
trines of the case, looking with single eye to
see whether misrepresentation was to be found in
the publication or not, would establish the fact.
These same witnesses would shew the effect of
this misrepresentation. II Mr.. Lawless' publica-
ton could not be considered an accurate repre-
sentation of the conclusions to which the Court
had come in that case, they were so preposterous,
so absurd, that nothing but ignorance, an igno-
rance amounting to fdIocy, nothing but downright
corruption could have influenced the Judge. The
effect OF the Misrepresentation had been to destroy
confidence in the Court; the disappointment Of
the claimants was converted into hostility to the
Judge; and clear had been the distrust and