The Arkansas advocate., 1831-01-26
'rwENTY-F1RsT coNGREss.-2d SESSION.
INsENATE.
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE PECK.

TUESDAY, Dec. 2I.
 IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE PECK.
 The Senate pursuant to adjournment formed itself into Court of Impeachment at l2 clock; shortly after which, the Managers on the part of the House of Representatives, followed by the members of that House in body entered theGhamber and severally ytook their seats. Judge Peck with his Counsel also entered, and occup- ed the table appropriated for their use.
 bIr. McDUFFlE then rose to address the Court He said, in resuining his argument of yesterday, he would submitto theiroonslderation the 9th specification contained in the answer and plea ef Judge Peck, with the Judges re- marks. He read the commencement of thatspe- hcation to the efoilowingpurport: "That the regu- latlonof the Governor General, Gayoso, of IlJ!; entitled, instructions to be observed for the ad mission of new settlers; prohibits in future ; grant for services, or have the effect of ahnul- ling that to Antoine soulard (the ancestor of the parties in trying whose claims, to certain grants of lands, in the District Court of Missouri, the subject matter of difference of opinion between Judge Peck and Mr. LaWless arose. which was made in I796, and not located or surveyed till lS04.7' Of this assumption of the Judges opla- ion bY Mir. Lawless, the respondents complaint was, that not ono word of 1t was true, and that the Judge did not attribute any such prohbl ton to the regulations of Gayoso the Governor General of Upper Louisiana; but the Court would perceive that the discrepancy arose iron. the misconcepton Of the respondents own mind, and that the assumption of Mir. Lawlcss was borne out by the Judges opinion as set forth. ] Mr. M'Duilie proceeded after this manner to examine each of the specifications, Tn ali eigh- teen, and to comment on them separately. He 3then said that having given tlMs analysis of the Respondents plea, and of the matter which the Judge had construed as a contempt of Court l he would appeal to the candour of the Court, il 1 in their sound discretion, taking every word into review which Mir. Lawiess had used, d single word could be found disrespectful. He defed any one to puthis finger on one word whleheould l could be tortured into meaningof disrespect. 1 He then alluded to the practice in South Car olina, where every Lawyer was in the habit of preparing his own statement of the argument o the Court preparatory to a hearing in the Court l of Appeals, and in no solitary instance, as Got is my judge, (said Mir. McD) do think tha those reasons Oh which decision is given arc truly stated. Nor was it expected that a law yer, in stating the decision of Court, would cover 1t with that plunage in which the Judge might choose to decorate 1t by the beauty of styie, but he gave itin his own way; and ii tiiat was crime, to follow the example of Judge Peck, there was not single lawyer in South Carolina that like Mir. Lawless might not be made the inmate ofa jail But this difference in statement must necessarily be the case, when the lawyer differed from the judge, and looked at the merits in another point of view. his state ment will also differ. Having gone through all ] his statement in detail, Atr. McD. requested the Clerk to read Mr. Lawlcss at length. Mir. Law 1 less letter 10 the St. i1ouis Enquirer signed q "Citizcn'' was then ready He would now with confidence ask, could any man ln his senses be found, who would pronounce this publication 2 contempt of Court, and was the author of this to be made the subject of punishment, to be in- icarcerated in a jail, to be made the companion of felons, and not only this, but to be deprived l of his bread, to be suspended rom the practice l of his profession for eighteen months? He woule l also with confidence ask, whether the perpetTa | tor of such an act-the man who so abused tht sacred power with which he was invested. wa mot. in every sense of the word. q judicial ty lrant of the worst cast; and if such tyranny Isuch despotisrn did not cali for exemplary pun tishment at the hands of this honorable Court 1 Ifr McD. proceeded to compare the practice of the English courts in cases of contempt witt I tbat of the United States, and for what partlcu lar offences lawyers there had their names strucl of the rolls.
 He poured forth an eloquent panegyric on t'is
 liberty of thc Press.he Palladium of our ho