True American. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1835-18??, 1839-07-11
CRIMINAL. COURT,
co"finuafio" Of PEYToNS aPsech.
,.,, S;,,a. ( 70. libel.

SoHi uHhOH.
Admit the doctrine of thu prosecution and the black.
ess ana gamblers, who, recently by an Internal jnyen,
"o"' carried on system Of swndIing worse than high.
way robbery may bring action Of libel against the
eoofs OF the ricayne and Rec for pub ishng an ac-
count Of Their plans AMI machines. Is it possible thar
'e constitution, by 'akng the publisher responsible
or he liberty OF the press intended to repress the ex
Posure through the press, Of these vainous cheats
and gamblers? Is possible that the constitution in.
TENDED that the exposure Of vice and crime should be
considered as an abuse Of the liberty Of the press Mr.
reyton went on and read numerous authorities on the
suhect OF The law of libel, viz the case of the King vs.
the Dean of St. Asaph--Ken,s Commentaries, ID vol.
"a d 9'-Starkie on Libel, l4l-Sc &c. All these
tended to show the correctness of his position that The
evidence ought to 60 10 the jury, enable them to Judge
OF the Qao amino and tain whether the pnbca
was made for a jussifab' purpose.
lie gave the history of the two preschers who had
been indicted for p+dous preaching. In ,a, case the
Judge refused TO let the evidence 60 to the Jury The
jury returned verdict declaring that the two preac hers
had been guilty of preaching only The Judge insisted
that they should find the prisoners guilty or not guilty
discharged in the Indictment The Jury renonstrated--
the Judge insisted Therupon, the jnrv returned a
verdict OF not gny. Tie judge ri,aed bv this indie
pendent course ordered all the juror. to be 6ned Elev
en- at Them were slaves enough to submit and had M,
been for one man. the precedent would have been esta
b''s'ed, ola judge compelling jury to submit to his
dlctation aad find only such verdict as p,e,scd him.
But one man, EDWARD BUsHEL, whose name has NOW
become Scored to history and liberty refused to nav tn.
tine and rather than submit to such tyranny anguish.
Ell IN dungeon, until liberated under writ of habeas
corpus. lie was Thought before the 12 judges, among
whom was Lord Mansfield. They declared that the
conscience of juror could no, b. controlled 1t NAV
he that Gibson, in this instance will he punished and
be made victim of this tyraunal doctrine but he will
come out of his imprisonment freer man than ever
and public indignation " i'll fall upon his persec u,ors
'0ood! exclaimed one of the nudience)
MIR r. dwelt upon The of Horne Tooke in which
evidence as admitted 10 shov tho absence of malice
by proving the truth of the facts laid Horne Tooke
hau written that the Americans had baen murdered by
the British Troops at Lexington. Thus it would seem
that ont OF the bopd Of the first patriots who laid down
their lives in the cause of American Liberty sprung de-
cs'on which sustained the liberty Of the press aoJ the
trial by jury.
Mr. T. examined the decision of Judge Varies Of
South Carolina, in the Of the State vs. lerc h.
Argued that the decision its face showed itself TO he
emitted to no respect In evincedl ignorance of the
very laws and decisions referred to-,hat Judge had
mad not even taken the pains ascertain how the cases
lie quoted had been decided. Mr. 2. however asserted
and read some points of the decision to show that the
strength OF the opinion in favour of admitting the
tfu IN evidence to rebut the allegation of malice and
10 snow that the truth YVES printed for justiabe ends
and seems That in reality the defendant in that case
was allowed That privilege.
Mr. p. suoI thato oil
ed the necessity Of submitting every case fully to the
jury on its merits. To withhold the facts from the ;urv
was to place every the same footing, so as to
confound the guilty and the innocent those who tell the
truth with those who lie the honest cas,sa,or Of vice
and the malicious calumniaor
Mr. p then gave short sketch of the history of the
Star Chamber, and OF the odous mode of trial in that
court which proceeded without jury, which was presi
oed ny Jeffre,s, and put the accused the rack to
answer questions under oath in presence of the court
ms horrible tribunal does Eng land the absurd
and detestabe tyrannicu doctrine which is now soush,
to be applied to the trial of free man, in free country
under free constitution.
Mr. r. showed that in the alien and seditiun
law, which has been considered the most oppressi
and Irrepucan law ted in this county, the aus
thors OF that law did not dare go SO far as to enact
that this truth should not be given in evidence but on the
contrary it declared that the truth should be heard bv
the jury He then proceeded consider the danger of
decision against Gibson-his cause was that of the
whole press. Not single newspaper could escape
continual suits for libel Reject the TRUTH and greater
portion OF the articles which appear in the public pa
pers, might be prosecuted liels, apart from the
Justification which they may present. Mr. r. here rea-
led the case OF candidate in Tennessee who knowing
The advantage of being slandered, and knowing how
the public sympallles go with caumniaed, and per.
secuted individual, used, sub rosa, to publish lbels
against himself IN the public papers; and then
would complain loudly of the malicious and out
rageous lies told about him, and would appeal to his
fellow citizens to sustain him against the unprincpled
and malicious ibels-hs base authors of which he af
'ected never to be able to trace out but atribung them
always to his opponents. This device succeeded, and
he was elected Now suppose he should prosecute the
publisher for libel, though it had been furnished bv
himself would the iron rule advanced by the Attorney
General exclude the evidence. 1t would not. Now
this is such case-we wish to show that Mack;e
himself was the first who, in legal point oCpier pub.
llshed the libel; for writing and sending letter
amounted to a publication
MIR T. hegsed the court to remember that the prose.
cuon had itself travelled ont Of the libel and had adj
duced evidence alinude to show MALICE and that the
cout had overruled the lection made its introduction
Would not The court grant the defendant the same priv
i'ege which has been allowed to the prosecution?
Mr. r. then prccecdedto read the report of the case
OF the People rs. Croswel, in Sd Johnson and which
was argued by Alexander Hamilton, before thc--
Court of the State Of NcwYork one of the Judges Of
which was Chancellor Kent. MIR. =. went into an able
and discriminating sulogium on Alexander Hamilton |
patriot "fg'eat purity, who though he belonged to the
federal party has ganed the respect of ever, party lie
"ns an ornament TO the nation his splendid talents and
1eep learn ne made him the first of the statesmen
ur'stS, and orators of the Mr.. p. read the nron
md brilliant argument of Hamilton in the case and aC
erwnrd the decision of Judge Kent, interrup,iuq his
eadIhg from time 10 time with remarks on lle icy,
The interruptions were mostly elegant and moving
urst' OF eloquenee, appeals reason and the funaa-
mental principles of institutions wbic, in several
Instances elected applause, which the uudicuc. coud
ot check themselves from giving.
In the Of this reading which listed G,r more
han an hour Mr.. p interrupted by the Amor.
ey General, who denied the assertion of Kent. WIN
avs that us regards the law the doctrine which
jects the truth oi mated with the odous Star Cham
r. Court. Mr. F. read "ver the passage in Kent, md
sHed the Attorney General Mr. Aaznreau if he would
ontest the point with the authority Of Ken, staring him
the face.
Mnsmreau-I make the snlne.
Peylon-l have no doubt that you v i'll use w ,be
hancelor
Wnsure"u-i will prove what I saw I
Peyton-Well You must permit me to say that am
'ubuml still. still will place my faith il. ken,s
'emn and impartial decision. | still must vereru,e
ID resDecr his n II hortv md sux pec, x,ur, e. y..