The American. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1857, 1857-09-19

bance-but he does not say that they were even
guilty Of a breach Of the peace.
i Ridgway says he heard them say wade IN" TINS
was Immediately after the Irishman had threatened
the "Americsns with that brick" What does
no more than an acceptance Of the challenge T.
mutual combat-it amounts TO nothing more imam
this declaration. "if there Is TO be fight let us 60
into it'll"
swivel as it passed up to the market house. Well
he had right 10 be there for the purposes avowed
what is the proof as to the intention OF those VINO
mad the swivelf Simply and only that they intended
TO defend themselves and fyou please their riends
Daniel Stewart did not disturb the peace whilst
| on that swivei-much less commit riot he was
assisting TO draw that swivel into the Third Ward,
TO protect the people from the apprehended assault to
OF the Marines if they should come.
| Well, Owens says Daniel Stewart had musket,
and was running after an Irshman on Massachusetts
ayenue--and that Isaiah Stewart was following him
crying out shoot shooti you are near enough :
Here is direct conflict in the evidence. If Daniel
Stewart was on the swivel when It passed up Seventh
street. could he be at almost the same moment chas-
1 ing an Irshman on Massachusetts, avenneS And
where did he get the musket9 What time had he to
get its Dom saw him on the gun, going up Seventh
street few moments before the Marines captured it.
and about the time of the capture Owens saw him
chasing an Irishman with a musket some distance
| from the swivel
This testimony is contradictory. But if he was
seen chasing an lrishman, musket in hand and that
Isaiah Stewart was following him and urging him to
shoot shall show presently that Isaiah Stewart was
not there but suppose the two Stewards seen
described by Owens--how many do they count ?
Daniel and Isaiah Stewart are but two persons and
three at least are necessary to riot Did anybody
tell them TO chase that IrishmanY Were they acting
in concert with others? Where is the proof of this
| Here are hoo individuals chasing an Irishman--if
Owens is to be believed-one running with a musket
and the s, other crying Shoot shoot you are near
offence against the laws Jut not Griot. You could
not convict these two men Of riot, even had they
shot at and killed that Irishman It might in such
event. have been murder, for which they could be
hung, but this testimony does not prove that three
or more persons" acted in concert, and mutually
aided each other to commit the offence charged in
| the Indictment!
OF course gentlemen you will not fail to keep in
mind the distinction between riot, which is the
offence charged and any other offence which may
/ have been committed.
Now Owens swore that one of these two men,
whom he saw chasing the Irishman, was Isaiah
Steacd,f but he has been etectuay contradicted on
this point and may add that it aoeakens all the tes-
timony ht Las given on this trial.
George I. Longdon expressly says he saw Daniel
Stewart running after man on Massachusetts av-
enue. and another following him, Gas Owens stated
but he says positively it not Isaiah Stewart who
was following Daniel Stewart, but, that 1t was John
Mcdonald. man whom he knows well II
This raises suspicion as to the general testimony
of Owens who is one of the parties interested in
| making out this prosecution to evade the censure
which might otherwise attach to him as peace Off
Ger. Longdon confirms the testimony as to Daniel
| Stewart chasing the Irishman, (Which as have
shown, was riot, but he proves the unreliabty
of Owens, who is seeking to prove that there
| riot which the civil power could not suppress
| Gentleman, Longdon has told the truth, and Owens
is $3.50 mistaken! Daniel Stewart did follow that
Irishman, (such is the proofD but Isaiah did not-
but the act was not and could not be riot no mat
ter though the Stewards weighed thousand pounds
| a piece and had muskets in each hand, and their
| pockets filed with pistols!
There is not, therefore, particle of proof which
should convict either Of the Stewards of riot DAN
iel Stewart may have broken the peace. Isaiah did
| not even do that but neither Isaiah nor Daniel
Stewart is on trial for breach of the peace, and
you must acquit them under this indictment.
We are told in the next place, by the United
States Attorney, that both the Johnsons were guilty
of a riot Well, Ridgeway says he heard them both
say, go int Did this exclamation, Z" go IN " when
! the freshman with that brick, gave the challenge,
constitute riot : That was mutual tight produced
| by the excitement of the moment and not riot
| Birkhead says, ''Vanloman johnson was there,
engaged in a riot" Whether it soas riot or not
does not depend on the opinion Of Birkhead-it de-
ponds on facts and Of these you are to judge. Does
Brkhead state one fact as to the Johnsons showing
that they, either of them did any act or aided in
| doing any act, constituting riot! He does not
But Frsre comes up, and says, that George Johnson
threw stick and hit Captain Goddard Suppose
he did? That was then assault and battery, and if
he were on trial for that offence and you believed
Mr. Frere, you might convict George johnson Of an
| assault and battery, bit not o1fa riot
Where, then, is the proof to show that the John
soss committed riots There is none. Gentlemen,
this whole case turns upon the sole question: a0]etsr
| the Defendants committed a riotF Neither one man
nor two commit riot by themselves. There
| were breaches of the peace--there were ARRAYS
there were mutual fights. / know not, and care not
how many such disturbances were created on the
first day of june who committed them, so far as
| this trial is concerned. You sit here your oaths
Il a.. .1a..4.
| for nothing else
As to Robert Stafford Mr. Pyles said he saw Rob-
ert Stafford and another man there that Stafford
| raised his pistol, but he did not know whether he
| fired that he spoke to Stafford who responded:
the damned Irish rioting;" that these two men
were running after an Irishman that one fred but
he can't say that it was Slatfordl Whether or not
Stafford fired is uDimportaut-there were too per-
sons pursuing an Irshman, and two cannot by
| themselves make riot.
Well, now as to Robert Lewis Mr.. KEY says he
is certainly guilty of rot-but what is the proof in
his casef
Mr.. Birkhead, the Allston corner witness, who
saw pistol fired, and stone thrown in the pres
ence of thirty forty persons who could nothing
of it. says, that Lewis followed him, and threw a
brick and the witness shot his pistol at Lewis Did
that make riotP Does Brkhead say, that others
were acting in concert with Lewis? Lewis followed
him-Birkhead run--Lewis threw brick--and Birk-
head fred his pistol-and that was riot, was it'
WHY gentlemen, there surely could be no riot in
this combat between these t;oo men-if Lewis was
guilty Of any offence whatever, il may be an ARRAY,
but il is impossible it can be made riot
Mr. KEY would have you believe that If q man at
the Navy Yard-a man at the Third Ward and
another at the Fourth Ward are each trying, in diff
ferent localities, and without proof of concert be-
tween them, 10 pre0ent LSshnaen from gotiny; they
commit riot; that is the amount of his argument
shall make no comment upon the position that If
Charles Spencer threw stone from Allstons corner
Daniel Stewart followed an Irisrnan with musket
on Massachusetts, avenue-and Robert Lewis threwa
brickbat at rereating peace officer somewhere else
these separate acts be construed into riot by
those three persons Il might as we'll be assumed
that all those persons who, the first day Of June
did not vote the anti-American tcketthat all those
who were present and did net aid and assist Mayor
Magruder TO elect Goddard rioters
Gentlemen, before you can convict any Of the
defendants you must be satisfied, from the evidence
that three or more persons were acting in concert
and mutually supporting each other to do illegal
act that there was a combination formed for such
purpose, and not that they were ssoooly and inde-
Den0entty Of eacb other, committing illegal acts no
matter though such acts were of like description
Well, but says Mr.. KEY, it was riot because there
were several persons aiding in general purpose,
by chasing away the police officers Not at all,
unless it be shown by proof that there concert
aud unity Of design 20 do the act named-to chase
I;.ll