The American. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1857, 1857-09-05

j Now. II the polls were not closed ia the morn
ing, and the contrary is in proof were they closed
4 when he wrote his letter TO the President and
/ Goddard swore to his affidavit? Wasrioting going
4 on thenY Will the District Attorney argue that
| rioting was going on thenY Isit to protect these
parties from the visitation of the consequences Of
this act that the zeal Of my friend, the District
i Attorney, was 80 much excited that he attempted
TO show, that it was going on when the voting
was proceeding at the rate OF more than a man to
| a minute.
] say again. if human testimony is to be re-
spected if it can prove anything, and establish
any fact the testimony in this case has established
that when this affidavit was sworn to, and this
communication to the President was wrtten,i much
more when they were delivered, that there was
no such state of things as they set forth, prevail
| ing at all A jury OF Democrats Of the rankest
kind would be obliged to find that fact. s5s3t
There was no rioting then, but men were voting
at that precinct, and their votes were being re-
ceived at the rate of more than man to a min
ute Yet the affidavit was sent to the Executive
| Department, and the communication was delivered
to the President of the United States by the hands
OF this city officer His Honor has decided, and
we accept the decision, as the law OF this case,
that that affidavit and that written request justi-
fed the President in point Of law, (and that is all
that his Honor could decide,) in ordering out the
marines PROFESSIONALLY, the President was inn
Il
true state of things, surely he would not have
given the ORDER and if he had known the true
state of things, his Honor would not have decided
that he had the lawful authority but, in the opin-
ion Of the court he is protected from the legal
responsibility, by the fact that he was not bound
to investigate the truth Of this matter personally,
and had right to act upon the testimony before
him. i am not here to question the correctness
of that decision but must be permitted to say, see
ing that the riot was alleged to be almost at his own
door in the city, where he had his Marshall at
hand-seeing the time that elapsed between the
original application and the period at which the
order was consummated, in the exercise Of asound
discretion he or his Secretary might have enquired
into the state Of things then existing, or might
have sent for the Marshall, who is properly an
executive officer under his control. None would
doubt the Willingness of the Marshall to obey the
man from whom he holds his commission. He
might have sent for the Marshall and desired to
know from him if with his posse, he could not put
down this disturbance, which seemed to give the
Mayor so much trouble; but he did not dot. The
court says he was not bound to do it, and, there
FORE there is no legal complaint against him for not
doing it; and yet as free citizen of this country,
T. like Others may entertain my own opinions, and
regret that it had not occurred to one or the other
of these Executive Officers to discharge the sim.
pie duty Of making an enquiry as to the truth Of
these allegations OF riot. Certain it is the state
ment was untrue, and there was not man in the
city of Washington who would not have informed
him it was untrue, if called upon. Certainly, his
Marshall would have informed him it was untrue,
if he had been called upon. Something was said
about Young Hickory and Old Hickory--about the
first and the second Jackson.
A riot far transcending this, occurred here du-
ring Old Hickory's time, and precipitate Mayor
ran to him to call out the military. 'tWhere is
the Marshall" enquired General jackson. go
and tell tho Marshall will hold him responsible
for the peace Of this CITY," There spoke Old
Hickory, and there spoke a man of ability; ex-
perienced in war, with the knowledge of its hor-
rors, who knew what it was to turn loose upon an
excited, perhaps an unarmed people, the hireling
soldiery with arms in their hands, say thus spoke
Old Hickory Unfortunately, thus did not speak
Young Hickory; for had Young Hickory spoken
as Old Hickory did, the slaughter of your fellow
citizens would have been avoided; crime would
have been prevented; the blood of slaughtered
citizens would not have been dripping from the
hands OF the murderers, who have been called to
| testify in this case. The President is justified by
the law though, in issuing the order. He can plead
in his excuse Goddards affidavit and the Mayors
letter. That is the decision. But, If he had the
right upon this representation, to order out this
military force, and is not responsible for the inn
position upon him, can the same be said of the
city officials who practiced the imposition? Did
they practice an imposition? You heard God
dard's affidavit read. You have heard the Mayors
letter read. do not know that will consume
your time by reading them again, but viii state
what you will verify when this case is entrusted
to you, that both the affidavit and the certificate
spoke of affairs as they were alleged to have ex-
listed at the time Of their preparation. They both
represent, that at the time Of their preparation,
the polls Of the first precinct OF the Fourth ward
were in possession of rioters; that the commits
| oinn Ariu ftat thaI
was do6ed, and by persons in such strong force,
that it was impossible for the city authorities TO
quell them. They stated those facts. Now, every
man on the jury knows that they are false. do
, not care who he is; every man within the sound
of my voice knows that the statement is false.
Now, If the President and the Secretary Of the
Navy can plead the imposition as defence against
, their legal responsibility so far as they are con-
cerned, can the city officials who practised the
imposition, escape its consequences? His Honor
, says, for example, that the Mayor of this city,
who is peace officer, had the right to make the
requisition on the military arm Of the government,
and to use it at his discretion in proper case !;
that as matter Of course, it was discretionary
power; he was the judge of the occasion TO ex-
ercse the power or to refrain from it's exercise.
+ Certainly the power existed 1t was in the dis
erection Of the officer to resort to it or not, and
that understood the learned judge to declare in
his nstructions but it does not follow because
this was discretionary power, that the Mayor is
not responsible for his action.
The DISTRICT ATTORNEY. do not under.
stand the instructions Of the court as you do.
Mr. SCOTT. cannot see how they can be
understood any other way. Is it TO be believed
that the Mayor, because he has the discretion to
call out the military is not responsible in law for
the exercise Of that discretion That is much be-
|, yond what any other judge would go, and much
! beyond what this Judge has gone.
The DISTRICT ATTORNEY. merely inter.
rupted the gentleman, to state the fact in this
case, Your Honor has told the jurv that with the