The sun., 1896-03-15
of Curran or Sheridan. No wonder that he
swept thom from the moorinrs Of the law into

closed by Washington Morton, then IN the
and Intellectual vigor gave promise Of u bright
| future, soon to be extinguished in premature
5 sshagsr sHi OF tSs WIFE sfHs
Alexander, Hamilton, and all the prestige OF
the schuyler and Hamilton families, since the
death OF Hamilton, clustered around him.
:, Golden, HOFFMAN, and Emmet wcre Repub.
licans, Harrison and Morton Federalists.
States SirGuit Court II before Judge TsilmSdse:
| The defendants were indicted separately. and
| prosecution demurrcd to these pleas. and. by
| consent of parties, II was ordered that the ar
should be heard ,Fshr SH n pleas
mtherenpon the eacl defendant pleaded not not guilty;
Two Judges were @ present. William Patterson.
Associate Justice OF the United States supreme
well described by one Of his colleagues us "a
walking library, and every ineh l.. JnaEc,. pre- pro
Rarey has court % S"S eonaned such nn
dience as was present at tho hearing. Judge Ed
wards ntly, ,characterized 1t as vast con
physicians, merchants, tradesmen. and labor.
ers. jostled each other in their eaHerness to see
and hear. Conspicuous among them, thread
ing his slow way through the crowd that re.
% icon sUre al s ."
now Vice President OF tho United States. There
and ex Minister to England whose sympathies
might well be supposed to be with the defend
ants. since when Minister under John Adams,
in l79s. he had urged that assistance be given
TO Miranda In his schemes for the liberation OF
The The case case Of William II. Smith wa, called
first. At tho suggestion OF the District At
torney the clerk called the names of sixty.four
mcnt. Mr.. Golden then directed him to call
the names OF the witnesses for the defence.
Then came a sensation. They were twenty.
in
Secretary Of tho Treasury, Henry, Dearborn.
Secretary Of War, and Samuel smith. Secre-
aud then Golden rising to his feet. asked the
Madison and Samuel smith for contempt OF
court in neglectinR TO obey its process and t9
rSTs them tG tssty the e resd 1hs Whcb
shall have the right to have COMPULSORY proc;
tho statute OF 1889, which declares that the
courts Of the United States shall have power to
respective rsse jurisdctons, and agreeable to the
principles and usages OF law" He also asked
that the court adjourn from day to day until
the attachments We're returned and the wit
tion opposed both requests. and discussion
sons announcement that the Court had re-
cc!ved a letter from Messrs. Madison, Dear
born, and Smith in which they made the fol-
lowing statement:
have to state to the court that the President OF the
United States taking into view the state OF our pub.
lie affairs has specially ssainsd to us that It. our u, I
W fe we we
will be pleased to accept this as satisfactory ex,
snce required And as i, must be uncertain whether
at any subsequent period the absence OF heads OF
thcir onioial duties may equally happen to in.
terrere with them, we Respectfully submit, wheth.
reconeiled with puSlic consderations by a Sommis.
sion issued. with the consent Of their counsel and
that OF the District Attorney OF the United States
ior the purpose Of taking, In tuat mode, our re-
specttve testimonies
The reading of this letter increased the SEN
sation. The defendants counsel refused to
'd and dsclared that the letter from the heads Of
dent. is an attempt Of the Executive to inter.
fee with the judiciary WHICH we doubt not you
viii Indignantly repe In reply b the counsel
process could he issued against the absent wit
nesses the defendants must file mn affidavit
testimony can operate for the defendant and
wherein it is material to the defence. This
hen prodneed 0 the eG at of Wam vH
$. Smith, in which he deposed:
That he hoped and expected to prove by the testi.
he was indicted was PREPARED and set on foot with
the knowlcdge and appreciation Of the President
against him was commenced by order OF the Pres
ilent; and that the witnesses were prevented from
attending by tho orders or interposltion OF the
President.
This affidavit disclosed the principal ground
Of the defence. Their. argument was that
with tho consent and appreciation of the Presi
Vent: on ,.,, This they we're I prepared to prove by
They asserted that at the time the expedition
wHA set on foot there was an actual state OF
the %oI shows ST
rresid,snt to Congress in the month Of De-
and Ill. h
Closed '' ,aoors They would slow that Gen. Cen
Miranda. during that time. had several in:
state that after he came to New York he was
In correspoUdenco with them; that the de-
fendaHt Tas pr PRIV to that corrssrondence
in assisting Miranda he was acting in accord
ance with the wishes Of the President; that
the power 10 declare war, yet state OF war
might exist without any formal declaration;
In THIS such M The state dd exist sed
by Spanish troors. who carried Off our ci j.
zens as captiyes, and pundered their property;
by his message; that 1t was his right and duty
to repel force with force: and that If In his
would be OF direct OF Indirect effect in the pro-
tection OF our frontiers, he was perfectly JUS
,s In It, Of that oId Is for
defendant had a right 10 suppose that he was
doing his duty as a good citizen in carrying
out tho wishes Of the Chief Magistrate. II
they could show. rs they expected tn show by
these witnesses when compelled to testify,
that the President approved OF this expedi-
tion, then tho responsibility for it rested not
upon the defendant, but upon tho President.
The defendant. ut lenst, ought not and could
not be convicted OF misdemeanor under such
circuIns stances.
To this tho counsel for the Government re.
piled that tho proposed testimony. even If 1t
proved to be what the defendant expected,
would not DO material. and would afford
neither justification nor excuse for his vioia.
ton OF the law; that the President had no
power TO dispense with the law himself nor
allow others to violate 1t; if hc had done so
lie was subject to Impeachment. but the do
fendnnt was subjectto trial by Jury of his coun-
trymcn; that Congress alone was authorized
To declare war, and that no war could exist
until declared by it: that it was absurd to
maintain that message Of the President To Con-
Eress on the state oi the country could create
II state OF war; that ns the evidence vas not ma
teral the presence of the witnesses would bo
of no benefit to the defendant. as they would
not be allowed to testify if present. There
was. therefore, no reason for postpOning the
trial tn await their presence. and no proprety
IN issuing an attachment TO compel il.
Two days were consumed in the argument
on this point, and on its conclusion Judge Pat
terson delivered the opinion OF the Court. II
was a long and carefully prepared one ex-
haustive or tho subject, and its conclusion
was that as the testimony of the witnesses as
stated in the defendants AFFIDAVIT, was not
pertinent TO the issue nor material by WAY of