a full trial after this novelty was removed; the counsel, in short, withdrew from the defence of Fries, because they thought it would best serve him, and were not influenced by any other motive whatever. How does this testimony support the averment in the conclusion of the article, which boldly affirms, not that John Fries was saved, but that he was condemned to death, in consequence of not being heard by his counsel ?

A very strange and unexpected effort has been made, sir, to raise a prejudice against the respondent on this occasion, by exciting or rather forcing a sympathy for John Fries. We have heard him most pathetically described as the ignorant, the friendless, the innocent John Fries. The ignorant John Fries! Is this the man who undertook to decide that a law, which had passed the wisdom of the Congress of the United States, was impolitic and unconstitutional; and who stood so confident of this opinion, as to maintain it at the point of the bayonet? He will not thank the gentleman for this compliment, or accept the plea of ignorance as an apology for his crimes. The friendless John Fries! Is this the man who was able to draw round himself a band of bold and determined adherents, resolved to defend him and his vile doctrines at the risk of their own lives, and of the lives of all who should dare to oppose? Is this the John Fries who had power and friends enough actually to suspend, for a considerable time, the authority of the United States over a large district of country, to prevent the execution of the laws, and to command and compel the officers, appointed to execute the law; to abandon the duties of their appointment, and lay the authority of the government at the feet of this friendless usurper? The innocent John Fries! Is this the man, against whom a most respectable grand jury of Pennsylvania, in 1799, found a bill of indictment for high treason; and who was afterwards convicted by another jury, equally impartial and respectable, with the approbation and under the direc

tion of a judge, whose humanity and conduct on that very occasion have received the most unqualified praise of the honorable manager who thus sympathizes with Fries? Is this the John Fries, against whom a second grand jury, in 1800, found another bill for the same offence, founded on the same facts, and who was again convicted by a just and conscientious petit jury? Is this innocent German, the man who, in pursuance of a wicked opposition to the power and laws of the United States, and a mad confidence in his ability to maintain that opposition, rescued the prisoners duly arrested by the officers of the government and placed those very officers under duress; who with arms in his hands and menace on his tongue, arrayed himself in military order and strength, put to hazard the safety and peace of the country, and threatened us with all the desolation, bloodshed, and horror of a civil war; who, at the moment of his desperate attack, I cried out to his infatuated followers, "come on! I shall probably fall on the first fire, then strike, stab and kill all you can?" In the fervid imagination of the honorable manager, the widows and orphans of this man, even before he is dead, are made, in hypothesis, to cry at the judgment-seat of God, against the respondent; and his blood, though not a drop of it has been spilled, is seen to stain the pure ermine of justice. I confess, sir, as a Pennsylvanian, whose native state has been disgraced with two rebellions in the short period of four years, my ear was strangely struck to hear the leader of one of them, addressed with such friendly tenderness, and honored with such flattering sympathy by the honorable manager.

It is not unusual, sir, in public prosecutions, for the accused to appeal to his general life and conduct in refutation of the charges. How proudly may the respondent make this appeal. He is charged with a violent attempt to violate the laws and constitution of his country, and to destroy the best liberty of his fellow-citizens. Look, sir, to his past life, to the constant course of his opinions and conduct, and the improbability of

the charge is manifest. Look to the days of doubt and danger; look to that glorious struggle so long and so doubtfully maintained for that independence we now enjoy, for those rights of self-government you now exercise, and do you not see the respondent among the boldest of the bold, never sinking in hope or in exertion, aiding by his talents and encouraging by his spirit; in short, putting his property and his life in issue on the contest, and making the loss of both certain, by the active part he assumed, should his country fail of success? And does this man, who thus gave all his possessions, all his energies, all his hopes to his country and to the liberties of this American people, now employ the small and feeble remnant of his days, without interest or object, to pull down and destroy that very fabric of freedom, that very government and those very rights, he so labored to establish? It is not credible; it cannot be credited, but on proof infinitely stronger than any thing that has been offered to this honorable court on this occasion. Indiscretions may have been hunted out by the perseverance of persecution; but I trust most confidently that the just, impartial and dignified sentence of this court, will completely establish to our country and to the world, that the respondent has fully and honorably justified himself against the charges now exhibited against him; and has discharged his official duties, not only with the talents that are conceded to him, but with an integrity infinitely more dear to him.

SPEECH OF THOMAS ADDIS EMMET.

IN THE TRIAL OF

WILLIAM S. SMITH.

FOR

MISDEMEANORS,

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR THE NEW YORK DISTRICT, 1806.*

GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY,

I ASSUME it as a fact which cannot be denied, and which is clearly to be inferred from the manner of conducting these proceedings, as well as from the parties who appear against the defendant, that this is emphatically a state prosecution. Impressed with a conviction of that fact, I did not think, at the commencement of this court, that it would have become my duty, during its sitting, to address a jury; for when the defendant came forward and averred upon oath, that he had acted with the knowledge and approbation of the executive; when he threw down the gauntlet of investigation on that point; when he indicated, as the witnesses, by whom he meant to prove his assertion, the very heads of departments themselves; when he made the utmost exertions to procure their attendance, and avowed his intention of appealing to their oaths, I confess I believed that the public prosecutor would not have deemed it conducive to the

* The indictment against Mr. Smith charged him with being concerned in preparing a military expedition, or enterprise, which was set on foot in the city of New York, and was intended to be carried on against the dominions of Spain in South America, although the United States and Spain were at peace. It is sufficient here to observe, that the expedition, referred to, is generally known under the name of " Miranda's Expedition."-COMPILER.

honor of his cause, or the exalted character of the executive government, to urge on the trial of this state prosecution, till those witnesses, whose presence we have not been able to procure, and whose absence is attributed, without contradiction, and upon oath, to that very executive, had come in and deposed as to the facts alleged in the defendant's affidavit. I thought that the magnitude of those considerations would have overpowered the littleness of legal discussions; and that this cause would have been postponed by common consent, until it could be brought forward with all its circumstances; and a jury, and the world at large, enabled to form a correct judgment of the nature and justice of this prosecution. But it has been thought advisable to pursue a different line of conduct. We are forced on to trial, without the benefit of our whole means of defence; our witnesses are wilfully absent; our testimony is maimed and mutilated; we are tied and bound, and cast into the furnace; but still we hope that you, like the angel of God, will walk with us through the fire.

You, gentlemen, are taken from the mass of your fellow-citizens; it is therefore natural to apprehend that you may be influenced by those prejudices and misconceptions, which have been disseminated through the community; and it becomes my duty to endeavor to remove them. Against general Miranda, and the object of his expedition, I have heard and read some malignant calumnies, which only could have originated with mean and mercenary beings, who never yet sacrificed a selfish feeling to a public principle; whose hearts never sympathized with the sufferings of a slave; nor swelled with the mighty hope of delivering a nation. The district attorney, in his opening address to you, did not permit himself to adopt those calumnies in their entire extent; he is incapable of doing so, for his sentiments are liberal, and his manners mild. Sufficient, however, fell from him, to give to them somewhat of color and countenance, and to enlist your passions and prejudices against general