Spadre Bluff, a "town," as it was called, on the Arkansas river, about one hundred and forty miles above Arkansas city. About the first of the year 1822, he set to work to load a flat boat, which he himself had built, with furs, peltries, and Indian commodities, which he safely launched in the Arkansas River, and as safely piloted to New Orleans. Soon furs, peltries and Indian commodities were exchanged bath for iron ware, almost equal in variety to the products of his old forge at Fair Haven, and for everything else that was necessary for the factory at Spadre Bluff, among which was included the machinery for a gigantic cotton gin, weighing fourteen hundred pounds. The outward passage was begun on the first of February in a climate and in a season eminently severe; but it did not chill the fires of the old pioneer, for on his way back, not content with pursuing the straight road home, he stopped at the mouth of White river, stored his freight there, and paid a flying visit to his Kentucky friends, baving gone through within three months a journey of over three thousand miles, and this under weather and current so adverse that many a time he was obliged to spend hours in wading through the shallow stream, guiding his hands while they attempted to drag along the grounded flat-boat, and always insisting upon doing his part in "rowing, steering, or cordel ling." But this was the last time he was to drop down the current of the Mississippi, or visit, by way of an interlude, his second home in Kentucky, for robust as he was, the chill of old age was at hand, and like the night of northern climates, was destined to drop upon him without the notice of an intermediate twilight. On August 1st, 1822, at Spadre Bluff, in his seventy-seventh year, died Matthew Lyon, loved as a neighbour, for he was full of that chivalrous spirit of generosity which is not a strange inmate of an Irish heart; and valued as a friend, for upon that warm temperament had been grafted the fertility of expedients belonging to the American pioneer.

The repayment to Mr. Lyon of the fine imposed in the trial in the text, was during his life brought before several successive Congresses, but though it obtained at different periods the approval of the individual branches, for a long time, through the negligence encountered by private bills at the end of a session, it did not secure their concurrent sanction. At last, on July 4th, 1840, a bill to pay the sum with interest to Mr. Lyon's legal representatives, having passed through both houses, received the President's signature, having been preceded by a report of a committee in which the principles upon which the trial was conducted were emphatically repudiated, and a series of prior reports referred to, in which the same positions were taken. See 1st Sess. 26th Cong., Doc. 86, House Rep. Thus just forty years after the passage of the Sedition Law was its last vestige effaced, and its doctrines finally disowned

TRIAL

OF

DUANE, REYNOLDS, MOORE AND CUMING,

FOR SEDITIOUS RIOT.

IN THE COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER FOR THE
COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA.

PHILADELPHIA, 1799.*

Ar a court of Oyer and Terminer, held at the State House in Philadelphia, on Thursday, February 21st, before J. D. Coxe, Esq., presiding judge; R. Keen, Jonathan B. Smith, and A. Robinson, Esqrs., assistant judges, two indictments were laid against William Duane, editor of the Aurora, James Reynolds, M. D., Robert Moore, Esq., and Samuel Cuming, printer, for an alleged riot, &c.†

The report in the text was printed in Philadelphia, in 1799, by Mr. Duane himself, and of course must be received with the allowance belonging to a report by a party. As far as I can judge, however, from the cotemporaneous papers, as well as from its own face, the text is tolerably accurate, the partisan feelings of the writer having been pretty much confined to the notes.

† Cobbett notices the inception of the prosecution as follows:

"Last Sunday, four men, to wit, Reynolds (commonly called Dr. Reynolds), Duane, Mrs. Bache's editor, one Moore, lately from Ireland, Rice, a clerk, and Curnmens, a journeyman printer, were apprebended and taken before Robert Wharton, Esq., mayor of the city, for a riot; the scene of which was at the Roman Catholic Church in Fourth Street.

"During divine service some of them went and stuck up placards on the walls, to the following purport:—

"The natives of Ireland who worship at this church, are requested to remain in the yard after divine service, until they have affixed their names to a memorial for the repeal of the Alien Bill.'

"The trustees and some of the congregation pulled down these placards; they were stuck up again and again pulled down. The priest, who was informed of the matter, gave directions that the congregation should be apprized of it, in order that they might be prepared should a riot take place. When the church broke up, a man was perceived standing on a tombstone, haranguing some twenty or thirty persons, some of whom had already signed a paper lying on the tombstone. This orator and his group were dispersed by the trustees. In the meanwhile Reynolds, who was placed at the east end of the church, and who had been ordered out, drew a pistol, and presented it at the breast of one of the congregation. It was forced from him, and be was taken into custody along with the others.

"While the prisoners were before the mayor, a scene took place, which, I am bold to say, was never equalled; no, not even in Republican France. The mayor was engaged in taking the recognizances, when in rushed M'Kean, the democratic judge, violently agitated with passion. In an imperious and insolent tone, he asked the mayor, what all this fuss was about? The mayor began to explain the affair to him. When the judge had listened to him for some time, he replied, that the men might take their hats and go home. He made several other very daring and insolent remarks.

"A gentleman, who was present, went up to M'Kean and asked him what he meant by

The prosecution was carried on in the name of the commonwealth, and Mr. Hopkinson acted in the room of the Attorney-General.

Messrs. Dallas, Dunkin, and Beckley, counsel for the defendants. The defendants had been severally held in 4,000 dollars recognizance, to appear and stand trial, and they accordingly appearing in court, Mr. Dallas, having examined the indictments, remarked, that the name of the prosecutor was not on the back, as customary.

Mr. Hopkinson said there was no personal prosecutor; the State was prosecutor; he had privately stated the same thing to Mr. Dallas before, and he was surprised the same question should now be asked of the court. He then read the charges as they had been transmitted from the Mayor's office, and it was from the evidence that had appeared before that magistrate, that it had been deemed proper to institute the two separate charges.

Mr. Dallas. The gentleman need not be at all surprised, that upon a matter of public investigation, I should make a distinction between what was a fact, and what ought to be the legal form of proceeding; I certainly had received the information mentioned, but I did not conceive myself bound thereby to conclude the fact was therefore just and proper. On the contrary, when I saw that there was no real or substantial ground for discrimination, either from the information received, or from the evidence that had been given at the Mayor's office; when I knew that James Gallagher, jr., was the person implicated, as the person supposed to be assaulted, and whose life is alleged to have been endangered by a riotous meeting, he thought where that charge was separated, the

asserting that the prisoners might go away home. He denied having said so; the gentleman called on the bystanders for witnesses, who declared that he did say so. Some time after this he went out of the mayor's house. Now I call upon my readers, upon men who have been used to look upon the laws as sacred, and upon the channel of justice as pure and uninterrupted; I call upon such men to express their indignation, their abhorrence, at the outrageous conduct of this judge. M'Kean, in his charge against me, in order to excite a horror of my offence in the minds of the Grand Jury, took infinite pains to heighten the respect due to magistrates, and reminded them of the power of a single justice of the peace to bind over or imprison any one who should speak words of contempt against a justice of the peace, or mayor, even though such justice or mayor were not then in the execution of his office.' And this is the very man who now goes, while the mayor of the city is in the execution of his office, and not only speaks words of contempt against him,' but interferes in the execution of his office, attempts to defend the conduct of the rioters, and daringly asserts that they may take their hats and go home, while they stood before the mayor in custody of his constables and under his warrant!!!

"What would the people of England-but why do I appeal to a free nation?-what would the people of Turkey, of Algiers, say, to such barefaced outrageous conduct in a man who stands at the head of those whose business it is to administer justice?

"That the mayor did not commit to jail this contemptuous intruder, cannot be ascribed to his want of power, nor can it by those who know his character, be ascribed to want of spirit. Some persons ascribed it to his respect to the age of the offender; but accompanied with such behaviour, age ceases to be respectable in the eyes of every one but an idiot. No; the mayor certainly was struck with the enormity of the offence, and he undoubtedly thought that one step more serious than a commitment, and more salutary and lasting in its effects, ought to be taken. That such will prove to have been the cause of his apparent lenity, I feel the strongest assurance. It is impossible, absolutely impossible, that such an outrage of everything sacred should go unpunished; if it does, farewell to even the hope of preserving anything like freedom in Pennsylvania."

This may be taken, not as a correct view of the facts, for to Cobbett's reckless pen no fiction that could gratify his passion for revenge came amiss, but as an illustration of the temper of a period in which, on the one side, such a procedure as that in the text was an ordinary political incident, and on the other, such a report of it as that just given, was considered as hardly out of the line of fair party warfare.

accuser should also be separated; it was under these impressions that I could not waive a public duty, however respectable the author of the private information, which besides was of a nature that could be considered as confidential. The indictment I could not consider as drawn up in the Attorney-General's office, but at the instigation of Mr. Gallagher, a young man of impetuous passions, and acting under their immediate influence.

The Court. Were the bills drawn up in the Attorney-General's office?

Mr. Hopkinson. No: they were not.

The Court. As the grand jury has returned two indictments, the court has no control over them; they must be tried in course. With respect to the second indictment, the defendant would certainly have a right to demand the name of the prosecutor, were there not a decision upon the law of assembly which establishes, that when the AttorneyGeneral shall declare the prosecution to be ordered by the public, no prosecutor need be named. The gentleman employed on behalf of the State, declares upon a return, there is no prosecutor actually employed: under these circumstances the court are unanimously of opinion that none need be endorsed.

The names of the jury were then called over, and they were severally impanelled.

Mr. Hopkinson opened the proceedings very briefly. He said he acted as prosecutor in the name of the commonwealth, and in the place of the AttorneyGeneral. In the discharge of this duty he should not engross much of the time of the court and jury, as he would confess that he had but a very limited knowledge of the circumstances of the case. The evidence, however, was ample, and rather than risk the probability of leading the minds of the jury wrong, he should rely upon that evidence, and they would apply it in such a manner as justice required according to their best understanding.

There were two bills, he said, presented to the grand jury, one of them against William Duane, James Reynolds, Robert Moore, and Samuel Cuming, for a riot and assault; there was a second count in the same indictment found on that bill, for riot only. The second indictment was against James Reynolds alone, for an assault upon James Gallagher, junior, with an intent to kill. Having read the indictments, he observed that they were laid in the common form of indictments for riot and assault, and the second indictment was founded on the more aggravating conduct of Dr. Reynolds, compared with that of his colleagues. The jury would therefore endeavour, in receiving the testimony of witnesses, to discriminate between the two charges exhibited, the one against the whole, and the other against an individual. It was only necessary further to state to the jury, that the time when this affair took place, was on Sunday, the 9th of February, in the yard of the Catholic Church of St. Mary.

The counsel for the defendants remark that the separation of this case into two indictments was a very extraordinary proceeding; to which reply was

made, that it was only ordinary. It was asked if the defendants would be tried on the two indictments by the same or by separate juries. Their counsel observed that it was immaterial; the mode which gave least trouble to the court would be best. They would be tried together and by one jury:

Evidence on the part of the prosecution was then called.

JOHN BROWN, sworn.

Mr. Hopkinson. Relate such circumstances as you know concerning the transaction at St. Mary's Church on the ninth instant.

Ans. I went to church last Sunday was a week, at about half past nine o'clock; I had not been there but a few minutes before Dr. Reynolds and Mr. Cuming stepped up to the gate where I was standing. Dr. R. had four small notices in his hands, two of which he gave to Mr. C. to put up on the doors in the yard of the church-Dr. R. put up one on each gate: when he had put up the first, I went and read it; before I had done reading it, the clerk of the church came up where I was standing reading it; I showed it to him; I told him it was a pretty thing to be upon the gates and doors of the church-he immediately pulled them both off the gates. Just as I was going into the yard, I met Mr. John O'Hara, one of the trustees; I told him of it; he went up with me into the yard, and he pulled the two off the church doors; I then went into church. Dr. Reynolds nor Mr. Cuming said nothing when the clerk pulled down the notices, though they were both passing by at the time. This is all I know before church. By the Court. Did they go away or did they go into the church? Ans. They went away out of the yard. About ten minutes before service was over, I got up from my place, and went to the window: I saw Dr. Reynolds,† Mr. Moore, Mr. Duane, and Mr. Cuming, standing at the tomb-stone of the late Rev. James Burns, talking together. Mr. Moore and Mr. Duane, each of them, had a large paper, spread on the tombstone before them; one at the west end, and the other at the east end of the tomb. That is all I know. I then returned to my place.. I did not get down from my place in the upper gallery, till after the congregation were gone out, and I saw nothing more.

Mr. Dallas. Do you recollect the notice that was posted up, as you say, on the door? Would you know it if you saw one of them?

Ans.-I believe I should. (One of those that had been torn from the wall near the door, was read.)

"Natives of Ireland, who worship at this Church, are requested to remain in the yard after divine service, until they have affixed their signatures to a memorial for the repeal of the Alien Bill."

-

Ques. Did you at any time say, to any of these gentlemen, that they were doing wrong? Or did you hear any noise during the service? Or was there any disturbance, or interruption of the service?

Ans.-No..

"The evidence on this trial should afford a very serious lesson to persons called upon to give evidence, and to jurors how they receive it. The young man now examined cannot be suspected of a want of probity, but it appeared in the course of his examination and that of others, that his memory was not very accurate--the fact was, no bills had been posted on the doors, as will be seen in a subsequent evidence."-Note by Duane.

"The evidence was here under another mistake; undoubtedly he thought he saw Dr. Reynolds there, but in truth he had not been at that place during the whole day."-Ibid.