Newspapers / The Weekly Raleigh Register … / June 10, 1800, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Weekly Raleigh Register (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
ADVERTISER. - k: J . 'k . ; '! f - . K " ' " - ' ' :-' , : ' ' . - V ' i f .' J. 1 e"r ' -1 " i ' ' - . i : " " '- . . . . ' r ' '1 v ' - . : ! .k , i,. 7 T " - . . ! ' V ' ' k ... v ' . I' . - - ' . ." ' " ;' ' . ' ' I, 4 1 'U. i i 4 . K N(5. 34. : - , k- -Vyt: 4g : ! i '- 7 I - : V i- ,. , . . ' - j . : ! ... : ; . f '' . ;V?:' 1 Ours are the Plihi of fair delightfal Peace, - '!:' T - V - (jQwarp'd by Party Rage t live like Brothers." ' ' - i l: -:t- -; - i i 1 - ; - ; T - : r - ' . .. , Tuesday, Tune io, i8oo. 's Vol. I. . . : , - . - j ' ' k - J - ' : - , - ; TRIAL OF THOM AS COOPER. (Ctntinutifftn $ttr Isjt) ' ; - - ' MR. RAWLE, Attorney ucne ral, began by obferving that he Detenaam ltooa cnargcu wnu .rtVmots! which thepra&ke and po licy of all civilized nations had tho't it right at all times to puniih with feverity. With having publiflied falle, fcandalous, . and malicious attack on the charafter of the rreu- dent of the Unite btates wim an intent to excite'the hatred and con tempt of the people of this country .gainft the man .of their choice. v. It was muchto pc'iiamcnica inai every perfoh who had a tolerable fa cility at writing (hould think he had i right to attack and -oyfct thofe authorities and officers whom the people of this country had thought fit toappoint. Nor was it to be en-; dared, that foul and infamous fals hoods ftiould be utteredand publifli ed with impunity againfljthe Ptefi dent of the United States, whom the People themfelves had placed in that high office, and injwhich he had acled wi th To much 1 credit to himlelf and benefit to them. Tho mas Cooper flood charged in the in diftjpentas follows: (here the At torney GeneralJread the indictment). It vvas a fenfe. of public duty that called for this profecution. It was receffary that an example fhould be made to deter others from miflpadihg the people by fuch falfe and defama tory publications. There was a pe culiarity in the manner alfo of this publication ; We generally obferved that perjons who take thefe liberties, endeavour to avoid punifhment by ftielterjng tfiemselves under fictiti ous fignatures, or by: cbnceaiing, their names but the defendant act ed very differently. Being of the I piofeflion of the law, a man of edu- ca tion and literature, he availed him 1 Iki of thofc advantages for the pur- pbfc of diffeminating his dangerous 1 Droduftions in a remota' nart of the country where he had gained influ ence. Such conduct muft have ari fert from the bafeft motives. It would be proved to the jury, that at the time of this publication, the defendant went to a magi ft rate and acknowledged it to be his produc tion in the lame formal fmanner as-if it had been a deed. ! A conduct fo grofsly improper, had occurred in no ihftance within his recollefilion, and; the manner conftituted no flight aggravation of the offence. Indeed it was high time for the law. to interfere and reftrain the libellous fpirit which had been fo long permitted to extend itfelf a gainft the highefl and moft defend ing characters. To abufethemen with whom the public has entrufted the management oi their national concerns, to with draw from them the confidence of the people, fo neceflary for conduct ing the public buhnefs, was in di rcct oppoiition to tn auties or a good citizen. Mifcbiefs of this kind were to be dreaded in piopor tion as the country around is lefs informed, and a man of fenfe and e ducation has it more in his power to: extend the mifchief which he is inclined to propagate. Government fhould not encourage the idea, that they would not profecute fuch at ro . vv-.imuv.ij iui it una vouauci Lw as allowed to pafs over, the peace u rpr ine country , wouia be endan gered. Error leads to difcontent, difcon cnt-to a fancied idea of oppreflion, A t - . . ; - " m VA ;r. cl- r i i V r lu umi ictuon, or5wnicn v l. t ! n -i i i y iwuinnances wnicn nad already "oppened, were alarming proofs, uq weu known to the jury. i hat the jury, as citizens, muft determine' whe her from publicati ons of this kind the profperity of --the country was not endangered; and whether it was not their duty, wnen a cale of this nature'was laid before them, and the law was anDli cable, to bring in fiich a verdict as me uw and the evidence would Warrant : and (hewi that thefe Wind of attacks onhe government of the country, were noti to be fuffered with impunity. vu,Tf. mis indictment is founded on a ftatute which you will picaico to read to the jury. A he Attorney General, then read e lecond and third feftion of, the JobnBtjcn, etaminU y Mr, Kavtit. (. Do you know this paper? (hands Kim a paper.) ? A. Yes. Court, Look at the back of it ? Q, Who brought that paper to you? A. Thomas Cooper. Q. At what time ? A. The evening of December 6, 799 " . ' " fV'ur. Where ? , A At my houfe in Sunbury. He came to me at the door of my houfe. Afked me to walk in: We walked in. This was between candle-light and day light. " He afked for a can dle. He perufed this paper, which I have in my hand, pointed to his name, 4nd faid, this is my name, and I am the author of this piece. There was nothing further parted, only he faid, this jnav fave you trou ble another time. I knew very well what he meant by it. g. Did you give intimation of this to any one? A, 1 gave it to Mr. Rawle's depu ty, who profecutes for the United States. j. . Croft -examined by Mr. Cooler. 0. Had not you -and I been in the habit cf frequently j ok i ng each other upon political fubjefts ? A, 0 yes-ery often The! Attorney-General here read that part of the publication jwhich is included in the indictment, for which reafon it is omitted here. MR. COOPER'S DEFENCE. Gentlemen of the Jury, . j If it were true, as it isnot true, f that, in the language of the Attorney-General of the diftrict, I have been guilty of publifhing with the bafeft motives, a foul and infa mous libel on the character of the Prefident; of exciting again fl him the hatred and contempt of the peo ple of this country, by grofs and malicious falfhooda then indeed would it be his duty to bring me be fore this tribunal, it would be yours to convict, and vthe duty of the Court to puniih me. But Iihope in the courfe of this triI. I (hall be; e- nabled to prove to your fatisfaction, that Thave publifhed nothing that trutri will not iuftify. That thelaf- fertions for which I am indicted are free from malicious imputation : and that my motives have been; noneit and fair. ' f ( ' . You will obferve, Gentlemen of the jury that tKe law requires it to be proved as a neceflary part of the charge, that the paiiages for which l am indictee- mould be taue and candalous, and publifhed from ma licious motives : and before vbu will be able, confidently with your oaths, to convict upon hi indict ment, you mud be thoroughly fat is- ned that both thele marts of .the charge are well foundedNor does c Yp rv T cKIcl".on "l curing fiiaentipt lu tu"lfmPl dc luinueq, u in accufation, as in the prefent inf- tance, related to an examination,, of hispuHie conduct, and no improper motives are imputed to him. And that I have carefully avoided impu ting any impropriety of intention to the Prefident even in the very paper complained ofthat xhe uni form tenor of my conduct and lan guage has been to attribute honeity of motive, even where Ihave ftrong- lyldifapproved of the tendency of of his meafiires, I can abundantly (hew. Gentlemen of the Jury, you, and all who hear me, well know that this country is divided, and almoft equally divided, into two grand parties: ufuallv termed, whether r.vri7 v. iU1p.vuw.7, and Anti-Federahfts : and that the governing powers of the country, are ranked in public opinion under inc lormcr acnominuon-ui wicc divifions, the one. wifhes to increafeV the other to diminifti the powers of the Executive; the one thinks that the people (the Democracy of the country) has too much, j the other, too little influence on the mea fures of government : the one is hoftile, the other friendly, to a ftanding ar my and a permanent navy : the one thinks them neceflary to repel inva fions and aggreffions from without, and commotions within ; the other.; ihatl well-organized militia is a fuf ficient fafeguard, for! all that an. ar y could prQte&, ;and ;hat navy is more dangerous and expenfive than any benefit derived from it can compenfate; ,the? one thinks the li berties of our country endangered by the licenfioufnefi, the other, by the reflections of the prefs: Such are fome among the leading features of thefe notorious divifions of poli tical party! It is evident, Gentle men of the Jury, that each will view with a jealous eye the pofiti 6ns of the other,' and that there can not but be a, biaa among- the ,parti zaris of the one fide, againft the principles and doctrines inculcated by the other; In the prefent in stance I fear it cannot but have its effect ; fe.r without impeaching the integrity of any perfon directly con cerned in the progrefs of the prefent trial, I may fairly Mate, that under the Sedition Law, a defendant, fuch as I itand before you$ is placed in a fituatien unknown in any other cafe. '; ' J . Directly or indirectly, the public, if not the private character of the Prefident of the United States is in volved in the prefent trial. Who nominates the judges who arc to prcfide ? The juries who are to judgeof theevidence? The Marfhal who has the fummoningof the jury ? The Prefident. Suppofe a cafe of arbitration concerning the property of anyonedf you, where thea'dverfe party fhould claim the riekr of no minating the perfons whofe legal or piqions are to decide the law of the ) queftion, and of the very man who (hall have the appointment of the arbitrators? What would you fay to fuch a trial ? And yet fuch is mine, and fuch is the trial of every man who has the misfortune to be indicted under this law. Butaltho' I have a right tpprefume foroethine of political bias againft my opinions. trom the court who try me, to. you wno iw tnere as jurymen, 1 am itill fatisfied you will feel that you have fome character to fuDDort. anHfom character to I61e : and whatever . r ri i your opinions may be on thefujbjects dnuucu io in ine inaictrnent. vou will reverence as you ought the fa- j cred obligations of the oath you have taKen. Gentlemen of the Tury. I acknow ledge as freely as any of you can, the neceflity of a certain degree of confidence in the executive Govern ment of the country. But this con fidence ouaht not to be unlimited. and need not be paid up in advance ; let it be earned before it be repofed ; let it be claimed by the evidence yof benefits conferred, of raeafures that compel.approbation, of conduct ir- reproadhable. It cannot be exacted by the guarded provifions of feditiori laws, by attacks on the freedom of I the . Prefs, by 'profecutions, pains, I and penalties ton thofis who boldly exprels the truth, or who may ho political lentiments.-iLet ihis re ne ft ly and innocently err in their quired confidence be the meed of de ert and the public :will not be backward tn 'mv it. I But in the! prefent (late of affairs, the prefs is open to thofe who will praife, while the threat -of the Law hang over thofe who blame the con duct of the men in power. Indit- criminate approbation of the mea- fures of the Executive, is not only unattacked, but foitered and recei ved with the utmoft avidity, while thofe who' venture to ex prefs a fen Ciment of ppofition, muft do it in fear and trembling, and run the hazard of being dragged like myfelf herore the rrowning tribunal, erec ted by the Sedition Law. Beit fo; but ill rely this anxiety to protect public character muft arife from fear of attack. That conduct which will not bear mveitieation will na- turally ihun it ; and whether my opinions are right or wrong as they arc ftated in the charge, I cannot help thinking they wouldhavebeen L,tf.r -ftrft,teH triHnre. and ar gument than by indictment. Fines and imprifonment will produce con viction neither in the mind of the fufferer, nor of the public. Nor do I fee how the people can exercife, on rational grounds, their elective rrancnuei,r jT pcricci dom ot diicuionoi puoic cnarac- ters be not allowed. Electors are bound in confeierice to reflect and decide who belt deferves their fuffra ges; but how can-they do it, if thefe profecutions in terrore cloie all the avenues 01 xntormation, ana thfow a veil over the grofleft tnif condud f our periodical rulers Gientlenen of the Jury, . ! r After having offered thefe pre liminary remarks, I fhall give an ac count of the paper on which I am accufedj and then proceed to exa mine the charges of the indictment in the order in which they are laid : much that 1 intended to have advan ced I rauft relinquifh, that I may not trefpafs too long on your time, or Weaken the effect; ! of my ' own defence by fatiguing your atten tion. I The fcored paper how handed t.0 me by the Attorney General, jfug geftsan obfervation, which, though trite, is material. Upon the 'plan ufually adopted in thefe ex eficip ac Cufations, a good Chriftian might eafily be proved an arrant fctheift, " The fool hath laid in his heart there is no Ged " Take the four lafl words, and they are atheiftical : j take the fentence, and it is Icripture. So, take the marked paflages iri this paper, and they may perhaps be for ced into fomething like improper imputation againft the Prefident : take the paper itfelf, and the very firft paragraph is a plain andpofitive approbation of his intention. jTho' I muft acknowledge, that however upright I might formerly have be lieved his motives ef aAion, I can not, upon reflection, pay :hat tribute to his conduct or his motives on the prefent occafion. The general circumftances that gave rife to the paper I now j hold, are thefe : Dr. Prieftlev. a man whofe name implies a greater com bination of leaminE icience, and ability, of imoortant difcovery, of exertion for the benefit of mapkind,1 and of private integrity, than any other man now livirig can beaft whofe conduct tbwai ds me in the in-1 fiance detailed in this paper is praife fufficient to bear up my mind againft any confequences that the preient trial can produce had long been an acquaintance, and an imimaie acquaintance of Mr. Adams in England, and in this ceuntry, The letters of the latter to DrPrieft- ley are full of ftrong cxpreflions of inenoinip ana eiteem. rciypig up on this long intercourfeof cordiality between them, Dr. Prieitley urged me to nermithim to write to Mr( Adams, on the lubjcct or a yacancy mentioned in this paper, and wnich, as you will have it before you when ! you retire, I fhall not read atl length, Thisapplication was from one friend to another ; upon the facej of it a confidential communication;; altho' containing nothing but what might do credit to ail the parties concern - ed. Mr.- Adams, however,! did not think it fo confidential ; and from fome difclofure, on his part,hasbecn tounded the bale and cowardly lian- der which draggedlme, in' the firft inftancel before the public 'in vindi- cation of my moral and jpolitical character, and has at length dragged me before this Tribunal, t0 protect,. x 1 cm. . my perionai lioerty ana r 1 1 s my private fortune againft ;the legal attack of an ex officio information. Hence it is evident, Gentlemen of the Jury, that this is not a voluntary, the electors of this, country . deuer but an involuntary publication mine the characters whom they hb- bn mv part : it has originated not from motives or turbulence and malice, but from felf-de- fence; not from ! a defire of at tacking the character of the Prefi- dent, but of vindicating -my own. And in what way have I done this? My motives, mypHvatecha- racter, my public character, were the object of faifehood and calumny, apparently founded on information of high authority.! In reply, L give credit to theintentions of the Preh- dent, I fay nothing of his private! character, and I attack only the ' . . ! w . ill I attack only tendency of meafiires notorious to the world. which .having been known to difapprove publicly. I was. charged withbeing teady, from5 motives of intereft, to approve.pri-j vately. I think, Gentlemen, you cannot help feeling this? contraft of behaviour, and if the Prefident is latisfied with hisfide of the picture,; lam with mine. I The firft article fclected foTi ac cufation is, that at the time LAlluideJ to, fche was nut in tne inrancyr ,or political railtake' VVhy this er preffioh fhould'have been fixed' pn a frliiirii T k tin w not!J unlef s it be that autm deus vult perdtre przus dt-1 rruntati for have we advanced fo far in the road t defpotifm in this republican country, that we dare t not fay out Prefident may be -mifta- . ken? Is a plain citizen encircled at once by the myfterious attribute . of political infallibility, theinftaht he mounts the prehdentiai cnair r is Io, then indeed may it be leditious to fay he is miftaken ; but before yoa can cohdemn me for this kind of fedition, you; mult become catholic belieVers in thii heW-fangled doc trine of infallibility; I know that, , in England, the King can do no. wrong, but I did not lenow, tux nowthat the Prefident of theUnitcd States had the fame attribute. I have laid, and am accufed for faying. it. "that even thofe' who doubted his capacity, thought welt . or his intentions." is it a crime to doubt the capacity of the Prefident ? buppple I had laid that there were fomeiwho did not give him credit for capacity fufficient for the office he holds, is that a crime? Qr if in them, is it a crime in me, who have; not faid it ? Nor can the word ca- pacify here be fairly con ft rued lEto any other than a comparative meaji-. mg;! xor lureiy no one who fctas read his defence, as it is called, -pf the American eonftitution; Qr wlsiO5' reflects that he lias had abahties"lW nough ta raife himfelf to his prefeai f t fituation, can fay that he is devefU either ot indultrv or tafents. .lixrP thofe who yoted for his opponent muft have believed Mr. Adams of fh- feridr capacity to that gentleman- Of that number-wai I : of that num ber was dt leaf: one-half of the peo ple et the United Mates. If fit be a crime thus to have thoueht and thus to hare fpoken, I fear I hall continue in thisrefpect incorrigible. iiut if of two conftructions 'he one is abfurd, improbable, St unfavour able, furely it fhould be rejected in tayour of that meaning which was moft likely to have occurred, and which in its effects will de leaft in jury to a defendant like myfelf.. This is common, this is legal cha rity. V Nor had we yet, under his auf pices, been faddled with the ex pence of a permanent navy. Gen lemen, is it true,-or nbt, that we are faddled with the exper.ee of a permanent navy ?t Is.it neceflary that 1 fhould enter into a detail of authorities to prove that the fun fhinesat Noon-day? But further. is it true, that we incur this ex pence under his aufpices and fahc tion ?, I havebeforeme two publications, the one the Gazette ef the United States, publifhed by Mr. Fenno in this city ;' -and.-.another iri'a form more portable and convenient, pur porting to be a felection of ad- drclies and anlwers to and ; rr m the Prefident, during .the fun m.T of 1798. Not having been able to procure office copies of t-e documents I wifhed to refer to, I muft offer in evidence fuch publi- ill; f t . 1 f cations as I can nno : tnat ciais nf publications, upon.which, in f.; - II the mind of the public is ufuafi Ir made up ; and upon wfiofe authority-- I nour with their fuffrage. Indeed if the opinion that fell from the Court this morning be accurate, that ho man fhould hazard an aflertion, but upon fufficient and legal evidence,' I and if documents from public offices in proof' of notorious facts are re- quired as fuclx, evidence, then are the mouths of the people c mpleatly fhut up on every queftion of publ c conduct or public character: but I cannot help thinkin it a tair ana It reafonable polition, t hat a defendant in fuch a cafe as this, fhould be per- . - rr.it ted to offer to the jury any evi- decce that appears to him a iufhcient ground for his aflertion, and, let , them decide on its credibility. ' judge Chace. What is it you fay, Sir, fell from the Court ? Chey have not yet decided what was, or what was not proper evidence for you to . adduce. The Court faid, if you thought the public J docurnents at your fervice, you were aila3T If yoa undertake to publiftj, without having proper evidence betore you, tr iiiifi votir ailertions. you bow, mw J J -V. A ",r- r J' ar ypur own uuw. muin."-., K v i l - ir. ti nit anil rmn t v : j -v ' 1 offer the evidence 4 you mentipri irVnnurlfidod that in iUCne-, a1 Mi 1 - 'It ' I'l -i'l ' ' t f 1 .4 'l . f J t ' .6- i- ', T-f-tf i.'1 i""1 il - r-r 4 it j--
The Weekly Raleigh Register (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
June 10, 1800, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75