1
.;h
4 1
2 i
, ft7 r ' J '
K T H - GA: R Ok IM "WiEKL Y'r& D V ERTI S E R,
1 v-:
Mi
r
'-(Our afethe !?ns of fair rfc!g6tful Peace,
: M lfiiwarpM y Pfty Ragefo Jive like Siother.
iI4siAV; Jun e! 24, 1800.
No. 30.
A
v
i.
T UAL OF THOMAS COOPER,
Continued ft:m hj? . ;
-prT I beorin- to grow weary of
caiife ; and-il fqcl difm
i:1ciHo fatigue mylqU, and you
:;m :r.i)re.:)Y 'Wad in ff tiirpugh this
eolleaion 01 unploifant and u;ntat
iMtr cxnrc.aions: Nordo I thmk it
bile
to employ my
nd yours in - conterjciing vv,vv
fv-nnifiil obiection.
JL G(r "M-
v expealfucri frequerit interrupu
o;is, on a trial of, this nature, or to
have fought my way, pcrtot amba
res per ! tvt : dicumita tcrum.
1 shall quit, therefore, the paper
uf extracts I hold in my hand, and
quote 11b more of them. -But thefe
9ddtcllcs and anfwersf are not the
cr.iy'ioundatbn of the affert; ins I
rnjde. The French themfelves
have complained of this violent lan-
ffiiae and
accuiation 01
if r
iheir principles and conduct.:
have' felt the indignity, and
.it TT
have
exprcfsly made.it an objlaclc to ne
aociationl In page 19 of the in
tt;uttion of the envoys.; &c. pub
lished by the Secretary of State, iff
eoiilorrnity to a refolutfon of Con
rr;,rrs of June 2, thofe En
voys iuiorm 'us, that' M. YJ took
out of his pocket a French tran.flati
0:1 of the Prefident's fpeech, the
pjris of which objcBed to by the
pire.Uory, were nVarked, agreea
bly to' ou;r requeft to M. X. andare
contained in exhibit A,". (;his exhi
bit I need not read at length: it
will be found innate 2a of the book
I am quoting).? "Then he. made
us the! fecond fet of propofitions,
which! were dicfatedfby him, and
written by M. X. in iour preence,
1 jL.l.'timl - io nrtA ;jlll-l"if
4 trauflated from the French are as
follow: There is demanded a -for-
-'rnal di'favowai in-writing, declaring
the ipeech cf the Citizen Prefident
Jarras did not contain any thing
offenfiveto the government of the
United States, nor any thing
which deferved the : epithets con
tained in the wholt paragraph."!
In another, part of the fame pae,
die envoys tell us M. Y. informed
them lh?t 4 -the directory were ex
tieniely inrtated on account ol
fome'. parts of the Prefident's
fpeech." Now, Gentlemen of the
Jury that fpeech i$ Jmildnefs itfelf,
Compared witli the extracts I have
read, andwas p repaired to read to you
t.v'jri the addreffes and ahfwers of
thePi ehdent, published in the fame
rr.omh with this very book.
In page 92, the Envoys give us
a tranflation'-of.tlie letter of M. Tal
Jevrand,. the miniftcr of foreisiti1 re
Jations, to them. In pagei, there
is thctollbwing pafaraph of that
, I'.t.cr. "The newfpapers known
to be under the indii et control of
ltic cabinet, have, fince the treaty,
ro;:cubic?.the inveclivcsand calum -iiu.-sainftthe
Republic andagainfl
V?r priuciplcs, her inagiilrates, &
her envoys,. Pamphlets openlv
Pdfor by-Ahemitiiirer of Greau
Britain, have 1 e-produced jh every
forri tho-e infults and calumnies,
without a lUie of things fo fcanda-
:ous: ever naving attracted the at
tention of the goveinment! which
might have reprcfled it. On the
contrary, the Government ! it felt
Vvhs uftent upon encourgiiii this
fcandl in;itpublic:a(:ls. 'rii'e' Ex
ecutive Directory has feen itlelf
'v'nouhced in a fpeech delivered by
Preiident, in the courfe of the
mtb of May laft (O. .)
as cii-
'A
'2vounng to propagate anarchy
d diviiion within ths United
ites.. The new allies whirh th -
-'Ouhiic has acquired, and who
e 1 lie faine that contributed to
t independence of Americans,
V;e been equally in fulled in the
hcial correfpondencies that have
i :n made public, or in the newf-
fpers. In fine. 011-e cannot heln
iicfivering in the tone of the peech
f till of the niihhriirlrinc .tViIrl-i li5r
Ril been -pointed out, . a latent
( iv-nity whicfi only tims an pppor-
0-;;itlejiicri of the J uiy after
'i?r:.aus . mariner im which ftie
tone of official exprcfikms had been
noticed by the .IVench nation-ar!
ter it was, made an avowed obftacle
tb'negociatioiiwhereyashe prii
dence or -propriety ota perievering
reiteration 01 Wf'w tutu as:
have read to ybu ? ; For ;rhy own jfrence thai the monarch of Great-
pert, I cannot help thinking iuch
conduct in puouu cumu.ici 'asu.
and indecorous, and highly deferv-
iirg the repreheriiion I have ex -
pre fled. . -1--.' . , ' . .1 "..
The next and iait point, that,
which feems to be the mo ft fcrious
of all is' ' the interference of , the
Prefident ih the deciiion of a court
of Juflice in the cafe of Jonathan
Robbins. - ; . ,
This cafe has received fuch full,
and fuch recent difeuffipn ; it has
been fo rpuch talked oin Congrefs,-
and written ot out 1 Mongrels,
that I do not think if neceffary to
enter into all the details 01 evidence
and argument whiqh would have
been neceH'ary, coup I have piefu
meci you unacquainted with the
fubicct. ' I shall, liowever, prove
to you, Gentlemep of the Jury,
that there has beeii fuch an inter
ference on the pint of the Pre Ci
dent, that it was iot only without,
but againft precedent and again ft
law: and if fo, joxx will alfo qon
clude with me tp it was againft
mercy. Here is the melTaffe of the
Prefidtnt to 'Congrefsn the cafe,
r- T. I MILL! . JC r
ot jonatnan jcv.ouDins, auinennca
ting the communications of Mr.
Pickering. Jin page Mr. Pic
kering ftats, thaf he had commu
nicated Hi. Liflon's application
to the Jrefident, and that Nash,
Robbipj is charged, as it is un
aerftod, with piracy and murder
cominitted on board a British fri
gate on the high feas ; the Prefident
trivetiis opinion on the Thbiea 6fU
jurifdiaion, and on the conftrucli- ,j
on of the cliufe of the treaty ; and
authorizes Mr. Pickering to com
mqnicaie the Prefident's ADVICE
and REQUEST that Nash should
be delivered up. Now; gentlemen,
w ithout entering i n to any argu men t
on the quefiion of territorial jurif
diclioni; or the conftruflion of the
clstufe of the treat5;-withGut going
into the point that the erime of pi
racy gave jurifdi&ion to the court
herc-T-I reft my affertion that the
Prefident interfered improperly on
thi? j t hat if he had authority to do
what he did' he would not have ad
vifed and requeued, but required
and dirilled'. an advice may be re
jected; a requeft may be-refufed
withoqt attaching blarne to the per-;
fon who by this ' language is per
mitted to cxercife? his own judg,
ment and inclination, Either tins
Prefident had authority to inter lere,
or he had not ; if he had authority,
the language should rjave been pe-1
rcmntorv and not fuhirl tn PYmfp 1
or evafion. had not author it v . I
he fhguid not have interfered at all. I t
But it is a5 evident as language cari
make it, that the Prefident doubted
of his own iurifdif.ion ; adyiceand
requeft is the exprefliorr of hefita-
ftion and diftruft; he felt the im-
! propriety of his conduct, at the
time, and his language bears the
imprefiion. of his feelings.
I nlight have made enquiry, by
teftimony into the circiim fiances at.
I tending the trial of the lailors from
the Hermione, before liis honour
Judge Chafe, in New-jerfey. ? In
tliofe cafes we hear of no fuch ih-
th
terferencei though I have under-J
liooa mey were precneiy nmnar to
that under difcuftion : but I rCallv
feel myfelf too much exhaufted to
go into any verbal teftimony on
this luad of the charge, though I
had much to examine.
Ceu rtv Then if you do not mean
to examine witneffes, the gentle
men WiV) attend on this occafion,
need not'be detained. !
Air. Cooper. Certainly not now :
I muft relinquish my intentions,
for I shall not be" able to go through
wifh rheui
; Court. Sir, the Court do not
want to prc'fs you ; they will wait
f o r a)i hou r i t you w sh i t , to gi vre
'you trme to recruit your ftrehgtl
Mr? Cooper. I am much obliged j
to the Court, and to the gentleT
men v ho have' attended: .but I
shall proceed "and finish as foon as
i-catii1 i ' 'i " ' . uri
I have-tfaid this ;was an interie-
Britain Xoujd have Shrunk from.
Tret the cale be pointed out it it can,
when .fnipnarcli o Great-Britain
has made fuch an attempt. 1 know
of ndiie ; i arid I alfo' know enough
of tHe law: Ad of thefpirit of that
country, 4 tpj be fatisjie.d, that no
iah auernpt would be Ventured on
there, y I , ; : j... - . .
It is without p;edfedent-4l lay
furtlierit is I againft precedent. ... I
hold in my hands the cafe of the
United States vs. f udge Lawrejice.
j The fubftance of that cafe is this. :
Lapt. Barre, ot the.rrench. velici
JLc Pcrdnx, abahdolied his ship,
became, refident nt New -York, was
claimed as a deferter by, the Conful
of the French nation,a'nd! required
fo be delivered up uiider the ninth
article of theconfulir conventibii
between the United States- and
France, which atrthorizes the mu
tual delivery of de fetters to the
Gonfuls or Vice Confuls of the ref
peclive countries, on demand made
in writing tp the Courts, Judges,
and . officers, competent y. and on
proof by the exhibition of the ship's
roll; that the perfuns required were
part; Of the Crew j The French
conful could not produce the ori-
ginal regifter or role d'equipage,
but a copy only: thii, Judge Law
rence thought inhilficient evidence
under the cjaiue ol tne Conventi
on. The Minifter pf the French
Republic then applied to the execu
tive,! complaining of the. refufal
and the preient motion was maqeirt
order to obtain the hninidn of the
Supreme Court of the United States
upon the fubjetv for theyfatisfacti
on of the Minifter; After coun
fel were heard in oppoiition to die
motion, the Attorney -General, Mr.
Bradford, in reply, ipremifed' "that
the Executive of the United States
had no inclination tb prefs upon the
Court any particular .cpnftructipn
of th?; article on which his motion
was founded, but as it was the Wish
of our government to preferve the
purett faith with all.-nations, the
Prefident could not avoid paying
the highe'ft refpef, and the prompt
eft attention to the reprefeutation
of the Miniftcr of France, whp con
ceived .the decifion of the Diftrict,
Judge inyplveilrah infra6liou of
the conventional rights of .his re
public Ih the prefent cafe,,
from the.hature ofthe fubject, as
well as from the fpirit ol our poli
tical conftitution, tlfe Judiciary De-
partment "is called on to decide.
f or it is euenuai 10 iiie innep euoence
of that department, that judicial
mijftakcs fhould be corrected by ju
dicial ai thority only. The Prefident
therefore introduces the queftion
to the confideratfop of the court,
irtrder toinfiir;er;a punctual exe
cution of the L'ws, and atthefame
time to manifeft the world the
fblicftude of our r government to
preferve its faith and to cultivate
tne triendlhip andreipectot toreign
nations.. - i. , . - P 'S4
Here then in botfi cafes, fthe
conftitutional powers of General
Waihington and Mr. Adams being
the fame) a foreign Conful claims
a mab to be delivered up under a
claufe of a treaty: the claim .in
both thefe cafes is made to a Dif
trict Judge : in both cafe the Fo
reign, Minifies afterwards applies
for the fame ptimoie to the rreii
dent of the United States, and at
this point; the finiilitude eftds. For
Gen vVajmngton did not hazard an
opinion of his own, or exert execu
tive influence in favour of. the ap-
plicaiion from the Minifler, bu
introduced 'the question j or the con
liderdtiori of the Court. A-
dams did hazard jiis own opinior
in favour, of Mr. iLi lion's applica
tion and advifei .and- re'quefted
Judge Bee to conform to it. Gen.
Wasldiigton vhacl no inclination to
prcfs upon the CojiVt any paxUcuJyr:
conduction of the claufe, in the
Treaty Mr. Adam;; riot only in
clined", but indulged his inclination
in preiling upon Judge Bee-that
conftruction of the claufe in the
Treaty, which was mo ft favourable
to th$ British iclmm., Gcu. Wash
incton. deemed.it " effentiai.-to ;. the
independence of the Judiciary De
partment, , tnat .judicial mntaKes
should be corrected by judicial au
thority;" Mr; Adams, riot fo tender
ot judiciary nonour ana inaepen
dente; boldly fatisfied the fcruples
of Judge Bee by executive autho- 5
rity. oen. VVasriington " trorn the
nature of the fubjed, as well as
1 1 't i I Tnt,
II lilt: 1'11R Ul VLll 1. VIllJLCI VrVll-
ftitutiQn, leitthei Judiciary deprt
ment to decide the queftion ;---Th&
nature qf the fubject, and the fpirit
of our Political" Con ft itutidh. were
no obftacles to Mri Adams ; he de
cided the queftion himfelf vfehhout
ration or the. other. Jn the cale 01
Capt. Barre, Gen. Washington
had a pretence for interfering,
which Mr. Adams had no' ; for :t
was the application of the Conful
alorie that gave jurifdicticn' to
Judge Lawrence :---whereas the
charge of piracy in the cafe of Rob
bins brought him completely witfu
in the jurifdiction of pur. courts,
even though it had been legally efT
tablished that he was a native! fub-
jectof the British Monarch. Gen.
Washington acted in a new cafe;
he had no previous decifion 1o
guide his conduct;; he. ran counter
to no precedent ol authority, to no
cafe in point ; no charge pf piracy
gave undeniable jurifdiction : even
tjhoughtiis good Ten fe had not pre
vented his interference witli Judge
Lawrence, the miftake might in
him have been forgiven But Mi.
Ajlamshad a precedent to goby; he
had law to guide his conduct ; the
cafe in point was vvithin the com
pafs 9f his information ; the exam
ple fct by his precleceffor ;
Gentlemen of , the1 Jury, ; after
theie obfervationsj it will be for
you to decide whether L have alTer
ted too much in faying, that Mr.
Adams had interfered withou,
precedent nd againft law might
I not have been 1 unified had I gone
a little farther?.- If he did fo,. it
was acainft mercy, for the man
was hanged. .. . : : .,
In this nleffatje of the Prefident
there are certificates trom certain
perfons ot the town of parfbury,
denying that anv man or-any. family
of the name of Robbins had been
knovyn for many; years zvithin that
town. I There are two or . three fnr
gular circumftances attending thele
certihcates.
MrJllawle. This is information
fubfequent to ihe IibeK . ,
Judge Chacc. Js not the -whole
of the Meflageof the Prefident fub
fequent to the publication .charged
in the indictment ? If fo,, Jigw can'
it be evidence? Sir, yon Jiad .hot
this evidep.ee before you when you
wrote that paper.
Air. Cooper'.. Sir, the point in
q be ft ion is, the truth orJaJJcHocd of
the charge. I had 'evide rice fuf
ficient before me when I wrote it ;
fulKcjent to fatisfy my own mind :
what f I nave ftill better evidence j
now rj.Is the tact tne lets trti? be
caufe ithe pVefident confirms it ?
the fa6fs had been publilhe i H al
moft every paper in the United
States-Uthey were detailed at
j length jh a pubficatiori then before
me, and now on ihe 'table, by a
mo ft rcfpectable member of the
Senate' . Mr Charles Pirickney ;"
which! t do not! oftcr in evidence
becaufe I know it will be objected
to. liefides this, I have already
Hated that thefe facis are and
mull be to the jury, matters of re -cent
and (public notoriety : they
are fo referred to by Mr. Picker
ing in! his owji report : they have
hqen given in ; all the debates ih
congrf fs lateiylpublilhed, ami even
now daily pnblilhing ; and I have
a rurht, as I think, to adduce this
mefugp, at leaft as additional and
cCffoOo relive-1 c ft irnon v, , tit 'tM
iflue between us is, TRUE or not t
Tit U F ; theilfue is not, had I tho
wy? evidence at the time I : wrote '
or not. : - Whatever evidence ' I
'poftelfed at the time I wrote, it is
enough for 'me at this time, to prove ' -
that vv hat 1 ".wrote was and is1 true : ; ' 'I
and, the . meiiage goes directly to
this point. .... . . ' ' . '
Gentlemen .of the jury, I fay
thereare "two or three lingular cir-,
cumilances attending thefe certjfK
cates. They , alfo, are far moro
liable to-this: objection, than 'the
evidence: I have offered tUey
have been preifedinto thefervice,
long after, the publication of
Robbin's affidavit that he was a
native American., Thefe certifi
cates do not Hate that,, nq. fuch
family a . Robbins, was: known 'in
thti neighbourhood of ,D anbury.
as I fincerely believe may yet be
proved. . The time of enquiring
into this fact is alfo curious : while;
Robbins was alive, while he claim
cd (tor 1 agajr; repeat it. as' a notori
ous f'a6t, and as a fact referred to by
Mr. Pickering hi mfeif in. the fir It
page of the report, that , he did
claim) to be. a native, j American,
no enquiry was thought neceffary ;
while he could have an oppoitu-
hity ta repel by evidence a codnter
afriddvit, none ; was made : nay
the; judge himfelf feems to. have
thrown the confi deration of citi
zenfhip -out of the- queftion-r-but
now,, when Robbins has .been de
livered up and executed,. when the
enquiry can do him no feryice,, and
he is, 110, longer , alive to direct or
herjefit by. it, it has. become. mira;
portaru queftion ! . The .inrluftr)
'of Mr, Pickering nas been qxerted' i
to bring us or 00 i irorhal 1 , q uarrts I
j from Corihectictrt to Jamaica : th?? j
J guarded evidence of the .wife mert
ot JDanhury, and. the difipterelled:
teftimony of Sir Hyde Parker, are :
fet in array againft the claim! of ;
Robbins. The Prefident tranfmits ;
this accumulation cf irrefragable
proof to Congrcfs ; our.?Reprefen- f
tatives (Jebate upon it ; an4 the citi- j
zenlhip, of Robbins at length be- j
comes a queftion mo ft material tp be I
ifcertained ; if the evidence I have
onrebisobjectionablevhat fhall we p
fay to Mr. Pickering's .authorities? j
It is well that Congrcfs is not fcru-
pulous about the admiffibility of
teftimpny : It is well that the evi
dence contained in the .Prefident's J
rnelfae on this part of Jiobbin'a
hiftory, was not fubjected to as ma
ny tefts as I have had to combat,
-. Gentlemen, I dq contend thalt
this is not. like a trial on k matter
ot property, where eyery technical
xbjeciion to evidence isfadmiflible. !
Tliat evirlencevwhich does in fact,
and ought in reafon, to decide your,
political conduct tvhen ybuare; out ;
of that box, is the kipdof evidence I
which ought to decide. min ; and
it is unreafonyble', in'vmy. opinion, "
on a political tii'aj, to require any
other; or to harrafs a defendant by
putting him to the enormous trou
ble and expence qf travelling rrom
one end of the continentto trfepihei f '
to b ri ng foj ward . legal evidence o t" 7
a Ia6t vvhich nobpdy .doubts befdre-"
hand. I do" contend, Gcritleireb
or the Jury, that there are, ? and
may be certain fjcts. of :' public poli
tics fufficiently notorious jo obviate
the neceility of legal proof,1 and
whbe notoriety, ' is itfelf a matter
of f?fct, wh:ch may jn all cafes be
fafely left to a Jury to judge 6t.
hihs fo' piten publilhed fo com
njonly known, whofe autheri licit v fe
hai riev'r hfj.pn frrmlf(4 th tirrK Itc )
Veracity has lately been ; denied, is !B
one of thofe notorious i'cU t hat :
witin the fpirit of the prdceeJ-.1
mg obieryations. WaueliRob
oins uvea it was. uncontradicted bat, - f
equal .evidence'; indeed jtflik fiv " f
ftiii : Tlnd" rcafon - io rl fc'v.ht' 1 '
to it at the lime f wrote.. ruBl he-
. . ,7 -T" T ---- -f .V.JI.
lieve in the probability, of ;Xnr-
al the charges and I bin ftjeu'
that I have rou
tti in 'hiniie!?? 01
my 'aflcrtibri
tha; b?fr. vrxpxr-: , II
;St VP t
t !
t
A''
r
J
M
3
'A. t
4
n
. ?!1
i1
4
... .'-u
I'
it
AS
I
V
A
3
1
3E
1
P
it
.,1
1
' J S
v v r
-f5
C ih i
f '
- -
... : ; ) J'' . . . --4 - ; . .- !;..
3