the authority of Stoddard has been acknowledged by the most enlightened men, as deserving of respect; and, as a record of sound opinion and historic fact, we feel justified in calling the attention of the court to his work on Louisiana."

Q. Is that the only extract from Stoddard's work which was cited by you? or is that the extract to which you referred, as going to prove that "nineteen-twentieths of the land titles of Upper Louisiana rest upon unconfirmed concessions?" A. No: by no means. I referred to the book itself. Stoddard makes use of those very words; as his book will show. It is in the congressional library, and may be referred to at any time. It is a book highly spoken of. The language I used is his own. I thought that the words had been quoted in this printed outline of my argument, but I find that they are not. They were quoted, however, at large, in the article signed "A Citizen."

Q. You said that in the argument on the demurrer of Soulard's case, you had a list of transfers and sales of such unconfirmed titles. Had you, then, in court transcripts from the record of such transfers and sales?

A. No. I had only a list made out for my use by Mr. Leduc.

Q. You referred to these transfers, then, as existing in the clerk's office? A. Certainly. I considered the fact as notorious, and did not suppose that it would be disputed.

Q. You offered no transcripts of the records at all?

A. No. The fact appeared not to be disputed.

Q. Were such transcripts, then, embodied in the record of Soulard's case? and do they thus appear before the Supreme Court of the United States on the appeal?

A. No. I do not think they were embodied in the record.
Q. Does the record of that case contain any such evidence?
A. I do not know that it does.

Q. Why were these transcripts not embodied in the record?

A. I cannot say, indeed; possibly through inadvertence: perhaps, because of the notoriety of their existence. I wish they had been.

Q. In any of the subsequent land causes in which you were concerned, did you offer transcripts of these records in evidence?

A. I do not recollect.

Q. Are they before the Supreme Court of the United States, in any of the records sent up to that court?

A. Not that I know of. It was supposed that the judges of that court would, of course, be in possession of all the information necessary to their decisions.

Q. Did you consider Soulard's case so completely identified with the other land claims in which you were concerned, that the opinion given by Judge Peck in the case of Soulard would virtually decide the others?

A. Yes. I thought that the doctrines laid down by him, if confirmed by the court above, would settle all the rest; yet I considered Soulard's case as marked by features peculiar to itself.

Q. What were these?

A. First, it was based on a record which had been accidentally destroyed: second, it was a claim resting on a peculiar kind of service and thirdly, (by a fatality which seemed to attend it throughout,) this case had not been submitted, with the others, to the Board of Commissioners.

Q. Was Soulard's case tried at the first court held by Judge Peck?

A. It was argued on demurrer at the first court.

Q. Was it the first cause tried? A. I think it was.

Q. Did it stand first on the docket? A. I think it did.

Q. In the argument of that case, was the ordinance of 1754 before the court?

A. Yes. I had a copy of that ordinance in Spanish and English.

Q. Is this the copy which you had, and which you produced in that argument ?

[Here a manuscript was handed to the witness.] A. It is.

I see here, (looking over the

Q. Is that a full copy of the ordinance of 1754 ? A. That ordinance contains thirteen articles. manuscripts,) but twelve.

Q. Is the whole of the twelve articles there?
A. I am not certain.

Q. I ask you, whether the ordinance of 1754 was in extenso before the court or only a few of its articles? And if so, which of them?

A. The twelfth article is here in extenso in the Spanish. There appears to be but twelve articles here. I am not certain whether the whole was in extenso before the court. This is the manuscript which I read, and from which I argued. It is in the hand-writing of Col. Benton.

Q. Did you state how this came into your possession?

A. I did. The translation was made in this city, and it was corrected for me, in some parts of it, which required correction, by my friend Col. Benton. On the argument at the hearing, I had a full copy, which I have with me here, though not in court.

Q. How was that full copy procured?

A. I had it copied here, in Washington, for myself. It is all to be found in "White's Collection."

Q. Was this manuscript objected to, in the argument on the demurrer, as being a mutilated and incomplete copy?

A. I do not know that it was objected to as false or incorrect. Col. Benton was present, and vouched for its correctness.

Q. You say that you withdrew the other land causes in which you were employed, after the opinion of Judge Peck had been given in the case of Soulard?

A. Yes. There were 146 causes withdrawn.

Q. How long after the opinion in Soulard's case were these causes withdrawn?

A. I do not exactly recollect. I know that the parties had paid near $4,000 in costs before the suits were withdrawn.

Q Why were these causes withdrawn?

A. Because the parties felt certain, after hearing Judge Peck's decision in Soulard's case, that their causes would be decided against, and they hoped that if the Supreme Court should reverse his decision, Congress would interfere, and grant them some relief.

Q. Would not these parties have had the right of appeal?

A. Unquestionably but in many cases the remedy would have been worse

than the disease.

A. In how many of these land causes were you concerned, in which you concluded, in consequence of Judge Peck's decision, not to file any petitions?

Q. I really cannot say. In some-not many-perhaps some 10 or 15. A. Is not the copy of the Opinion, which appeared in the St. Louis newspaper, a correct copy of that which was delivered in court?

[Here the

Q. I have not examined it. I take it for granted that it is. managers interposed, and presented to the counsel for the defence, an original newspaper, printed at St. Louis, containing a copy of the Opinion, and which they declared it to be their purpose to offer to the court in evidence.] A. When you wrote the article signed "A Citizen," had you in your mind any doubt that the Opinion here published was a correct copy from the original?

Q. I did not know. I could not judge. I had not heard the Judge's Opinion delivered, and I had formed no opinion on the subject. I had read his decision as it was spread on the records of the court, but I was absent at the time the Opinion was delivered.

Q. You considered what was in the paper as coming from Judge Peck,did you not?

A. I did. I saw the words "Peck, Judge" printed over the article. It was described as being the Opinion of Judge Peck, and I so understood it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wirt.

Q. I do not know if I distinctly apprehended either the last question or your answer. You were asked I believe whether the article in the Missouri paper, containing an opinion in Soulard's case, had the semblance of being an anonymous publication. I now ask you whether, in making your strictures upon it, you treated it as an anonymous article, or as the Opinion of Judge Peck in the case of Soulard's heirs?

A. I treated it as a defence of Judge Peck's decision, inserted by him in a St. Louis newspaper.

Q. Is it not usual, in Missouri, for a Judge to assign the reasons for his decision of a cause; which statement of his reasons is familiarly called his opinion?"

A. Yes. I believe the custom is general in Courts of Chancery.

Q. The decree is put on record, but the opinion is not filed?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Is it usual in your country, to record at large, the reasons of a decision? A. No. It is not usual in the inferior courts. It is done in the Supreme Court only, and there it is required by law.

Q. Did the Opinion in the case of Soulard, as published, begin thus: "Court of the United States for the State of Missouri-Peck, Judge?" and, after a brief statement of the case, is it not followed by an article headed "Opinion of the Court?"

[The managers here remarked, that the original paper was present in court, and would speak for itself. Mr. Meredith replied that it was not in evidence. The question was then repeated.]

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. At the end of the publication, after saying that the decree must go against the title of Soulard, is there not the following statement?

"In the course of this Opinion, a more extensive range may, at first view, appear to have been taken, than was necessary to the determination of the cause before the court. The questions, however, which have been discussed and decided, will, upon a nearer view, be found to belong to the cause, and their discussion to have been in some degree necessary to the elucidation of the questions involved in it. The title to more than a million, perhaps millions, of acres of land, was supposed to depend upon the decision of the questions which have been considered; and the Opinion having mainly proceeded upon a view which had not been taken at the bar, and having been extended to an inquiry into the source and nature of the Spanish titles to lands in Louisiana, and to an inquiry concerning the laws under which those titles were derived; and the decision of most of the points, therefore, having proceeded chiefly upon grounds which had been little or not at all examined in the argument of the cause, it is deemed proper to remark, that counsel will not be excluded from again stirring any of the points which have been here decided, when they may hereafter arise in any other cause."

And did you consider this as the overture of an anonymous writer, or of the Judge of the court?

A. I considered it as the language of a writer in that paper; not as judicial, it not being spread on the records of the court.

Q. You do not understand me. This article appeared as the production of an anonymous writer. Did you consider this overture for the hearing of counsel, on certain points in this Opinion, as the overture of an anonymous writer? A. I considered it as the act of Judge Peck, but as extra-judicial; as a publication of his, in the newspaper, and as being unnecessary.

Q. Did you not know it as the Judge's Opinion?

A. No. An opinion I always hear with respect, when delivered from the bench; but I consider an opinion published in this way as not judicial.

Q. Had you no knowledge that the Judge had delivered an Opinion in this

case?

A. I knew nothing about it. I had the record containing his decision. His reasoning I considered as of no value. I knew he had decided against my client.

Q. Did you not know how that Opinion came to be published?

A. No, not at that time. I understood, afterwards, but not until after this impeachment.

Q. You said, yesterday, that your supposing the Judge to have invited discussion on his Opinion, was one consideration that induced you to write the article signed" A Citizen," did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Was this paragraph which I have just read that which you considered as the Judge's invitation?

A. Yes. I considered it as evidence that the court was ready to have its errors pointed out by any hand, and that the Judge himself felt uncertain as to the correctness of his opinion. I regarded it as encouragement, held out to any one who could point out his errors. I took this concluding paragraph in combination with that at the commencement of the article, in which the Judge speaks of his doubts and difficulties in deciding the cause; and I did consider the Judge as being, himself, in doubt, as to the soundness of the decision he had given. You have read the concluding paragraph; please to read the other also. [Here Mr. Wirt read as follows:]

"The interests to be affected by the decision of the questions arising in this case, are extensive. The questions themselves are novel. There is nothing in relation to them which can be regarded in the nature of a precedent or authority to influence their decision. They are now, for the first time, without any light from this source, presented for judicial determination. In their investigation, it is necessary to explore an extensive field,-a region of waste, where darkness obscures, and labyrinths embarrass; where the desolating hand of revolution, and of time, has removed many of those landmarks which at any time were scarcely distinguishable. Hesitation and distrust, therefore, must reasonably accompany the inquiry."

Q. Was this, or was it not, the true description of the state of things in relation to these causes ? Was not the investigation a novel one? A. Perfectly so, to Judge Peck.

Q. Was it not a novel investigation to a United States lawyer?

A. That I cannot say.

These are matters of opinion.

Q. Was it not a new case?

A. Yes; before that court.

Q. Do you recollect whether, by the act of Congress of 1824, the court, when it confirms a claim, is not required to indicate the treaty, law or ordinance, on which it grounds its confirmation?

A. I must refer to the act before I can answer the question. I recollect that it refers to such usages and laws of the ceded country as would have operated on the claim, had the country not been ceded.

Q. Do you not recollect that the judge is required by that act to refer to the particular treaty, act or ordinance on which he rests his decision?

A. Yes. I do now recollect that it does.

Q. What Spanish law was in possession of the court, when it decided on the case of Soulard ?

A. I cannot say.

Q. Had you, before that court, the regulations of all the Spanish Governors-Gayoso, Morales, and O'Reilly ?

A. Yes.

Q. Had you before the court all the laws of the Indies ?-A. No.

Q. Had you, in the argument on the demurrer, any other part of the ordinance of 1754 than that which has now been shown?

A. I do not believe I had.

Q. Did you consider your publication as an argumentative discussion of the soundness of the Judge's Opinion ?

A. No. I meant, professedly, to avoid discussion; and merely to give, in a succinct manner, what I considered as the errors in that Opinion.

Q. In that publication you say, that you "shall confine yourself to little more than an enumeration of the errors in the Opinion, without entering into any demonstration or developed reasoning on the subject. This would require more space than a newspaper allows, and besides, is not (as regards most of the points) absolutely necessary." What was your meaning in this language? Why was it not necessary?

A. Because I only needed to show, that if such errors existed, the danger was not so great as might be imagined, in relation to the remaining land claims in Missouri.

Q. Did you not mean that the Judge's errors were so gross and palpable, that they required only to be stated, in order to become self-evident?

A. It may have been so. Many of them certainly appeared so to me, because I was acquainted with the subjects to which they related.

Q. Had you not asserted, in your argument, that the ordinance of 1754 was in force in Louisiana? and did you not rely on it, as the basis of the authority under which the concession to Soulard was given?

A. That was one of my arguments. I did contend that the Governor General of Louisiana possessed the same power which that ordinance vested in the Governor General of Havana; and Î inferred this from the peculiar circumstances of the province of Louisiana at that time. I relied upon that ordinance as having a general bearing in favor of the grant, especially when taken in connexion with the existing usages of the country.

Q. I understand that your argument was, that the long established usage for Lieutenant Governors of Louisiana to issue such concessions of land as that to Soulard, was, in itself, evidence of the authority of such concessions.

A. Yes, that was one of my arguments.

Q. You relied, did you not, upon the ordinance of 1754, as the source of such usage?

A. I contended that that ordinance might fairly be considered as in force in Louisiana, because Louisiana, as a province, was in a similar situation with that of Havana.

Q. Well; did not the court decide that that ordinance was not in force in Louisiana, and conferred no authority to issue concessions of land?

A. It appeared to me so.

Q. And you considered this as an error in judgment?

A. Taking the whole case together, I did think, that the court was in error, in not considering the usage and the ordinance as mutually explaining and supporting each other. The acts of the Lieutenant Governors were not to be considered as gratuitous assumptions of power.

Q. I wish to know whether you considered the decree of the Judge, declaring that the ordinance was not in force, as an error of judgment?

A. I thought it was an error that he allowed to that ordinance no force. Q. How then did it happen, that this did not appear in your publication, in the list of errors you there stated?

A. I do not know indeed. I could easily have increased the list of errors in the Judge's Opinion. I have an additional list which I have made out since, with a copy of which I can furnish you, to-morrow morning.

Q. You are very obliging. Did it not occur to you that the omission of this error in your list would give the greater effect to the errors which you did state? A. That never occurred to me.