Q. At what stage of the Opinion, I mean, during the delivery of which of its two branches, were the expressions you have quoted employed by the Judge? A. I think, in his review of the article.

Q. Then all the offensive epithets were used in his review of the article?
A. Yes, as I now recollect.

Q. Do you recollect that the Judge addressed Mr. Lawless personally?
A. I do not.

Q. Was Mr. Lawless present?

A. He was, during the delivery of a part of the Opinion; but he left the court before it was concluded.

Q. At what stage of its delivery?-A. I cannot say.

Q. Had the Judge disposed of the first branch of the subject?

A. I cannot say.

Q. During what stage of the delivery was his allusion made to the Chinese punishment of a slanderer?

A. I have already stated that it was during the discussion of the article.
Q. Was Mr. Lawless present at that time?-A. I cannot say.

Q. During what stage of the Opinion was it, that the Judge commented on the probable effect of that publication on the land claims then pending?

A. I cannot say.

Q. Were you counsel for any of the land claimants?

A. I was, for some of them.

Q. In how many causes?-A. In thirty or forty.

Q. Had you any personal interest in those claims? I mean distinct interests of a professional kind?

A. Yes, I had, in some of them, an interest by inheritance.

Q. To what amount?-A. I cannot state, precisely, at this moment.

Q. Were you an owner of this interest at that time?

A. I was; but with a number of other heirs.

Q. You say that the deportment of Mr. Lawless was unusually quiet?
A. Unusually so, for him.

Q. What is his usual deportment to courts?

[Mr. Buchanan, on the part of the managers, objected to the question; observing that they did not at present wish to enter into a discussion of this subject, unless it should be the pleasure of the Senate. Mr. Meredith replied that he should not press the inquiry at present.]

Q. How many petitions for claims were filed by you?

A. About thirty or forty.

Q. Did you draw them up yourself?-A. Yes.

Q. Did you embody the concessions to which they related, in those petitions? A. They were either embodied in the petition, or they were appended to it, and referred to.

Q. When they were appended, as documents, were the copies so appended true copies of the concessions?

A. Yes.

Q. By Mr. McDuffie. Will you state to the court whether, when you spoke of the excitement manifested by the Judge, you meant the excitement of debate, or the excitement of passion and anger?

A. I thought that, at times, he was somewhat in a passion; (but this was only at certain times, not universally.)

[Here the cross-examination closed. Mr. Buchanan, on behalf of the managers, then gave in evidence:]

1. The certificate of the naturalization of Luke E. Lawless.

2. The protest of Charles Dehault Delassus against certain regulations of the intendant Morales.

3. The proceedings of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri for a con

tempt, in consequence of a newspaper publication mis-stating the opinion of the court in the case of Alexander Bellissime vs. James McCoy.

4. The Opinions of the Circuit Court of the county of St. Louis in Missouri in the cases of Chauteau's heirs, and of Joseph Wherry and others vs. the United States.

Mr. Meredith, in behalf of the respondent, gave in evidence the publication in the Missouri Advocate by Luke E. Lawless signed "A Citizen."

Mr. Wickliffe, on behalf of the managers, gave in evidence the Explanatory Remarks submitted by Judge Peck to the House of Representatives.

EDWARD CHARLESS called and sworn.

The witness verified the following documents, printed by him in his newspaper at St. Louis; viz. the Opinion of Judge Peck in the case of Soulard's heirs. An Opinion delivered by Judge Peck in Mackay Wherry's case.

Q. By Mr. Meredith. This paper (handing the witness a newspaper) contains a publication purporting to be a commentary on the opinion of the court in the case of Chauteau's heirs; was it published by you?

A. Yes.

Q. Was this article handed you for publication by Col. Lawless?
A. 1 think it was published at his request.

[The witness was the nexamined as to what he had witnessed of the proceedings against Mr. Lawless but it appeared that he had only been casually in court, for about five minutes, and could not distinctly recollect anything that had passed.]

WHARTON RECTOR, called and sworn.

Q. By Mr. Buchanan. Please to state to the court whether you were present during any of the proceedings in the case of Mr. Lawless, and if so, what took place?

A. I was in court but for a very short time. I accidentally happened in, and don't know that I have anything to state; but I will answer any questions that may be put.

Q. What did you hear the Judge say?

A. The Judge used the words "calumniator," "slanderer," "false," and so on. There was a great crowd, and I was not very near the Judge. When Mr. Lawless went to jail, I went with him, and was locked up with him in the jail.

Q. What was the manner of the Judge while delivering his Opinion?

A. He appeared to be in a pretty bad humor, I thought. He seemed in a very bad humor.

Q. How long was Mr. Lawless in jail?

A. I can't say, exactly. He was put in jail in the afternoon, and I staid with him till he was taken out, on a writ of habeas corpus, which was about dark, or after dark.

Q. How long were you in court, before Judge Peck closed his remarks? A. I do not recollect.

Cross-examined by Mr. Meredith.

Q. How did the Judge apply the words which you say you heard him use? A. It appeared to me, that if I had been in Mr. Lawless' place, I should have understood the words as applied to myself, when he said “slanderer," "caluminator," and so on.

Q. Was he talking of the publication signed " A Citizen "?

A. Yes; I think he was.

Q. What did he say of it?

A. I do not recollect. I was there so short a time that I know very little of what happened.

Q. How long was the Judge speaking?-A. I cannot say.

Q. Half an hour?

A. I was net in the house so long. I was there only for a few minutes: Perhaps ten minutes. I may have been in more than once.

Q. Were you there when the Judge concluded?

A. I was at the door, but not in the court room.

Q. Did you remain in the neighborhood of the court house, during that day? A. No. I was in all parts of the town, attending to my own business. I was near the court house once or twice.

Q. Was there much excitement among the bystanders, when the people collected about the court house?

A. I thought so; a good deal.

Q. Did that excitement continue the whole day?

A. Yes, it did, among those that I was with; but I was in no large crowds. Q. Was the excitement directed against the Judge?

A. There was a considerable split, I thought; though I was in the jail the most of the time.

Q. Did this excitement appear in the court?

A. I told you, that I was near the door. I heard nothing said about it in the court; but among the people outside, some said that the Judge was doing wrong. There were many that said so.

Q. Did any say he was doing right?-A. I do n't think I heard one.

QI thought you said there seemed to be "a split" among the people? A. Yes. But there was none said he was doing right; some might have thought so; and I rather think there were some; but they did not say so. Q. Did Mr. Lawless appear much excited, when he went to jail?

A. He appeared a little so. He said very little. He was n't more excited than any other person would have been. Being locked up in jail, I should think, would excite any man.

Q. Then he was much excited?-A. He did not tell me much about it.
Q. What happened when you got to the jail?

A. We walked in, and were asked to sit down.

chairs there; and then we were locked up.

Q. In what room were you asked to sit down?

There were two or three

A. I am not acquainted with the rooms in the jail. I don't know their numbers, nor their names. There is a kind of cellar under the jail. We didn't go into the cellar.

Q. Was it in a room on the first floor?

A. Do you mean the first floor above the ground?

Q. Yes.

A. I think it was.

Q. Who was it that offered you chairs?

A. I believe it was the deputy marshal. He said, "Here are seats, gentlemen. You must make yourselves as comfortable as you can." He then turned the key upon us, and went off.

Q. Who else was with Mr. Lawless?-A. Mr. Soulard.

Q. Was the jailer in the room with you?

A. I do not know the jailer. I believe it was the deputy marshal.

Q. Where were the chairs procured?-A. I do not know.

Q. Were they in the room when you went in?

A. I think they were; though I am not sure. I can't say whether they were chairs: they might have been stools. Very like they were stools.

Q. How long were you in that room?-A. An hour and a half.

Q. Were you all that time in the room you first went into?

A. No. When we first went in, we went into the office of the Marshal, and from that we went into another room. I came out into the office afterward. Whether Mr. Lawless did, or not, I can't say.

Q. Were you in the jail when Mr. Lawless drew up his petition for a writ of habeas corpus?

A. No. I don't think I was.

Q. Had you any conversation with Mr. Lawless on that day?

A. I do not recollect. I don't think I had.

Q. Have you been long acquainted with Judge Peck?

A. I knew him in 1817. I have been absent since then.

Q. Have your relations towards each other been amicable, or the reverse? A. For several years we were friendly. Since then there has been a small coolness between us.

Q. You say a small coolness.

Judge Peck, for several years past?

I ask, have you not felt great hostility to

A. I do n't know. We were once very friendly.
Q. Are you not now personally hostile to him?"

A. I do not like the gentleman very well, myself.

[Here the examination of the witness closed, and the managers of the impeachment rested the cause on the part of the United States. The court then adjourned till Monday next at 12 o'clock.]

HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE UNITED STATES vs. JAMES H. PECK.

Monday, January 3, 1831. The court having been opened by proclamation, on motion of Mr. Tazewell, Resolved, That when the court adjourns, it will adjourn to meet on Wednesday next, at 12 o'clock.

Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives accordingly. The Court then adjourned.

HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.

THE UNITED STATES vs. JAMES H. PECK.

Wednesday, January 5.

The managers, accompanied by the House of Representatives, attended.
James H. Peck, the respondent, and his counsel also attended.
Mr. MEREDITH addressed the Court as follows:-

Mr. Meredith, in stating the defence of the respondent, began by observing, that the honorable manager who had opened the impeachment, very properly adverted to the importance of the proceeding, both to the respondent and to the country. To the respondent personally, the case, he remarked, was undoubtedly one of the deepest interest in its character and its consequences. He stands, said the counsel, before this tribunal, charged by the representatives of the nation, with an arbitrary, oppressive, usurped act of judicial power, in utter disregard of his official oath, in violation of public justice, and in contempt of those great constitutional privileges, which are at once the boast and security of the American people. If the charge shall be sustained, he will be doomed not only to the scorn and reproach of all good men, but to the grievous penalties with which the constitution of his country follows conviction. He must be removed from the high and honorable station which he now occupies, and may be sentenced, in the discretion of his judges, to what has been no less truly than forcibly described, as "a perpetual ostracism from the confidence, and esteem, and honors and emoluments of his country." Considerations such as these, although they are merely personal to the respondent, would of themselves challenge for this cause, the most patient and serious examination. But there are others of more general and far greater moment ;-considerations which

deeply concern all, who believe that the firm and independent administration of the laws, is the surest safeguard of their liberties, and who have heretofore looked with confidence, in all time of danger, to that fortress, in which the con

stitution has planted the judicial power of this government. It is not my purpose, Mr. President, to press these considerations now ;-but if the doctrine intimated in the opening, are those on which this impeachment is hereafter to be supported, questions must arise, which will mark this case with a deep and enduring importance. I forbear however to anticipate them, and confining myself to the prescribed limits of my present duty, I shall aim at nothing more than a concise statement of the general grounds of the defence, and of the evidence that will be offered in its support ;-and for the purpose of pointing this statement to the questions which arise in the cause, I will take the liberty very briefly to advert to the questions themselves.

The transaction which has given rise to this proceeding, may be stated in a very few words. The respondent, as a Judge of the District Court of the United States for the district of Missouri, having pronounced an Opinion in a cause of great importance, and of general concernment to the people of that State, was induced, at the suggestion and request of the bar, to publish it in one of the newspapers of St. Louis. One of the counsel in that cause, not only professionally but personally interested in the decision, and concerned in like manner in a number of other pending cases of a similar character, and involving precisely the same principles, undertook to publish anonymously in another newspaper, not a reasoned criticism of the Opinion, but what he chose to term a "bare enumeration of some of its principal errors," in eighteen specified instances of "assumptions as well of fact, as of doctrine."

The respondent, regarding this publication as a misrepresentation of very mischievous tendency, proceeded against its author by attachment as for a contempt, and after a full and patient investigation, and a peremptory refusal on his part to disavow any intentional disrespect, the court sentenced him to a day's imprisonment, and suspended him from practice for eighteen months.

This act of judicial authority, is charged by the article of impeachment as a high misdemeanor ;-as a usurpation of judicial power, with an intention wrongfully and unjustly to oppress and injure the party against whom it was exerted, -to the great disparagement of public justice, and to the subversion of the liberties of the people of the United States.

In answer to this charge, the respondent avers, that the publication was designed and fitted to impair the general confidence in the intelligence and integrity of the court, and to disturb the course of public justice, by prejudicing the public mind with regard to suits then pending for decisions-that he was therefore justified by the constitution and laws of the land in treating it as a contempt, and that in so doing, he was actuated by no evil or malicious intention, but solely by a sense of what he deemed an imperative duty.

The replication on the part of the United States, insists notwithstanding the answer, on the truth of the charge; and the issue being thus made up, the questions it presents are,

1st. Was a contempt committed?

2d. If so, had the court legal warrant to punish it, as it was punished? And 3d. If not, was the respondent actuated by a sense of official obligation, or by the evil and malicious intention with which he is charged?

By an act of Congress passed in May, 1824, the District Court of the United States for the State of Missouri was vested with a jurisdiction over all claims to lands in that State under French or Spanish grants. This jurisdiction covered all unconfirmed claims, whether surveyed or unsurveyed, amounting to millions of acres, and held by a very great number of individual claimants. In looking back to the legislation of Congress upon this subject, the respondent, upon whom this jurisdiction was cast, found that very soon after the possession of Louisiana was delivered under the Treaty of Cession be