Opinion in another. The people cannot, intuitively, know what is slander and what is not if they could, there would be no reason in the rule which punished slander as a contempt; or, if it was in this country, as it is in China, where the house of a calumniator is blackened, as a fit emblem of the heart of the inhabitant, there would be no reason in the law which punishes offences of this sort. After the Judge had gone through with the delivery of his Opinion, the rule was made absolute. Mr. Lawless was not then present, he having gone out of court, while the Judge was commenting upon the article. There was, then, I think, an intermission, and Mr. Lawless was not brought in on the attachment until three or four o'clock. I was present when he was brought in. He was told by the court, that he had a right to have interrogatories filed, in order to purge himself of the contempt; and the Judge asked if it was his desire that they should be filed? Mr. Lawless rose-he seemed much excited, and agitated, and replied that he did not wish interrogatories filed, and if they were filed he would not answer them; and he then presented a paper which he took either from his pocket, or perhaps from Mr. Magenis, (I do n't recollect which ;) it seemed to be a protest against the authority of the court to proceed in that way. The paper was read. I do not remember that either the Judge, or bystanders, were asked to sign it. The Judge almost immediately proceeded to pass sentence, and said something about Mr. Lawless' standing out in his contempt, and making an aggravation of it, in presenting this paper, and in refusing the interrogatories.

Q. By Judge Spencer. Did he say that this was a new and substantive contempt ?

A. I do not remember his precise words, whether he said that it was a new contempt or an aggravation of that already committed. I have a very indistinct recollection of the words used; but that is the impression on my mind.

Q. By Judge Spencer. Did he refer to the offering of the paper, or to the refusal to answer interrogatories?

A. I do not remember to which of the two ideas he referred, perhaps to both. I supposed him to refer to both. I do not know that he referred, in words, to either it may have been my own inference that the Judge, in consequence of these last acts of Mr. Lawless, considered the contempt more aggravated, and inflicted upon it a higher punishment than he would otherwise have done. This at least is my best opinion as to what was said;-the sentence was then pronounced, and Mr. Lawless was taken into custody by the marshal. This was about 4 o'clock in the afternoon: the next place I saw him was, in the Circuit Court, about candlelight, he having been discharged on a habeas corpus by the Circuit Judge, because the order for commitment had no seal.-(So at least the Judge told me.)

Q. By Mr. Meredith. Do you recollect in the proceedings on the rule against Foreman, that while the colloquy which had been mentioned was going on between the Judge and Mr. Lawless, Mr. Lawless made any complaint of interruption by the court?

A. I do not remember any.

Q. Did you hear of any complaint on the subject of interruption by Mr. Lawless, or by his counsel, in either of the cases?

A. I did not, at the time, hear any complaints from Mr. Lawless, or from any person, on that score.

Q. By Mr. Wirt. Did it strike you as unnatural that such a conversation should occur? or was it invited by the language and manner of Mr. Lawless? [The managers objected to this question, as being a leading question; and after some discussion, the question, in that form, was waived.]

Q. By Mr. Wirt. How did the colloquy arise, and how was it invited by the circumstances of the case?

A. Mr. Lawless was arguing, and laboring to satisfy the Judge that there was no misrepresentation of the Opinion in the article signed "A Citizen;" and,

in order to prove it, he quoted the Opinion, and then compared it with the article, observing "in the article I say so and so.' The Judge would then refer to some part of the Opinion, which, as he thought, proved a misrepresentation in the article, and addressing Mr. Lawless would observe, "you say so and so." Mr. Lawless would reply "I say so and so." In that way the colloquy was brought about. Conversations of that kind occurred several times, between the Judge and Mr. Lawless. They appeared to differ from each other as to the meaning of the Opinion, and the meaning of the article: and one would contend for one interpretation, and the other for a different one.

Q. Is it unusual in Missouri for the court to invite the attention of a lawyer to a particular point?

A. On the contrary it is very usual. I have, myself, been frequently so interrupted, and I have seen it happen to other members of the bar. The court would stop the lawyer, and make a suggestion as to some point of law, or some question of fact, in a bill of exceptions, for instance, and in other cases. I have frequently had my argument attempted to be upset by such a suggestion from

the court.

Q. Did this, then, seem to be out of the way, and different from what is usual, in your courts?

A. It did not strike me so. As I said before, there was nothing in the argument of the rule against Foreman, which struck me as extraordinary in any respect.

Q. You said that the court, in delivering its Opinion in the case of Mr. Lawless, at first began very mildly, but in the course of a long discussion became earnest and animated. Are you acquainted with the usual manner of Judge Peck?

A. I think so. I have practised before him ever since he has been on the bench.

Q. Does not his manner, usually, become more earnest as he proceeds in the course of an extensive discussion?

[This was objected to as a leading question, and in that form it was waived.] Q. What is the effect on Judge Peck's manner, when delivering an extended answer to a protracted argument at the bar, (for this argument had occupied two days,) I ask, what is his usual manner in such cases, as he advances?

A. His usual manner, when he says but little, and does not speak at length, is very mild, smooth and easy; but it always occurred to me as a fault in the Judge that, in delivering an opinion at great length, he becomes warm, and gesticulates much. I remember many cases of this kind; and this manner struck me very forcibly; his usual manner is to become much excited, and to use a great deal of gesture.

Q. Have you known the Judge long and well?

A. Ever since I have been in Missouri. I am intimately acquainted with

him.

Q. Is his disposition that of an arbitrary and oppressive man?

[Mr. Buchanan. We object to that question.

Mr. Wirt. Do you? Then we must take a question upon it.

Here a discussion took place between the managers and the counsel-when the form of the question was changed.]

Q. What is the habitual disposition of the Judge, as to mildness and patience, or arbitrary and oppressive propensities?

A. I always viewed him as one among the mildest men I ever knew in my life. He is very patient, in the arguments held before him, and in all that I know of him. He is a man who shows firmness, however, on all occasions. He is very firm but very mild in his disposition. In these remarks I speak of Judge Peck both in his judicial and his private character.

Q. What is his usual deportment on the bench, as to courtesy ?

A. It is always respectful; at least I was as much pleased with his conduct

towards members of the bar as in any court before which I ever practised. I speak generally. I do not mean to obtrude my opinion as to this particular

case.

Q. Are you aware, or not, of any complaint existing as to his deportment in

other cases?

[Mr. Buchanan. We have no objection to that question, provided we may go into the inquiry also.]

A. I do not remember any now.

Q. His habitual deportment, you say, is courteous, kind, and patient?
A. I so understand it.

Q. In the delivery of his Opinion, in the case of Mr. Lawless, did you, or did you not, remark an extraordinary departure from his usual mode of speaking in an extended argument?

A. Not in his manner, save that he appeared indignant at the conduct of Mr. Lawless; with this exception I did not see any material difference in his manner. He was in very feeble health, and had been much afflicted for years.

Q. Was the Opinion as printed in the Missouri paper substantially that which you heard from the bench in Soulard's case?

[Mr. McDuffie. It is too late to object now; but in such a question you put the answer in the witness's mouth.

Mr. Wirt. I will put the question in any other form that is more agreeable to you.

Mr. Buchanan.

law.]

We do not wish you to make it agreeable to us, but to the

Q. Did you hear the Opinion delivered by Judge Peck in Soulard's case? A. I did.

Q. Had you any previous opportunity of knowing that Opinion before it was delivered?

A. I had this opportunity. I was not personally concerned in any land claims, in which petitions had been filed; but Judge Peck and myself resided in the same building, and he frequently asked me to read or refer to laws and ordinances in relation to those land claims. We conversed fully and freely. I did not know what the Opinion would be. The Judge never told me yet from the conversation we had, in relation, for instance, to the ordinance of 1754, and the regulations of O'Reilly, and Gayoso and Morales, that I believed * * * [Here the managers objected to hearing the opinions of the witness, or his conversations with Judge Peck.]

Q. Did you attend to the delivery of the Opinion?

A. I did :-I was present all the time. I listened attentively, as I believe all the bar did; I felt some interest to know what the Opinion would be.

Q. After so hearing the Opinion, you afterwards saw it published, at the request of the bar?

A. I did.

Q. How did the two correspond? or how did they differ?

A. There was no difference in the doctrines advanced; but I made, at the time, this remark,—that the Opinion did not appear so well in print, as when it was delivered.

Q. The general train of reasoning the same?

A. It seemed to be the same. I do not pretend to say that every word of the oral Opinion was printed; but if there was any difference between them, I should think that if printed as it was delivered, the Opinion would have occupied more space than the one printed afterwards.

Cross-examined by Mr. Buchanan.

Q. On the argument against Foreman, at every position taken by Mr. Lawless, and while attempting to support each by a reference to the Opinion, was he not interrupted by the court?

A. I cannot say every one; but I remember that he was interrupted in several of his positions, in the manner I before described.

Q. In the course of these interruptions, did not the court frequently say, "this is false," "this is malicious? "

A. I do not remember :-I have taxed my memory, but I do not remember this it might have been so. I have said that I was not in the court room during the whole of that argument.

Q. You did not hear any expression of that kind?

A. Not that I remember.

Q. In your opinion, it was not remarkable that the Judge should interrupt Mr. Lawless, as he was proceeding, and submit his own opinion and arguments, to show that those of Mr. Lawless were incorrect?

A. There was nothing in it that appeared remarkable to me.

Q. Would it not have been more accordant with the rules of your courts if the Judge had waited till Mr. Lawless had concluded?

A. I do not know that there is any express rule on the subject.

Q. Would it not have been more consistent with the practice of your courts? A. As I have said, suggestions are frequently made from the bench.

Q. Are not these interruptions to which you refer, confined to legal arguments? Were you ever present when whilst the counsel was arguing a question of fact in his own way, the judge interrupted him, and introduced a reference to other facts, with a view to disprove that from which the counsel was arguing?

A. I have heard judges stop attorneys, and tell them that the evidence was not as they stated it to the court and jury.

Q. When the question purely of fact is before the court, and an attorney is going on to state one part of the facts of the case, have you ever known a judge turn the attorney to other facts going to destroy those on which he was arguing? A. I do not remember any particular instance.

Q. It did not, you say, strike you as remarkable that this sort of colloquy should be going on between Judge and counsel for a long time?

A. Not particularly.

Q. While it was going on, did the Judge wait till Mr. Lawless had got completely through one position, before he interrupted him?

A. I cannot say. While Mr. Lawless was going on to argue, the Judge would interrupt him, and say," No, the court decided so and so."

Q. Are you positive that Mr. Geyer argued the case in the baptist church? A. That is my recollection, and I never knew there was any difference on that point until the commencement of the present trial.

Q. By Mr. Wickliffe. You are as much impressed with that fact as any other?

A. My impression is such as I have stated, and I think they both argued the question at Mr. Penrose's.

Q. While the Judge was delivering his Opinion in the case of Mr. Lawless, did he not use the words "false," "scandalous," "malicious," "calumnious,' "misrepresentations"?

A. I heard some of these terms. I have already stated that when the Judge was examining the article and comparing it with the Opinion, he sometimes said, "This specification is false," or, "this is not true." At other times, "this is a calumny on the Opinion of the Court," "this is slanderous." In speaking of contempts, he used the word "slanderous" and "libellous." He employed the terms known to the law, and it is possible I may have confounded this portion of his remarks with his examination of the article. He used some of the words which you specified.

Q. Which of them?

He de

A. He used the words "false," "calumnious," and "malicious." scribed the publication as an attempt to bring odium on the court, and to destroy all confidence of the people in its decisions.

Q. Did he not speak of the malice of the author?

A. He spoke of the piece itself, but I could not help, at the same time, thinking of Mr. Lawless.

Q. He spoke of the piece, then, and not of the author?

A. I do not say that. I did not hear the words author or Lawless in connexion with the expressions alluded to, that I remember. He spoke of the article, and said, "This is false," "this is calumnious."

Q. Did you ever see the Judge so much excited before, in any other case? A. Taking all together, I never saw him exhibit so much indignation as on that occasion. I saw no other difference from his usual manner, when much

excited.

Q. By Mr. Wickliffe. In what particular case have you ever seen him much excited?

A. I remember laughing, with Mr. Bates, at the excitement displayed by the Judge in the case of Bryants vs. Dent. I think I also saw the same fault when the court sat at Jefferson city, in the case of the United States vs. the Securities of Rector. I do not remember any other particular case, but it is his general fault.

Q. By Mr. Storrs. Have you not taken a very warm and decided part with Judge Peck on this subject?

A. I felt precisely in this way.-When the occurrence took place, * [Here the witness was interrupted by the managers.]

Q. We wish to know what are your feelings now; not what they were formerly.

A. They are the same, now as they ever have been. I have had no feeling on the subject, but this; however the question of law may be decided, I believe that the Judge was not influenced, in what he did, by any malicious motive, or arbitrary disposition.

Q. Are you not now under a warm feeling in favor of the Judge?

[The witness had begun to answer this question when he was again interrupted by the managers.]

Mr. Wirt. We object to this interruption of the witness. He was going on to tell what his feelings are, how they arise, and what they are founded on. Mr. Buchanan. Mr. Pettis is now on his cross-examination, and he will be examined by us in the same manner as any other witness. We have a right, upon the cross-examination, to ask any question for the purpose of ascertaining whether the mind of the witness is, or is not, under a bias; and we now ask him, whether his feelings are not strongly in favor of the acquittal of the accused? May we not put a distinct question of this kind? and are we not entitled to a categorical answer? Can the witness in answering this question be allowed to deliver his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused? He has been stating, not what are his feelings, but such views of the case, as, in his opinion, justify those feelings. When he was interrupted, he was proceeding to state, that whatever view might be taken as to the legality of the Judge's conduct, the Judge had been influenced by no malice. Now, when we call on a witness to state what his feelings are in relation to the accused, is he to be permitted to deliver his opinion upon the merits of this impeachment to the Senate? (thereby, however, giving the strongest evidence of what his feelings really are) we do not doubt that he is perfectly sincere; but we respectfully insist that we have a right to a categorical answer.

Mr. Wirt. We do not contend that the witness has a right to go into a discussion of the case; but he has a right, as a man, as a man of honor, as a witness on his oath, when a question like this is put to him, to refuse being driven into a categorical answer, intended to exhibit him before this court, and this nation, as acting under a blind bias, for the acquittal of this Judge. I put the question to every member of this court; and I ask him to make the case his own.If he was asked, Have you not a strong feeling for the accused, and an ardent