Report Of The Trial Of James H Peck Judge Of The United States District Court For The District Of Missouri Before The Senate Of The United States On An Impeachment Preferred By The House Of Representatives Against Him For High Misdemeanors In Office

Author : Arthur J. Stansbury
Publisher : Da Capo Press, Incorporated
ISBN 13 :
Total Pages : 616 pages
Book Rating : 4.3/5 (97 download)

DOWNLOAD NOW!

Download or read book The Report Of The Trial James H. Peck written by Arthur J. Stansbury and published by Da Capo Press, Incorporated. This book was released on 1972 with total page 616 pages. Available in PDF, EPUB and Kindle. Book excerpt: Excerpt from Report of the Trial of James H. Peck: Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Missouri, Before the Senate of the United States, on an Impeachment Preferred by the House of Representatives Against Him for High Misdemeanors in Office That your petitioner, in making said exposition, not only availed himself of what he believed to be his right as a private citizen, but acted from a sense of duty to-those numerous land claimants by whom we was employed as counsel. That the object of your petitioner was, if possible, to counteract the effect that Judge Peck's opinion was calculated to produce on the value of the unconfirmed Spanish and French land titles, and to save the claimants from those speculators who would have availed themselves of the panic which the opinion created, to buy up those titles for an inadequate consideration. That your petitioner believes that he has, to a considerable extent, attained this object; and therefore submits, that his conduct in publishing the article, was not only not criminal, but was meritorious. That, in the exposition of the errors, whether in fact or in doctrine, of said opinion, your petitioner has attributed nothing to said Judge either untruly or maliciously, nor has he, in the tone and language used by him, violated any rule of courtesy or decorum. That the opinion of Judge Peck, and the article signed "A Citizen," were, both of them, published after the court had adjourned, and out of term, the said Judge having adjourned on the 30th day of December, 1825, to sit again on the third Monday of April, being the 20th day of April, 1826. Your petitioner further showeth, that, on the third Monday of April, 1826, being the first day of the term of the United States' District Court for the decision of land claims, immediately subsequent to the publication of the opinion of Judge Peck, a rule was made by said Judge, and served by the Deputy Marshal upon Mr. S. W. Foreman, the editor of the Missouri Advocate and St. Louis Enquirer, which rule is in the following terms: "The court being satisfied, from the evidence of Luke E. Lawless, that Stephen W. Foreman, of this city, is the editor and publisher of the Missouri Advocate and St. Louis Enquirer, published in the said city, and that the paper of that name of the eighth of April instant, which contains a false statement of and concerning a certain judicial decision made in the case of Julia Soulard, widow, and James G. Soulard, Henry G. Soulard, Eliza Soulard, and Benjamin A. Soulard, children and heirs of Antoine Soulard, deceased, against the United States, issued from the press of the said Stephen W. Foreman, it is ordered, that the said Stephen W. Foreman show cause, on to-morrow morning, at eleven o'clock, why an attachment should not issue against him for a contempt of this court in publishing the said false statement, tending to bring odium on the court, and to impair the confidence of the public in the purity of its decisions." In obedience to this rule, Mr. Foreman appeared, and by your petitioner, who acted as his counsel, showed against the rule, and urged that, First. He, Judge Peck, had no jurisdiction of the matter as a contempt of court. Secondly. That the article, in point of merits, was a correct statement of the positions and doctrines therein attributed to the Judge. Thirdly. That the language and tone of the article signed "A Citizen," were perfectly decorous. Your petitioner further showeth, that, in the argument and observations which he felt it his duty to submit, as counsel for the editor, he endeavored to demonstrate the truth of the article by a comparison of it with the text of the opinion, and disclaimed, in the most unequivocal manner, any contemptuous intention or feeling towards said Judge Peck, either in his judicial or his private character. Your petitioner showeth, that the arguments and