impeachment of Judge Chase, the real object of political revenge. On the 26th of the same month articles of impeachment were reported based upon the following premises.

In 1800 Judge Chase presided on the bench of the U. S. Circuit Court at Philadelphia, assisted by Judge Peters of the District Court of Pennsylvania when and where John Fries was put upon his trial a second time for high treason against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, owing to some informality in his previous trial before Judges Iredel and Peters. Having been fully informed of the points of law at issue and of the proceedings at the first trial, Judge Chase had prepared an elaborate exposition of the law upon treason without referring to a single fact in the case. With the approval of Judge Peters he furnished a copy to the counsel for defendant, the District Attorney and reserved one for the jury after the trial should be completed. Messrs. Lewis and Dallas, counsel for the prisoner, affected to consider this a pre-judgment of the case and permitted Fries to be tried without the aid of counsel-unquestionably intending and successfully succeeding in creating a general sympathy that procured his pardon immediately after conviction. Fries subsequently called on Judge Chase and thanked him for his impartial and generous course upon the trial. The whole matter was then looked at in its true light-a ruse of ingenious counsel. No one attributed bad motives to the bench. The approval of honest clear-headed Judge Peters is conclusive proof that Judge Chase was judicially right-prima facie evidence that his motives. were pure. He had written an opinion upon the law-not upon the facts of the case. This he had frankly furnished to the counsel-not to the jury before the trial. He was bound to explain the law to the grand jury before they should proceed to their business-to the traverse jury when he gave them their charge. This constituted the first charge in the articles of impeachment.

Shortly after the trial of Fries he presided at Richmond, Virginia, when and where one Callendar was tried under the Sedition Law for publishing a libel upon the President. During the trial Judge Chase refused the admission of certain testimony offered on the part of the prisoner which exasperated those who were opposed to the law in question. He honestly believed the law salutary as a check upon the venality of the press-others thought differently. Right or wrong-his oath of office bound him to act under the law so long as it remained in force. That his decision was legally correct must be presumed from the fact that under the great excitement then existing no writ of

error was taken in the case. This formed the foundation of the second charge.

From Fichmond he proceeded to New Castle, Delaware, where he presided, aided by Judge Bedford. In his charge to the grand jury he gave his views frankly upon the Sedition Law that they might fully understand what constituted a breach of its provisions, knowing that one or more cases of its violation would come before them. As an illustration he alluded to certain matter published in a high-toned party paper printed in that district that violated the provisions of this law. This gave great offence to the opposite party. The allusion to the paper was legal under any circumstances by way of explanation but may be considered uncourteous until we understand that it went immediately into the hands of the grand jury as testimony which made it in all respects a legitimate document to be alluded to by him. Ingenuity could not then nor with its prolific growth could it now construe the act into a pre-judgment of the case. The publication was before him-he alluded to that but to no individual. It was clearly a violation of the meaning and intent of the law-who published it was left for the jury to determine if they could. This constituted the ground of the third article of impeachment.

In delivering his charge to the grand jury in 1803, Judge Chase made sundry remarks upon the politics of the day reflecting upon certain acts of the democratic party. This was a surplusage of duty but not cause for impeachment. It resulted from his sanguine temperament, the great political excitement of that period-not from any impurity of motive. He believed laws had been passed for party purposes that were unconstitutional. If he was in error then, his position has often been verified since. Freedom of speech is a constitutional privilege-he used the same liberty practised by his opponents and which was not then trammelled by the obnoxious Sedition Law. It was not a proper time or place to read a political lecture but it does not follow that his designs were corrupt or his conduct criminal. The ermine of a judge is not beautified by being powdered with the farina of politicshis right to think and speak upon the subject none will question. If he speaks at an improper time and place it is an error-not a crime. He animadverted upon the change of the right of suffrage in the constitution of his own state to which he had strong objections. With him many of the devoted patriots of the revolution deemed the elective franchise unsafe with ignorant men who did not fully comprehend and appreciate their rights. The reasons for this opinion grow less as intelligence increases. In some of the states a property qualification

76

OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

is still necessary to entitle a man to vote and in others he must be a freeholder to entitle him to hold certain town offices. An anxiety to preserve the government pure unquestionably pervaded the bosom of Judge Chase.

In concluding his charge he spoke strongly against the changes that had been made in the judiciary system of the United States. He attributed them to party politics-deemed them personal in their object and not conducive to public good in their operations. As these related to his official duties they were legitimate points for remark. It was a matter of course that a man like him should comment freely and severely upon what he conceived a personal and public wrong. He never dined at the half-way house. In all that has been presented I can find nothing to impugn the honesty of his intentions or the purity of his motives.

Upon these premises six articles of impeachment were framed at first and at the next session of Congress two more were added-the natural increase of a year. On the 2d of January 1805 Judge Chase was arraigned before the Senate of the United States. A majority of the members were politically opposed to him but amongst them were men who loved justice more than party. The herculean powers of John Randolph were brought to bear upon him in the full plenipotence of their force. The trial continued until the first of March except a short recess. A portion of this time the Judge was confined by illness. He was ably and successfully defended by Messrs. Martin, Hopkinson, Harper and Key. Of five of the charges he was acquitted by a majority of the Senate. A constitutional number could not be obtained to convict him on the others-he stood approved, acquitted, triumphant over his enemies at the highest tribunal of his country-looking upon his collossal vanquished political foes, with mingled pity and contempt. He had never doubted the favorable result and properly regarded the prosecution as a political bagatelle.

From that period to the time of his last illness his peace was undisturbed. He continued to be an ornament to the judiciary, an honor to his country, the faithful friend of human rights and equal justice. On the 19th of June 1811, surrounded by his family and friends, he bade a last farewell to sublunary things and died peaceful and happy. A large number of relatives, an extensive circle of friends and a grateful nation mourned his loss.

In the character of this great and good man we find no corruption to condemn-many strong and brilliant traits to admire. As a revolutionary patriot he stood on a lofty eminence-as a statesman he rendered many and important services-as a lawyer he enjoyed a high reputation-as a

judge he sustained an exalted position. All the charges against him have been faithfully spread before the reader. The result of their investigation caused his powerful enemies to weave for him a higher eulogium than language can express. I find no evidence of guile in his heart. He felt strongly-expressed his opinions freely and acted sincerely so far as we can judge from the record.

Against his private character slander and malice never directed an

arrow.

He was in all respects above suspicion. He was a kind husband, an affectionate father, a warm friend-an open, honorable, scarifying opponent. His sanguine temperament was calculated to gain strong friends and violent enemies. He handled his political opposers with great severity which accounts for the mighty effort made to ostracise him from the Bench. He possessed a noble and benevolent dispositionwas a friend to the poor and needy, to education and to everything that enhanced the happiness of those around him and the human family. Under his benefaction the celebrated William Pinkey was educated and made a man. He often referred gratefully to his benefactor in after life. He was an active member of St. Paul's church and did much to promote practical piety, sound morals and social order. His force, vigor, decision of character and stern integrity were well calculated for the period in which he lived. If he sometimes offended by soaring above the noncommittal system of technical politics, it resulted from the strong combination of conflicting circumstances that uniformly attend the period of a revolution, the formation of a new government and the asperity of high toned party feeling operating upon the sensitive feelings of an ardent, patriotic, honest, independent mind.

ABRAHAM CLARK.

A large proportion of the most substantial and useful men who have filled the measure of their country's glory and enrolled their names on the scroll of fame, were not ushered into public notice under the streamer of a collegiate diploma fluttering in the fickle wind of popularity. A clear head, strong common sense, an investigating and analyzing mind, with a judgment matured in the school of experience, are the grand requisites to prepare a man for sterling usefulness. Without these you vainly pour upon him the classic stream. It is like water poured upon the interminable sand-it invigorates for a moment, then sinks and leaves the surface dry and unproductive. If there is no substratum to retain the appliances of irrigation, the soil is not worth the

labor. I do not undervalue high seminaries of learning and highly appreciate a liberal education. I only wish to correct the opposite extreme that is gaining rapidly among us, of placing too high a value upon them, making a classical course the grand requisite of prospective usefulness. I also wish to encourage those who have talent and only a good English education, to expand their wings of usefulness and imitate the examples of Franklin, Sherman, Abraham Clark and others who have graced the theatre of human action without the aid of a collegiate education. If they do not soar like eagles they may still be useful for there is more good to be achieved and more need of labor in low life than high. An humble bird saved Rome.

Abraham Clark was born at Elizabethtown, Essex county, New Jersey on the 15th of February 1726. He was the only son of Thomas Clark who held the office of Alderman, at that time a dignified station filled by men of merit. He was a farmer, a man of strong common sense and instilled into the mind of his son the enduring principles of moral rectitude that governed his actions through life. He received a good English education and was designed for the ennobling pursuit of agriculture. Of a slender frame and feeble constitution he was unable to endure hard labor but continued to superintend the improvement of the paternal domain left him by his father. He was an accomplished mathematician and was extensively employed in surveying and conveyancing. He was also an elementary lawyer and a safe gratuitous counsellor. He often saved his friends from the vexatious labyrinth of litigation by assuaging the angry elements of passion and leading them to the pure fountain of equal justice. He was called the poor man's counsellor and did much to allay disputes and promote harmony among his neighbors. He enjoyed the blessing pronounced on peace makers. His decisions were based on correct legal principles and impartial justice. He was often selected an arbitrator in different counties to settle disputed land titles. His knowledge and legal acquirements, united by an acute judgment, became so highly appreciated, that he was appointed by the Assembly to settle the claims to undivided comHe filled the office of sheriff-was appointed clerk of the Legislature-doing credit to himself and dignifying every station he occupied. As he became known to the public his talents were more highly appreciated-not because they kindled to a blaze calculated to excite the huzzas of the multitude one day and possibly receive their execrations the next-but because they exemplified unwavering rectitude, strict justice, moral worth and disinterested patriotism.

mons.

When the vials of oppression were poured upon his native colony by