Q. By the same. Did the Court, in delivering its opinion, recite in substance the several parts of the opinion which it supposed was misrepresented in the publication, to point out the character of the misrepresentation? A. I believe it did.

Q. By the same. Did the Court comment upon the influence of the publication upon the public, and upon the claims?

A. The Court spoke of the evil tendency of the publication, of its falsity, and of the motive of its author, which it declared was intended to prejudicc the claimants against the Court, to bring the Court into disrepute, and to shake the faith of the suitors in the impartiality of the Judge.

Q. By the same. Is there not a general rule of the Court which precludes more than two counsel from arguing any cause or question except by permission of the Court?

A. I believe there was before and at that time a rule of the Court which confined the argument of any point of law to two counsel on the same side. Q. By the same. Was the apparent irritation, of which you speak, on the part of the Court, constant during the whole course of the argument by Colonel Lawless?

A. I have already stated that I was not present during the whole of the argument by Colonel Lawless. I thought the Court was excited; whether or not there was an internal excitement going on during the whole time in the breast of the Court I will not undertake to say. I could only judge of the feeling of the Court, by the manner of the Judge displayed when addressing himself to Counsel.

Q. By the same. Is there feeling of ill-blood on your part against me? A. I am the relative of Col. Lawless. I never was intimate with the District Judge of Missouri. Previous to his appointment as judge, we were upon terms of common acquaintance; subsequent to his appointment I never concealed my dislike to that appointment. It was frequently and publicly expressed. Up to the period when the transaction took place, in which the rule of court was made absolute against Col. Lawless, I believe we were barely on speaking terms. Since that time I am not aware that I have ever addressed myself to Judge Peck, except upon matters of business, and freely admit that I have been unfriendly to him.

Q. By the same. Were you concerned as counsel for the claimants, or any of them?

A. I am inclined to the opinion that, up to the time of the proceedings against Col. Lawless, I was not concerned for any claimant. Subsequent to that period, I was employed and acted as counsel in relation to some claims of Col. John Smith T. and perhaps in one other case.

Q. By the same. Was this paper, identified by the name of James Buchanan written thereon, and produced here by Col. Lawless, read in open court by you or Col. Lawless, after he had been brought into court and before sentence pronounced?

In the District Court for the District of Missouri, sitting at St. Louis, on the 21st day of April, 1826, for the decision of land titles.

The United States,

vs.

L. E. Lawless.

Be it remembered, that on the day and year aforesaid, the said court called upon the said defendant to know whether if there were interrogatories filed

in this cause he would answer them, which the said defendant declined for the following reasons, which he assigned to said court in the words following: First, I refuse to answer the above interrogatories because this court has no jurisdiction of the offence charged upon me, in manner and form as the court has proceeded against me. Second, because the positions ascribed in the article signed "A Citizen" are true, and fairly inferred, and extracted from the opinion of this court in the case of Soulard's widow and heirs vs. the United States, as published.

A. The paper described in the interrogatory is in my hand writing, and I presume was read in open court at the period mentioned, but whether by myself or by Col. Lawless I cannot say; and, in truth, my belief upon that subject is based more upon the fact of that paper being in my hand writing, than upon any distinct recollection of the transaction, apart from the paper itself.

Q. By the same. Were you present when the rule was made against Col. Lawless?

A. My impression is rather that I was not.
Q. By the same.

Was there much excitement during the pendency of the proceedings of the court?

A. There was considerable excitement among the members of the bar, during the pendency of the proceedings of the court. I do not think that the excitement became general until after sentence was pronounced by the court against Col. Lawless. Previous to that time I think it was confined, in a great degree, to the persons who were present during the discussions which took place. The room in which the court sat, was an apartment in a private dwelling, by no means remarkable for its size. After the decision against Col. Lawless, the excitement became strong and general throughout the community. It may be proper to remark, that I think the room upon the day when Mr. Geyer and myself addressed the court, was well filled, if not crowded.

Q by Mr. Davis, of South Carolina. Was the language and deportment of the memorialist respectful and decorous to the court, while discussing the rule against the editor?

A. At those times when I was present I thought entirely so.

Q. by the same. Was the conduct of the judge respectful to the memorialist during his argument of the rule, or impatient, or rude?

A. I thought that the manner of the judge evinced considerable impatience and abruptness. It appeared to me that it was entirely different from the usual manner of Judge Peck, and I drew the inference that he was treating Col. Lawless rather as the author of the publication than as the counsel of the printer or publisher.

Q. by the same. Did you understand the allusion of Judge Peck to the Chinese custom of blacking the door of the slanderer's house, as being intended by him to have any application to Col. Lawless?

A. I understood it distinctly to apply to Col. Lawless. During the delivery of his opinion, he had frequently used the words slanderous, malicious, false, as applicable to the publication, and immediately then quoted the custom in China, which was adopted to a slanderer or calumniator, leaving the conclusion in my mind, that he thought him a proper object of such a mark of distinction.

Q. by Mr. Buchanan. How do you stand related to Col. Lawless?
A. We are second cousins.

Q. by same. Has the conduct of the court towards Col. Lawless, since the termination of his suspension, been respectful?

A. I know nothing to the contrary.

A. L. MAGENIS.

Sworn and subscribed before the Committee on the Judiciary, this 20th March, 1830.

ATTEST,

JAMES BUCHANAN, Chairman.

John Mullanphy being duly sworn according to law, doth depose and say as follows;

I was in Court when the Judge made strictures upon a publication in the newspapers. I thought the Judge was a little irritated, when giving his opinion, and the only words I remember of his remarks, were the punishment of a calumniator in China, which is to have his house painted black. I know nothing more of the business than what I have stated.

Question by Judge Peck. How long were you in Court during the delivery of the opinion?

A. I cannot tell exactly, perhaps an hour or more.

Question by the same. Did the Court appear to have for its object the discussion of the questions which had been argued by counsel, and which were presented in the case?

A. I cannot tell what was the object of the Court, excepting as a preparatory step to the punishment of Col. Lawless.

Question by the same. Was the manner of the Court rude, in relation tɔ any body?

A. I considered the Judge to be irritated against the author of the piece. Question by the saine. Had you been present during the previous discussion? A. I do not remember that I was. What brought me there that day, was, that I understood proceedings were to be had against Colonel Lawless, for a contempt of Court.

Question by the same. Did the Court appear to wander from the subject under its consideration, for the purpose of lavishing abuse upon any one? A. No. I do not know that It did. The various parts of that publication was discussed, and remarks made by the Judge as he went along.

Question by the same. Will you state the indications of excitement? In what did they consist? In sharpness of voice, in earnestness of manner, or in what?

A. I thought there was an earnestness of manner in the remarks made upon the piece, and the words slander and falsehood, as applicable to the author, were made use of more than once.

Question by Mr. Davis, of South Carolina. Did you understand the allusion of Judge Peck to the Chinese custom of blacking the door of the slanderer's house, as being intended by him to have any application to Col. Lawless?

A. I remember looking at Mr. Lawless whilst the Judge made that remark. Knowing Mr. Lawless to be of rather a hasty temper, I had my eye fixed upon him during the time, to see how he would take the language, as I conceived it applied to him.

JOHN MULLANPHY.

Sworn and subscribed before the Committee on the Judiciary, this 20th March, 1830.

Attest,

JAMES BUCHANAN, Chairman.

The Reverend Thomas Horrell, being duly sworn according to law, doth depose and say as follows:

When I entered the room in which the Court was sitting, Mr. Magenis was making an argument before the Court as counsel for Colonel Lawless; I cannot distinctly recollect the grounds of his argument. His object was to shew that the rule could not apply in that case. He was succeeded by Mr. Geyer, who also appeared as counsel for Colonel Lawless. Colonel Strother commenced a speech, but stopped abruptly; I did not then know from what cause. The Judge then called upon Mr. Bates to read the publication signed "A Citizen," and proceeded to comment upon it. I cannot distinctly recollect the language of the Judge, but remember that the words calumny, slander, and misrepresentation, were used by him; and I considered them as intended to be applied to Colonel Lawless. I distinctly recollect his referring to the law of China, by which calumniators were punished by having their houses painted black. I did not remain in the Court until the Judge had concluded his remarks, but left it soon after Colonel Lawless absented himself. I cannot be expected to recollect particulars, not having charged my memory, and expecting never to be called upon to testify in this case.

Q. By Judge Peck. Is your recollection perfect as to the words of the Court so as to enable you to say whether it charged the publication to be slanderous, libellous, or false; or, whether such imputations were actually made against the defendant himself?

A. I certainly understood the language of the Judge as applicable to the author of the publication.

Q. By the same. Were not the matter of the publication, when the language referred to as used by the Court, the subject of its consideration?? A. I think so.

Q. By the same. Was not the words applied to the publication, and it charged to be slanderous and libellous, rather than as addressed by the Court to the defendant himself?

A. I perhaps shall find some difficulty in distinguishing between the application of the language of the Court to the publication and the then known author of it. I certainly understood the language of the Judge to be applicable to the author.

Q. By the same. Was the paper the subject of remark?

A. The paper, as I have before stated, was read by paragraphs, and the Judge proceeded to comment on that publication.

Q. By the same. Did the Court address itself to the author personally, or was it treating of the publication, and pronouncing upon its character?" A. I think the Court did not address itself personally to Colonel Lawless, but thought the language used was intended to be applied to him.

Q. By the same. Were you in Court when the rule against Colonel Lawless was made?

A. I was not.

Q. By the same. Were you in Court, at any time after that, when Colonel Lawless came in and addressed the Court?

A. I was not.

Q. By the same. Were you in Court when Colonel Lawless was brought in upon the attachment?

A. I was in the Court but once during that term, and left it before the Judge had finished his comments upon the publication signed "A Citizen."

Q. By the same. Whether, in the course of that discussion, the Court in delivering its opinion was earnest and ardent in defence of principles, which you could have inferred had been the previous subjects of discussion?

A. I cannot distinctly recollect what principles were involved in the discussion. The manner of the Judge I thought animated and vehement. Q. By Mr. Buchanan. How long had the Judge been employed in delivering the opinion of the Court before you left the court-room?

A. I suppose not more than twenty or thirty minutes-not more than half an hour.

Q. By the same. What was your understanding as to the application intended by the Judge of the law of China?

A. I understood it as being applicable to the author of the piece signed "A Citizen."

Q. By the same. What was the manner and conduct of Mr. Lawless whilst the Court were delivering their opinion?

A. I saw Mr. Lawless occasionally, and during some parts of Judge Peck's comments. His countenance indicated considerable excitement. He, however, remained quietly in his seat until he got up for the purpose of leaving the room, and until he left the room.

THOMAS HORRELL.

Sworn and subscribed before the Committee on the Judiciary, this 20th March, 1830. JAMES BUCHANAN, Chairman.

Attest,

Charles S. Hempstead being duly sworn according to law, doth depose and say as follows:

Understanding that a rule had been served upon Mr. Foreman, the Editor of the Missouri Advocate," to shew cause upon an alleged contempt for the publication of an article which had been printed in his paper, signed "A Citizen," which contained strictures upon an opinion of the District Court of Missouri, sitting as a Land Court, in the case of Soulard's heirs; being a practitioner in that Court, I recollect being present in that Court when the argument was had upon that rule against Stephen W. Foreman. According to my recollection, at this time, Col. Lawless, Mr. Geyer, Mr. Strother, and perhaps Mr. Magenis, appeared as Counsel on behalf of Foreman on that occasion and resisted the rule being made absolute upon Foreman. The argument of the Counsel upon that occasion I cannot state at length, but from what I have understood from the testimony of Colonel Lawless and Mr. Magenis before this Committee, according to the best of my recollection the positions which they have stated in their testimony have been correctly stated, and were discussed by them before the Court. I understood that those positions were overruled by the Court, and that Col. Lawless was either given up or acknowledged himself to be the author of the piece signed "A Citizen," and I understood that a rule was served upon Col. Lawless to answer for the alleged contempt committed by him in the writing and publication of the piece signed "A Citizen." I was probably in Court during most of the proceedings against Col. Lawless upon that rule, but do not now distinctly recollect all the proceedings that occurred on that occasion, until the Judge delivered his opinion upon the rule against Col. Lawless. I distinctly recollect being in Court at that time. When Judge Peck commenced delivering his opinion, I think that he called upon Mr.