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." THE UNITED STATES, VS. Stephen W. Foreman. S Thursday, April 20th, 1826. Rule for an attachment. In this case, the defendant having appeared, and for cause shows, that he is not the author of the said publication, and submits himself to the court, and purges himself of all contempt. It is therefore ordered that the rule be discharged. The court being satisfied, upon the oath of Stephen W. Foreman, made in open court, that Luke E. Lawless, an attorney and counsellor of this court, is the author of a certain publication over the signature of "A Citizen," in a public paper printed in this city, by the name of the "Missouri Advocate and St. Louis Enquirer," issued on the eighth of April, of this instant, it is ordered, that the said Luke E. Lawless show cause forthwith, why an attachment should not be issued against him for the false and malicious statements in the said publication contained, in relation to a judicial decision of this court, in the case of Julia Soulard, widow, James G. Soulard, Henry G. Soulard, Eliza Soulard, and Benjamin A. Soulard, children and heirs of Antoine Soulard, deceased, against the United States, lately pending and determined therein; with intent to impair the public confidence in the upright intentions of the said court, and to bring odium upon the court; and especially with intent to impress the public mind, and particularly many litigants in this court, that they are not to expect justice in the causes now pending therein; and with intent further to awaken hostile and angry feelings on the part of the said litigants against the said court, in contempt of the same court. And that he also show cause why he should not be suspended from practising in this court, as an attorney and counsellor therein, for the said contempt and evil intent. UNITED STATES, VS. Luke E. Lawless. Friday, April 21st, 1826. And the defendant, Luke E. Lawless, having appeared in obedience to the rule against him, to show cause why an attachment should not issue against him, and having been heard by counsel against the emanation of the said writ in the said rule mentioned; having been also heard by counsel against the said rule, to show cause why he should not be suspended from practising as an attorney and counsellor in this court; and the court having considered all and singular the premises, and for that it seems to the court that the said defendant, Luke E Lawless, had committed a contempt, in manner and form as in the said rule is charged, it is ordered than an attachment issue against him, returnable forthwith. Which attachment was issued in the words and figures following, to wit: "MISSOURI DISTRICT, Sct. "The President of the United States of America, "To the Marshal of said district, greeting: "You are hereby commanded to attach the body of Luke E. Lawless, and him forthwith have before the court of the United States for the Missouri District, now in session at the city of St. Louis, to answer unto the United States, touching a certain contempt by him committed, in publishing a false statement of the decision of said court, in the case of Julia Soulard, widow, and James G. Soulard, Henry G. Soulard, Eliza Soulard, and Benjamim A. Soulard, against the United States; hereof fail not, and have you then there this writ. [L. S.] Witness the honorable James H. Peck, Esquire, Judge of the ISAAC BARTON, Cik. Upon which said writ, the marshal to whom the same was directed, made the following return, to wit: "ST. LOUIS, April 21st, 1826. "In obedience to this writ, I have herewith, in open court, the body of Luke E. Lawless, Esq. as within commanded. H. DODGE, Marshal. UNITED STATES, VS. Luke E. Lawless. The defendant in this case having been brought into court by attachment, and the court having demanded of him, whether he would answer interrogatories, or would purge himself of the contempt charged upon him; and the said defendant having refused to answer interrogatories, and having persisted in the contempt, the court doth find that the said defendant is guilty of the contempt to this court, as charged in the said rule. UNITED STATES, VS. Luke E. Lawless. The defendant in this case having refused to answer interrogatories, and having persisted in the contempt: It is ordered, adjudged, and considered, that the said defendant be committed to prison for twenty-four hours, and that he be suspended from practising as an attorney or counsellor at law, in this court, for eighteen calendar months, from this day. MISSOURI DISTRICT, Sct. I, Isaac Barton, Clerk of the Court of the United States for the Missouri District, do hereby certify, that the above and foregoing is a full, true, and perfect transcript of the record in the cases of the United States against Stephen W. Foreman, and the United States against Luke E. Lawless, for contempt. [L. s. ] . In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and af- STATE OF MISSOURI, County of St. Louis, ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT. SS. MARCH TERM, 1826. "Upon the petition of Luke E. Lawless, setting forth that he is at present confined in the common jail of St. Louis county, by virtue of a warrant or order of the District Court of Missouri, charged with having refused to answer interrogatories, and having persisted in a contempt; it is ordered, that a writ of habeas corpus issue to the sheriff, to bring into court, forthwith, the body of the said Luke E. Lawless, together with the day and cause of his caption and detention. Whereupon the sheriff brings into court, the body of the said Luke E. Lawless, and makes his return on said writ as follows, to wit: "In obedience to this writ, I have herewith, in open court, the body of Luke E. Lawless; the cause of his detention will appear from a certain order, rule, or warrant, herewith enclosed, by virtue of which, he was committed to my custody, in the common jail of St. Louis county, April 21st, 1826. JOHN K. WALKER, Sheriff." Whereupon, on examination of the paper purporting to be a commitment issued by the said Dis.rict Court, and finding that the same is not authenticated by the seal of said court, it is ordered that the said Luke E. Lawless be discharged from the custody of said sheriff. I, Archibald Gamble, Clerk of the Circuit Court for the county of St. Louis, do certify the above to be a true copy of an order made by the said circuit court, at the March term, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six, upon a writ of habeas corpus, upon which the said Luke E. Lawless was brought before the court. Witness, Archibald Gamble, Clerk of said court, at office, this sixth day of September, in the year one thousand eight hundred and [L. s.] twenty-six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the fifty first. ARCHIBALD GAMBLE, Clerk. COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY Of the House of Representatives of the United States. Committee met-Present, Mr. Buchanan, Chairman. Wickliffe, Mr. Ellsworth, Davis, of S. Carolina, and Luke E. Lawless, being duly sworn according to law, doth depose and say, as follows: In the year 1826, on the 30th March, of the same year, I saw in a newspaper printed at St. Louis, called the "Missouri Republican," an article headed "Peck, Judge," and purporting to be a decision of judge Peck, as judge of the District Court of the district of Missouri, made in the case of Soulard's heirs, against the United States. In that case, I had been employed as counsel for the petitioner, in that court. I had also been employed in several other causes of a similar character. When I say a “similar character," I mean founded upon unconfirmed French or Spanish titles. The similarity of character consisted only in being founded in an incomplete title; because I consider the case of the heirs of Soulard, as peculiar and original in its leading characteristics. I read that opinion with all the attention I could give it. When I commenced the reading of it, I had no feeling hostile to judge Peck, or even unfriendly. I thought I saw in it a number of errors, not only in fact, but in doctrine. Those errors appeared to me to have a fatal effect, if they should be established into law, upon that particular claim, and upon almost every other claim that was presented, or could be presented, to the court, under the law of 1824, which authorized judge P. to adjudicate. Shortly after this opinion appeared, I ascertained that it had created a great alarm with my clients and others, who I considered had just titles. The value of the property included in these claims, and the titles themselves, appeared to me to be suddenly, and materially, depreciated by this opinion, and the alarm it created. I had every reason to believe, that speculators might avail themselves of that alarm, to purchase, for a nominal or disproportionate price, the property I have mentioned. Taking all this into view; and further considering, that, inasmuch as judge P. had himself submitted his decision or opinion to the public, and, as had appeared to me, invited discussion upon it; and considering that I was exercising one of the most sacred rights of the American citizen, which I am, 1 published, on the Sth of April, in a newspaper printed at St. Louis, called the "Missouri Advertiser and St. Louis Enquirer," an article, in which I stated, according to the best of my opinion, a number, perhaps twelve or thirteen positions, that appeared to me to have been taken by the judge, and which I conscientiously believed to be erroneous. I beg leave to refer to that article, signed "A Citizen," which is appended to the papers presented by me. A few days after that article, signed "A Citizen," appeared, the District Court sat, upon a special adjournment. At the sitting of the court, I appeared in my place, as counsel. A few minutes after the judge had taken his seat, and had disposed of some matters before him, he produced a newspaper, and inquired if any person then in court could tell who was the editor of that newspaper, called the "Missouri Advertiser and St Louis Enquirer?" The manner of the judge, and the date of the paper, induced me to suppose that he was about to take some serious notice of the article As soon signed "A Citizen." I therefore, without hesitation, informed the judge that I knew who was the editor, that it was one Stephen W. Foreman. Other persons in court stated the same fact. The judge thought proper then, to call upon me to swear to the fact, which I did. as the affidavit was made, he dictated a rule to the clerk, upon the editor, Foreman, to show cause why an attachment should not issue against him for publishing that article. I beg leave to refer to the rule itself, which is stated in my memorial, and appended thereto, for its terms and character. I appeared as counsel for the editor, to show cause, in obedience to that rule; and, on that oecasion, I stated in my argument, all the grounds that occurred to me as proper. I submitted to the court, 1st, That the article was not such as the rule described it to be; that it was neither libellous nor contemptuous. I then took the ground, that if it was such as the rule described it to be, that judge P. had no jurisdiction of the matter in a summary way, as a contempt of his court. That the proper mode of proceeding against the printer or publisher, would be by indictment. My positions in law, and all my arguments, were overruled by judge Peck. In the course of judge Peck's remarks, he betrayed, from time to time, great indignation and emotion; and, as I thought, evidently pointed at me, as the author of the article signed "A Citizen." I therefore prevented the rule from being made absolute against that printer, by giving up my name as the author; which was done by the editor. Judge Peck then directed the editor to swear to the fact, and upon his affidavit, issued a rule upon me, to show cause why I should not be attached, I believe, and be suspended from practice. For the terms and character of that rule, I beg leave to refer to it. I requested Mr. Geyer, Mr. Magenis, and Mr. Strother, members of the St. Louis bar, to appear and show cause for me. I instructed my counsel specially, as to the grounds they were to take. The first ground, was, that no libel or contempt was committed, or intended to be committed, by me. 2d, That, if it was libellous or contemptuous, it ought not to be treated by judge Peck as a contempt. 3d, That if it was a contempt, and within the legitimate jurisdiction of the court, as a contempt, the punishment of suspension from practice, was not that which should be inflicted upon me. Upon this last ground, I directed my counsel to urge that I wrote the article in the capacity of a private citizen, while the court was not in session, and distinct from my character or capacity of counsel of the court; also, that suspension from practice not only affected my rights and interests, but also those of my numerous clients. The first principal ground, on the merits, judge Peck did not suffer my counsel to go The judge observed, that that question had already been decided in the discussion of the rule against the editor. The other grounds were, as well as I can recollect, discussed, and ably too, by my counsel. Their arguments and authorities were, however, all overruled, and judge P. proceeded to make the rule absolute. In doing so, he pronounced a long argument, or speech, upon the nature of the article signed "A Citizen;" which article he caused to be read to him, paragraph by paragraph, and observed upon each part of it very much at length, and with very great acrimony and violence, particularly against me, as I considered. In this manner, judge P. proceeded for a considerable length of time, while I was present. At length, feeling myself exceedingly irritated by what I considered contumaceous language towards me, I got up and left the court. My motive for so doing, was, to avoid being betrayed into an expression of my feelings, or even |