public to vindicate his reputation, and to call upon the juftice of the law, to punifh fo grofs a violation of truth and decency. For this purpofe, he continued, a writ had been iffued, and bail was required. The defendant, it not before, was certainly, on the hearing at the Judge's chambers, apprized of the caufe of action: the order of Mr. JuʃticeBRYAN on that occafion, and the appeal to the court, were circumftances perfectly within his knowledge ; and yet, while the whole merits of the caufe were thus in fufpenfe, he thought proper to addrefs the public in language evidently calculated to excite the populat refentment againft Browne ; to create doubts and fufpicions of the integrity of the integrity and impartiality of the Judges, who muft prefide upon the trial ; and to promote an unmerited compaffion in his own favour. He has defcribed himfelf as the object of former perfecutions upon fimilar principles ; he has afferted that, in this inftance, an individual is made the inftrument of a party to deftroy him ; and he artfully calls upon his fellow, citizens to intereft themfelves to preferve the freedom of the prefs, which he confiders as attacked in his perfon. Nay, in order to caft an odium upon the new government of the United States, he infinuates, that his arreft was purpofely protracted ‘till the ratification of nine ftates had given ftability to that fyftem: a falfehood, as unwarrantable as it is infidious ; for, it will be proved that this delay took place at his own requeft, communicated by Col. Proctor.
Col. Proctor, being examined on this point, faid, that he, at firft, defired the action might not be brought, in hopes of accomplifhing a compromife between the parties ; that, afterwards, he requefted Mr.Lewis to defer iffuing the writ ‘till as near the term as it was poffible: but that all this interference was of his own accord, and not at the inftance of the defendant. He acknowledged, however, that he had informed Oʃwald, that the commencement of the action would be poftponed as long as poffible, after having obtained a promife to that effect from Mr. Lewis.
Lewis faid he was very much miftaken, indeed, if Col. Proctor had mentioned the requeft as coming from the defendant ; and Col. Proctor anfwered, ‘‘if ever I told you fo, he certainly fent me ; ‘‘but I cannot remember that ever he afked me to do a thing of the ‘‘kind.’’
Lewisthen added, that the addrefs to the public manifeftly tended to interrupt the courfe of juftice ; it was an attempt to prejudice the minds of the people in a caufe then depending , and, by that means, to defeat the plaintiff's claim to juftice, and to ftigmatize the Judges, whofe duty it was to adminifter the laws. There could be no doubt, therefore, that it amounted to a contempt of the court ; and it only remained, in fupport of his motion, to fhew that an attachment was the legal mode of proceeding againft the offender. For this he cited 4 Black. Com. 280. 2 Atk. 469.
by the court :–Take a rule to fhew caufe on Monday next at 9 o'clock in the morning.
