FRIDAY, January 11th, 1805.

Mr. BOILEAU. I wish the Court to indulge me in asking Mr. Hopkinfon a queftion, which naturally arifes out of the anfwer Mr. Hopkinfon gave to the question put to him by the learned counsel for the refpondents, who has informed us that his question was not intended in the smallest degree to reflect on the House of Representatives, or the committee of grievances. Relying on the candor and urbanity of that gentleman, I fhall merely afk the witnefs one question, in order to enable the Court finally to decide with that virtue and recitude which I trust they will. He has faid that a paper was left at his house without being fubfcribed by any perfon; I ask hint whether he did not know from whom it was, and for what pur pose it had been left?

Mr. HOPKINSON. I did not know for what purpose, nor by whom it was left at my house. That paper, I believe, is in poffeffion of the committee of grievances. The paper was fignedcopy," but not authenticated by the chairman of the committee of grievances, nor of any officer or perfon whatever. It was neither an original, nor an authentic copy. I have underflood fince, that Mr. Ludlam left that paper at my house, that he was appointed to do fo by the committee of grievances, but that I did not know at the time it was left.

B. Did he not on the fame day have fome converfation with Mr. Ludlam on the fubject, and what was that conversation?

H. That converfation was before I faw the paper. I think it was at the state-house, a perfon afked me in what manner I was going to Lancaster. He told me that a number of perfons had propofed taking a private carriage. As he did not fay who he was, or what he was, (and as I did not then know Mr. Ludlam) I did not, I believe, make any direct answer.

B. Did he not go to the ftage-office to make fome enquiries about a paffage?

H. Yes, becaufe although I was not regularly ferved with notice, I did not know but that I might be, and I thought it proper to be prepared.

B. I with Mr. Hopkin fon to flate the reafons, why he altered his opinion and did not to go to Lancafter at that time? H. I did not alter my opinion. I had not determined to come to Lancafter, but made the enquiries at the ftage-office, left I fhould be ferved with a fubpena.

Mr. DALLAS. When I put the question yesterday to Mr. Hopkinfon, whether he was not ferved with an attachment from the committee of grievances, my intention was to difcover what was their opinion refpe&ting attachments, for the pur

P

pofe of bringing it into the view of the Senate. I with Mr. Hopkinson to state, whether, when he was examined before the committee of grievances, there was any proof, by oath or affirmation, of the fervice of the fubpena?

H. I never was ferved perfonally with the fubpoena, nor did Mr. Ludlam, when he faw me, inform me of an any authority by which it was ferved.

JOHN KEBLE-sworn.

Mr. RODNEY. I wish the witness to ftate to the Court, whether he was prefent in the Supreme Court when the argument on the attachment came on, and if he was, to relate what fell from the Court at that time?

my me

Mr. KEBLE. Owing to bad health, I am apprehensive that I fhall not be able to make myself heard by this honorable Court; and further request them to allow me to refresh mory by a reference to notes I have taken on the fabject. In the forenoon of the 28th of Dec. 1802, I accidentally went into the Court-house, at which time his honor the Chief Judge, 'Squire Yeates and 'Squire Smith were fitting on the bench. Within the time of my being in Court, Mr. Thomas Paffmore was called upon by the Chief Judge to make his appearance; when the Chief Judge addreffed Mr. Paffmore on the ferious confequences which might have arifen, even, I think the Judge obferved the fhedding of blood, by reafon of a libel which he, Paffmore, had ftuck up in the city coffee-houfe, at Philadel phia, against Mr. Andrew Bayard of that city. The judge expreffed his hopes that the above conduct of Mr. Paffmore towards Mr. Bayard, proceeded only from a momentary heat of paffion, and was concerned at the ftubborness of Mr. Paffmore in not availing himself in the long indulgence of an opportunity given him by the Court of making an atonement to Mr. Bayard on account of the libel. I am a little in doubt whether the Judge did not add " and contempt of Court;" which the Judge obferved, would not only have mitigated, but done away the punishment he had incurred. I do not recollect any thing further in this matter, except that Mr. Paffmore declared that he did not mean to pay the Court any difrefpect. The Chief Judge then fentenced him, I think it was, to 50 dollars fine, and 30 days imprifenment. Mr. Mofes Levy, in behalf of Mr. Paffmore, afked the Chief Judge if Mr. Paffmore fhould have leave to return home to refresh himself, and that he might be accommodated with the fame apartment that Mr. Duane had been accommodated with. In all which requests the Court immediately acquiefced. I would juft obferve that I was only a diftant fpectator.

R. I afk the witnefs whether he was not near enough to hear diftin&ly what fell from the Court?

K. I was not near enough to hear diftinctly; nor did I pay particular attention, as I had no idea of being invited here, R. Did you hear what you have ftated to fall from the

Court?

K. To the best of my recollection.

Mr. LEACOCK, (one of the managers.) The evidence has ftated, that Mr. Paffiore had obferved, that he did not mean to pay any difrefpect to the Court; I wish him to ftate whether the Court made any reply to Mr. Paffmore?

K. I do not recollect, fir.

JACOB SHOEMAKER-affirmed.

I was called as an evidence, when Thomas Paffmore was fhewing caufe on the rule to thew caufe why the judgment fhould not be fet afide. I was examined then as to the infurance made at the office of Shoemaker & Berrett. I was not in the Court when the motion for an attachment was made, but at the time that fentence was paffed upon him. I came into Court about five minutes before Paffmore was called to receive his fentence. I recollect, the Chief Juftice, prior to paffing fentence, took occafion to remark on the conduct of Thomas Paffmore, in pofting up at the coffee houfe, a libel on the character of Pettit and Bayard, which daring breach of the peace might occafion the fhedding of blood. He obferved, that this being done while an action was depending in Court, it was a contempt of the Court; that he had been indulged with confiderable time, and been allowed to purge himself by anfwers to interrogatories; that the Court had hoped he would by fome conceffions, have prevented the neceffity of paffing judgment upon him; inftead of which, he had aggravted the offence by his anfwers. He then proceeded to pass the fentence of the Court. I do not give this as the exact words of the Chief Justice; they are merely given according to the recollection I now have. After fentence was paffed, Thomas Paffiore addreffed the Court again, it appeared to me, with the intention of juftifying his conduct, but was interrupted by Judge Yeates, who obferved to him, that he had heard the fentenee of the Court, and therefore could not be fuffered to go on further. I then left the Court.

Mr. RODNEY. I ask the witnefs, when the Court obferved that it was a dangerous libel, whether the Chief Justice, or fome of the Judges, faid, that fo far as refpected the Court, Mr. Paffmore's anfwers had fatisfed them?

S. I believe Judge Shippen did fay, that his anfwers with refpect to the Court, had been full.

R. Did he not exprefs himself, as fatisfied with the answers of Mr. Paffimore?

, I do not recollect the words at this time; but the impreffion on my mind is, that the Court confidered the answers, as far as refpected themfelves, as full; and were fully fatisfied with the answers, as to the intention of infulting the Court.

R. I do not expect the witness to state the exact language, only the import; did not the Court enprefs themselves fatisfied by the answers?

S. It occurs to my recollection, that the Judge made a remark on that part of the fubject, "that there were contempts, which, although they were not immediately directed to the Court, yet that they had fuch an operation as required them to be corrected by law."

you

R. Did understand at the time conceffions were mentioned, that the Court faid the conceffions were to be made to Pettit and Bayard?

S. I do not recollect that the Chief Juftice mentioned that they were to be made to Pettit and Bayard; but that was the impreffion on my mind at the time.

R. Did you understand the Court as faying, that if the conceffion had been made, it would have excufed them from pronouncing judgment?

S. I did,

CROSS EXAMINED,

Mr. DALLAS. I afk the witness, whether in that part of the obfervations of the Chief Justice, on the nature of libels, which he has flated in his teftimony, whether he did not diftinguish between those contempts committed against the Court, and those that were an obstruction to the administration of justice?

S. That was the idea I meant to exprefs. The judge drew a diftinction between thofe kind of contempts, which were only an infult to the Court, and those that were an obftruction to the adminiftration of justice.

D. Did he not obferve, that the contempt Paffmore had been guilty of, was of the latter description?

S. That was the impreffion on my mind.

D. Did the Judges on this occafion, ufe any rude or intem, perate language towards Paffmore, or his counfel?

S. They did not while I was present. On the contrary, my impreffion was, that Judge Yeates wished to ftop him from committing a further offence. I thought fo by the manner.

D. I ask the witnefs, whether, at the ne the word atonement was used, the Judge connected it with the names of Pettit and Bayard?

S. No; I do not tecolled his mentioning the names of Pettit and Bayard at that time; but the impreffion on my mind was, that they were the perfons to whom the atonement was to be made.

D. I wish to know, whether, at what time previous to the publication being made, it was that Paffmore called on the witnefs, and told him he would publish Meffrs. Pettit and Bayard?

He

S. I cannot be certain as to the day when Thomas Paffmore called upon me and mentioned it, but I believe it was the very day, on which he put up the paper at the coffee-house. told me that he was determined to poft Bayard at the coffeehouse; I endeavored to perfuade him not to do it, and reprefented to him that its probable confequences might be a duel, and that it might be confidered a contempt of Court; and I reminded him of Ofwald's case.

D. I understand the witnefs to ftate this converfation to have paffed before the paper was put up?

S. I think on the forenoon of the day on which he put up the paper,

D. I ask the witnefs, whether Paffmore had stated the act as done, or that he would do it?

S. He spoke in words of the future-"I will do it."

D. I wish the witnefs would ftate the whole converfation? S. I mentioned Ofwald's cafe, who, I understood, had incurred the penalty for publishing, refpecting a caufe depending in Court; he replied, he had confulted counfel, and they had replied that it was no contempt.

D. I will now call the attention of the witnefs, to what arofe from the abandonment of the brig Minerva. Mr. Shoemaker will state, what he knows of the infurance of the veffel, what documents and papers were produced to him, on abandoning the veffel to the underwriters, and all the fubfequent proceedings thereon ?

After

S. Not fuppofing that queftion would have been asked, I neglected to furnish my elf with with the dates, from the books. The infurance on the brig Minerva, was made in June 1801. Not long after which, a few weeks perhaps, Paffmore brought a proteft to cur office, ftating the veffel having put into New-Brunfwick in diftrefs, having fprung a leak. looking at the proteft, I mentioned the underwriters were not difpofed to pay any lofs, as they knew of no accident to occafion any. He mentioned the veffels having drove foul of another in the river, as having been fufficient to caufe a leak. obferved, that he had anchored during a calm, and the leak was occafioned by the anchor's fouling. The leak did not

I