TILE RIOTERS i.R r LOOSE
Oar readers may not be astonished to
learn that Judge Porter and the Attorney
General have quashed the indictment
against certain of the ring-leaders of the
4th of December riot, and thus defeated
the ends of justice, at least for the pre
sent, if not for all time to come, as the
excuse urged in defence of this act, will
be as valid hereafter as now.
The result proves that the rumors set
afloat immediately upon the appointment
of Jas. M. Porter, that the rioters would
not be convicted, was net an idle specula
tion. The reality presents itself in all
its appalling blackness. The sequel has
shown that the conspirators were not mis
taken in their man, while the felons stalk
abroad "unwhipt of justice."
But the screening of the rioters from
justice is not the only outrage visited upon
the people of Dauphin county. The new
judge has dissolved its present Court. up
set the legal and constitutional acts of the
County Commissioners, and declared
them guilty of fraud, favoritism, political
bias, and of "packing" the juries!
Are you astonished Farmers of Dauph
in, that so atrocious a calumny should be
uttered against your sworn officers—
against men whose purity of life and in
tegrity of character defies the shafts of
malice or of slander? Does it arouse the
blood of honest indignation?—does it ex
cite the condemnation of an intelligen
people? Why should it not. Had such
outrages been committed by an Antima
son upon the Bench, the mob--yea the
locoluco rioters of the 4th of December,
would have dragged him from his seat,
and hung him to "a lamp post." Lynch
Jew would have taken the place of the
civil law, and our town would have wit
nessed another scene of outrage and blood
shed.
But we rejoice to say that such has not
been the case in the present instance.
Although highly excited at the outrageous
violations of law and duty—although
deeply implicated by the false charges of
(fraud and criminal connivance, they be•'
;hayed with that moderation and circum
-apection that becomes men of principle
and honor. Their confidence in the Court
Shave vanished. They look upon it now,
as alarming, corruptly and basely prosti
tuted to sustain the locofoco party and
put down its opponents; and they are re
solved to express their condemnation in
language that will be heard and felt. They
will proclaim at the ballot box their deep'
and burning indignation at the outrages
and insults of the modern Jr fries that is
appointed to preside over this Judicial
District.—Har. Tel. 4• Intelligetscer.
Presentment
OF THE "IRON GRAY,"-THE AT.
TORNEY GENERAL'S ORGAN
AS A "PUBLIC NUISANCE."
The following presentoignt of one oft
the official organs of the State Admini;-.
tration as a" PUBLIC NUISANcE," by the
Grand Jury of Dauphin county, is wor
thy of the attention cf the public. It is a ,
new and novel proceeding here, but one ,
that meets with the unqualified approba
tion of every reputable citizen of whatev
er party, who has ever seen or heard of
that infamous and polluted sheet. To
those who know nothing of it, it may be
proper to say that for the last three or
four months, the paper presented by as ,
respectable a Grand Jury as ever met iii
Dauphin county, as a "PUBLIC Nut.
SANCE," has been printed at the OFFICE OF
THE KEYS TONE, under the assumed
responsibility of as great a beast as ever
encumbered the earth; and has weekly
vomited forth the filth and malignity of
the evil, abandoned and despised spirits
that compose that den, of which the At
torney General is honored with the title of
Chief. In this organ public decency was
outraged, until the people spontaneously
arose and demanded its extermination.
But this has not yet been done by the court
to which the appeal was made. The At
torney General stepped in between it and
public justice. He could not brook the
idea of seeing his bantling consigned to,
non-existence. A life of infamy watil
preferred—and the "public nusaneel
without change or modification, is still'
weekly printed at the Keystone oflice, l
and sent forth as the organ of the present
administration.
For the satisfaction of our readers we t
publish the indictment or presentment. as
made to the court by the Grand Jury. It
is as follows:
" The Grand Inquest of the Common- 1
wealth of Pennsylvania inquiring in and
for the body of the county of Dauphin up
on their oaths and affirmations, respect
fully DO PRESENT a certain newspaper
published in the Borough of Harrisburg
called the "Iron Gray" as a PUBLIC
NUISANCE. This paper undoubtedly
requires the attention of the public au
thorities and should be suppressed, inas
much as the exceedingly gross and scur
rilous language with which its columns
are constantly filled, have a tendency to
excite men to breaches of the peace, out
rage and bloodshed. The Constitution, it
is true, guarantees the liberty of the press,
hut not its licentiousness; and when this
potent engine for evil or good gets into
the hands of men of depraved morals, bad
passionalsnd licentious habits, it becomes
the proper authorities to place " metes
and bounds" to its infractions of the con-
Tuitional order of society, and its outra
ges upon the feelings and private reputa-,
tionsof . good citizens. The press under
notice is preeminently lteentiot s. and
stoops to the lowest abuse and scurf ili/y
its Editor, or nominal conductor, is an
Irresponsible man of low habits, and to
tally destitute of the finer feelings of hu
manity. lie is irresponsible, rendering
a resort to a civil suit for redress of the
grievances of which the public complain,
a fruitless nndertaking. We, therefore,
deem a suppression of an evil so flagrant
and intolerable an object deserving the
attention of the proper authorities, inas
much as the morals of the community
suffer from the promulgation of that low
slang and billingsgate that constantly fills
the columns of this infamous publication,
and therefor this presentment is made.
In testimony whereof we have hereun
to set our hands, this 21st day of August,
1839.
J. WALL ICE, Foreman
MICH.IEL 87 RE ER,
JACOB SNAP - ELY,
JOHN INSCHOFFS7'AL,
ISAAC UPDFGROVE,
DAVID SPPEIGARD,
/PM. 11. DOLL,
h M. THOME,
JACOB ALBRIGHT,
JAMES W. GRIFFI7
PAUL LIAGLE,
JOHN MEILEY,
JOHN BUTT,
SIMON CASSEL,
JACOB EARLY, jr.
JOHN S7'ONER,
ISAAC HERSHEY.
Filed of reord.
liar. Tel. 4- latelligencer.
PRESENTMENT
By the Growl Jury of Dauphin aun
ty, relative to the conduct of Ovid F.
Johnson, Attorney General of the Com
m' •wealth of Pennsylrania.
August Sessions, 1639.
Dauphin County, ss.
The Grand Inquest of the Common
wealth of Pennsylvania, enquiring for the
body of the county aforesaid, Do pre
sent: that they have fully examined the
testimony of witnesses in support of a
bill of indictment against Charles Pray,
John J. McCahan and Aaron F. Coxe for
a conspiracy and riot in the Senate cham
ber on the fourth day of December, A. D.
1838, while the Senate was in Session,
which Ovid F. Johnson Eirptire, Attorney
General, when the inquest aforesaid were
present in court, refused to sign, and the
Inquest aforesaid, upon their oaths and
affirmations, do say that the witnesses ex
amined before them fully prove that the
said Charles Pray, John J. McCaftan and
Aaron F. Coxe, together with a great ma
ny other individuals, to the number of one
hundred and more, did commit the crime
and outrages charged upon them in that
bill, and from that testimony they do say
that the offence committed was one of
enormous turpitude, striking at the inde
pendence of the lepresentatives of the
people, and free government itself. If
the offenders in such an offence escape
p l ;;;Y: justice, the rights of the people
will sower by grievous example. 'the
Grand Inquest aforesaid have found the
aforesaid bill--they have so f done their
duty. They think however', that their
duty requires them to go farther, am: to
present the conduct of Ovid F. Johnson
in refusing to comply with the ordinary
form of putting his name as Attorney
General to such a bill, as calculated to'
embarrass, and it may be, frustrate the
administration of justice--as calculated
not to promote the cause of the common
wealth, but to screen ()Enders from jus•
tice, to the prostration of all law, and
the destruction of the dearest rights of
the people.
The Attorney General refused in the
'beginning of this prosecution, it was al
leged in court, and in presence of this in
quest, to take any part in this prosecution,
committing it to the management of pri
vate counsel, who were employed to pros
ecute. if the Attorney General refused
to take a part in the prosecution and com
mitted it to private counsel, the inquest
aforesaid cannot but believe that he shotlld
not interfere to prevent the counsel for
the commonwealth from taking the course
which they thought it proper to pursue.
The inquest aforesaid were surprised to
hear the Attorney General say that he
would not sign the bill, because he had
the affidavits on which prosecution was
instituted, and that he saw the witnesses
in court who could prove the offence
against four other individuals who wen
not nan ed in the bill, and that he would
not proceed against three persons and suf
fer the other four to escape. It the At
torney General truly desired the culprits
should not escape, and for this reason
rather than to screen the three who were
included in the indictment offered for his
signature, refused to sign it, the Grand
Inquest cannot understand why he ran
ged to take a part in this prosecution, and
why he did not himself prepare and send
to the Grand Inquest a bill.
The Inquest have learnt that while in
this case the Attorney General refused to
sign the bill because there were too few
persons named is the bill, he refused to
sign in the case of the commonwealth;
against Aaron F. Coxe, Packer,Bat rett
and Parke for a libel, because there were
too many defendants iucluded in the in
dictment.
The Grand Inquest believe that it is
their duty as guardians of public justice,
to present such conduct as calculated to
corrupt and destroy the best interests of
the people and good government, and
they therefore do, on their oaths and af
firmations aforesaid, present the said Ovid
F. Johnson, Esquire, for that he refused
to sign his name as Attorney General to
the indictment aforesaid.
In testimony whereof we have hereun
to set our hands, this 21st day of August,
1839.—Ibid.
OFINION OF FREDERICK HUM
MEL, ESQ., ASSOCIATE JUDGE.
I think this indictment should not be
quashed, and I wish to say in a few
words why I think so. I wish what I now
say to go on record, that it may always be
known why 1 do not agree to what the
court has decided.
I do not think this or any other court
have any right to quash an indictment, on
the ground that the Grand Jury has been
irregular) drawn, when all the evidence
is,,that the selection and drawingwas per-1
fectly regular and honestly made by res
pectable citizens under oath.
The testimony before the court satis- often read, and sometimes taken myself,
fies me that no corrupt or improper mo. lam bound in the absence of all evidence
tive can be imputed to any one of the to believe, is faithfully kept. That oath
Commissioners or their Clerk, and I am is not only to present no one for envy,
very sorry on account of those who made hatred or malice, but to have no one un
it, that such a charge has been made. presented for fear, favor or affection, or
I The three Commissioners and their Clerk hope of reward. Where a Grand Jury,
are known to this community as men of composed of eighteen respectable men, as
honesty and fidelity. They have been this was, or any Grand Jury, presents or
proves so by the testimony. finds a true bill against three, I cannot in
t think it right, also to say, that 1 must fer or believe, till it is judiciously proved,
strongly censure the attack made by the that they have left others unpresented
counsel for the defendants on Mr. Bishoff whom they are bound to present. las a
one of the Commissioners, who as an old Judge, can only look at the bill as it is of
record, which is a true bill, endorsed by
and respectable citizen should have been
spared such an attack. The citizens of the foreman, against Cox, Pray arid Area
! Dauphin county, when they elected Mr. hen, for an offence in relation to which,
Bishoff, did nut think the worse of him be- the Grand Jury have heard evidence, but'
cause he speaks English imperfectly; many I have not, and which the court cannot
of our best citizens labor under the same connect with other offences charged
difficulty,.and are quite competent to at- against others, until we have head the
tend to their own business and the public testimony.
too, though they speak with ease only I think, though lam no lawyer, and a
their own native tongues. It was, in my plain man myself, I can understand the
difference between what I know as a Judge
opinion, very wrong for the counsel who
comes as a stranger amongst us, to say or and what 1 know as a man. As a man, I
to intimate, that Mr. Bishoff was an in know that a riot and disturbance occurred
competent public servant becanse he wish in this my native and hitherto peaceful
ed to give his testimony in German. i county, on and immediately after the 4th
I agree with the President Judge, in of December last. Ido not know this je
saying it was very wrong in Mr. Barton .dicially, till it is proved by witnesses be
to insinuate that Mr. Clark was other 'fore me.
than a most respectable man. He is known As a man, I know that a great number
to us all as such. of disorderly persons, principally stran-
The affidavit on which this rule was gers, came here and disturbed the peace,
granted cha pa rges the Commissioners and ?and overawed the Le.islature yet this,
others withpacking this jury, by causing and who they were, edo not know as a,
it to contain a great majority of persons Judge till it is proved before me.
of one political party. 'This will explain what I mean when I
Of this there is not a particle of evi- say that I cannot as a Judge decide to
idence, nor can it be inferred from the quash an indictment on its face perfectly'
fact of there being more of one party than reg ular, because as Frederick Hummel,
the other on the panel. It is proved that I ye reason to believe or know without
in the borough of Harrisburg, where ow- evidence, that some or all of the Grand
ing to the floating nature of the popula.. Jury were in the court, and heard the
tion, there is a political majority one way President Judge say that he would not
—there is a majority of qualified jurors make the Attorney General sign a bill a-'
the other—sober, judicious, and intelli- gainst these three, unless four others were
gent resident taxables. It is proved that included.
all the Commissioners and the Sheriff I think the act of 1805 was meant to
thought so when they drew this jury. prevent the increase of costs by the At-
Sheriff Cochran examined and marked the torney General and his Deputies, who I'
duplicates of the South Hard. first, before dare say are as apt as other men to have
any one else looked at it, and examined an eye to their own interest. It is so eta
and marked the North 11 and afterwards. ted in its title. But it seems to me that it
Mr. Whitley had a full opportunity of do is time enough to decide any question of
ing the same thing. It is not proved that that kind when other bills are presented.
any sober, judicious and intelligent citi- I think it would be high-handed in the ex
zens of the Masonic party were omitted, Creme to quash a bill regularly found
au ,;' if there was it is more the fault of the against three, because two Judges think it
might to have been against lour or five, or
Sheriff and ;::', ci";:!flev than of Mr. Hum
six or seven. If the court has the power,
mel or Mr. Bishoff, a . ' t h e rora:,...r may be
the Grand Jury should consult them al
supposed to be better acquittilted wi.th
ways beforehand, to know whether they
their own party than the latter. 1
'
The , ,Sheriff and Commissioners took an ha" the right number of defendants to
oath to select only sober, judicious, and their bill. An accidental leaving out of
intelligent men for jury -men. There is
one man would tno suit , e enough to des
no evidence that they violated their oaths , troy all their work, •i his the law never
and the result is what any experienced meant.
and impartial citizen would have antici- It has been said by the counsel that the
pated--that a majority of such citizens reason his clients wished other names in
are of a certain party. the bill is, that they might have more chal-
I agree with the other judges in saying
lenges. The effect of this would be to ex
that Mr. Peffer was properly employed to haust the panel, and give the whole pow
copy the names marked on the duplicates, er of selecting jurymen to the Sheriff.
and Mr. Boinbaguh properly employed to This, I for one, never would favor, be
aid Mr. Peffer. cause I think justice is safer with jurors
I think also, that ' there being no evi- '
dence and no pretence that the copies I
were not accurate, the court cannot infer 1
that they are not accurate.
I think that Mr. Peffer showing these I
copies to the ' Sheriff and Commissioners, I
and asking them to compare them, and '
they all adopting them, renders them cop- '
ies made in the presence of the Sheriff and
Commissioners, as meant by the law.
The only irregularity that I can see in
the whole matter, is the Sheriff objecting
to Mr. Clark's name, though he admitted
him to be a well qualified juror. His re
jecting the names of Mr amen and Mr
Da.iiel Young, without giving reasons,
who we know to be sober, judicious and
intelligent citizens, and his putting in
only the name of Mr. Urban, as is proved
by Mr. Urban's having served as a juror
at the last court.
If Mr. Bishuff thought Mr. Deibler an
intemperate man, he was right in objec
ting to him, and the Board was right in re
jecting him. A man that is intemperate,
is certaily not the sober citizen required
by law for jury-men. There is no evi
dence and no pretence that Mr• Reem
and his sons were not qualified in all re-
spects. They are known to be so. There
is no evidence that the Lattas' marked
by Mr. Whitley were not both pi:t in.
I think the law as to sealing the wheel
was complied with, if two Impressions
, were made upon the wax, in the presence
of the Sheriff and Commissioners, and
I adopted by them, as it was in this instance.
I 'flue laws of this State never required the
. Sheriff to own a seal for that purposes still
I less to own a seal with an inscription, or
I coat of arms on it. A plain seal would
) not answer, because it might be imitated.
It is more natural to think the law meant
what has always been the practice here
and elsewhere--that the practice here and
elsewhere--that the seal put on the wax
by the Sheriff, or with hts consent, was
his seal.
There is no evidence that the lock is
'insufficient; it is an old lock, that has,
never been tampered with. It would be
as unfair to quash the indictment because
the lock of the wheel is plain and old, as it
was to say that an old and plain man like
Mr. Bishofi is stupid and incompetent,
because he is old and can only speak Ger
man.
I think that the jury has been faithfully
and regularly drawn, and so been proved.
It it has, then I think we ought not to
quash a bill of indictment found by them,
for the reasons given.
The Grand Juror's oath, which I have'
selected by a board equally divided in
'politics, than by a single Sheriff' of very
decided politics.—Each man charged with
a riot has a right to four challenges ; he
has a right to his own challenges and no
right to his neighbors. Twelve defen•
dants would always exhaust a panel, and
seven would come very near to it.
I think the Attorney General ought to'
have signed this bill, and I think that the
Grand Jury had a perfect right to present
him for not doing it. If they have done,
injustice they are responsible. But
must say that in this, as in all other in-'
stances, I am more inclined to think they
have not done injustice to the Attorney
General, than that eighteen well known
respectable men of both parties, each sign
ing his own name, would make such a pre
sentment without t easons. --I see no cause,
for finding fault with it.
'Phis is my opinion on these matters,
I am sorry the other Judges cannot agree
with me,--I give these as my views. They
are the views of a Judge not learned in
the law, but of an Associate Judge plac
ed by the laws on the bench. I think they
are right. Whether they are right or not,
I want my fellow-citizens to hear them
and read them.
FRED'K. HUMMEL.
FILED August 26, 1839.
"What do you think of my taste?" as
the fly said yen he got into the man's
mouth.
"Don't tickle me," as the rat said ven
he was caught in a steel trap,
"She has given me a bag to hold," as
the lover said, yen his darling jilted him.
, There's another blot on my escutcheon,'
as the loafer said yen, lie was caught rob
bing a hen roost.
*
~..-r _- -
4-, ~1
. 1 / 4 i 41,
'---= - I,N. ,:
4 4 1,, ? V P l•'
44-4 (re,-
l Cotk- - - • ,t)
40,,V...., it
- 4, , ( vini,7 ,- . ,a4;
G „ : „....„,„=„ 4. . : ,- . 7,„, ~."..,‘,3,:„.c•
THE JOURN A.L.
'One country, one constitution, one destiny
Huntingdon, Sept.. 4, 1539.
Democratic afitimasonic
CANDIDATES.
FOR PRESIDENT,
GEN, WM, H. HARRISON
FUR VICE PRESIDENT
DANIEL WEBSTER.
FLAG OF THE PEOPLE!
(*— A single term for the Presidency, and
the office administered for the whole PEO
, PL, E. and not for a PARTY.
tri• A sound, uniform and convenient Na- 1
tional CURRENCY, adapted to the wants of
the whole COUNTRY, instead of the SHIN
PLASTERS brought about by our present
RULERS.
a:IECONOM V, RETRENCHMENT, and RE
FORM in the administration of public affairs,
Cr-Tired of Experiments and Experi
menters, Republican gratitude will reward
unobstrusive merit, by elevating the sub—
altern of WASHINGTON and the desciple of
JEFFERSON. and thus resuming the safe and
beaten track of our Fathers,—L. Gazette.
Electorial Ticket.
JOHN A. SHULZE, )Sen'to'l
JOSEPH RITNER, electors
Ist Disirict LEVIS PASSMORE,
2d do CADWALLADER EVANS.
do CHARLES WATERS,
3d do JON. GILLINGHAM,
4th do AMOS ELLM AKER,
do JOHN K. ZELLIN,
do DAVID POVIS,
sth do ROBERT STINSON,
6th do WILLIAM S. HINDEU,
7th do J. JENKINS ROSS,
Bth do PETER FILBERT,
9th do JOSEPH H. SPAYD,
10th do JOHN HARPER,
11th do WILLIAM M'ELVAINE,
12th do JOHN DICKSON,
13th do JOHN M'KEEHAN,
14th do JOHN REED,
15th do NATHAN BEACH,
16th do NER MIDDI.ESWARTH,
17th do GEORGE WALKER,
18th do BERNARD CONNEI LY,
19th do GEN. JOSEPH MARKLE,
20th do JUSTICE G.FORDYCE,
21st do JOSEPH HENDERSON,
22d do HARMAR DENNY,
23t1 do JOSEPH BUFFINGTON,
24th do JAMES MONTGOMERY,
25th do JOHN DICK.
COUJVTI" TICKET.
FOR PROTHONOTARY
James Steel, of Huntingdon
FOR REGISTER AND RECORDER.
John Reed, of Morris tp.
ASSEMBLY.
John ;Morrison, of Shirley tp.
Joseph Higgins, of Hollidaysburg
of Hollidaysburg
John Brotherline,
CO7sIMISSIONER.
Joshua Roller, ofyviiiiamsburg.
AUDITOR .
John. Sisley, of Warriorsmark tp.
CORONER.
James A• Itl/Cahan, of Blair tp.
Bad Mensory.
The "Advocate" says, that the "editor
who knowingly conceals matter in a pro
fessed statement of facts, the omission of
which, is calculated , to mislead its readers
is guilty of wilful and deliberate false
hood," and proves it by showing that we
have published the verdict of the jury in
the Campbell suit, as "not guilty," with.
out saying that he had
.the coats to pay.
Ile says we were in the court house, and
heard the verdict pronounced by the jury
—This part is palpably false. We have
not been inside of the court house, since
four o'clock of the day the verdict was
rentlered,iwhich, was about sun-down, But
to go ;back to this charge of deliberate
falsehood--an editor who does these things
is a wilful liar, so says that paper. Well
let us see what kind of a character he
makes for himself. In his report of the
trial, he says, that "a verdict was brought
in saying, 'that Robert Campbell should
pay all the costs, and otherwise go clear."
Now in all this he says nothing about 'Not
which was in truth the verdict—
we, he would like to make it appear, was
guilty of a wilful falsehood, because we
cut off the tail of the verdict, as he calls
it; yet, he is a Very honest truth-telling
worthy, when he lops off the very head;
we are willing he should be allowed to
draw his own likeness.
The "Rduocate" says, he is *going to
"remove the scales from the blinded eye s
of our readers." He undoubtedly is an
excellent optician; for he is frequently
blind -14 at other times, sees double.
The Campbell situ.
It seems, that the publishing the inditO r
ment last week, in this case, and then
giving the verdict, has vexed, no little,
the sensitive nerves of the paper printed
in the lower sreet; and nearly three col
umns are written and printed, to explain
away the odium that the acquittal of Mr.
Campbell has left upon the character of
David R. Porter.
Again does that same print charge tici . ,
the jury base and wilful perjury; again
does itsay, that the jury box was polluted
with the feelings of political opponents.
It is wickedly untrue. The jury being
the judges of the 'law and testimony;' ac
ted conscientiously on their oaths: And
now here Is this parasite of power,, in
order to cover the damning stains which
show like spots on the leper, openly as
sails the character of twelve as honest
men as ever filled that jury box. That
jury patiently and soberly sat and 'listen
ed to all the evidence, all the arguments
of the lawyers, and the "whole charge;',
and then in a short time returned their
verdict of acquittal for Robert Campbell.
Need we argue the case as in the other
print. Shall we attempt to show that
Porter took the witnesses' stand for hours,
and swore how innocent he was,--shall
we say that the jury knew the value of
his oath, and passed it !),), as an idle song
—Shall we tell, how, with tears in his
eyes (the hypocrite) . he called on almighty
God, to attest his innocence; :and was not
then believed,—Shall we tell what was
proved on the oaths of respectable wit
nesses. If they want all this, we wil l
continue our statements until they shall b e
satisfied.
The attempt of this print to spatter its
filth upon the characters of Mr. Camp
bell's counsels, tails,—and his attempt to
make the billingsgate slang of the bow &
arrow gentleman cogent argumentoray
suit the taste of that print, but, wo feel
certain, that there are no charges in Mr,
Campbell's letter, less susceptible of prisof,
than the charges of this same .rlndiap ar•
row" boy made against Mr. Campbell.—
But as they are so anxious totake WWI(
did say, for truth, we will, by way of shon.
ing his opinion of the verdict, ,toi out
readers, what he said about the verdict—
While addressing the jury, he said, iGen
tlemen, acquit this Robert Campbell
,o
this charge, let the guilty and blackheart
ed author of this letter roam at large, ant
you say in as plain terms as actions cat
speak that DAVID R. PORTER P
GUILTY; acquit him, and the Governs
of Pennsylvania is disgraced, the chairc
state polluted, and every Pennsylvania
should mourn in sackcloth; the comptet
and utter degredation of his native state.
Now this is what Mr. Barton thinks th
acquittal of Al r. Campbell has done. No'
we thought just so before—we then sai
he who could wrong his creditors out I
their dues, he who could conceal his pro!
erty; he who could swear by alinight
God that he had not done so; he who coul
re-take that property when he knew h
oath was recorded in the heaven, swot
that he never would re-take his propert
he who could do all these, aye, and mor
we thought would disgrace any chair, e
pect the chair of the prison cell. IN
Barton thinks the chair of state is disp
ced, we think so too, ff e think the
acquittal of Mr. Campbell, proves ffl,
Porter's guilt. He thinks so too-5
Barton thought that if they acquitted R(
ert Campbell, they did not believe IV
Porter on his oath. Very likely, for wh
a man gets a bad name, it is very apt
stick to him. Now as this print says
made ,such a powerful argument, we v
admit a part of it, but when the Advoc:
says he provcd the guilt of Campbell,
can only say that the twellce honest n
say he lies,
Well then, the Jury returned verd
of "Not Guilty, defendant to pay
cost." This the Advocate say is the
idence of Campbell's guilt.' 'That Cat
bell wrote the letter, no one denied, t
he proved some parts of it was equt
clear—that he coult)have n brought circt
stantial testimony to have convinced I
honest man, that other charges were tt
but the Judge ruled it out. So the ft
appear to be these, accordingly to Dar•
Porter is guilty instead of Campbell;
chair of state disgraced.
The Jury being the judges of the "
and the facts," we were willing to lel
verdict of the jury pass without sul
sing any particular cause for it, bu
seems our opponents cannot be setis
until we do take some particular, posit
If that is it, here then we.can tell t
where to look for us hereafter. 'The X
we infer, acquitted. Mr. Carne
because he proved the charges made