would have planned so madly. Here then is in the outset, proof the absurdity of the charge; the defendants, a great many of them certainly not brought up to intemperance or violence, are e to leave at once the calm conduct of life, and combine forcibly to disturb these in favor of English worship at their dwelling houses from prosecuting their objects; and yet nothing on earth appears more irrational than this. Gentlemen, for one moment can you suppose, if any of these men at a meeting had said, "Gentlemen, let us now unite to prevent those people from introducing the English worship, to prevent them from meeting, to carry their objects into effect," would not any man of sense have said, 66 you talk nonsense, are you prepared to go into their private houses, and break up their meetings?" Do you not suppose these gentlemen would have reprobated the idea? And yet can you suppose, they had entered into a scheme to prevent the establishment of English worship, and by all means lawful and unlawful to oppose it; that they were to break open the houses ef individuals where its advocates had met, to disturb their conferences? I am sure your feelings must revolt at the supposition. If they had entered into this scheme, (and one of less effect is nothing,) it was fastening one shop door when there were two, or one window when there were twelve ; unless they not only determined to interrupt them at the common place at which they met, but also at any other, at private places and the dwelling houses of individuals. Then so far, this charge is so absurd, it is impossible to suppose it can be founded. It convicts itself as much as a charge of prostitution against a Lucretiaz it is impossible, monstrously absurd, and cannot be supported.

You have observed, gentlemen, that all the evidence which has been adduced, overturned itself." If in a court of justice, one should say, that standing at such a time, on a house in Calcutta, he threw from him a five-penny-bit which instead of falling, ascended into the air, and would bring one hundred persons to swear to it, would you believe it? No.-Did not the nature of the thing, imperiously control the endeavor of individuals, to control the ac tions of the English party, is it not evident such an agreement could not have been entered into ? Let us now look at the evidence adduced, which, although it be all true, is irrelevant, it goes to prove an absurd point; to establish an unnatural result, and there. fore cannot, ought not have weight.

The first evidence, is the proceedings at the meeting on the 25th September. "There," says Mr. Binney, "Schmidt, Schwartz and a number of others went over and interrupted all their proceedings." This is the first instance he has mentioned to you to shew, they went over to the German school house and interrupted their proceedings. Now, gentlemen, we have the testimony of several witnesses on our side, respecting this evening; and a witness may colour a particular event, but I think a number of them will not agree in the same misstatement; a number will not agree in a series of false facts. I ask you to look at the testimony of Dreer, I will

have cause by and by to answer what has been said upon his subject.

"Some of our members went over to the other school house, went there myself, for I wanted to see how they came on, on the English side; they had some articles read by Mr. Keemle in English, all that they done was in English. I did not stay long there; they were beginning in such a way that I saw it would create a disturbance in our congregation. They were asked if they were in favor, some said yes, some said no; after the articles were read, I heard say, Dr. Leib, they put the cart before the horse, they went on a wrong way. Leib said, it would make a disturbance with the congregation, they ought to go on in another way. I did not stay very long there, I went away from the school house, I did not stay there till they broke up; there was nothing out of order that I saw. The articles were drawn in such a way as to give us what they please, and hurt a great many's feelings. I went home." Brandt has also given an account of this affair; he says, (and he was in favor of the English party until he thought the means they were going to take were improper,) "I went on Monday to the school house in Cherry street; I saw several I knew, especially young Mr. Jacob Lex; when I came in, Mr. Rehn was chairman; there was another' ryoung gentleman, whom I did not know until lately; I know since it was lawyer Keemle, who was secretary. The secretary had a paper in his hand and he read the resolutions, when they were done, the first resolution was, they wanted English preaching in the German congregation. As I believe it was the first resolution, to make a petition to the congregation to get English preaching. When they were read off, Mr. Dr. Leib stept up and said, you put the cart before the horse. Then Mr. secretary say, no I put the cart into the horse, and it make the whole laugh. Mr. Leib says, there is no law in the United States and Pennsylvania, which can take the Germans from their right; you must go on more softly; when you go on that way, you make a disturbance in the congregation, you are declaring war against them; you know the consequence about seven or eight years ago. took the vote, who was for, they should say, aye, and not, should say no. There were a good many ayes and good many noes." He goes on to describe the appointment of a committee of seven to address the corporation, and he says afterwards," some of their ple came in, it was pretty late, I retreated out the back part of the school house; when I came out of the front door, some hallooed out, huzza for Dr. Leib, and some said not." On being asked if they were disturbed in the school house by improper conduct, he says, "I do not know, I did not hear any disturbance, only some was for it and some against it." Bealer says, he was there and he heard no noise.

They

peo

You will judge, gentlemen, from all the circumstances, how far these witnesses deserve credit. But there are circumstances which prove beyond all possibility of doubt, that there was no serious disturbance that evening. Did these gentlemen, do their bus

siness? Why, what did they do? They met together, they appointed a chairman and 'secretary, they passed this preamble and resolutions; here is a writing, which was the subject of their considerations that evening, and not a very short one, which with several resolutions they passed; they appointed a committee and that committee addressed the next day the corporation in favor of English worship. Then how was their business disturbed? Did they not do their business? Look at this address; I need not read it to you. There are a great many reasons given in it, why English worship should be established, it is long-whether it was drawn up at that meeting or not, I cannot say. The committee however was appointed, of which Dr. Leib was chairman, and in consequence of this appointment they addressed the corporation the next nights They did every thing that evening they had to do; a few angry words passed on both sides in the course of it, and that was all the disturbance they met with. Why gentlemen can you suppose, that when they have such a meeting, every thing will be as calm as at a ball, or like the deliberation of a French legislature? There is something in climate and in the subject of debate that animates men; we cannot expect when interesting subjects are canvassed, they will preserve the same coolness as when occupied in their devotions. I will not go into the detail of what occurred at the meeting when Rehn was chairman; but it is certain, it does not appear, any business was intended to be done, that they did not do; they were not prevented in doing what they did. They say, they went away without doing further business, but they did not say they had further business to do. Others accidentally met there, or some came for other purposes, not for the purpose of disturbing this meeting; it does not appear they intended to do any thing there. Some disturbance arose and it was thought proper to adjourn; what the nature of the disturbance was, does not satisfactorily appear. That there were some blameable words, some angry words on the part of persons indicted, cannot be contradicted; but angry words are not foundation for a charge like this; it must come from other The meeting in Plumb street, it is said, was to frame riot and disturbance. I think the gentleman who opened on the part of the prosecution has not seen the testimony as I have. Mr. Binney states and is impressed with the opinion respecting that meeting, that the deliberations were disturbed by the defendants, He complains of the interruption given to the meeting in Plumb street and says, when they came there, they found the doors shut. If I recollect right, Rehn does not positively swear to his seeing the doors shut; it did not occur to me, he saw the door shut, but, that he was informed, is the testimony of the witness. I shall now read it to you. So far from bearing out the counsel of the prosecution in what he supposes, that Dreer was the man that shut the door, unless Dreer has positively perjured himself, he was the person that went up stairs with Rehn. The question was not put to him whether he saw it shut, and there is nobody but himself mentions it; it is unfortunate the question was not mere specifically

sources.

put. Dreer says, "I went down that evening; I went to the lower room, staid there a little while, and after a while Mr. Rehn came there to the school: he came afterwards to the lower room, I did not see him at first, he said, that the door was shut up stairs. We spoke there a little bit together, and I went up and told Mr. Rehn I was going up, he might go up with me,' he followed me up to the room, the room door was open and the candle was lighted; I did not see it shut that evening; therefore Mr. Binney must have been mistaken, when he said, Rehn said, he had seen the door shut. Dreer was also asked, if he heard any body say, they were going away because the door was shut and they could not do any business ; he said, "I heard them say they were shut, but when I went up they were open, Rehn when he came into the lower room said they were shut, I heard no body else say so, there was not any body went away that I know of." The meeting, gentlemen, was in winter, and it was no great matter whether the door was open or shut; it cannot be said it was locked; you cannot tell whether there was any wrong done, and if it was not locked there is nothing to complain of. They met for the purpose of establishing a fippenny-bit society, which appears a rather diminutive name, but is established for very laudable purposes; and when you consider that it was cold, in the depth of winter, I ask you, is there any thing in the circumstance worthy of remark? But, gentlemen, in the disposition to find fault, nothing can escape the censoriously scrutinizing eye. There was an election on the sixth January last, five or six hundred people attended to give in their votes ; it was the depth of winter and there were some barrels of beer prepared, some ham and sausages, as the election was to last the whole day; some of the persons came from the neck, when they came there the beer and provisions were offered to them; was there any thing in this unusual? Any thing that shews unfair intentions, or to do any thing improper on the occasion? If so, how are we to estimate Busch's conduct? He positively swears he carried beer to the judges, and they could have had no idea, there was any thing wrong in it. I presume such minute circumstances will never be considered evidence of conspiracy. What is done at the general election at which we attend as electors? Is not always provision made publicly for those who are within the house, the inspectors, judges and clerks? Is there not always prepared for them the provision of dinner and necessary drink during the day? The committee of vigilance it seems considered this subject; and we have it in evidence from one of them, that they were publicly appointed according to the ancient custom; of this committee, Bealer was one. The object for which they ordered these provisions is stated by him. There were two barrels of beer at the last election; there was some wine I sent for myself. It was thought adviseable to get some wine and beer to keep the members from going to tlle tavern." This is an excellent reason which is given for it, and I shall dwell no longer on this minute subject.

Gentlemen, as to the dollar paid to Kugler, so much comment

ed upon, we have been told by Kugler himself what it was for. It seems, he brought several members from the neck in his sleigh, and the dollar was given to him as part of his pay, to get some drink. This trifling circumstance will not operate much upon you; though it may upon those who look at every thing minutely with a damning eye, expecting it to be the effect of this conspiraey, they attempt to establish. There is however no evidence that they did unite in a confederacy to stop the introduction of the English language. With respect to the declaration of individuals, in what point of view are they to be considered? In every free country, there ever will be two great parties, differing honestly in opinion, and exasperated frequently against each other, when great matters call upon their feelings. At such a time is it possible to expect, that angry words will not pass from one to the other, and that there will not be threats, almost rising to violence, but not reaching to it? Why, at the general election, when one had said such words as, "blood is flowing," or, "blood would flow," has it not been considered to be in consequence of a confederacy of the party to which he belongs? Has there never been an election, in which on one side or the other, or on both, one has said to the other, "you have combined by all means, lawful or unlawful to carry your election; and you have sent angry rascals here to carry your designs into effect, who have struck such and such persons, and created a riot and disturbance? How far is this to be carried? Is it to be supposed that the great parties which divide the United States are to be liable for such angry, rash talk of individuals? If they are, they both are liable to be convicted for conspiracy against each other. These individual acts are not imputable to, and cannot effect the body. These ebullitions of temper are individual, and generally personal, the party have nothing to do with them; they frequently arise upon sudden gusts, upon insults given at the time; and if they are evidence of the confederacy of a party, it must be supposed, the party knew before hand, the word, look, or other circumstances of aggravation which occasioned the blameable act.

It is a rule, that the law shall not examine too strictly in criminal cases; the cord shall not be tied too tight. Words cannot be evidence of conspiracy; when they end in riot, in breach of the public peace, let the guilty individuals be punished; let them be brought to the bar. But let not those harmless words which break no bones, which are spent in the air in which they are breathed, combine in a conspiracy these respectable men, who are reputable and industrious, and generally easy in their circumstances. Thus much have I said respecting the preliminary words and facts in evidence.

If there was a conspiracy to prevent the introduction of the English into the church, how was the object to be effected? By election- then the power was to appear from the result of the eléc tion; and if the English party would have a majority in the corporation, they would have the rule in the congregation. For, not