Christian feeling, would not give it the force the opposite party think it proper to attribute to it.

There were certain individuals, with respect to whom, there was unbecoming language. I am far from defending the language of Christian Schmidt; but because I will not defend him, are his of fences to be visited upon my clients? Did they persuade him to make use of such language? If he went there and acted in an intemperate and improper manner, let it be on his own head. If Burkhardt was offended, he had his remedy; can you impute to all the members, who united in this application to the corporation, that they are implicated in the case of these words "you are a Judas and ought to be hanged." But remember, when Busch tells us this; and it is not the only instance in which he tells us only half the story; when he could tell you, that the beer was carried to the inspectors; when he could tell you of the expression of "here comes the Lord God of the Germans," but not that he made use of it; he who tells the expression used to Burkhardt, does not tell, what is in evidence, what was said by him to Schmidt at the same meeting, at which this very offensive words are imputed to the party. I think Herpel, who testified that upon Schmidt's saying something, Busch said to him, " hush, hush," upon which he answered " no, when I have a rope about my neck then I can speak no more.' It shews how this man is to be understood, where he speaks thus to Burkhardt; there seems to be in the language something in the nature of a figure, and merely indicating a serious and fervent manner. Busch has omitted another piece of testimony, that if his saying loud enough to be heard by all about him, "that is a lye," at the German meeting in the Northern Liberties; yet this is the man who complains of the intrusion of the Germans among them. Upon his saying this, some one of the members who heard it, got up and said, "it comes from Busch, I thought he did not understand German." This is also suppressed, but rather we charitably suppose, forgotten by Mr. Busch. Take all these circumstances together, combine them; you will find, there are angry expressions on both sides, and if you recollect, that the witness who speaks of it, bears harder upon that which is against the opposite party, and that the party whose mouth is shut may not be so fortunate as to have bye-standers to recollect what the witness may forget; what does it come to more than this, that there were very cross words upon many occasions, but nothing that can amount to a conspiracy!

99

We shall be told perhaps this is nothing; there was an interruption of their meetings. If there was, what does it amount to? There were meetings at the school houses of members of the congregation, who were going to introduce a foreign language; they had no right to meet there; and I will put it to you, you belong to different sects; suppose there were some in the Presbyterian church who were inclined to introduce the Catholic worship or vice versa, and that they were to have a meeting in their school house, would you not be acting in a most regular manner to interrupt it? Where

is the difference? Some look to mere matters of faith, some to mere matters of form as in the party of Friends, they think that a hat must not be taken off, and that colored cloths should not be used different from their other Friends. Now suppose a party were to undertake to meet in one of their school houses, to alter their custom, would it not be justifiable for them to prevent it? Certainly So. So in this case, they consider it their duty to use one language, and they have a right to attach importance to it. No tribunal of an earthly nature can pretend to say, that these members are wrong in considering this as a most impatient part of their church worship; and therefore they were justifiable by the laws of God and man. But where did they interrupt them? Did they interrupt them at their meeting of December? I appeal to the minutes of that meeting. Did they not go through their business? And was there not when they broke up a breach of peace and decorum? Was there not a cry at the door of "huzza for Dr. Leib ?" Was this peacealvie? Was this decoros ? After this, there appears to be an address, signed by Dr. Leib; an address which is not a petition to the corporation, and which would have remained in the archives of this corporation to this day, if it had been; but it is directed to, and intended to be distributed among the members of the congregation. The signatures to it are those of Dr. Leib, Mr. Long, Charles Eberle, Frederick Burkhardt, Jacob Mechlin and George Witman, consequently it must be considered as having the assent of these people, many of whom have been examined as witnesses in this case. I cannot at this late hour, read the whole of it, but I will advert to the 28th page, where there is a threat as strong as any contained in this, upon which the prosecution is founded. There is this distinction; those who have signed the petition, put only their own bodies and lives at stake; this hazards the bodies and lives of those to whom it is addressed. "Let it be recollected, that English preaching is asked, upon condition that the German goes and continues along with it. Reflect, that this is a reasonable proposition. That it is so reasonable, it should carry unanimously. That nothing else will unite, will harmonize the congregation, and put the apprehension, that the German will be done away, forever at rest. You cannot deny it, and do your duty to your family, your neighbor and your God. Do unto others as you v would that they should do unto you, for that is the law and the prophets. It is the great Christian rule of justice. If you do not practice this now, perhaps, in a little while, you will have occasion to repent it in sackcloth and ashes." How were they to repent it in sackcloth and ashes? In a religious point of view? No. But it goes on and says, "then you will recollect who those were who wanted to secure your German, and who wished English preaching upon that principle alone. Do not turn into enemies those who are disposed to be your friends. Circumstances that cannot be controlled, have given, or at any rate soon will give, a preponderance to those who desire English service. Your own sons every day increase their number, and what will your

situation be, if, in the might of their power, they rise and obtain English preaching and English service, without any condition at all, as it regards the continuance of the German. The present is the time to harmonize the congregation-do your duty as parents and members of society, &c."

This is language addressed to the congregation, calculated to in timidate them; if you do not adopt our plan, if you do not give us an equality as to the preaching, you will have to repent in sackcloth and ashes. Their language is, that the Germans will have to give up to English preaching, when their sons will rise and turn them out entirely. Is this the figurative language continued? Undoubtedly then, if there would be a repentance in sackcloth and ashes. It means, that they will oppose with the greatest strenuousness, those who will stand by and support the German preaching.

At the Plumb street meeting, there can be no question, that the Mosheim society was no way connected with the English or German parties. It is a society exclusively for a charitable purpose; they knew nothing of any other meeting. At another meeting, the Germans withdrew into another room, and made, as you were told, such a noise, as to disturb the others. Wa Vagner tells you, he asked the chairman what they were about-they told him, important business; and, gentlemen, they certainly had a right to meet, as well as the others; they had a right to pray and sing hymns, as well as the others; and if, because of the slight partition, there was casual noisé, it could not but be expected from a society of so large a number.

What have the gentlemen done in this case? they have gone so far as to collect by the greatest industry, to support what they infer from this petition, the trifling conversations of a man who has borne very little part in this dispute, Mr. Weckerle, who would now and then break out with an expression of "damn the rascal," or something of the kind; but nothing of this kind can have any effect whatever, in relation to the whole party; it was drawn out by the others. When spoken to about making up, Weckerle says, very naturally, "these men want us always to make it up, make it up, but held a stick over one's head, break their head or give a black eye and then say, make it up" what was the answer?" Well, if you have a black eye, you better cry for mercy and give up."

Mannhardt is guilty of having said, at different times, "if these measures are persisted in, blood must flow." What blood must flow? All the expressions that were used by Mannhardt, are considered to have been spoken by him as the leader of the party, and from whom these avowed intentions were to proceed. What blood must flow? Can it be presumed, that there was a design to spill the blood of others? Could such artful conspirators be so indiscreet as to go about the streets like children, telling every body, blood must flow. It would be absurd in the highest degree. But that there was something different from the meaning attributed to

$

66

these words, is evident, from Eberle's testimony. If the gestures are presented and the expression of the countenance, they might explain, what was meant by Eberle, when he says, " Oh! Oh! no Mr. Mannhardt!" "Yes," said Mannhardt, "blood flows." Mr. Binney gets over it in a singular way. He says, that every rhetorician must know, that it must be understood as expressing what was to take place. What is the expression? Can I believe that if I say, blood flows, it means blood will flow? What can he mean? We can surely give it a legal construction; we are not to prefer that which is supposed to be criminal, especially if it be forced. The world are to be taken together, at a time when it is clear, no outrage had been committed. The meaning must be, that' the anger of the party was excited, by the efforts of the others to introduce into the congregation, that, of which, they were apprehensive, and which caused their blood to flow warmly through their veins. Have you reason to suppose, that a man of Mannhardt's literary attainments, could be so foolish as to go round the town to all these men to whom he was opposed, and tell them, that their blood was to flow; that murder was to be committed upon them? No such could not be the fact; the very language rejects and refutes the inference. I therefore trust, that as with Weckerle, so with every man, whose language can be introduced; and remember, that we cannot introduce much of the conversation of our opponents; their conversation affords you no instance of the criminal exposition of the words, "body and life."

Having thus, I trust, successfully shewn, that there is nothing in the efforts of the opposite party, to assist you in attaching to this document, any thing that is done at a subsequent day; we now will shew you, that in an application from the German party to the corporation in October, instead of desiring the corporation to go further, than the charter allows, they refer to the charter itself, as authority. In this document, which was read on the eleventh October 1810, in the corporation, there is no reference to force, violence, blood, body or life.-No, gentlemen, it is a reference to the laws of the country, the charter and church constitution. This paper concludes, signed by two hundred and sixty-one persons, instead of one hundred signatures which were to it at the foundation of the prosecution. Whatever expression is introduced in the preceding charge, I will leave to you the strong language addressed to the members of this corporation, requesting them to assert their right, and intimating, that if they do not, they would consider them as deficient in their duty and not meriting the name of the vestry. Language not too strong, and which we frequently find, does pass between those who send, and to those whom sent. Therefore, if they said, "we declare them as having broken their duty," Dr. Leib was not a member of the corporation, and if it is a denunciation of Witman, they are perfectly welcome to it, and may make as much of it as they are able; it amounts to no more, than the withdrawing their confidence from him, and it consequently comes to the ground, that there was a great animation in the language.

There are several instances of figurative language, but you are nat to say, that they are illegal, unless you see, that an illegal act is the consequence. If this be understood as an additional paper and explanation of their views, I say, the expressions were not too strong, but such as they were authorized to present, and the other bught to have understood and been bound by.

If the mere casual expressions of those that signed that paper ought to rest upon the individual, and not upon the body, the subse quent application to the corporation comes to no more than a demand of rights. I had wished to go through the authorities in these books, to shew you from them the meaning of these words; but I deem it unnecessary, for it appears to me, that the words life and body will support the idea, that it is a lawful expression in application to a lawful object, and there is no instance in which it applies to an unlawful object. Surely, in the large city of Philadelphia, which is the seat of as much literary information as any part of the United States, the opposite party might have met with some person who would have supported that construction. I would ask, whether Mr. Varin, Dr. Helmuth and Dr. Collin are to be, considered, as those who would give an improper signification. Varin, it is said, spoke under the feeling of gratitude; we will therefore, if you please, pass him by; but we have Dr. Helmuth, who, it is not pretended, has any bias whatever. Language will always have a tincture of the work in which it is; but, it is expressly told you, that these words have no other meaning, than an innocent one.

It appears, that this petition, this denunciation of blood and murder, was presented to the corporation, and publicly read on the twenty-sixth of December 1815. From the twenty-sixth of December, its noxious and baneful qualities did not appear to have been considered the foundation of prosecution. Witman takes a copy at once; what does he do with it? He spoke to Weckerle about it, trying to provoke him to one of those hasty expressions, which are now brought against the whole of the defendants. After this conversation, nothing more appears to have been done, until after the election in January, when Witman, disappointed in his election, conceives the design of getting the possession of this paper; old Mr. Wolbert holds out the idea, that he was in favor of he German party, and they put him on the head of their ticket, and at the head of their corporation. What was the first thing he did? Recollect the family connexion between him and Witman locked together by marriages and intermarriages in a family circle -they go together to Mr. Schaeffer: at this time the petition had remained in the records of the corporation; from whom it conld only come into the hands of the minister; and without a vote it could not have been taken out of their possession; yet we see Wolbert go to Schaeffer, and by a falsehood, by false representation, getit into his possession, saying, it should be brought back presently. They avail themselves of this in an indirect way, to get possession of it; and this superanuated old gentleman, (Wolbert,) has no sogner