been made the means of carrying this point of Witman, than, he sends in his resignation; he sends it in at the next meeting of the corporation. Was this honorable conduct? Was this the way these individuals ought to have been treated? Had these members of the corporation a right to possess themselves of this document of the congregation in such a manner, and then go to a magistrate to found a prosecution upon it? You will not be induced by such a circumstance to give more force to this paper, than it ought to receive. Are the motives of Witman as pure a they ought to be, for this prosecution to receive from him its impulse? A man who could go to a blacksmith, and hold up to him the idea, that they would drive him from that, which he had bargained and paid for. Is this a pure proceeding? Can you not trace in it, that line of conduct which ought not to be expected from a public prosecutor, who comes forward as in the present instance? Is this the mode of proceeding pursued by these individuals, to say nothing of the language of Cope, that they will endeavor to make this a conspiracy if they can, and send the defendants to the work-house; but they are themselves aware of the difficulty. When you consider this, you will take into view what has been done on both sides. ́If you take this paper unconnected with the preceding declarations, though consistently with forms of law, they must be admitted in evidence, you must acquit the defendants on the first count most certainly; and upon the second count, if there were no acts of these individuals, and if there is no clear evidence who knocked Mills down, the result must be, you must dismiss these gentlemen from the ignominious punishment that would otherwise await them, and leave the question for discussion concerning the validity of the bye-law and the regularity of the election; when, by your verdict, these persons will be authorized to come forward, and will not be prevented by having your verdict of guilty thrown in their teeth, and incapacitated from giving in their evidence upon that occa sion, Adjourned.

1

FRIDAY, JULY 18TH, 4 O'CLOCK, P. M.

JARED INGERSOLL, Esq. Attorney General.

MAY it please your Honor-Gentlemen of the Jury.-It may seem paradozical, but it is certainly true, that frequently acts perfectly well designed, occasion the greatest possible rancor and spirit of revenge.I have lately seen a book, which probably his Honor has also met with, and some of you likewise, entitled, "Paul's Letters to his Kinsfolk," in which we have stated more at large what had been before imperfectly mentioned in our news-papers, the excitement which has been occasioned among the Belgians, because the King of the Netherlands had it in contemplátion to allow a toleration of religion. They have been accustomed to have an arrondissements as it is called, to transfer the inhabitants from one government to another with as little ceremony, as you would change the pasture of your horse or flocks. They have been accustomed to general conscription; the son is taken from his parents to distant parts of Europe, there to pine, sicken and die in unwholesome camps, or perish in the field of battle; this has been suffered without a murmur, but the instant it is suggested, that people shall be taught in their own language, and not in dialects which they do not uuderstand, and that every man may worship according to his conscience, we hear the spiritual thunders of the church give note of dreadful preparation; and we are told in language, pretty much what we have heard on the present occasion, that if it be carried into execution, and people pray and preach in language they understand, the only true religion will be extinguished, and consequences of the most alarming nature will be the inevitable result. This, gentlemen, in part, is what we shall trace as the dictate of mistaken zeal, often well meant; but when without a knowledge of our laws, and opposition to them, it assumes the seat of reason, it is impossible to set limits to its wild, infuriated progress. Upon the present occasion you will undoubtedly, under the direction of his Honor, take care to ascertain with precision, what it is we are to try; and in the first place it is necessary to know what we are not to try. You have heard my friend Mr. Levy, two or three hours, and my learned friend Rawle, four hours, laboring to convince you, that those of the English party were as bad as those denominated the German party; I speak the authoritative language of Mr. Levy while recorder, when I say, "all that matter is entirely beside the question." If Witman, Krebs and Long have entered into a combination not allowed by the laws of the land, the commonwealth has no partialities; let the recognizance be put into my hands, an indictment will call them to the bar, and their defence be submitted to a court and jury, in the same manner as in the present instance. If, (which I do not admit,) it shall be ever so incontrovertibly established, that faults were on one side as well as on the other; if according to my idea of the matter, they were combined as well as the Germans to carry

into effect their rights by force, they would be equally culpable.. But that is not the subject at this time, under discussion.

In the case of the journeymen shoemakers, that learned gentleman, sitting as recorder, told the jury in most explicit terms with regard to imputations against those who have made complaints against the defendants, you are not to let them have any weight at all. Hence, that maxim, that malice is sometimes a very good prosecutor. We know, that many of our prosecutions, are not by any means in consequence of a pure desire of justice; but the exclusive question, upon this occasion is, are the defendants guilty of the charge brought against them, the others may have their day of retribution, if they deserve it, but this is not our present concern, it is not the question now to be tried.

Let me relieve you from the fears, very ingeniously suggested by my learned friend, Mr. Rawle; he tells you, that in case of conviction, the defendants are forever rendered ignominious; they are stigmatized as having committed an infamous offence. These consequences are represented to you, that you may not fairly meet the question and give your unbiassed opinion. For your consolation let me state, that in the same shoemakers case, where there was a conviction, the tremendous result was a fine of eight ́dollars and nothing more. One other particular result of prejudice, allow me to notice as a matter of prefatory remark. Why this hostility to the English language? I have no difficulty in concurring with those who may think with Mr. Duponseau, that it would be more proper to say, the "American language," because, although it is the language spoken in England, yet we have only approved it and adopted it for purposes of convenience. When the United States, emerged from a colonial state, they had a right to select the French tongue as well as that of Great Britain -convenience led them to adopt that, to which the majority were accustomed. There is no reason then to be prejudiced against this language on account of its name; and to the patriotic German it is pleasing, that it is the language in which the declaration of independence is announced, and in which the charter of our liberties is written, and preserved. With regard to the Irish, what have they done to deserve, that their name should be a term of reproach? They are our mechanics our day laborers, our manufacturers, and our pioneers, who clear the woods for the German cultivator; they were among the best of our soldiers in the revolutionary war, why then entertain this ungenerous prejudice? Prejudices may mislead, but cannot possibly inform court or jury. Having thus, gentlemen, noticed these preparatory matters, I recur to my question; and my great object is to speak with perfect clearness, that I may not be misunderstood. What are we now to try? What is the court and jury to determine? Whether the En-glish language shall be introduced into the worship of the churches of St. Michael and Zion? By no means; we have not, nor has the court, and I am sure you would not assume to yourselves, such jurisdiction. All we contend for is, that the question which the con

gregation are competent alone to determine, shall not be decided by either party alone, by threats, or by spilling of blood, but with calmness and deliberation by the vote of the congregation, fair and unprejudiced by any undue influence whatever. There is another circumstance calculated to excite prejudice; we are told, "here is a criminal prosecution by one party, in which they are allowed to come forward as witnesses, while on the other hand, silence is imposed on no less than fifty-nine persons. It is difficult to avoid censure, when there is a disposition to find fault. The prosecutors had one of two courses to pursue, either to bring a prosecution, or to institute a civil action; what would they say, if a civil action had been brought. "Here these persons so much interested for religion, adopt a civil action to get money;" this would be attributed as their object and that very measure would have been censured. Let us know exactly what is the object to be tried. The only question is, as to the introduction of the English preaching in these two churches occasionally, or alternately with the German; as to the degree of proportion, the congregation has all the power of the legislature to decide, shall this power be controlled by elec tion, or by force? We contend, that if you can be convinced, that these gentlemen who are now endeavoring to impute malevolent designs, undertook to say, "we will prevent the introduction by force if we cannot in any other manner," we are entitled to your verdict.

Mr. Rawle's argument was endeavoring to entangle you in a mere net of form. He said, "there never was an agreement to carry their objects by every means lawful or unlawful, as alleged in the indictment." We are not to prove all, that is in the indictment; it is the duty of the person preparing it, to have a variety of words which may meet what may be advanced on the other side. If there are words enough upon which to support the allegation, that they intended to resist the introduction of the English worship by any unlawful means, it is an unlawful combination and the defendants must be convicted under that indictment. The law is reasonable, because I hold it to be a maxim of the utmost import--' ance in every well regulated society, that the law and the law only, must govern; and surely, of all the people or countries on earth, when we have our annual legislators, who can mould and fashion that law as they please, when every law is of our own making by our representatives, we are, of all people, the most inexcusable, if we do not refer to that law and the courts and juries administering it, every dispute arising between us relative to temporal or religious concerns.

Another argument of my learned friend, was to impress on your minds, the improbability of the fact, that as they could carry their point by a majority, they could not entertain the idea of carrying it by force. If this is so, then the offence is more grievous; if the majority was on their side, which we do not admit, because if you include Myers's congregation, who, if they have seats in their churches, have a right also to vote, every probability is to the con

trary, that they are not the majority, but if they have the legal power, if they have the majority on their side, they are inexcusable to resort to violence and outrage. Mr. Rawle endeavored to answer an argument urged by Mr. Binney, solely upon principle, who told us, that in the natural course of things where there are foreigners or persons who were once so, or descendants of foreigners, whose language is different from that which is generally spoken, certain it is as that cause precedes effect, they will cease to speak that language and have recourse to the one spoken in the country in which they live. To this it was objected, that then they had only to let things take their own natural course; that the evil would remedy itself. If my friends had thought of the tendency of this argument, they would have rejected it with abhorrence. What, gentlemen, are your youth to grow up, wanting the religious instruction, which, if you defer, the fault can never be repaired, but by a miracle. All our complaint is, that the defendants would not allow it to be decided fairly by election; but they undertook to intimidate the others, and encourage an adhesion to their party by pledging themselves, that at all events they would, if necessary, support their opinion by force, and it is the only fair and reasonable construction of the paper by itself, or connected with the acts of those who have subscribed it.

If indeed, there is the impediment in our way; that by the charter, the divine service of this congregation must be forever performed in German, then we fail at the threshold, I acknowledge; convince me of it, I close my mouth at the instant and enter a nolle prosequi. The position is all important, they ought not to let it be doubtful; no time would have been better for shewing this, than at the moment of election. Is it in the charter? Or is it in the fundamental articles?, If it be, let it be shewn in argument-let my opponents shew one article that prevents the congregation from introducing the English worship when they think proper, and I will give up the contest in a moment. The Germans, who in 1765 petitioned for that charter, knew better than to introduce a clause of that kind; they took care to leave themselves, their descendants and posterity perfectly at liberty in this respect'; and I will appeal to his Honor with perfect confidence, that we are absolutely right in saying, that there is not a single syllable that countenances the idea. Whether these men were all of them distinguished as literata in their day, I know not nor is it necessary to inquire, but they were assuredly men of piety, and admirers of that great man who began the reformation; Martin Luther, gentlemen, it is an historical fact, as such I mention it, that with that great man it was a common expression, "let not faith be a prisoner to language," that is, let not the great principles of religion be confined to any particular tongue, but let your youth be instructed in different languages, and let the principles of religion be every where disseminated. I presume, those Reverend gentlemen, Mr. Schaeffer and Mr. Helmuth, are contributors to the charitable design of sending Bibles to the uninformed world; has the absurd idea en