Hepple said, he had his dinner and beer too; it was therefore additional to what they were in the habit of taking at their meals, which among hard working people is not a little; I say, what are we to expect from such proceeding? Exactly what took place; riots and drunkenness. But here I am to meet an assertion of Mr. Rawle; he says, we can make it out only as to two, Branardt and Core, and to constitute a riot, there should be three. It is true, so far, as his Honor will tell you, if he think it necessary to notice it at all, that, a riot undoubtedly must have three persons as actors in it; but it is by no means a rule, that I must know who are the three. If I know I can prove there was a riot, and can discover only one who was concerned in it, and can prove that he commit, ted it with others, he alone may be convicted of a riot, provided, that the jury are satisfied, that he committed it in combina tion with the others although they be unknown. If these two persons committed a riot with any other person, it is enough to found a conviction, although the name of the other does not appear. Is it not in evidence, that there were engaged in the riots occasionally a dozen; and I do not know, that I go beyond the evidence, when I say, upon one occasion, there were one hundred and fifty or two hundred engaged. I believe the witness spoke of a dozen. But, gentlemen, we find that this testimony is not confined to a particufar person; it was mentioned in addition to Geyer, by Busch ; but his credibility has been attacked. Why? We are told he attributed cartain expressions to the Germans which originated with himself. Let us examine, if it be so. It is not Busch only; but Mechlin also certainly says, expressly, that the words were, there is Mannhardt our captain." Now I presume, the prejudices of our learned friend, will not be so far extended, that they will say, that Busch would have called him his captain, as if he belonged to his party. My inference is, that the Germans had called it out and Busch had repeated it, changing the expression, saying, "there is the captain," instead of "there is our captain." Mechlin says, the expression he heard was the same, Busch mentioned; therefore, the first cry was from the Germans and they called him our captain" and Busch hearing it, iterated it, changing the tense and number. Mechlin's testimony is this. "I was present when several voices said, 'let us go for our Hauptmann or headman.' I was standing in conversation with Mahany-they went out, and soon returned, crying out, make place, Mr. Mannhardt is coming,' and some voice said, the Saviour is coming.' He came up like, a sergeant's guard, Bealer was at the head, Mannhardt followed, and Charles Lex in the rear of him, and they were marking time like soldiers." Now, if we connect what he says, with what Geyer said, there is every reason to believe, that these were the same, or at any rate as many of them as could get in, whom Geyer met, and whom Mechlin speaks of. Geyer met them staggering towards the school house; and referring to the same pericd of day, Mechlin says, he saw them entering in the same order, in which Geyer had said, he saw them out of doors. If this is not

66

a riot, what is it? The constables are blamed, and we are told they were the cause of the riots, this had no connexion with them. Let me make one observation; we are told, they had no warrants. Why, gentlemen, does a peace officer need a warrant to preserve the peace; and is a breach of the peace to be committed in his view, and can he not notice it without a warrant ? Gentlemen, on the contrary, if a constable see a breach of the peace, and does not interpose, I will indict him; he must prevent it, and if in doing it, he is guilty of irregularity, he is amenable to the laws, and must be punished. And if a constable has a man in custody, and use no more force than is requisite to keep him; is there reason for any interference of a bye-stander? No. The law only must decide whether he has taken him properly, and used him correctly, and the law only can take him out of your hands. It will never do to interfere with the civil authority; but if the constable treat a man improperly, let him go to the law, and depend upon it, when it comes before a jury of our fellow citizens, if they see, that he has been guilty of an abuse of his power, and of more violence than was necessary to secure his prisoner, rely upon it, whether the proceeding be by civil action for damages or by indictment, he will never get out of their hands unpunished. I therefore say, it is an offence, and a very high one for the citizen to undertake to rescue the man from the constable; they had no right to do it whatever. And even if the constable did abuse him; if he did without it being necessary, take his mace from his pocket and strike Speiss under the eye; let Speiss bring forward his complaint, and he will have justice done him. The case was, the constable had seized the man, and charged him with being guilty of a breach of the peace, and whether he treated him well or ill, was to be submitted to the constituted authorities only. What was done? I refer to the testimonies of Repberger and Geyer, according to which, there was a mob which alarmed the whole neighborhood; the people came to their doors to see what was the matter. Mr. Geyer dispersed them over and over again, and at last Speiss prevailed over the peace officers, the populace took care to decide against them, and rescued the voters from their hands.

Gentlemen, our object is not vengeance, nor have we any authority to these particular defendants; it is the principle we want supported. The constitution preserves all elections, and is it possible. that all our representatives who framed the Constitution of Pennsylvania, could have misunderstood this valuable privilege? It says, "all elections shall be free and equal." Now what says Uhler respecting the freedom of this election; he was asked, "why did you not interpose," "why" says he, "it was as much as my life was worth," and he did not interpose, nor did he dare to do it. If elections are conducted by riot, it is impossible to trace minutely every circumstance of disorder. Now gentlemen, you have the opportunity to give an example which will be instructing to the community at large, one way or the other. If it is right, when men have in view a particular object, to say, "we will effect it by

force;" and if you have a right to say, or if you wait until you can say, you knew they were doing wrong, but they did not intend wrong, you can never put a stop to such proceedings. Look to Europe, what do you see there? Do you not see instances where the Catholics have been oppressing to blood and death, the Protestants? When these people are arraigned, will you be able to prove they meant to do wrong? Many of them really think, as St. Paul himself did, when they are committing the most abominable outrages, they are doing God service; but when brought into courts of justice, the, law must say, whether what they did, was right or wrong. If these people have a right to proceed in this manner, so may we for political purposes; and a number of us may combine and say, "here is a Virginia candidate, whom they wish to elect to the presidential chair, but we will prevent it with our bodies and lives." If gentlemen, men were to join from motives of that kind, I would consider it my duty, to proceed instantly against any thing of the sort, with all the energies of the law. It is the part of juries to say, and the constitution says expressly, that the trials by juries shall be inviolate, it will depend upon them, whether combinations of this kind shall or shall not be suffered.

With regard to the number of courts in this indictment, the object is to be fully prepared, that the prosecution may not be rendered nugatory by the want of allegation. With respect to that of riot distinct from the other, it may have been supposed, that the prosecution could not establish the charge of combination; but it has been proved that there was a confederacy and that some of the defendants were actually perpetrators of a riot, and had pledged themselves by body and life to carry their object into effect, therefore, the act of one must be considered as the act of all. When the court apportions the guilt they may say, one man has been more guilty than another, and will fine him in degree to his of fence: but with the jury it makes no difference, they only can decide upon the question of guilt or innocence. The principle of law has not been controverted, as laid down by Mr. Binney; we are agreed in the principles of law; that when there was an unlawful agreement to carry into effect by force, where the object is lawful, but the means unlawful, it is what the law denominates a conspiracy, and a jury must find accordingly. It is foreign to your enquiry whether English preaching ought or ought not to be introduced. If it appears, that the defendants did agree that they would oppose by force the introduction of the English preaching, I take it for granted, that the verdict ought to be against them; it is a conspiracy. This is the principle laid down in the shoemakers case, and in differerent cases in the several parts of the United States, in New England, and other decisions. If the parties were not content with the election of the congregation, they had an appeal to the law; for there is no difficulty in this respect, if the election had been irregular, the way was perfectly open for them, they had a right to call upon Mr. Rawle, and Mr. Levy, to

whom they applied to defend them, and say," apply to the court for an information in the nature of a quo warranto;" and the court would have the power to say, whether under their charter, the congregation could decide the point in dispute respecting the use of the German or English language, and if they had been deprived of their elective franchise, the court would restore it.

Allow me, in conlusion, seriously to appeal to you, what cause was there for this kind of hostile infuriated spirit? For I do say, that all history, sacred and profane, and personal experience teach us, that the most infuriated spirit that can agitate the breast of man, is mistaken zeal, a zeal, as in the language of holy writ, without knowledge. I presume, you as well as I, sometimes read Young's night thoughts ;" do you not recollect that when his daughter had died in France, and she was not permitted to be burried in consecrated ground, under the idea that she was a heretick, it occasioned that line, "the sainted spirit petrified the human breast." The French people were a kind, obliging people, but their bigotry rendered them inaccessible to the demands of pity and humanity. Therefore without impeaching those who wished to exclude English preaching, I do say, that it is most dangerous to suffer these proceedings to take their course unchecked, and it is necessary that an example should be set to the community, that to carry points in religion, they must not undertake to resort to force, and that, of course, they must acquiesce in the result of their elections, or appeal to the laws of their country. Bigotry has not one feature of this sentiment; the mildness of christianity is assuredly its contrast; and in this country I am happy to observe, that though our people upon necessary occasions meet death with great coolness, and intrepidity; in time of peace they are loth in spilling blood; they do not habitually talk of spilling blood; it is not a threat congenial to their tempers. They may occasionally quarrel as all men who have strong passions will; they may proceed to blows, but the idea of taking blood, because others differ from us in opinion, which has been repeated too often on this occasion, and hereafter, I hope never again will be, has never entered in their imaginations. I have not taken the whole ground that I contemplated in the outset, but I will here meet the case under his Honor's direction.

t

YEATES, JUDGE,

After making his acknowledgments for their patient attention, and stating the charges of the indictment, thus charged the Jury:

ARE the defendants, all or any, guilty of the conspiracy charged? A sense of religion is essentially necessary in all civilized governments. The hopes and fears of an hereafter are strong incentives to a virtuous course of life, and the most powerful restraints of vicious propensities. Without a firm belief in a future state of rewards and punishments, an oath or affirmation loses its most efficient sanction. In this happy country, the rights of conscience are inviolable and sacred. Every man is at liberty to worship the Creator of the Universe in his own way. The jury, therefore, will constantly keep in mind, that it is no part of their duty to decide either on the doctrines or discipline of the German Lutheran church, or whether the occasional use of the English_language in the adoration of the Deity would conduce to the true interests of the church in general, and of the youthful part of it in particular. For we freely disclaim all jurisdiction on these points. But we are called upon in our several departments to consider and impartially to decide, whether the laws of the country have been violated by all or any of these defendants. In every association of individual's, whether civil or religious, the voice of the majority fairly and honestly taken, according to their fundamental rules ought to prevail, where there is a difference of opinion amongst the members-still, the minority have a right to meet and consult together and use all lawful means to effectuate their honest purposes, in cases not prohibited by law and the using unlawful methods with intent to defeat them of their first rights, is an offence known to our code.

The Lutherans are a respectable religious society in this state, they borrow their name and adopt the religious tenets of Martin Luther, one of the champions of the reformation, grounded on the celebrated Augsberg confession of faith. They were incorporated in this city by a proprietary charter on the twenty-fifth September 1765, which referred to their fundamental articles and was, on the third March 1780 confirmed and amended at their instance by an act of assembly. The Lutheran system having first taken root in Germany, it was highly natural and reasonable, that the emigrants from that country, and their immediate descendants, who professed that faith should use the language of that empire, which they understood, in their public worship: they would feel a predilection for it as the language of their forefathers. But experience teaches us, that after an efflux of time, their children would not feel the same attachment to it-with them it would not be their native tongue; hence arose unhappy divisions which rent the church, and which I deeply regret. The address of 1805 declares by a committee, that "they wish and seek no separation, they ask for the introduction of part of the instruction of the youth and of the