a right to place confidence in another opportunity of meeting the referees. He did not know but that he might have time But what is the event? to get the papers from Shelburne. Thefe gentlemen who are so punctual in all their business don't meet at all, but at each others houfes in the country!-Is this, fir, a way of at Mr. Halletts houfe in the country. proceeding that any man of fenfe would indulge or tolerate?

But the referees having made up the award in their outWho gets it into poffeffion? door way, what is done with it? Does Mr. Bayard know any thing about it? No.-Not a fyllable. It is figned in the country-Mr. Bayard knows nothing about it-Mr. Henry is at my houfe, and I am at the Prothonotary's.

When Mr. Paffmore applies at the Prothonotary's office for an execution, he is told of the variance between the rules, of the irregularity of the proceeding, and that the judgment would not authorize the iffuing of an execution. He is told of a variance which renders the whole proceeding of no effect. What does he do. Now gentlemen, fair play intends one course of conduct, foul play another. Fair play would have dictated fuch conduct as an honeft mind would conceive. Paffmore would have faid I have got an irregular judgment against Mr. Bayard. I have got fome time. If he is a candid man, I will go to him, and in order to purchafe the price of a compromife, I will give him an opportunity of ridding himself of his embarraffment. But, fir, I ask, what was the course of law? If an attorney had been applied to, would he have given Paffmore advice to act as he did? Would he not have told him, that the rule must be ftrictly purfued? Mr. Burd says, very properly, that there was no authority to grant an execution. It is on the report of Pearce and Henry, not of Henry and Hallett, that my refponfibility exifts. I will not allow execution to iffue, upon the terms of the laft rule, because it is at variance with the first, and particularly because it is not authenticated by the fignature of the parties. This is all found reafoning. Mr Paffmore hears it all, and what does he do? He then goes to Mr. Levy, we muft fuppofe, because there is a neceffary ground for the inference. If he ftated all the circum ftances to Mr Levy, it is my opinion, that my learned friend acted a little wrong. But Paffmore never told him. If he had, the known practice, and found integrity of Mr. Levy, But Paffmore would have dictated a contrary rule of conduct. did not tell him. He had heard that the referees had decided. He fuppofed that all was regular. He thought it was neceffary, perhaps, to confefs judgment, in order to give effect to the rule. Sir, if it had not been-[Here, Mr. Dallas was informed that it was not Mr. Levy who had confeffed the judg

ment]-I beg Mr. Levy's pardon. It was his clerk who confeffed the judgment in his name. Mr. Levy has faid exprefsly, that if he had been at home, he never would have permitted the execution to iffue upon the principle it did, and as a lawyer, I am fure he would not.

Well, judgment is now confeffed by attorney. Mr. Burd has but one mode of proceeding. All the refponfibility refts with the lawyer and not with him. He is all obedience, and he accordingly iffues the execution, although at the fame time declaring that it could have no effect. But what was the reafon of all this hafte, of all this folicitude of the part of Mr. Paffiore? Is he apprehenfive that he will not get his money according to the regular courfe of juftice? Does he believe that Pettit and Bayard are not perfectly found and folvent. No, fir, Paffmore knew to the contrary. But very different confiderations operated upon his mind. He has faid that his bankruptcy was in great part owing to the treatment he has received. But he knows that my official fituation gave me an opportunity of knowing the nature of his misfortunes, and that they commenced before his original claim in this cafe.

Well, fir, the execution is levied. What is to be done? A gentleman to whom he afterwards applied, informed him of the nullity of the execution. That it was, as will appear in teftimony refpecting the judgment by confeffion, entirely an irregular proceeding. No notice was given to Pettit and Bayard. None is proved to have been given, and it appears that no notice except the irregular entered judgment is affected to be given. Mr. Paffmore knows all this time that they ought to have notice.

The next thing in order is a letter from the counsel of Mr. Paffmore to Meffrs Pettit and Bayard dated the 31st of Auguft, ftating that the referees had made an award against them. This is the first legal communication. But I ask if this was a legal notice of the judgment? The candor of the counfel who gave this notice will caufe him to acknowledge that there was no antecedent judgment according to law or known practice.

Now, fir, we have the notice for the first time; but, we find, that this notice was not delivered till the 2d of September. But I do not mean to trouble the Senate with remarks on this part of the subject.

The exceptions are filed on the fourth of September. The Court met on the fixth, when a motion was made to fet afide the execution. At this time, the terror of the yellow fever was beginning feriously to alarm the public mind. The mor

tality made it neceffary for the bar to look to their own fafety, and it was proposed to adjourn. On this fixth day of Septem ber, when the parties were in Court upon the exceptions, Thomas Paffmore had an opportunity of hearing all that was faid. His counsel deliberately, and upon a reflection coeval with the first notice of the irregularity of the proceeding, abandoned the execution, and stood upon the validity of the report. A rule was also obtained for taking depofitions in the said cause, in twenty-four hours notice. It was then that the counfel for Meffrs. Pettit and Bayard asked for liberty to argue on the report, the judgment and the exceptions. But there appeared to be prior bufinefs, and the determination of the Court was, that it thould be kept under advisement, until the December term, when the arguments were to be heard. Paffmore then well knew that the bufinefs was not at an end. That there must be a fuit in Court; and if the fubject is before the Court, publihing any thing to affect the decifion of that Court, is a contempt. Thomas Paffimore, notwithstanding that he heard, and knew all these things, published his infamous libel, on the 8th of the fame month, only two days after the rule was entered for taking depofitions. It must have been clear to him, that the fuit was not difpenfed with. Either the judgment was to be affirmed, or fet afide. If it was to be affirmed, it would be. a contempt. But, fuppefe it was to be fet afide, the publication would still be a contempt, as it might operate upon the minds of those whofe task it was to decide. But it was equally clear that the exceptions were fatal to the report and judg ment the report, and the judgment must be fet afide, and the iffue ftands for a trial on the country,-by a jury. Here then you fee the impropriety of bringing fuch a thing before a jury, as the ftatement, that one of the parties was a quibbling underwriter and on the very brink of bankruptcy. What man does not tremble at the confequence!

Here, then, while the bufinefs was ftill pending, did this infane, bewildered man, commit one of the greatest outrages that ever was committed, and deviate from every thing that ought to have been the rule of his conduct. He tells you that he confulted counfel, whether or not it could be construed into a contempt. That he applied to Mr. Shoemaker the broker. This libel, which it is ftated there was not time for any body to read, is read by Mr. Shoemaker. He reads it. He has no doubt of the matter. He tells him that it is a contempt of Court, having a tendency to prejudice a caufe now depending in Court. He tells him of Ofwald's cafe-tells him to go, look into the book, and take advice. Paffmore fays, "Oh, I've taken better advice than you can give me. I've confulted my lawyer."

It appears however that this paper, which had only been up for one moment, this paper that Mr. Kitchen had pulled down

immediately, had been read by every visitor at the CoffeeHoufe. It appears at the Infurance Office. It is read there. Paffmore himleif produced it to Mr. Heneffey the Clerk in Mr. Burd's office. Mr. Brown alfo reads it. I afk the Senate if ever any party, if ever any man committed so foul and bad an act calculated to ftab the feelings of an innocent and reputable man.

Now, fir, Paffmore chufing to rest upon his own wisheschooling to relt upon the opinion of the young gentleman in Mr. Levy's office, he goes to the Coffee-Houle and poks this infamous bill. What is that paper? I do not believe, fir, that the English language can furnith more fcurrility-nor that the darkest and most corrupt heart could furnish any thing more more bafe nor more cruel. Who was the person that was affailed? A citizen of Philadelphia, whofe ancestors as well as himself had always been efteemed and respected and who had lived without reproach. This is the man libelled in open daylight in the fouleft and blackeft language. I do not know, fir, that a man who never faw Mr. Bayard-I do not know fir that a man who hates Mr. Bayard would feel for his fituation and deprecate the conduct of Paffmore.

But what must be the feelings of Mr. Bayard's family? What must be the effect upon his children? The child fees not only enough to forfeit his future hopes, but fees the father in a state of infolvency-reduced to the very brink of destruction.

And where was this done. At the merchant's coffee-houfe, a public place for commercial bufinefs, where he might meet creditors, who might be prejudiced, by charges fo boldly and fo openly made. Here it was that he was to meet the public eye, as a perjured, quibbling underwriter, whofe folvency was to be infured by a policy of two and an half per cent. I afk, fir, whether any man can put his finger upon an outrage commenfurate with this. To fay that Mr. Bayard had taken a falfe oath, with an intention to procrafinate. Is fuch conduct justikable? Even fuppofing for a moment, that, (which was not the cafe) that Mr. Bayard's fole object was delay-was that a sufficient caufe for fo flagrant an outrage on the part of Paffmore? When I make thefe commentaries, fir, I do it with the intention of difmiffing this part of the fubject. But they are due to Mr. Bayard. Rather, fir, would an honorable man fall by the poignard of the affaffin, than to receive fuch a stroke as this, with his young family about him. But this, fir, was not only done at the coffee-house, where it furnished food for flander, but it furnished chit chat for every circle of fociety-fo much fo, I believe, that there was fcarcely any fquare in Philadel

phia, that had not fome trumpery on the fubje&t. Not only from Mr. Kitchen, was it heard, but from every merchant in the city, it might have been had,-not only was it circulated through the city, but in the neighborhood of that coffee-house lives his aged and refpected father-in-law, who must have heard it, and what must have been his feelings!

As I before stated, the argument on the legality or illegality of the judgment was poftponed. The fubject was kept under advisement until the fucceeding Court. Mr. Bayard was certainly to have his rights protected. He was charged alfo with the rights of his friends. He was to take charge that this fhould not blaft his credit. What was to be done? The law provides three remedies in fuch cafes. The firft is a fummary procefs, by punishing the man who has endeavored to obftruct the current of juftice. The fecond is by indictment—and the third by a civil action for damages. Now, fir, not only these three remedies are given, but they are all according to law, and may all be appealed to at the fame time.

This gentleman thus oppreffed with a load of obloquy had his choice of the three remedies, or of applying to all of them. But what will his friends the other underwriters who are concerned in the fate of the first action fay? They might say "you may be willing to profecute by indictment, to bring your action for damages or to bring none at all. But we fay that the prejudice will have an effect upon the action in which we are concerned. The remedy must be fought for where it has a connection. You must ftep forward immediately to the fame Court wherein our bufinefs is under advisement." What does Mr. Bayard do? He fays if I bring this man to the Court, I give him an opportunity of doing away the obstacle that he has thrown in the way of juftice. I am not afraid of my reputation, provided I have an opportunity of proving my innocence. I will not innovate on the rights of others, therefore without taking the vindictive (as it may be called) principle of indictment-without bringing an action for damages which at most would yield but a very folitary fatisfaction for the stain of character, he takes the best and most rational mode of procedure. I fpeak, fir, now, in preface to the principle of fummary proceeding, and I do moft folemnly fay that if this procefs for contempt was not the law if this procefs is not recognized and permitted, it is not long that we fhall find the trial by jury proceeding in a ferviceable way.

With all the deference that I feel for the Committee of Grievances, and for the honorable House of Reprefentatives, I must fay that they do not feem to have confidered a part of this fubject properly, when they say that the libel bore no direct