On vor of Thomas Paffmore, which was filed in the Prothonotary's office, on the fame day, and judgment entered thereon. the 18th of the fame month, execution was iffued, and on the fame day, a levy made by the fheriff, on the goods of Andrew Bayard, one of the defendants. On the 4th day of September following, exceptions were filed by Andrew Bayard, against the decifion of the referees. On the 8th of the fame month, a paper was posted up in the coffee-houfe, in the city of Philadelphia, faid to be a libel against Pettit and Bayard, in the following words :— The subscriber publicly declares, that Pettit and Bayard, of this city, 'merchants, and quibbling underwriters, has basely kept from the subscri'ber, for nine months, about five hundred dollars, and that Andrew Bayard, 'the partner of Andrew Pettit, did, on the third or fourth instant, go before John Inskeep, Esq. alderman, and swore to that which was not true, by which the said Pettit and Bayard are enabled to keep the subscriber out of his money for about three months longer; and the said Bayard has meanly attempted to prevent others from paying the subscriber about two thousand five hundred dollars-but in this mean dirty action, he was disappoint'ed: I therefore, do publicly declare, Andrew Bayard, a liar, a rascal, and 'a coward; and I do offer two and a half per cent. to any good person or 'persons, to insure the solvency of Pettit and Bayard, for four months from this date. Philadelphia, September 8th, 1802.' THOMAS PASSMORE. For which alledged libel, Thomas Paffmore was committed to the sheriff of Philadelphia county, and confined in the debtors apartment of the common jail for 30 days, and fined 50 dollars for an alledged contempt of Court. We shall prove to you, fir, and it will appear in evidence, that certain interrogatories were filed by the counsel of Pettit and Bayard, and that Mr. Paffmore anfwered the faid interrogatories in full, and, in our opinion completely purged the contempt, if any was actually committed. It further appears, that the Court, in the first inftance, deviated from the ufual mode of procedure, and that atonement to Mr. Bayard, or immediate fentence, was the only alternative left for Mr. Paffmore. The Judges told him, that if he would inake conceffions to Mr. Bayard, it would do away the neceffity of paffing fentence. We shall prove that the chief of these things are true. It will appear in evidence, that there was no caufe pending in Court between Thomas Paffmore, and Pettit and Bayard, at the time of writing, or pofting the fuppofed libel-there confequently could be no contempt,even if the odious doctrine of contempts extended to acts done out of the view of the Court. That, even if Thomas Paffimore, by his answers to the interrogatories, did not purge the contempt, the Judges acted in an arbirary, cruel, and oppreffive manner, in which they were not war ranted by the conftitution and known laws of Pennfylvania, and have therefore been guilty of a high mifdemeanor. We fhall prove to you, fir, that every charge in the article of impeachment, is fubftantially true, and that the Judges of the Supreme Court, now at your bar, are justly changeable with the offences, of which they now fland impeached : 1. Becaufe the publication did not reflect upon the Judges, either in their judicial capacity, or perfonal characters. 2. Because there was no direct allufion, in the paper called a libel, to any caufe pending before the Court. 3. Becaufe, as appears from the record, Thomas Paffmore was warranted in the conclufion, that the fuit, between him and Pettit and Bayard, was then ended; judgment. having been entered, and execution iflued. 4. Becaufe the judgment was not fet afide, until after the term of his imprisonment had expired, and after his application to the Legislature for the impeachment of the Judges. 5. Because the Court were fatisfied with the answers of Thomas Paffimore, to the interrogatories, fo far as refpected the alledged contempt against themfelves. 6. Because the punishment was inficted, not because Mr. Paffimore had committed a contempt of Court; but because he would not apologize, or make atonement to Mr. Andrew Bayard, as the Court had directed. Such proceedings, fir, are unknown in the annals of jurispru dence, and appear better adapted to other forms of government than to ours; for here the liberty of the individual, however humble he is in fociety, is as facred as the most exalted and moft opulent. Thefe proceedings, fir, are totally unjustifiable, and are not warranted by the conftitution and known laws of the land. I rejoice, Mr. Speaker, that this question is to be decided, at a time when party fpirit, that fell deftroyer of the peace of fociety is fcarcely perceptible. That this cannot be confidered, as a political difpute; that the parties were not hoftile to each other, on the fcore of politics. My wifh is, and I am authorized to fay that it is the wifh of the Houfe of Reprefentatives, of the counfel who has honored us with his profeffional aid on this occafion, and of the people generally, that this trial may be conducted with impartiality, unruffled by paffion or prejudice, and you will be governed only by a regard for equal and impartial justice. We are perfuaded, gentlemen, that you come to this trial with unbiaffed minds, as pure as the white mantle that now enshrouds our fields, unfullied by the touch of man. I ask pardon for confuming time, which might be more ufefully filled up by the gentleman who is to conduct the profecution of this article of impeachment. For myfelf, and for the managers of this impeachment, I thank you for the kind & patient attention you have been pleafed to pay to my obfervations. Attend,gentlemen, to this important caufe. Nay,I am fure you will attend to it, under the folemn impreffions of your facred oaths, and under the most impreffive confiderations of the vaf importance of your decifion. With this view, I reft confident that the refult of your deliberations, will meet the approbation of your conftituents. Mr. RODNEY.-Mr. Speaker, and gentlemen of this honora ble Court, you have heard the ftatement that has been made by one of the managers. In order to lay before you the prineiples of the article of impeachment against Edward Shippen, Jafper Yeates, and Thomas Smith, Efquires, I fhall exhibit in the first place, the record of the Supreme Court, or at least fo far as I think it will bear on the prefent cafe, relative to the action between Pettit and Bayard, and Thomas Paffimore: Pleas before the Honorable Edward Shippen, Esquire, Docter of Laws, Chief Justice, and his associate Justices, of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, of the term of September, in the year of our Lord, MDCCCII. We, the underwriters on the body, tackle, &c. of brig Mi nerva, Jonathan Lambert, mafter, infured by Thomas Paffmore, in the office of Shoemaker and Berrett, by a policy dated September 30th, 1801, hereby agree to abide by the award to be given by Mathew Pearce and Hugh Henry, in an action wherein the faid Thomas Paffmore is plaintiff, and Andrew Pettit and Andrew Bayard are defendants, and authorize and empower Jared Ingerfoll or any other attorney of the Supreme Court, to confefs judgment against us for any fum in propor tion to our feveral fubfcriptious, that may be awarded against the faid Pettit and Bayard; and I, Thomas Paffmore, do alfo agree, that the award of the faid referees, fhall be valid against me, and authorize Jared Ingerfoll, or any other attorney, to confefs judgment againft me, in any action or actions that I may bring again any or all the underwriters who fall fign this agreement. In witness whereof, the faid parties have here's unto fet their hands, this twelfth day of July, 1802. Thomas Passmore, THOMAS PASS MORE, FOR PHILIPS CRAMOND & CO: NICKLIN & GRIFFITH. Andew Pettit & Andrew Bayard, trading under the firm of Pettit and Bayard. Supreme Court of Pennfylvania.-Cafe, with writ returnable, Sept. term1802. Sur. policy of infurance. It is mutually agreed between plaintiff and defendants in this action, that all matters in variance between them, fhall be referred to Hugh Henry and Mathew Pearce, who, if they cannot agree, are to make choice of a third perfon as an umpire, who are to hear and determine upon the merits of the difpute, and the report of any two of whom after a full and fair inveftigation is to be made into the prothonotary's office-upon which judgment is to be entered. Rule, if either party refufes or neglects to appear on one day's notice the referees may proceed exparte. Let this action be made, and the rule made conformably to the agree ment on the other side. EDWARD BURd, Esq. S. LEVY, Atty. p. plaintiff. I, Edward Burd, prothonotary of the Supreme Court aforefaid, hereby certify, that the above agreement and order of Mr. Sampion Levy, as to the form of entering the fame on record, were filed in my office, on the thirteenth day of July, eighteen hundred and two. In pursuance whereof, the following entry was made on the record of the faid Court. Thomas Passmore, Andrew Pettit Andrew Bayard, Bayard. In the Supreme Court of term, 1802. Amicable action entered by agreement filed 13th July, 1802, and by the fame agreement, all matters in variance be tween the parties are referred to Hugh Henry and Matthew 6 Pearce, who, if they cannot agree, are to make choice of a 'third perfon as an umpire, who are to hear and determine upon the merits of the difpute, and the report of any two of them 'after a full and fair investigation to be made into the prothonotary's office, and judgment entered thereon. Exparte rule, ' on one day's notice.' I further certify, that on the fixth Auguft, eighteen hundred and two, a report in faid action, was filed in my office, in the following terms, viz : We, the fubfcribers, (William Hallett, being appointed by Meffrs. Henry and Pearce) after a full and fair investigation of the fubject-do award for the plaintiff in the above cafe, 'four hundred and ninety dollars with intereft.' HUGH HENRY. WILLIAM HASLET. And, that on the fame fixth day of August, eighteen hundred and two, the following entry was made on the record of faid Court 6th Auguft, 1802, judgment on report fec reg.' and that on the eighteenth Auguft, eighteen hundred and two, a paper whereof the following is a true copy, was filed in my office. Thomas Passmore, Andrew Pettit & Andrew Bayard. Supreme Court of Pennfylvania. Amicable action, case. By virtue of a warrant of attorney filed in the office of Edward Burd, Efquire, prothonotary, figned by the defendants, I do hereby confefs judgment against them, for the fum of four hundred and ninety dollars, the fum awarded by the referees. 18th August, 1809. SAMPSON LEVY. And that, thereupon, the following entry was made on the records of the faid Court: 18th Auguft, 1802, Mr. S. Levy, by virtue of a warrant of attorney, contained in faid agreement, to enter the action, confefs judgment for the fum awarded by the referees.' H |