Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
Full Title
The trials of William S. Smith, and Samuel G. Ogden, for misdemeanours, had in the circuit court of the United States for the New-York District, in July, 1806.
Author
Lloyd, Thomas, 1756-1827.
Date Added
11 January 2014
Language
English
Publish Date
1807
Publisher
New York: I. Riley and Co.
Source
ACHS Historic Papers Lloyd Family.
Topic
Smith, William Stephens, > 1755-1816 > Trials, litigation, etc. Ogden, Samuel G. > (Samuel Gouverneur), > 1779-1860 > Trials, litigation, etc. Venezuela > History > Miranda's Expedition, 1806. United States > Foreign relations > Spain. Spain > Foreign relations > United States.
About
More Details Permanent Link
Disclaimers
Disclaimer of Liability Disclaimer of Endorsement
OCR
2
\
270 THE TRIAL OF
.
and I trust they have sufficiently established themselves in your
minds. The president’s. approbation of the enterprise is a
- ground on which Mr. Ogden’s conduct may be justified, even if
you believe the charges of. the indictment to be established.
- Tais approbation was clearly substantiated on the late trial. It was
the polished buckler which protected col. Smith from the shafts
of his adversaries, and reflected back the scorching rays of accusa-
tion, on the power which directed them: . ‘The proceedings, and
the termination in that cause, have fixed the responsibility in the
quarter, where public good and private justice require it should
be placed. Fortified by the decision on that trial, | am embold-
ened to assume the principle as an established one in these pro-
secutions—that the approbation and encouragement, given by the
executive to the enterprise of general Miranda, with his know-
ledge.of the intended agency of Mr. Ogden, acquit the latter
from the charge of intentional crime, and insure him from the
penalty of the particular statute on which. he is indicted.
Gentlemen, did the president of the United States, and the -se-
cretary of state, know and approve. of general Miranda’s enter-
prise? This is a fact, of which no person can any longer en-
tertain a doubt, and of which you have sufficient testimony. . Evi-
dence differs in its requisite characteristics according to the situ-
ation of the parties. If it is to criminate an accused individual,
‘and consign him to the scaffold or the dungeon, it must be di-
rect, positive, and unequivocal. But if im favour of an acquittal, .
any evidence. of a circumstantial nature, which shall convince
you of the existence of a fact, ought to be equally imperative as if
it was direct and absolute. It is a wise and benign maxim in
our law, that. innocence shall always be presumed until guilt is
proved. Presumptions ouzht rarely to be indulged for the con-
viction of a prisoner, but they should be liberally entertained in
his favour. , ;
‘In a prosecution like the present, urged by the government,
who feel-their honour and integrity involved in the event--who
seek through charges of an unworthy and perfidious nature, to
exonerate themselves by the crimination of the accused. Ina
cause like the present, where the contest is waged on terms so
notoriously unequal—where an humble citizen is thrust into the
arena, and forced to contend sagainst the power and popularity
of his own government—where the fulminations of executive
wrath are hurled at his head, aid the underminings of secret ar-
tifice are wrought beneath his ‘feet ; where the only weapons he
can be permitted to use, are positive proofs drawn from secrets
of state, ia possession of his enemies, and even these weapons are
denied him. In such case, the unfortunate individual, naked,
crippled, and defenceless, must fall a victim in the unjust and
treacherous encounter, un jess you, the impartial judges of the
‘
2a pop ate
a
oe ek