Gazette Of The United States, & Philadelphia Daily Advertiser

The Gazette.
PHILADELPHIA
THURSDAY EVENING, July

TO THE PUBLIC:

HAVING seen with great surprise in Some of the public newspapers an attack upon my judicial character, signed with the name of Mr. Cabell, a member of Congress, I think it proper to take some notice of it, on account of a mistake in point of fact which he seems to have committed. From the tenor of his observations, any one would conclude that I wrote the charge he condemns with a view to draw forth a censure upon him or some other members of Congress who had written circular letters to their constituents. The truth is, I never knew that Mr. Cabell had written any circular letter at all, until I heard the presentment read in Court, nor have I seen the letter alluded to to this hour. I had indeed seen printed letters of one or two other members of Congress from the same State, but had them not in my thoughts when I prepared that charge, which I wrote deliberately in Philadelphia, in order to be delivered in Maryland and Virginia. The same charge was delivered substantially in both States, and without a view to any particular person. With regard to the sentiments of that charge, I am ready on all proper occasions to vindicate every word of it, as well as the propriety of delivering such a charge on such an occasion. In the mean time, I have a right to expect, that if the charge be censured, it shall be censured for what it really contains, and not for what exists merely in the imagination of the censurer. I have no hesitation in saying, that if it has the tendency Mr. Cabell ascribes to it, it does, in my opinion, deserve a severer censure than any he has bestowed upon it.

The conduct of the Court after the presentment has incurred Mr. Cabell's censure. It is difficult to say what can escape it if the conduct of the Court on that occasion cannot. They knew not such a presentment was in contemplation. It was brought into Court the same day that the charge was delivered, and without any adjournment having taken place, and agreeable to the usual practice, I presume, in Virginia, (though different from that in some other States) was read by the Clerk without even being seen by the Court. None of the circular letters which were the object of the presentment was produced to the Court, nor in possession of the Judges. The Jury were asked if they had any business to require their attention longer, or if they wished to stay to consider of any. They answered in the negative. The Attorney for the United States was asked if he wished them to be detained longer. He declared he knew of no occasion for it. They were then discharged. Were the Court to catechize the Jury for their censure of a publication which they themselves had never seen? Or to direct a prosecution upon a publication without knowing the contents of it? Ought they in any instance indeed to direct a prosecution in the presence of the Attorney, within whose particular department it lies, and when no occasion calls for their immediate interposition? Were they to interfere unnecessarily, they might justly be charged with becoming parties to a prosecution and incapacitating themselves from the impartial conduct of Judges afterwards.

Whatever might be the intention of the Jury, which was composed of very respectable men, it has been a frequent practice in some of the southern States or Grand Juries to present what they considered as grievances though they could not be the foundation of a criminal prosecution in the Court. I have known such presentments containing very heavy charges against the Government itself. It never occurred to me to be proper to suppress a practice which I found established, whether the exercise of it was agreeable to my private sentiments or not; and I incline to think, had the Grand Jury at Richmond, instead of presenting those circular letters, presented any obnoxious act of the Government, and the Court by an exertion of power had arbitrarily suppressed the presentment, it would have been the subject of a very virulent and possibly a very just invective, by some of those persons who have no scruple in condemning the Court for not interfering with this.

With regard to the illiberal epithets Mr. Cabell has bestowed, not only on me, but on the other Judges of the Supreme Court, I leave him in full possession of all the credit he can derive from the use of them. I defy him or any man to show, that in the exercise of my judicial character, I have been ever influenced in the slightest degree by any man, either in or out of office, and I assure him I shall be as little influenced by this mode of attack by a member of Congress as I can be by any other

JAMES IREDELL.

Edenton, North Carolina,
June 21, 1797.

Those Printers who have published Mr. Cabell's observations are requested to publish the above.