ired,
to prove that it was lawful. On the other hand, he, Mr. Coxe, pledged
himself, on all occasions, and whenever the question might be presented
for argument and decision, to brand it as tyrannical, oppressive,
illegal, and unconstitutional.

The next evidence for the prosecution was found in the pamphlets thus
stolen, and the possession of them by the traverser was alleged as proof
of their publication by him. Against this false and more than
inquisitorial doctrine, he solemnly protested. Let the accidental
possession of a denounced pamphlet be made proof of its utterance and
publication by the possessor, and let the new process of detecting and
bringing to light that obnoxious pamphlet be established, and what man,
in the whole community, can be safe in the enjoyment of his personal
rights? May not any man be subjected to be treated as a felon, upon the
instigation of private malice, or party animosity, or religious rancor?
How easy would it be to find a magistrate at any time, who, confiding in
the learning and experience and official character of the District
Attorney, will, at his instance, grant such a search warrant against any
individual?--and how easy will it not be to find constables, who, in the
execution of it, will raise a hue and cry, and an excitement against the
individual at whom the process is levelled?--so that if he escape the
tyranny of the law and of the officers of the law, he may, nevertheless,
fall a victim to the blind and ignorant violence of popular fury!

Two things, Mr. Coxe said, must combine to bring the traverser, in this
case, within the law, if indeed there was any law to meet the case. The
publications themselves must be calculated to excite insurrection among
the blacks, and contempt of government among the whites; and the mode
and manner of the publication must be such as to justify the supposition
that the publisher intended to produce this effect.

If both of these facts could not be proved, the prosecution must fail,
and the traverser be entitled to a verdict of acquittal. Admitting that
the character of the pamphlets was incendiary, and as mischievous in
their tendency as the District Attorney may, on this occasion, be
pleased to represent them, still it cannot be shown that the traverser
was guilty of any injurious or malicious dissemination of them. The loan
to Mr. King was the only instance proved of distribution, and could that
be considered malicious? Mr. King was admi