BOSTON, V. Buckingham. of the Bear, and to attach that appellation to Mr. Eustaphieve. He speaks of the "sign af the Bear and FidThe Com'th dle"-he speaks of the Russian Consul "as sucking a Bear," like Romulus and Remus-he speaks of "the dancing Bear"-" the polar Bear "-" the Rugged Russian Bear"-and "of a set-to between the big Bear and a Dandy." He also alludes to his employment, as being fond of music, of fishing, of writing in the newspapers; and there are some expressions of double meaning, which, if taken in their vulgar significations, are highly offensive. Now, gentlemen, weigh this in the judgment of common sense and common charity. If, on a deliberate view of it, you believe it was designed as a piece of criticism on an unfortunate author, as mere legitimate satire, with a view to correct the public taste, and to prevent the writer from indulging his vein for scribbling, it was harmless. But if, on the contrary, you believe that it was meant to represent the Russian Consul as an object of contempt and ridicule, to wound his feelings, and to sport with him in a land of strangers-then the laws of hospitality have been violated, as well as the laws of the land. For "if any man deliberately and maliciously publishes any thing in writing concerning another which renders him ridiculous, or tends to hinder mankind from associating, or having intercourse with him, it is a libel. The jury, after being absent two hours, returned a verdict Not Guilty on the first count, and Guilty on the second. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT. RICHMOND, (Vir.) JULY, 1819. United States VS. William Chapels, Daniel Philips, ter Nelson, Isaac Sales, Peter John son, and Thomas Smith. The following preliminary remarks are explanatory of the case. the United States, and crime of piracy," passed 3d of March, 1819. The constitution of the United States confers on con- Construction gress the power "to define and punish piracies and felo- of the "act to protect the nies committed on the high seas, and offences against the commerce of law of nations." Art. 1. s. 8. "The Federalist" (No. 42) says this power "belongs puuish the with equal propriety to the general government; and is a still greater improvement on the articles of confederation. These articles contain no provision for the case of The crime offences against the law of nations; and consequently of piracy is leave it in the power of any indiscreet member to embroil law of nations with reasonathe confederacy with foreign nations. The provision of the federal articles on the subject of piracies and felonies, extends no farther than to the establishment of courts for the trials of these offences. The definition of piracies the sea, animo furandi, is pimight, perhaps, without inconveniency, be left to the law racy by the of nations; though a legislative definition of them is law of nations and by the act found in most municipal codes." of congress. On the 30th April, 1790, congress passed "an act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," (among others, the crime of piracy,) the 8th sec. of which is in these words: "And be it enacted, That if any person or persons defined by the ble certainty. Robbery or forcible depredation upon V. Chapels, and others. RICHM'ND, shall commit upon the high seas, or in any river, haven, July, 1819. basin, or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, United States murder or robbery, or any other offence which if committed within the body of a county, would by the laws of the United States be punishable with death; or if any captain or mariner of any ship or other vessel, shall piratically and feloniously run away with such ship or vessel, or any goods or merchandize to the value of fifty dollars, or yield up such ship or vessel voluntarily to any pirate; or if any seaman shall lay violent hands upon his commander, thereby to hinder and prevent his fighting in defence of his ship or goods committed to his trust, or shall make a revolt in the ship; every such offender shall be deemed, taken and adjudged to be a pirate and felon, and being thereof convicted, shall suffer death: and the trial of crimes committed on the high seas, or in any place out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, shall be in the district where the offender is apprehended, or into which he may first be brought." At the February term of the supreme court of the United States, 1818, however, there came on the case of the United States v. Palmer et al., certified from the circuit court for the Massachusetts district. Palmer and others, citizens of the United States, had gone upon the high seas, entered and robbed the Industria Raffaeli, a Spanish ship, of various articles. In this case, the question arose, (to use the language of the chief justice,) "whether this act extends farther than to American citizens, or to persons on board American vessels, or to offences committed against citizens of the United States. The constitution having conferred on congress the power of defining and punishing piracy, there can be no doubt of the right of the legislature to enact laws punishing pirates, V. although they may be foreigners, and may have commit- RICHM'ND, ted no particular offence against the United States. The July, 1819. only question is, has the legislature enacted such a law? United States Do the words of the act authorize the courts of the union to inflict its penalties on persons who are not citizens of the United States, nor sailing under their flag, nor offending particularly against them." The court finally came to the decision, that "the crime of robbery, committed by a person on the high seas, on board of any ship or vessel belonging exclusively to subjects of a foreign state, on persons within a vessel belonging also exclusively to subjects of a foreign state, is not a piracy within the true intent and meaning of the act 'for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,' and is not punishable in the courts of the United States." To supply this omission, a new provision was deemed to be necessary; and it is understood, that with this intention, the last congress adopted the 5th section of the "aet to protect the commerce of the United States, and punish the crime of piracy;" passed on the 3d of March, 1819. The 5th section is in these words: "And be it further enacted, That if any person or persons whatsoever, shall, on the high seas, commit the crime of piracy, as defined by the law of nations, and such offender or offenders shall afterwards be brought into, or found in, the United States, every such offender or offenders shall, upon conviction thereof, before the circuit court of the United States for the district into which he or they may be brought, or in which he or they shall be found, be punished with death." On Monday, the hall of the house of delegates was filled by a large concourse of spectators. The court was Chapels and others. 208 V. RICHM ND, opened; the chief justice on the bench. Mr. Stanard, the July, 1819. United States' attorney, appeared on the part of the United United States States; Messrs. A. Stevenson, and W. Wickham, on the part of the prisoners; Messrs. Gilmer and Bouldin, the two other counsel whom the court had added to the defence, being prevented from attending--the first by indisposition, the last by absence. Chapels, and others. The prisoners (twenty-one in number) had been variously charged in three different indictments; one (under the act of 1819) was for robbing a Spanish vessel; another, under the same act, for robbing a Dutch vessel; the third, under the act of 1790, for robbing an American vessel. Samuel Poole was first put to the bar, under the first indictment, charged with having piratically and feloniously set upon, boarded, broke, and entered "a certain Spanish vessel or brig, belonging to certain persons whose names are, as well as is that of the said brig, unknown,” and robbed her of Spanish milled dollars. The prisoner being arraigned, and the jury impannelled, seven witnesses were sworn in EVIDENCE. Samuel Stanly, a youth of 18, gave a clear and particular statement of the transaction. He stated, that he had belonged to the armed vessel the Irresistable; that while she was lying in the port of Margaritta, about a mile from shore, about 1 o'clock in the morning, she was cut out by the crew of the privateer Creola. Such of the crew of the Irresistable, as wished to go ashore, were permitted to do so. The crew of the Creola said they were going to continue the cruise. They did go on a cruise. They went off St. Domingo, where they did but little; but off Cape Antonio, in the island of Cuba, they met with several vessels. Q. What colours did you assume? A. No particular ones; sometimes one flag, sometimes another; flags of different nations. Q. Who appointed the officers, and how? A. They were appointed by the crew of the Creola; (but witness could not tell particularly the manner of their appointment.) They brought to a Spanish vessel off Cape Antonio, from which they |