[From the Pennsylvanian]
ANOTHER HINCHMAN CASE.
We have just been informed that there is another case now in progress of
investigation before a court of inquiry in this city, that will not only rival the
notorious Hinchman case, but reflect greater disgrace in the end on the prosecuting party,
inasmuch as all their charges are to be prompted and sustained by religious prejudice, as
well as the other motives in such cases, viz: avarice and pride.
It appears that a gentleman (Warder Cresson, Esq.) recently returned from
a residence in the East, at Jerusalem, and there became convinced that Judaism was the
true ism, and consequently became a Jew. He was appointed our Consul there, but
did not act as such, as by some foul play his commission papers were detained from him by
those he entrusted to receive them from Government to send to him. On his return, the
disgrace of his change of faith was so keenly felt, that, together with the desire,
probably of handling his property freely, prompted the persecuting party to institute a
charge of lunacy against him; and he being a warm devotee to religion, is not too well
qualified to maintain his ground, owing to those having wealth and influence to obtain a
judgment in their favor.
As these proceedings are, for policy sake, kept secret from the public
view, we forbear now to enter more fully into the particulars, but we may, probably,
before long. By the Constitution of the United States, an American citizen is guaranteed
his civil and religious liberties; and we trust those who are dark-minded enough to
deprive a man of these, from such motives, may meet the just indignation of the American
people.
If a Jew turn Christian, it is all natural and proper, we dare say; but if
a Christian turn Jew, the man must be insane! Admirable reasoning! We heard a fellow once
speak of a friend who had renounced Catholicity, and became a Protestant, as a very fine,
honest man, to which we assented, for we knew his worth; and we then spoke highly of
another friend who had left Protestantism for Catholicity. "Oh, he's a d----d
rascal!" said our interlocutor. "Why?" we asked, rather astonished.
"He turned Catholic!" was the answer. This kind of bigotry is disgraceful both
to individuals and the community.
[From the N.Y. Times]
INSANITY
A second Hinchman case is in progress in Philadelphia. The friends and
family of Warder Cresson, Esq., late Consul at Jerusalem, are applying for a writ of de
lunatico to shut him out of the possession of part of his property, on the ground of
being a lunatic for embracing Judaism. Mr. Cresson had a deed of trust for half his
property, but was not so insane as to convey the other half, so they
wish to obtain that moiety under this writ. That a Christian court would decide that
adopting Judaism as a religion would be a proof of insanity, we never can believe. It
would be an attack on the founder of Christianity himself. It would be incompatible with
reason and common sense. Every man believing in one God, and having faith in the bible,
its law and its revelations, is Dei Gratia a Jew, without being one of the chosen
people. for that requires entering into the Abrahamic covenant. We know the history of
Mr. Cresson, and believe him to be sincere in his new faith. If he is crazy on
that account, what is to be the condition of the whole Gentile world at the promised
time? We must be careful how we allow such writs of inquiry to undermine the civil
and religious rights of citizens.
[From the Philadelphia Herald.]
WARDER CRESSON
We invite the attention of our readers to an article in relation to this
gentleman, on our first page. We have most impartially and deliberately examined the facts
in this case, as they have come up before us; and it seems to be as clear as the beams of
the sun at noonday, that a false charge of lunacy has been preferred against Mr. Warder
Cresson, with the determinate design to get into his opposers' possession his whole
estate, after an assignment of one-half had been made by him in their favor.
This object they thought they would doubtless obtain, alone upon the
ground of religious, or, as the article on "Legal Decisions" asserts, "Cradle
Prejudice." But the charm is broken--the bird has been liberated from the
cage of prejudice--and is now enjoying the free air of toleration, instead of
being deprived, by such a base conspiracy, of God's highest gift--REASON,
and consigned forever to the confines of a lunatic asylum, and to the association
of maniacs.
And what it the most remarkable feature of the whole affair is, how a
woman of character (as it is said Mrs. Cresson is) could expose in open court, before the
public, letters of the most confidential character, between her husband
and herself, and expect still to be esteemed a woman of trust, we cannot imagine.
[From the Philadelphia Herald.]
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.--WARDER CRESSON'S CASE
Warder Cresson was discharged on Monday, by a jury's verdict, from all
imputation of insanity. This gentleman, it is now well known, has become a member of the
Jewish persuasion. In 1844, he was appointed U.S. Consul at Jerusalem, where he proceeded,
and amid the scenes of Palestine he became a convert to that old and venerable faith,
which was founded by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and confirmed and established by the Divine
Legation and miracles of Moses. Mr. Cresson returned to his country in 1848, and, finding
he could not conciliate his belief with that of his family, he generously divided his
property with them, by a deed of Trust, and became an exile from all he held dear and
loved. The sacrifice was great, but his conscience was supreme; he was soon after
prosecuted by his family for lunacy; but the jury, after an important investigation of six
days, liberated him from his thralldom, pronounced him sane, and capable of conducting and
managing his worldly affairs. This prosecution was an attempt to coerce conscience,
through the horrors of a Lunatic Asylum, and deprive a man of his civil and religious
liberty, and throw an imputation on the Jewish Faith; but the jury, with a sagacity and
magnanimity (for they were all Christians) that does them high honor, vindicated the truth
of American Rights, and of our Republican Constitution.
[From the Sunday Dispatch.]
CONVERSION AND LUNACY
The question how often a man may change his religious belief without being
considered insane, seems to have been in the course of investigation in the Court of
Common Pleas of this county during the last week. Warder Cresson, a descendant of one of
our Quaker families, has shown considerable vacillation in his opinions upon sectarian
tenets. Having a fair income, being independent of the world, and living without the
necessity of continued employment, his mind, which seems to have a speculative tendency,
has been engaged in an investigation of different creeds. He is, perhaps, fickle, and of
unsteady and unsettled disposition. In the course of his investigations he embraced and
rejected the principles of various sects. Enthusiastic in his nature, he was not satisfied
with the mere approval of controversial doctrines, to which his mind may have been led.
When he embraced the tenets of a religious persuasion, he became at once a complete
proselyte, rigid in the observance of every form. As a Shaker, he renounced worldly
vanities, betook himself to affiliation with a village community, and danced through their
form of worship with earnestness. As a Mormon, he gave himself up to the guidance of the
saints.* So it was whilst conforming to the practice of other sects.
Finally he went to Jerusalem, having been appointed United States Consul
at the Holy City. In Palestine he became a decided, and, as far as the evidence appears,
consistent convert to Judaism, and conformed to all the requisites for the admission of a
Gentile among the ancient people. Up to this time his relatives had borne with his various
changes of belief without complaint, but their patience or their avarice could not brook
his last conversion. If he had become a Roman Catholic they would probably have
acquiesced; but to become a Jew, argues, in the minds of the relatives of Mr.
Cresson, absolute, confirmed lunacy. It does not appear that he was not able to manage his
worldly business with care, economy, and wisdom. No effort has been made to show that he
is not competent to attend to his own affairs, or manage his estate with prudence and
skill. The evidence has been confined to an investigation of his religious vagaries, and
an elucidation of various statements made at sundry times. He was not always choice in his
language when speaking of sectarian affairs, and, after his proselytism to Judaism, spoke
rather disrespectfully of the Christian religion and its mysteries. These freedoms of
language evidenced the strength of his opinions at the time they were uttered, and seem to
be natural with every convert, the enthusiasm of whom generally exceeds that of those
nurtured in all the principles of the faith.
The case itself is rather peculiar. The conversion of a Christian to
Judaism is uncommon; and, on the other hand, the proselytism of a Jew to Christianity is
nearly as rare. We do not understand why a person who, after investigation, turns to the
Israelitish faith, should not be permitted to do so without imputation of lunacy. We
suppose that, in the opinion of his relatives, his most grievous error was his last. They
could permit him to become Shaker, Millerite, or Mormon, without complaint, but when he
became a Jew, all confidence in his sanity was lost.
There are other views which might be considered in reference to this
matter. Mr. Cresson has considerable expectations, of which, if he is declared a lunatic,
he may be deprived. It is probably that the entire proceeding has its origin in this fact.
If a man is poor, he may change his faith every year; it will excite no resistance: but if
he has property which may be taken from him when the law declares him unable to manage it,
the interest of his relatives in the state of his mind is greatly increased. They watch
ever aberration; fearful, not that he will jeopardize the salvation of his soul, but that
he will mismanage his estate. Morgan Hinchman was subjected to a guardianship of this
kind; and if Orestes A. Brownson, who changes his religion every year, has not yet been
made the subject of a commission de lunatico inquirendo, it is probably because
his worldly means are not extensive. As regards Mr. Cresson, we wish him a safe
deliverance from the hands of the Philistines. He is undoubtedly somewhat visionary in his
ideas about religion, but what else ought we to expect from one who studies the
metaphysics of creeds? In a worldly point of view he appears intelligent, and able to
conduct his own affairs. We must protest against any weakening of the barriers
between sanity and insanity. All men have their eccentricities and
peculiarities--particularly in regard to religion and its ceremonies. If the mere fact
that a man who studies sectarian subjects changes his creed is to be taken as a proof of
madness, who shall pronounce of sound mind?
[From the Sunday Dispatch.]
LEGAL DECISIONS
Law, a sublime science: its perversions, and its cause--"A
respectability" Asylum--Sheriff's Jury--Case of Warder Cresson--Organic
Laws--"Pettifogging" minds.
Law is full of sublimity, because of its power. By extending to its
professors the attributes of the thing itself, Law has been styled a "sublime
profession"--thus confounding the essence with the shell, the nut with the burr that
surrounds it. Law, as an abstraction or a concretion, is always sublime, because
unalterable in its authority; but the profession of the Law is liable to variation, from
the degenerate, abject, and adulatory spirit of man, which too often sinks it to the level
of contempt, and seldom allows it to rise to a dignity that can inspire veneration.
Many causes conspire to derogate from the dignity of the legal profession;
among which, none has operated so perniciously as its contempt of truth and justice, by a
resort to quibbling, chicanery, trick, artifice, and consequently falsehood. It may be
said, this is the abuse of the profession. Granted. But is it not its general
character? If a man, who knowingly violates truth, cannot respect himself, how can others
respect him? There is no other foundation for self-respect, but truth. Try it.
Analyze your own feelings--examine those of others. A liar, a quibbler, or an equivocator,
always despises himself, and is still more despised by others. This feeling extends from
the Bar to the Bench, and gradually spreads its influence over the whole Court, infecting
the Jury box with practical Jesuitism, seducing the witnesses to commit perjury,
and worse than all, inoculating public opinion with the mental "smallpox"
of the Bar, in that virulent type that is certain to kill all honesty.
Want of Integrity is a natural child of this incestuous debauchery of the
Bar, with attributes that dishonor its fame, and deflect it from the course of justice,
till it becomes the pander of a knavery without a rival in the cells that Avarice fills
with victims, or Bribery empties of its subjects, through the pretence of a clemency that,
when traced to its source, is found to be the offspring of a "bribe," or a
flattery, or a cheat.
Blighted in its morals, decrepit in its impotence, ghastly in its putrid
corruption as the Bar is, still it has its ornaments, brighter by the contrast of the
darkness that surrounds them, and sweeter in perfume from the stench of the weeds in whose
company they flourish. But alas! how rare the examples! A Tilghman is a black
swan! A Coulter, a white raven! A Washington and a Marshall are the "rara
avis" of the profession.
It is one of the curses of false pride, common to all countries, but in an
eminent degree peculiar to us, to make the professions, especially that of Law, the refuge
of all who seek to acquire what they think they do not possess in a position of industry--"respectability;"
by which all fitness or qualification of intellect is sacrificed to a measure, account for
the lamentable fact that so little genius and talent is to be found at the Bar, now so
thronged by mediocrity in search of social elevation, so far as a "liberal
profession" can confer it. But this abuse is fast curing itself; for it must be
obvious that the very fact of making law a "refuge," or an "asylum,"
or a "respectability plaster," would necessarily deprive it of all power to
accomplish the object, by filling it with those who, by their own confession,
were not "respectable!" By the way, this word has become so equivocal, as to
make it doubtful whether it exalts or degrades. It was always of dubious meaning, and the
squabble to possess it has made it so soiled and tattered, that common sense is often
puzzles to recognize features that were almost more or less distorted by a queer grimace;
for, we have "respectable" scavengers, "respectable" play-actors, and
"respectable" parsons!
The stupidity that would consider Law as a profession more
"respectable" than farming, shoemaking, cabinet-making, or printing, is really
so transcendent, as to excite a compassion to tender as to border on contempt. In
"the good old times of Queen Bess," reading and writing were judged to be so
deficient in respectability, that genteel people never acquired both; and if some
nobleman could read, very few disgraced themselves by writing, which was
confined to a class of people considered as the lowest order. At this time, and
in this country even, "a clerk" is not considered "a gentleman," and
yet a Lawyer, who both reads and writes, the two most disrespectable vocations of
old times, is now put before all others, and the sons of good old mechanics and farmers,
who rank highest in "God's Peerage," are mad to climb up to the Bar,
that they may clutch a thumbful of "respectability." Fudge! What superlative
nonsense! What contemptible vanity! But out on it! What is it but substituting idle
rascality for honest industry? What is it but paying homage to the conceit of the coxcomb,
at the sacrifice of respect for labor? But, as we said just now, this folly is curing
itself; and the "starving point" to which legal respectability has been
reduced, is now fast thinning off the crowd, who once pushed and trampled down one another
in their scramble to get into the "Bar." One State has already
abolished all laws for the recovery of debt, thus bringing men down to the "cash in
hand" system of doing business, as John Randolph said, on the principle of "the
philosopher's stone;" and the time cannot be far distant when Pennsylvania will
follow so wise an example, by placing all credit on the voluntary basis, without legal
coercion to lead to the bloody-bond exactions of a heartless "Shylock,"
on a naked and penniless debtor.
From this cause, rather than any natural repugnance or antagonism between
genius and law, we find great paucity of talent at the bar, and consequently a lamentable
dearth of talent on the bench, which is supplied from those "learned in the
law," a term once pregnant with pithy meaning, implying sterling sense, profound
knowledge, and a vast grasp of comprehension, but now reduced to a superficial smattering
of "precedents," a propensity to quibble and joke, and the substitution of an
arbitrary will for the true and legitimate power of science, logic, and intellect.
The faculty of generalization is, if not innate, at least original, and
not to be acquired by study; and hence, it is a gift as rare as it is valuable; few minds
possessing the power to resolve details into principles, and apply principles to details.
A competent judge must possess the power of generalizing, or he becomes lost and confused
in the multiplicity of "precedents." A man of detail will make an excellent
mechanic, watchmaker, or jeweler; but make him a lawyer, and he sinks to a
"pettifogger;" make him a judge, and he stumbles among "precedents,"
precisely as a "blind horse" picks his way through a cypress swamp, stumbling,
splashing, and falling at every step--a wretched spectacle of abortive efforts.
The bar requires a master intellect. The smart young debater at a
club-room, fluent, voluble and ready, will naturally acquire enough conceit, from the
applause of small minds, to feel that he is destined to make a "great lawyer;"
but his want of faculty of generalization soon convicts him of a "great
mistake;" and if he attack himself to a political party, and in virtue of political
influence rises to the bench, he is certain to make his friends grieve, and his enemies
triumph.
Here we behold another of the curses of the whole American judiciary, in
that political influence which thrusts legal qualification aside, to "give a helping
hand" to partisan imbecility to rise on the bench. In Pennsylvania and Philadelphia,
this has been a fountain of poisoned waters to the cause of justice, and a stigma on the
whole character of the judiciary. The power of appointment by the Governor was too often a
burlesque on the whole bench, from this cause; and this abuse, so frequented and
pernicious, led to the new experiment, now to be tested at the polls, of an elective
judiciary by the people--an experiment that has one feature to recommend it, that it
establishes at once a political judiciary, and leaves us in no doubt that the
bench is occupied by politicians, and not judges. This is candid, honest, and, as the
sailor says, "above-board." On the old system of executive appointment,
political considerations were disclaimed, and yet we had none but political judges
appointed. Now, the people have the question fully before them; and, from the two
parties, a good selection may be made by the independent voters, who will look more to the
judicial qualification than to partisan bias.
Mr. Wm. Wilkins, the President of the Democratic Judicial Convention, made
a sad mistake when he slandered the Supreme Court as an "oligarchy" who had the
power to carry ruin and desolation to the fireside of the citizen; and that to elect the
judges was an awful duty, a most appalling event! How supremely ridiculous, as well as
unjustifiably wicked, thus to excite groundless fears, and sound a false alarm. The most
that an incompetent judge can do is to grovel in detail, like James Campbell, or
bluster in passion, like A.V. Parsons, whose caliber of intellect fit them for the details
of business or mechanics, but totally disqualify them for the bench. And Mr. Wilkins,
himself, is not of a higher school. The people of Pennsylvania may think slowly, but they
judge wisely, and act with discretion and sobriety; nor will they even sacrifice a great
public interest, or the cause of human rights, or the sacredness of justice, to partisan
passions or political views. They are moderate, prudent, and full of discretion; and to no
community could the election of the judiciary be so safely confided.
It must be confessed that the change is made at an eventful crisis, when a
transition of opinion to a new relation of property and wages is making an extensive
revolution in the sentiments of mankind. Yet a people as sedate as those of Pennsylvania
are not liable to be carried away by new-fangled doctrines, that would unhinge the ties of
social dependence and harmony. They will never elect to the judicial bench a Jack Cade,
reeking with vice, passion and licentiousness, or a Jeffries, festering with corruption.
No Pennsylvania will vote himself "to be hanged" without a fair trial, by voting
for a brute, a fool, or a rascal, as Judge on the bench. No Pennsylvanian is so besotted
as to vote for a dolt, or a bully, or a blackguard, though Governors have appointed
blackguards, bullies, and dolts. A party designation will give no idea of any quality of
head or heart, that ought to distinguish the man who gains a seat on the bench, no more
than "Puritan," or "Blackleg;" and notwithstanding a President and
Senate of the Unites States once appointed a man Chief Justice of the United States, because
he had "removed the deposits," even that precedent of servility to power will
not elevate a notorious fool to the bench of any court in the State of Pennsylvania--for
the honesty, as well as the intelligence of the people, is superior to that of any
President, or any Governor.
"Legal decisions," it is true, do not always rest with
judges; but too often bad judges usurp the rights of the jury, and nothing is ever lost,
but much gained, by having a good, learned, wise, and intelligent judge--the opinion of
Governors to the contrary notwithstanding.
In a transition state from the old dogmas of the "dark ages" to
a new era of human rights, half defined, and half to be battled for, do we not tread on
eventful times, in regard to legal decisions, when a popular judiciary is to come
to the bench on the waves and surges of controversies involving every vital element of
civilization? And this, too, amidst the workings of novel opinions, and the new ideas
eliminated by a popular system of universal education, fermenting the popular mind to a
more perfect development of all that contributes to a higher destiny of human enjoyment.
If all the past is to become "obsolete," because unjust, let not all the future
remain uncertain, because rational, truthful, and in accordance with human rights. We
believe the character of Pennsylvanians susceptible of impressions favorable to a learned
and wise popular judiciary. But the perils, to be avoided, must be foreseen. Onward,
but not downward, must be our course. We want judges for the whole people--not
for any class of interests. We want judges for the Constitution--not for
any separate, conflicting and selfish factions! We want judges for the general good and
public safety--not for any corporation power or legal cupidity; and by choosing the best
offered by both parties, we shall be certain to get them. Where, then, are the dangers of
a popular judiciary?
The low grade of talent, in general, at the bar, works for evil
every way. Our sheriffs must be men too popular to be talented--too clever to be
educated--too selfish to be just; and they must be guided by the counsel of imbecile,
ignorant, or venal lawyers. Now, the sheriff's jury, having the power to consign
a "sane man" to the mad-house, is of more importance than the judiciary
proper. We have seen it send Morgan Hinchman to the lunatic cells. It
also found a verdict against Warder Cresson as a lunatic! In both cases, the outside
jury," in concurrence with the "traverse jury" empanelled,
reversed the decision of the sheriff's jury, which is unquestionably the most unreal
mockery of justice to be found in any age or country, however barbarous and profligate,
ignorant or tyrannical.
The entire testimony against Warder Cresson was made to turn on
his change of religious opinions, which common sense decrees to be a matter
exclusively between a man and his God, and which all American constitutions, especially
that of Pennsylvania, guarantee as an inviolable right, above the persecution of
human bigotry, and outside the action of judicial power. In the force of popular prejudice
against a proscribed sect, lawyers and parties thought they beheld a certainty of
condemnation before any empanelled jury, who could be arraigned for lunacy on a
charge of having embraced the faith of the Jews! Nursery influences alone, they
cried out, would decide that question before a jury of Christians! And the calculation was
craftily enough built on a knowledge of the frail judgments and poisoned opinions of
twelve men under nursery influences, continued for eighteen centuries, and brought to bear
under the nose of a bigoted bench, should they prove so fortunate as to have a judge of that
character, to try the case; but in this hope they were, fortunately for Cresson and
the whole world--yes, they were sadly disappointed; for a sound lawyer, with strong
intellect, liberal principles, and an invincible devotion to constitutional guarantees,
happened to try the case, who stood in bold contrast to most of his colleagues, for all
the high qualities that distinguish the clear-headed jurist. The cause of the persecutors
of Warder Cresson who thought to be triumphant by the counsel opposed to him, who
forgot the outside jury in the vehemence of their zeal to divide "the
spoils," 'till Judge King, in his charge to the jury, told them in "downright
set terms," that they could not take into consideration any of the religious opinions
of the man, who was protected in his "rights of conscience" by the constitution,
and was, therefore, amenable for his religious opinions to no human authority. It fell
like a thunderbolt on the lawyers, the jury, and the court-room audience. What! A Jew
to have constitutional rights of conscience!--Vulgar bigotry stood appalled. Legal
rapacity looked "chapfallen," and the bronze visage of more than one member of
the bar fell abashed, even to the modesty of the virgin. What a magnificent edifice of
forensic eloquence fell in ruins to the ground, as the clear tones of the judge's voice
announced the awful decree from the consecrated pages of the constitution--a judge who, if
as honest as talented, would shine an ornament to the bench, with no superior but Richard
Coulter on the supreme bench--whose lucid power of generalization makes legal
principles clear as the noontide sun--whose ratiocination is of the highest order, and
whose logic is the "club of Hercules" against all sophists, prevaricators,
quibblers and punsters, who mistake shadows for substance, or confound fog with fire. Oh!
"the pride, pomp and circumstance," of glorious chicanery! What a fall was
there!--Had all the temple of avarice, indeed, melted into thin air? Even so. The great
mealy-mouthed orator had forgotten the constitution. By the way, how few pleaders
ever think of it; how many, alas! too many know nothing about it, and, as an Irish
barrister once said, "understand less."
The ignorance of the constitution is among the marvels of the bench, not
less than the bar. Minds fashioned for detail, and incapable of generalizing,
have a perfect horror of "organic law."--They delight in the
"rigmarole" of an act of Assembly covered up in dull, senseless verbiage, where
one eternal song synonymous lulls the ear into stupor, and confounds all meaning by a
multitudinous cacophony of synonyms run mad. They delight to revel in those balmy groves
of legislative nonsense, into which the sun of common sense never penetrates. But tell
them of the organic law, and they leap and jump with all the horrors of a
torpedo-bite. They can't understand how the constitution can override laws, nullify facts,
and make a man innocent, where their interest and eloquence would make him out guilty! Oh!
the agony of attempting to practice a profession, whose first principle cannot be
comprehended! Where are all the first principles of American law? Why,
"graybeards" will tell their students, in "Coke, Lyttleton, Blackstone,
et id omne genus!" What transcendent nonsense. No.--The first principles of
American law are to be found in the volume of American Constitutions, and nowhere
else.
Warder Cresson's triumph was a victory proclaimed for the whole
human race. It emancipated man forever from the legal tyranny of nursery superstitions, as
brought to bear upon legal decisions, involving personal liberty, the rights of property,
and the enjoyment of happiness. It expelled from courts of law all pleas grounded on
religious opinions. "No such issues shall ever defile judicial records,"
was written in letters of fire on the walls of the courts, and a loud huzza of victory
made the walls ring again, as the "outside jury" claimed to have defeated the
black letter tomes of dark ages, handed down to the light of 1851 by Coke, Lyttleton,
Blackstone, and their satellites, "wearing big wigs and black gowns."
Who will ask, after this, if legal decisions are of any
importance to the people? Who will contend, after this, that there ought not to be a
popular judiciary?
Now, it may have happened that, but for the "outside jury,"
of which the public press composes no inconsiderable part, Judge King, like his
colleagues, might have forgotten the "higher law" of the Constitution! All the
probabilities lean on that side; for judges, as well as lawyers, hate all constitutional
law, as an interference with their functions, and an abridgment of their power and
influence. A wit once said, "Any lawyer would rather be pelted with rotten eggs than
have the Constitution crammed down his voracious jaws."
[Communication.]
TRIAL OF WARDER CRESSON
Josiah Randall, Esq., placed this case in its true light on the argument
of a new trial, when he told Judge King that "if Mr. Cresson had been charged with
lunacy for joining any other religious society than the Jews, the case would have been
laughed and hooted out of the court."
We talk much about the inestimable value of the free exercise of our civil
and religious liberty, and that we ought to watch any encroachment upon those
privileges with the greatest jealousy; but in what way has Mr. Cresson been protected in
the constitutional exercise of his right?
When he found that it was impossible for him to harmonize or even
conciliate his religious belief with that of his family, he nobly gave them, by deed
of assignment, one-half of the mortgage of $5,320. This is confirmed by one of his
persecutors' own testimony, which is upon file in the Prothonotary's office. He says that
"Mr. Cresson offered to give them one-half of the mortgage and go to Jerusalem, but these
proceedings were instigated at the request of his family." What proceedings?
Charge of lunacy.
But why? Because they could only upon this ground deprive him of the whole
of his property; this is self-evident, because they already had in their possession the
"deed of assignment," which secured to them the one-half. This deed of
assignment they accepted of him, and had it acknowledged before a justice of the
peace, thus showing their belief of his most perfect sanity and capability of doing
business.
Really, when we dispassionately consider this case, we cannot possibly
conceive how it was ever permitted to enter our courts of justice at all.
It is a base proceeding, to take a perfectly sane man, after thus
openly acknowledging his sanity--it is an outrage to deprive him of all his property,
interest and principal, for more than two years, and endeavor to throw him upon an
unfeeling world as a lunatic, and consequently incapable of transacting any kind
of worldly business.
If Mr. Warder Cresson was really a lunatic, it was a visitation from an
Almighty power, over which he had not the least control; and if he was the "affectionate
husband and father," that all the opposite parties' testimony assures us he ever
had been, he was most undoubtedly deserving of tender and compassionate treatment from his
family.
They brought forward nine witnesses to prove his insanity; all of these
were interested but two or three. One of the latter, John DuBois, had not seen him but one
single hour since the year 1834, and then he had just put his son under his care and
tuition to learn farming. Mr. Cresson produced seventy-three of our most respectable
citizens, some of whom had known him for more than thirty years, and who solemnly
testified that he was a man of sound mind and understanding--of excellent abilities,
capable of transacting his worldly concerns, and of a moral character. Indeed, it is
remarkable, that not one charge of an immoral nature has been preferred against him, not
even by his most bitter persecutors.
In the course of David P. Brown's argument on part of his family, he said,
"That Mr. Cresson asserted that it was for the poor paltry sum of $5,320 that this
prosecution was instituted, but that was not the case, for if Mr. Cresson would only come
back to his family, they would all receive him with open arms."
How could they possible "receive with open arms" a lunatic?
We cannot conceive of any good reason. If it was not for the money, what was it
for?
"Oh," says Mr. Brown, "Mr. Cresson was deluded upon the
subject of religion, having changed his religious opinions five or six times."
Wherefore, then, desire him to come back to his family? To delude them, we
suppose. Admirable reasoning this.
And even supposing Mr. Cresson had been deluded upon the subject
of religion, is this the way to reclaim him?--to stigmatize and ruin his character by a
charge of lunacy, and thus deprive him of all means of obtaining subsistence, after taking
away all his property, principal and interest, from him, was leaving him but the
alternative to beg or steal.
If a person is so unfortunate as to be afflicted with a grievous and sore
headache, do you beat and inflict repeated wounds upon that man's head? Or if any person
is afflicted with sharp and acute pains of body, do you pinch, torture, and stick pins in
him to assuage his pains? Is this Christian philosophy? Why, then, treat a worthy citizen
in this way? Even if he were not made, is not such a treatment enough to make him do?
They charged him with being changeable, until they found that
nothing they could do would change him--neither the loss of wife, children, property,
social affection, starvation. Then they only wanted him to make one change more and come
back, and then, but not till then, he would be perfectly of sane and sound mind and
understanding.
They charged him with "wasting his property," but he made out
such a plain and uncontradictory statement that it could not be invalidated.
They then charged him with being very excitable. But after David
P. Brown using every means that laid in his power to excite him by ridicule,
misrepresentation, gestures, shaking, and vociferation, he then took the opposite tack,
saying, "One mark of insanity is, where persons are inveterate and callous to their
nearest friends. See that man through this whole trial, not one tear bedews his eye, nor
one muscle move his cheek." The victory was complete, for
Wickedness is weak, its power fails,
But justice is strong when truth prevails.
Mr. Cresson came out unscathed.
[From the Public Ledger, May 14.]
COMMON PLEAS, MAY 13.
FEIGNED ISSUES.--Warder Cresson's case, which was called up yesterday, was
opened this morning, and occupied the entire session. This is a case in which an issue is
formed, and now under trial before the jury to determine the question, whether Warder
Cresson is sound in mind or not, a commission of Lunacy having been taken out against him by
his wife. It is a case of considerable interest and of some importance.
The family of Mr. Cresson applied for a writ of lunacy on the ground that
he had become insane on the subject of religion, and
was not only incapable of managing his estate, but was in danger of sacrificing it
entirely to the gratification of an absurd zeal.
The principal part of the morning was employed in reading a number of
letters, by Mr. Cresson, during his visit to England and Jerusalem in 1844-45. The
case is still pending, and will probably occupy several days, as there is a large amount
of testimony to offer and several distinguished counsel concerned.
[From the Public Ledger, May 19.]
Warder Cresson's case, which was under trial all last week, was concluded
today. David Paul Brown, Esq., made an able speech in summing up the testimony, to prove
Mr. Cresson's Insanity and incapacity to manage his pecuniary affairs, quoting many of the
letters he had written from Jerusalem, which were, he said, of an extraordinary character,
and which he urged could not have been written by a sane mind.
Judge King made a brief but lucid charge to the jury, under which they
retired to deliberate upon their verdict. A short time after 3 o'clock* the jury returned
into court with a verdict in favor of the defendant, that is, deciding that Mr. Cresson
was of sound mind. David Paul Brown for the Plaintiff: Horatio Hubbel, Josiah Randall, and
Wm. Linn Brown, Esqs., for the defendant.
* The court adjourned at 3 o'clock, took their dinners, and
immediately returned with their verdict at about half after 3 o'clock.
[From the Public Ledger, May 22d, 1851.]
THE CRESSON CASE.--The verdict of the Jury in this case on a writ
"Lunatico Inquirendo," now so familiar to the people of Philadelphia, is of more
importance than its mere personal relations would imply, and sanctions a prominent
constitutional right of every republican citizen to exercise freedom of conscience,
without degradation to his liberty, property of life, or the impairment of his standing in
any position necessary to his happiness.
The decision is of vital importance, as settling forever that the
principle, that a man's "religion opinions" never can be made the test of his
sanity. This is American doctrine, as well as the dictate of reason, common sense, and
social happiness. Once admit the contrary, would not our courts be crowded with litigation
to some other sect, and of course leading to a system of persecution equal to any
contained in "the Book of Martyrs?" God save the "Trial by Jury," and
the habeas corpus, which ever day becomes more precious.
Now let the reader examine both sides of these impartial statements as they have
appeared in the daily papers, then let him look at unredeemed Humanity, and what a picture
of depravity here presents itself: here is a man's own Wife and Son, "Flesh of his
Flesh and Blood of his Blood," taking part with evil advisers, against
the Wife's own Husband, and the Son's own Father, who had been working hard for them day
and night for above twenty years, and who, they testified, "had always been a Kind
Husband, and Affectionate Father," until his change of Faith, and they
actuated
solely by a Religious Prejudice, and a most bitter enmity
and a desire to obtain his only half, and all that he had reserved to go quietly away
with, after he had first given them half.
Look at them, resorting to all the persecuting measures in their power,
first by endeavoring to deprive him of "Heaven's highest and noblest
gift," (Reason,) by swearing him to be a lunatic,
affirming to positive falsehoods, taking part of one action and
putting it to part of another action, that never occurred together; then exposing
detached parts of his most confidential letters in open
court, which are perfectly rational and instructive, when read consecutively,
as they were written.
Look at them, depriving him of all his capital and means of livelihood for yearly three
years. Good Heavens, what a Wife and what a Son! as strangers have repeatedly said; well
may Angels blush--most assuredly will the sting of self-conviction and
self-condemnation goad the consciences of his guilty persecutors.
I can appeal to Almighty God as truly as Abraham or Ruth did, that I never had any
other motive or object in connecting myself with the Jewish Church, but the love of Truth
and the Honor and Adoration that I owe to his ever exalted "Unity" as
the alone foundation of all strength. And although my persecutors tried hard to
condemn me upon the ground of mono-mania, let me inform them, there is no
mania or madness as bad as Poly-mania, or Poly-theism,
for that is rank idolatry and Insanity. One, is
the foundation of everything, of all numbers and of all numerical
value: without three ones, or two and a one, there can exist neither Trinity, nor
Triangle." There cannot exist any Alphabet without the one, which is
the Alpha, or the first, Greek letter.
And what sort of Book-keeping would it be, carried on upon the principle of "One
being Three," and "Three being one?" And
who would be willing to pay their money away, and give Three dollars for One, or who would
take One dollar for Three? Yet Christians' own Testimony declares "That the invisible
things of him (God) from the creation of the world, are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead."
Rom. i. 20.
Where now, Christians, is your TRINITY when clearly seen and understood
by the things that are made, for instance, by a system
of Book-keeping carried on upon the same principle that your Godhead is, that "One is
Three" and that "Three is One?" and because of this very great error all
the West will be condemned before the East, until you learn your first all-important
lesson, that one is only one; like the poor Book-keeper,
who had pursued the erroneous plan of "Three being One," you must go back and
start right. Where now is my Mono-mania, in stating the all-importance of
the Unity, or Oneness? and where now is your Poly-mania?
You cannot find a single science that can stand without the one, for its foundation;
neither can you find a single system that is correct, or can be built upon your "One
in Three," or "Three in One theory." Go then, as I have done, to the East
and learn Wisdom and First Principles, and you will find a Bank there
that will yet sap and undermine all the boasted
civilization and enlightenment of the West.
And if you can ever bring about that day that you have been so long praying for, When
"there shall be one Lord and his name One," (Zec. xiv. 9,) without the true
Theory that One is only One and no more, and
that too without strictly practicing it, then I will admit that you are
Sane and that I am Insane; that your Poly-Theism or Poly-Mania is perfect Sanity and
Truth, and that I am Insane in believing that One is only One, for what is Unity
but Oneness? and what is Oneness but Unity, Harmony, Peace, and Love?
|
