Complete Works. Hamilton Alexander
Читать онлайн книгу.
and as such was taxed at three hundred and twenty-five dollars, and the tax being unpaid he entered and took the silver coin in question in the nature of a distress for the same. The Theatre and appurtenances upon which the tax was laid and levied was, in fact, not the dwelling house for any person whatever, but a Theatre for the exhibition of dramatic performances, but by mistake it was inserted in the list of dwelling houses by the assessor."
Hamilton was employed on the 12th of May, 1789, by Dr. P. J. More, of Charleston, to collect a bill against a Mr. John Tayleur, who formerly kept a jeweller's shop in Queen Street, near the Coffee House, New York. Hamilton's name had been suggested to the plaintiff by Mr. Pringle, and he was urged to make the absconding patient pay his bill, "and to have no indulgence for a Man so faithless."
Certainly the doctor was most liberal with his patient, for he had agreed to furnish all medicine, and that he should not be paid anything at all if he failed to cure Mr. Tayleur, and even if he did cure him he was to be paid only ten guineas at once, and ten guineas more six months after.
One of the doctor's chief grievances was that the patient owed "hard specie" and he had paid him a part of it. His fear was that he might take advantage of the circulation of paper money and discharge the rest of his obligation in depreciated currency.
The doctor informed Hamilton that Tayleur "had acknowledged himself that his disorder had already costed him about £200 sterling; I thought I had," he said, "to deal with an honest Man. I did not hurry him for the payment. It was only Eight days after his departure but I was informed that it was not the first French leave he had been guilty of. If I had known it sooner I would have dealt with him quite in another manner, but I took him to be an honest man and would never have mentioned the nature of his disorder if he had acted as such. After you received the payment, you'll be so Kind as to take your due; and send me the ballance. You will be so good as to Observe that in New York it is hard Specie and here paper medium."
One of Hamilton's official acts when Secretary of the Treasury was, in 1794, to propose a tax on carriages, which afterward became a law, and its enforcement was opposed on the ground that it was a direct tax and, therefore, unconstitutional. Madison, who was then in the House, bitterly fought the proposed measure. Later Hylton, a Virginian, brought suit in the Supreme Court to determine its legality. Hamilton, who appeared with the Attorney-General and Charles Lee, warmly defended the constitutionally of the law, and after an eloquent speech was upheld by the Court, who decided that the carriage duty was an excise and not a direct tax. There seems to have been some friction in the Supreme Court, for the Chief Justice and Justice Gushing did not sit in the case, and Justice Wilson gave no reasons for the opinion of the Court. William Bradford, the Attorney-General, subsequently wrote to his friend Hamilton as follows:
William Bradford to Alexander Hamilton
Philadelphia, Aug. 4, 1795.
My dear Sir: The record of the proceedings in the case relating to the Carriage Tax is not yet returned—but I expect it this week. I learn, however, that Taylor, who has published his speech, has advised the defendant to make no further argument and to let the Supreme Court do as they please,—and that in consequence of this advice no counsel will appear in support of the writ of Error. I have desired that the District Attorney would take measures to counteract this manœuvre—which is of a piece with the rest of Taylor's conduct. Having succeeded in dividing the opinions of the Circuit Court, he wishes to prevent the effect which a decision of the Supreme Court on full argument would have and perhaps by the circulation of his pamphlet in the mean time to indispose the people of Virginia to paying the next annual Duty on their carriages.—If the Defendant persists in pursuing this advice, I presume your attendance will not be necessary; for in such case I would think it most advisable to submit the cause to the court upon the two arguments that have been already made. That of Mr. Wickham's has arrived in manuscript; that of Taylor we expect by the next post.—I will take care however to apprise you as soon as the record arrives what is to be expected.
In consequence of the situation of things and some new occurrences, it has been thought advisable to request the President to return to Philadel.—He is expected to be here next week.—
The crazy speech of Mr. Rutledge joined to certain information that he is daily sinking into debility of mind and body, will probably prevent him to receiving the appointment I mentioned to you. But should he come to Philad for that purpose, as he has been invited to do—especially if he should resign his present office—the embarrassment of the President will be extreme—but if he is disordered in mind in the manner that I am informed he is,—there can be but one course of procedure.—I write in great haste & can only add that I am with great regard
Your friend, &c
Wm. B.
Chapter VII
Hamilton, The lawyer (Concluded)
The case by which Hamilton is best known, because of its national importance, was that of the People vs. Croswell, which, to a great extent, established the present law of libel in the United States.
Croswell was the editor of a small newspaper called the Wasp, which he published at Hudson, New York. He subsequently edited the Balance, which was continued after Hamilton's death.
In the issue of September 9, 1802, he republished with comments an article, originally written by John Holt and published in the New York Evening Post, which reflected upon Thomas Jefferson. The objectionable matter was this: "Holt says the burden of the Federal Song is that Jefferson paid Callender for calling Washington a traitor, a robber, a perjurer; for calling Adams a hoary-headed incendiary and for most grossly slandering the private characters of men he well knew were virtuous. These charges not a democratic Editor has yet dared or ever will dare to meet in an open and manly discussion."
Callender, the person referred to, was the editor of The Prospect Before Us, published in Richmond, Virginia, and at the time he was constantly engaged in most intemperate abuse of the Federalists—and Washington, Hamilton, and others were the particular victims of his enmity; in fact he, like Freneau, was an instrument of Jefferson, and there is no doubt but that he was engaged by the latter, as has been fully proved, to libel Washington and Adams.
Croswell was arrested, arraigned, and tried at Claverack, New York, before Chief Justice Morgan Lewis, on July ii, 1802, and convicted in spite of the fact that he had announced his inability to proceed without the presence of Cal-lender, who was a material witness, and he had expected to prove by the latter the truth of the charge as set forth in the indictment—to wit: that "Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States, well knowing the contents of the said publication, called The Prospect Before Us, paid or caused to be paid to the said James Thompson Callender the two several sums of fifty dollars, one of which it seems was paid prior to the publication of the said pamphlet for the purpose of aiding and assisting him, the said Thompson Callender for the publication thereof, and the other subsequently thereto as a reward, etc."
Things looked very black for Croswell, as the judge on the bench and every one in power were Democrats and supporters of Jefferson, and prejudiced to the last degree. Even the sheriff and grand jury were of this political complexion, and were determined, not only to punish the prisoner, but, if possible, to silence the active and annoying portion of the Federal press that had done so much, up to that time, to make them uncomfortable. Judge Lewis held that the English law laid down by Lord Mansfield, to the effect that the "jury were judges only of the fact, and not of the truth or intent of the publication," this decision being in distinct opposition to the precedent fixed by the Zenger trial (the defendant also being an editor and being defended by another Hamilton'), left no other alternative but a conviction. In fact, no one could have been treated more unjustly than the unfortunate Croswell.
He had appealed to Hamilton to defend him, but the latter at first could not free himself from his other engagements to be present at the trial; subsequently, however, he argued a motion before the Court of Errors at Albany in a manner which Chancellor