Kent said was the greatest effort Hamilton had ever made. "He had bestowed," said Kent, "unusual attention on the case, and he came prepared to discuss the points of law with a perfect mastery of the subject. There was an unusual solemnity and earnestness on his part in the discussion. He was, at times, highly impassioned and pathetic. His whole soul was enlisted in the cause. The aspect of the times was portentous, and he was persuaded that if he could overthrow the high-toned doctrine of the judge it would be a great gain to the liberties of this country. . . . The anxiety and tenderness of his feelings, and the gravity of his theme, rendered his reflections exceedingly impressive. He never before, in my hearing, made any effort in which he commanded higher reverence for his principles, nor equal admiration for the power and pathos of his eloquence." It is to be regretted that (Hamilton's speech, which lasted six hours has never been fully reported, although I am in possession of an incomplete report of the trial, which belonged to him, where but sixteen pages are devoted to his address.
the exclusive right of pronouncing upon the construction tendency and intent of the alleged libel, is calculated to render negatory the function of the Jury; enabling the Court to make a libel of any writing whatsoever the most innocent or commendable.
V. That it is the general rule of criminal law that the intent constitutes the crime and that it is equally a general rule, that the intent, mind or quo animo is an inference of fact to be drawn by the Jury.
VI. That if there are exceptions to this rule they are confined to cafes on which not only the principal fact but its circumstances can be and are specifically defined by Statute or Judicial Precedents.
VII. That in respect to libel there is no such specific and precise definition of facts and circumstances to be found; that consequently it is difficult if not impossible to pronounce that any writing is per se and exclusive of all circumstances libellous. That is libellous character must depend on intent and tendency the one and the other being matter of fact.
VIII. That the definitions or descriptions of libels to be found in the books predicate them upon some malicious or mischievous intent or tendency; to expose individuals to hatred or contempt or to occafion a disturbance or breach of the peace.
IX. That in determining the character of a libel the Truth or falsehood if in the nature of things a material ingredient though the truth may not always be decisive but being abused may still admit of a malicious and mischievous intent which may constitute a libel.
X. That in the Roman Law one fource of the doctrine of libel, the truth in cafes interesting to the public may be given in evidence. That the antient Statutes probably declaratory of the common make the falsehood an ingredient of the Crime; that andent precedents in the Courts of Justice correspond and that the precedents to this day charge a malicious intent.
XI. That the doctrine of excluding the truth as immaterial originated in a tyrannical and polluted fource, the Court of Star Chamber and that though it prevailed a considerable length of time yet there are leading precedents down to the Revolution and ever since in which a contrary practice prevailed.
XII. That the doctrine being against reason and natural justice and contrary to the original principles of the common law enforced by Statutory provisions, precedents which support it deserve to be considered in no better light than as malus ufus which ought to be abolished.
XIII. That in the general distribution of powers in our System of Jurisprudence the cognizance of law belongs to the Court, of fact to the Jury; that as often as they are not blended the power of the Court is absolute and exclusive. That in civil cafes it is always so and may rightfully be so exerted. That in criminal cafes the law and fact being always blended, the Jury for reasons of a political and peculiar nature, for the security of life and liberty, is entrusted with the power of deciding both law and fact.
XIV. That this distinction results:
1. From the ancient forms of pleading in civil cafes none but special pleas being allowed in matter of law, in criminal none but the general issue.
2. From the liability of the Jury to attain on civil cases and the general power of the Court, as its substitute in granting new trials and from the exemption of the Jury from attain on criminal cafes and the defect of power to control their verdicts by new trials; the theft of every legal power being its capacity to produce a definitive effect liable neither to punishment nor control.
XV. That in criminal cases nevertheless the Court are the constitutional advisers of the Jury in matter of law; who may compromise their consciences by lightly or rashly disregarding that advice; but may still more compromise their consciences by following it, if exercising their judgments with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the Court is wrong.
A part of Hamilton's time was devoted to land operations and litigation arising therefrom. His voluminous correspondence refers, not only to the establishment of the Ohio Company, but to the settlement of his own State. Much litigation, in which his father-in-law was concerned, had to do with Cosby's Manor, and with the lands originally granted to Sir William Johnson, or deeded to Robert Morris by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Sir William Johnson, who was so closely identified with the French and Indian wars, and who was such a power with the Indian "Six Nations," married one Catharine Wisenburgh, the daughter of a German emigrant. This was in 1739. Some years later he took into his house a squaw named "Molly" Brant, sister of the celebrated Mohawk Chief, Joseph Brant, or Thayendanega, with whom he seems to have spent a contented and happy life. By her he had eight illegitimate children. Many years afterward Hamilton was called upon to give an opinion regarding Sir William's will of which opinion this is a transcript:
I have examined that clause of the will of Sir William Johnson which contains a devise to his natural son, Peter Johnson, and also a subsequent clause which respects a devise over in case of the death of any of his eight natural children without issue, in connection with the fact stated to me that the said Peter died under age, unmarried and without issue, and thereupon I am of opinion that the survivors of the eight children were entitled to an estate of inheritance in the premisses before devised to the said Peter.
Alexander Hamilton,
January 25, 1796.
Toward the latter part of the year 1799, the citizens of New York were greatly excited by the discovery of the body of a young girl named Guilielma Sands, which was found in one of the wells of the Manhattan Company at the corner of Barclay and Prince Streets. She was fully dressed, and her muff was suspended from her neck. Guilielma was the niece of Elias Ring and his wife, quiet and respectable Quakers who lived in the upper part of Greenwich Street, who had several male boarders, among them one Levi Weeks. It was known that she was engaged to Levi, who was the brother of a prosperous builder named Ezra Weeks, who constructed many important buildings in the city of New York, among them the present City Hall, and later, Hamilton's country house, known as The Grange.
Levi lived, at first, with his brother at the corner of Harrison and Greenwich Streets, and afterward boarded with the Rings. For some days after the murder, which took place between eight and nine o'clock on the night of December 22, 1799, no clew could be obtained as to the identity of the murderer, but finally Weeks was arrested and indicted. He was in every way an exemplary young man, and the girl's relatives were loath to believe him guilty; nevertheless, suspicion pointed very strongly, at least, to his knowledge of the fate of Guilielma, if he himself was not actually the murderer. It was known that she was last seen with him upon the night of her death, and their voices were heard in the hallway of the Ring house shortly before she left, never to return. He was almost distraught, but could give no explanation of what had occurred. The girl's body, when found, bore abrasions, but no indication of strangulation or other violence. After his arrest Weeks engaged Hamilton and Aaron Burr, who were associated with Brockholst Livingston in the trial, while the prosecution was represented by Assistant Attorney-General Cadwalader Colden. The case was tried at the old City Hall, formerly the Federal Hall, at the north-east corner of Wall and Nassau Streets, and the site of the present Sub-Treasury building, before Mr. Justice John Lansing, the then Mayor Richard Varick, and the Recorder Richard Harrison.
The trial was exceedingly sensational and, if anything, attracted more attention than any recent proceeding. It began Tuesday, March 31,