900 Slide – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

860 X. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS,

opinion given by the court I understand to be, that evidence
cannot be produced by the traverser to prove the truth of a
part of a charge; but if evidence could be adduced to prove
the whole, then such evidence would be admissible. One
specific charge is twofold; that the President is an aristocrat;
and that he proved serviceable to the British interest. The
evidence, we suppose, will support this charge; we wish to
prove the truth of the whole charge if we can, though I do
not know that it is in our power. The evidence, we have
reason to believe, goes first to prove that he is an aristocrat,
and secondly, that be did prove serviceable to the British in-
terest; if the testimony will in fact prove these two points,
whatever may be the opinion of the court, I do not hesitate
to say that, in my estimation, it will fully excuse and justify
the traverser; if we can prove that the President has avowed
aristocratieal sentiments in conversation, and that he did in
reality prove faithful and serviceable to the British interest,
the traverser must be acquitted of this charge. As to the
first part I can prove by the words of Mr. Adams, published
by himself, in his book called a Defense of the American Con-
stitution, that he thinks a government of three parts, a king,
lords and commons, the best in the world. Suppose, in addi-
tion to this, it could be proved that a law passed the House
of Representatives of the United States, to sequester British
property; and suppose that one-half the Senate of the United
States were in favor of it; and that the policy of passing the
law was advocated by the best and wisest men in this coun-
try, who have the same pretensions to patriotism and virtue
that Mr. Adams has, but that its passage was prevented by
the casting vote of Mr, Adams as speaker of the Senate,
would not the traverser be justified as to this charge? Would
it not demonstrate that he proved serviceable to the British
interest? By the answers to the first and third questions we
expect to prove both these pointa.

Mr. Nelson objected to the introduction of such testimony,
as being altogether inadmissible; that gentlemen ought to re-
fleet that, if such evidence ss this was to be received, any