Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/716

 682

The Green Bag

cussing the fruits of the Constitutional convention which, a short time before, had met at Philadelphia. In the former

the

Phillips case, as the reader will

see from the record, there is not one

word of this eloquent invective that is

Mr. Henry took a leading part as an

consistent with facts.

advocate of the rights of the state of Virginia with reference to the union of the thirteen colonies then forming a

case still more strange is that Mr. Ran dolph, at the happening of the occur rence to which he refers, held both the

federation, in which he was opposed in debate by Mr. Randolph; and in the course of that debate occurred one of the most singular instances of the fallacy

position of clerk of the house, and

of human memory, namely, relative to

that the bill of attainder had not been

the Phillips case, ten years before. Mr.

founded on report, but on a communica tion of the Governor, enclosing a letter

Randolph, in answer to Mr. Henry's

eulogies upon the constitution of his own state, brought to the fore that case in the following manner :— There is one example of this violation [of the state constitution] in Virginia, of a most striking and shocking nature; an example so horrid, that if I conceived my country would passively permit a repetition of it, dear as it is to me, I would seek means of expatriating myself from it. A man, who was then a citizen, was deprived of his life thus: From a mere reliance on general reports, a gentleman in the house of delegates informed the house, that a certain man [Josiah

What makes this

Attorney-General of the commonwealth; in the ﬁrst character, he had, only ten

years before, been officially informed

of the commanding oﬁicer of the militia in the section which was being devas

tated by Phillips; that that letter in proper form had been referred to the Whole House on the State of the Com monwealth, whose resolutions led to the bill in question; and that the bill, instead

of being read three times in one day, had been regularly, and according to the forms of the House, read on three sev eral days; while in his character as

Attorney-General he had himself drawn

no sooner did he obtain it, than he drew from

the indictment and prosecuted Phillips for highway robbery-confronted him with the witnesses, whose names are given at the foot of the indictment, indorsed in Mr. Randolph's own hand

his pocket a bill ready written for that eﬁect;

writing; convicted him on that charge, on

it was read three times in one day, and carried to the senate; I will not say it was passed the same day through the senate, but he was attainted very speedily and precipitately, without any proof better than vague reports! Without being confronted with his accusers and witnesses, without the privilege of calling for evidence in his behalf, he was sentenced to death, and was afterwards actually executed. Was this arbitrary de privation of life, the dearest gift of God to man, consistent with the genius of a republican government? Is this compatible with the spirit of freedom? This, sir, has made the deepest impression in my heart, and I cannot contemplate it without horror.

which charge alone Phillips was exe outed. In justice, however, to Mr. Randolph, it behooves me to say that not only he, but others connected with the case in various capacities, even Mr. Henry, pro ceeded in their several criminations and

Phillips] had committed several crimes, and

was running at large perpetrating other crimes; he, therefore, moved for leave to attaint him; he obtained that leave instantly;

Now, by turning to the facts

of

defenses

upon

the

admission

that

Phillips had fallen a victim to the bill of attainder. Therefore, it is extraordi

narily singular that such a lapse of memory, of the principal participants in the proceedings and trial of one of the most noted cases of that day, should have prevailed.