I 
 
 5726 
 r86 
 
Cornell University Law Library 
 
 The Moak Collection 
 
 PURCHASED FOR 
 
 The School of Law of Cornell University 
 
 . And Presented February 14, 1893 
 
 IN HEnORY OF 
 JUDGE DOUGLASS BOARDMAN 
 
 FIRST DEAN OF THE SCHOOL 
 
 By his Wife and Daughter 
 A. M. BOARDMAN and ELLEN D. WILLIAMS 
 
Cornell University Library 
 KFN5726.P86 
 
 Breach of p 
 
 i 
 
 IvJIeae :The matter of Hon. 
 
 3 1924 022 787 125 
 
The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924022787125 
 
STATE OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Ilff ASSESMBLY. 
 
 BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. 
 
 INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIAEY 
 
 5^ AND 
 
 Limitation of Legislative Power. 
 
 ARGUMENT 
 
 Hon. PLATT POTTER 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT. 
 
 ^ APPROVED BY THE ANNEXED OPINIONS OF 
 DISTINGUISHED JURISTS, STATESMEN 
 AND MEMBERS OF THE, BAR. 
 
 JUBIlISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE BAR. 
 
STATE OF NEW YORK. 
 
 IN ASSEMBLY. 
 
 BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. 
 
 THE MATTEE OF HON. H. EAT. 
 
 * ARGUMENT 
 
 OF 
 
 Hon, PLATT PQTTER 
 
 JUSTICE OF THE STTPBEME COUET. 
 
 THE CASE OF A HIGH BREACH OF PRIVILEGE 
 
 'OF THE HONORABLE THE ASSEMBLY OF THE 
 
 STATE OP NEW YORK, AND ITS RESULT. 
 
 Namerous and material errors and omissions appearing In the newspaper 
 report of the argument of Judge Pottbb, at the special request of members 
 of the bar In the counties of Rensselaer Saratoga, Montgomery and Schen- 
 ectady, he has consented to its publication, corrected from the steno- 
 graphers' notes and the manuscript. 
 
 ALBANY: 
 
 PBINTINS HOUSE or CHAHliESVAN BENTHUYSBN 4 SONS. 
 1870. 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE HON. PLATT POT- 
 TER, WHO APPEARED AT THE BAR OF THE 
 ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 
 ON THE i6th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1870. 
 
 THE CASE. 
 
 On the 20th day of , January, 1870, a subpoena requiring 
 one Henry Kay t » appear and testify as a witness in a cer- 
 tain criminal proeeeding then pending before the Grand 
 Jury at the Saratoga Oyer and Terminer, was issued under 
 the authority of the Court ; (the Hon. Piatt Potter, a justice 
 of the Supreme Court, presiding,) was duly served on said 
 Ray at the city of Albany. He refused to obey the man- 
 date of the subpoena on the ground of his piimlege as a 
 Member of the Assembly of the State of New York. Win- 
 son B. French, Esquire, the District Attorney of Saratoga 
 county, then applied to the Court for an attachment against 
 said Ray for such disobedience, which was granted by the 
 Court, aud upon which attachment Ray was arrested by the 
 officer, taken before the Grand Jury and required to testify, 
 and upon whose testimony an indictment was found for 
 false pretences against the person charged. 
 
 The attachment directed the officer to serve the same by 
 producing the body of said Kay before the Court. 
 
 The officer proceeded to Albany on the morning of the 
 21st, and arrested Mr. Ray at his lodgings. Ray pleaded 
 to the officer his privilege, and refused to go. The officer 
 
then gave him to know that he would take him by force. 
 Kay then, under protest, submitted himself to the arrest, 
 and went as commanded. 
 
 The arrest of Mr. Eay being communicated to the House 
 ot Assembly, it created great exciterhent in that body. 
 It became the subject of much and spirited debate. It was 
 regarded as a question involving a high breach of privilege 
 of the House, and an insult to their dignity, and was finally 
 referred to the Committee on Grievances, for grave consid- 
 eration. 
 
 The Committee on Grievances was composed of seven 
 memberSj probably the most experienced of the members of 
 the House. The Hon. Thomas C. Fields was chairman.* 
 
 This Committee, after thorough inquiry and full consider- 
 ation for about three weeks, presented an elaborate report 
 of the tacts iand circumstances of the case, of the effect of 
 the act upon the character and dignity of the House, — of 
 encroachment upon legislative rights, of the law of parlia- 
 mentary privilege as it was understood by the Committee, 
 and of the danger to the public interests if the precedent, 
 coming from such a source, should pass without public 
 rebuke. The report was signed by all the Committee, and 
 concluded as follows : 
 
 " Finally, your Committee, in full view of the facts, and 
 after a full consideration of the law and precedent govern- 
 ing cases of this kind, have come to the conclusion that the 
 arrest of tbe Hon. Henry Ray on January 21, 1870, a 
 member of the Assembly from the first district of the 
 county of Ontario, on an attachment issuing out of the 
 Court of Oyer and Terminer then being held in the county 
 of Saratoga, of which the Hon. Piatt Potter was presiding 
 
 * The names of the Committee, except the chairman, are omitted. The 
 chairman, (who was then called the leader of the House, as well as a greatly 
 aggrieved sufferer in dignity and character), was the notorious Thomas C. 
 Fields, a co-conspirator and able assistant of the noted Wm. M. Tweed, 
 (then the leader of the Senate). Fields has nearly ever since been abroad, a 
 fugitive from justice, not daring to return to the jurisdiction of the Courts, 
 and to the constituency he had grossly defrauded. 
 
Ill 
 
 justice, was a high breach of the privilege of this House by 
 the said Potter, and deserves the censure of this House. 
 
 "Your Committee respectfully submit the following 
 resolution : 
 
 " Jiesolved, That the Hon. Piatt Potter, Justice of the 
 " Supreme Court of the fourth judicial district, be sum- 
 " moned and required to appear before the bar of this 
 " House for a high breach of its privilege, in issuing an 
 " attachment for the arrest of the Hon. Henry Ray, a Mem- 
 " ber of Assembly of the State of New York from the first 
 " district of the county of Ontario ; and that the House will 
 " then and there take such action as the House in its jndg- 
 " ment may see fit." 
 
 A similar resolution was passed in relation to Winsor B. 
 French, District Attorney, who applied for the attachment, 
 and Elisha D. Benedict, the Deputy Sheriff who executed 
 it, " to appear and receive such punishment as the Mouse 
 " in its judgment shall see fit to administer y 
 
 The notice to appear at the bar of the House and answer 
 was served upon the Judge, on the 14:th day of February, 
 1870, only two days before the time appointed for hearing.* 
 
 *Though the learned Committee of the House in their report claimed to 
 exercise the power to punish for a contempt of their high privileges, based 
 upon the authority of the rules of the House of Commons of English Parlia- 
 ment of a date as far back in the past as in the year 1757, (which was called 
 the Long Parliament) they entirely omitted to cite one noted case in that 
 same year, in that House; this was the arraignment for contempt of the 
 sturdy Welch Judge, named David Jenkins, for some offence against the 
 dignity of that House. It was the custom of that body to compel those 
 arraigned for contempt, to "kneel meekly to receive their sentence.'' The 
 sturdy Judge, instead of complying with this humiliating order, talked back, 
 in this style, " Mr. Speaker," (said he) "since you and this House have 
 " renounced all your duty and allegiance to your sovereign and liege lord, 
 " the King, and are become a den of thieves, should I bow myself in this 
 " house of Rimmon, the Lord would not pardon me in this thing." Of 
 course, such unexpected insult and defiance, created an uproar. The 
 dignity of the House was outraged, twenty members were on their feet to 
 speak at once; they voted the malignant guilty of treason, and lentenced 
 him to death, without any further trial. But the stubborn judge still talked 
 back; addressing the Speaker, he said, " I will go to the gallows with 
 
IV 
 
 The following are the proceedings in the case : 
 
 " Bracton on my left shoulder, the statutes at large on my right, and the 
 " Bible round my neck; these books, having been my counsellors, shall 
 " hang with me." 
 
 This conduct though not perhaps justifiable or commendable, was the 
 result of an attempt to humiliate a Judge. Jenkins somehow escaped, fled 
 the realm, and was not executed — (See Townsend's History of the House of 
 Commons^ 
 
 Nor did this Honorable Committee refer to another case in that body 
 about the year 1761, which was that of Alexander Murray, (brother of Iiord 
 Eubank) who was called up to receive sentence of committal to Newgate, 
 for the utterance of some words charged to be a contempt, though he abso- 
 lutely denied the speaking of them. When he appeared at the bar of the 
 Hou.-.e, he was commanded to kneel; he replied, " Nothing on earth would 
 "induce me to submit to such an inHignity." Whereupon the House 
 resolved, "that Alexander Murray having in a mosi insolent and audacious 
 " manner at the bar,*' absolutely refused to bend upon ^^ his knees is guilty of 
 ' ' a most high and dangerous contempt of the authority and privilege of this 
 "House." The trouble, however, remained: Wnat should be done with 
 the rebel ? The outrage upon Judge Jenkins, above cited, had been greatly 
 condemned in public opinion. The House dare not therefore condeniti him 
 to death. The Speaker insisted that such insubordination must receive 
 exemplary punishment, or all authority would be at an end. 
 
 He was sentenced " to solitary confinement in Newgate without the use 
 " of pen, ink or paper." Public opinion was aroused by these acts of the 
 House of Commons to such an extent, that in 1772, " kneeling" by a stand- 
 ing order of the House, was abolished. These cases are referred to here, 
 only, to show the danger of confiding to a single body of men acting together 
 in a spirit of excitement, as Judge Story says, in the right to adjudge 
 " r esprit du corps," as to their own privileges; to become party, accusers, 
 witnesses, and judges, and with unlimited power as to the extent and form 
 of punishment. The existence of legislative privilege exercised within 
 restricted limits of the constitution and statute, is not denied. 
 
On the 14th day of February, 1870, the Hon. Piatt 
 Potter had served upon him, by the Sergeant-at-Arms 
 of the Assembly, the following notice and resplu- 
 tions : 
 
 State of New York, 
 In Assembly. 
 
 Albany, Feb. 11, 1870. 
 Hon. Platt Potter : 
 
 Sra — This day the Assembly of the State of New York, passed the 
 following resolutions : 
 
 Resolved, That the Hon. Platt Potter, Justice of the Supreme 
 Court of the Fourth Judicial District, be .summoned and required to 
 appear before the bar of this House, for a high breach of its privilege 
 ' in issuing an attachment for the arrest of the Hon. Henry Ray, a 
 Member of the Assembly of the State of New York, from the first dis- 
 trict of the county of Ontario ; that the House will then take such 
 action as the House in its judgment may see fit. 
 
 Hesolved, That Hon. Platt Potter, residing in the city of Schenec- 
 ' tady, in the State of New York, be and he is hereby ordered to attend 
 at the bar of this House, on the 16th day of February, inst., at 12 m., 
 at which time he will have opportunity to make explanation of his 
 conduct in issuing the attachment for the arrest of Hon. Henry Ray, 
 a member of this House ; and this Assembly will then proceed to take 
 further orde^ on the subject. •* 
 
 By order of the Assembly, 
 
 0. W. ARMSTRONG, 
 
 Clerk. 
 
At 12 o'clock at noon of the 16th day of February, 
 Judge PoTTEK appeared at the bar of the Assembly 
 Chamber, when the Speaker addressed hhn as follows : 
 
 Mr. Platt Pottee, — You have been summoned to the 
 bar of the Assembly of the State of New York, for a 
 high breach of its privileges, in issuing the attachment 
 under which the Hon. Henky Rat, a member of this 
 House from the First district of Ontario county, was 
 arrested and taken from his duties as a member of this 
 House, and conducted to Ballstou Spa, in the county of 
 Saratoga, there to testify before a Grand Jury of the 
 Court of Oyer and Terminer, of which court you were 
 the presiding Justice. What have you to say in excuse 
 for your conduct in the premises ? 
 
 Mr. Potter inquired if the pi'esence of his counsel 
 would be permitted. [Mr. W. A. Beach.J 
 
 Mr. Fields stated that the presence of counsel is un- 
 usual. 
 
 The Speaker declined to accede to the request. 
 
 Judge Potter : Then I will speak for myself ; and 
 proceeded as follows : 
 
 Mr. Speaker : I appear in obedience to the resolution 
 and order of this honorable body, to give such explana- 
 tions as I am permitted, in relation to what is assumed 
 to be a high breach of privilege in causing the arrest of 
 an honorable member of this House. 
 
 In thus appearing, sir, I do not acknowledge the power 
 of this.House — I do not acknowledge the authority of 
 this House to call me to any account whatever ; and 
 coming here by courtesy — only out of respect to this 
 House, I proceed to make such statements as I am per- 
 mitted to make by this honorable House, without waiv- 
 ing the objection, which, by counsel, I am advised I 
 might make, and decline to appear here at all by any 
 authority that this House may have over me. 
 
 And while I stand here, thus giving all respect to this 
 
high department of the State Government, I also stand 
 here to protest agaiuKst the legal right — against the legal 
 authority of this body, to call in question my judicial 
 acts performed within the sphere of the judicial depart- 
 ment of this same government, in which I have the honor 
 to hold a place. 
 
 I claim, sir, that the judicial department of this 
 government is entrusted with an equal portion of the 
 sovereign power of the State ; that it is possessed of 
 equal dignity with any other ; that it is a department 
 whose powers are co-ordinate and co-extensive with, and 
 entirely independent of, the legislative power. That, to 
 be sovereign and independent, when acting within its 
 proper sphere, there must exist no other or higher tri- 
 bunal to call them to account for their independent ac- 
 tion. I protest, and claim, sir, that there is no way 
 known to the Constitution or laws of this State by which 
 a Judge can be called to account, be tried, degraded, or 
 the dignity of the judicial office impaired, except by the 
 only method known to the Constitution, by way of im- 
 peachment for corruption in office. Of this there is no 
 pretence here. 
 
 I am not called here, sir, as an individual, to answer 
 for an individual offence. No, sir, this case assumes 
 vastly greater proportions and magnitude than that. Sir, 
 I come as a Justice of the Supreme Court of New York; 
 as one representing the judicial department of the State, 
 to defend my judicial action. In speaking in their de- 
 fence, common propriety demands that I should speak 
 with all respect to this honorable body ; duty to my 
 department equally demands that I, as their representa- 
 tive, should speak with boldness of defence as if that 
 whole body were here speaking to an equal. Sir, with 
 all respect, I deny the power ; I deny the legal, the 
 constitutional power of this House to call my judicial 
 acts in question. 
 
6 
 
 I protest in the name, and as the representative, of the 
 judicial department, to the exercise or to the attempted 
 exercise of such a power by this House. I protest in 
 the name of the sovereign people of this State ; I pro- 
 test in behalf of the constitutional independence of the 
 judicial department, against the power of this House to 
 punish by censure or otherwise, the individual, for acts 
 performed while exercising the functions of a magistrate 
 of the highest court of original jurisdiction of this State. 
 
 Sir, I should be a traitor to the interests, to the dig- 
 nity, to the sacred character of the judicial department, 
 to its independence, to the right to protection, if by any 
 act of mine, ot by passive submission, I should consent 
 to the aggressive assumption of power which proposes 
 to strike so deadly a blow at their independence ; nay, 
 if I did not with boldness, with fearlessness of conse- 
 quences to myself, protest, solemnly, earnestly protest, 
 against a proceeding so calculated, in its effect, to over- 
 awe them in the exercise of their duties, and thus to 
 destroy their independence. 
 
 Sir, if this measure shall be carried out upon the 
 assumed powers of this House, what is left of character or 
 of independence to the judicial department? If one 
 department of this government possess the power to com- 
 mand obedience of another of co-extensive and equal 
 power ; if the legislative can usurp the authority to hold 
 in awe, or punish, the judicial, then indeed have we a 
 despotism, and not a government of freedom. If for an 
 official, if for a judicial act of a Judge, this House pos- 
 sess the power to punish, even for mistaken judgment, 
 where is the boasted protection to an independent judi- 
 ciary ? Where will there be found a spirit craven enough 
 to accept a place on the judicial bench ? 
 
 Sir, allow me to say that, in my opinion, it will be a 
 sad day for this republic ; a sad day for the liberties of 
 this people, when such a doctrine shall be established. 
 
With what offense, then, am I charged ? Not with 
 having acted cOrruptly ; but that, as a Judge, acting 
 officially, acting in the discharge of a high and solemn 
 duty imposed by the Constitution and laws of this State, 
 which I have sworn to support and obey, I had the in- 
 dependence, nay, if you please, the daring, to pronounce 
 the law, as I understood it then, and as I understand it 
 now ; yea, more, I feel bound to say here, before this 
 high tribunal, now, in full view of all the terrors of its 
 threatened power, with all the power which it may deem 
 in its power to exert, that as I still understand the law 
 of privilege in this State, were I called upon to-morrow 
 to act again as I acted in this case, as I feel responsible 
 to God only for its conscientious performance, I should 
 repeat the act for which I am now called upon to explain, 
 regardless of any action this House shall take in this 
 matter. 
 
 My offence, then, is that in so pronouncing the law, I 
 have differed in opinion with the honorable committee ; 
 perhaps with the whole House. A high offence, indeed I 
 But, sir, I have committed no contempt. No contempt 
 has been committed. As a judicial officer in so acting, 
 I could commit no contempt for which I could be held 
 responsible. It is not the individual who is before you, 
 whose acts you propose to punish by censure or other- 
 wise, that has committed any act whatever. It is a High 
 Court of this State that performed the act ; yes, sir, it 
 is a High Court that has committed the sin; and the the- 
 ory of this -proceeding is, that the individual who at the 
 time was clothed by the Constitution and laws with the 
 power to execute the sovereign will ; he who was the 
 mere minister of justice, acting according to his solemn 
 sworn convictions; executing not his own, but the Peo- 
 ple's will, that is to be humiliated, threatened, overawed, 
 for daring to do his constitutional duty. 
 
 Sir, a case like this is unheard of. It is an anomaly 
 in this ; it is an anomaly in any and every civilized 
 
government upon the earth. Yes, sir, it was reserved 
 for this honorable House, in the j'ear 1870, to initiate 
 such a proceeding. It is an anomaly in every step of 
 its progress. First, in its progress, the Judge was 
 subpoenaed to appear before an honorable committee of 
 this House, to give evidence of the facts upon which one 
 of its honorable members had been arrested. To this 
 step no possible objection could be urged. None was 
 urged. He appeared in obedience to that summons. 
 Knowing his legal protection, little did he imagine that 
 he was called there to be made informer against himself 
 for an offence ; to be used as his own accuser. 
 
 A becoming respect to, and confidence in the body . 
 before whom he appeared, forbid such an idea. He 
 was not summoned there for trial. Had he been, he 
 would have put himself there, as he does here, upon his 
 defence. He relied upon a reciprocal confidence, upon 
 comity, upon the magnanimity of an honorable commit- 
 tee that no such object was in view as a trial. The 
 legitimate duty of that committee, as he supposed, was, 
 to inquire as to facts, and by what law an honorable 
 member had been arrested ; whether there had been a 
 breach of privilege ; whether the law was sufficiently 
 protective, and if not to recommend one that should be. 
 He knew that he had acted in the conscientious convic- 
 tions of duty, and that he was not amenable. What 
 had he to fear at the hands of honorable men?. He 
 knew that if he had acted corruptly the;i only could he 
 be dealt with. He supposed, too, that if any doubt 
 existed as to his rightful exercise of power, that some 
 committee, like that of the Judiciary, would be selected, 
 and who would dare to place their legal opinion, for 
 which they would be willing to be held responsible 
 before the legal world, upon the records of the legisla- 
 tive department; that before such a committee, (not now* 
 intending disrespect to this), an opportunity would be 
 given to discuss so grave a question. 
 
But, sir, with no avowal of such an objeft; without a 
 trial; I am charged by that honorable committee, that, 
 as a Judge of the Supreme Court, I have committed a 
 high breach of privilege of this House ; that as such 
 Judge I have struck a blow at the independence of this 
 co-ordinate branch of the government ; and the theory 
 of your honorable committee is, that this House possess 
 the power to punish by censure or otherwise, without a 
 trial; not the body who committed the act; but the 
 minister of that department, who executed its power. 
 This is an assumption of the pre-eminence of power of 
 this House, an assumption of authority over the judicial 
 department, which has no foundation in this govern- 
 ment. It is an assumption that the legislative power, 
 or that one branch of its body, is superior in authority 
 to the judicial department. This is an assumjition that 
 no lawyer of any standing dare assert; and one that this 
 House will not stultify its understanding by asserting. 
 If this proposition as to its power is untrue, how can 
 they exercise the power of punishment? How then is 
 it proposed to heal this supposed deadly wound upon 
 their dignity of privilege ? They cannot punish the 
 court ; that is physically impossible. How then can 
 they punish its minister ? It is proposed, sir, to heal this 
 wound by the lex lalionts, the law of the right of retalia- 
 tion, the right of inflicting a like injury upon a co- 
 ordinate department; that is, to commit a breach of pri- 
 vilege in return upon the judicial department in satisfac- 
 tion of the offence. Sir, I stand here protesting against the 
 right to commit such a breach. I stand here claiming 
 the privilege also of the judicial depai'tment. I assert 
 that you have no right to bring these two departments 
 into conflict ; that you would thereby endanger the 
 stability, the perpetuity, the independence of the gov- 
 ernment, -whose trusts you have in part taken in charge. 
 2 
 
10 
 
 Believe not, sir, that I say these things through any 
 fear of consequences personal to myself. I well know 
 that as you cannot punish the court with material or 
 physical punishment ; that you cannot punish its mem- 
 bers without a trial ; that you cannot try its Judges but 
 by impeachment ; that you cannot impeach but for cor- 
 ruption, and that in the constitutional form. True, 
 you can resolve ; you can send forth your resolve in 
 the language of degradation, and though there may be 
 degradation, it will not degrade him against whom it is 
 issued. It is not such degradation that I fear ; if such 
 resolution shall be issued, it will fall harmless upon him 
 against whom it is issued. Nay, sir, were I ambitious, 
 I would invite it. I would court its favor. But, sir, I 
 have no such ambition ; no ambition, but that in the 
 sight of that God, in whom I trust, to do my judicial 
 'duty fearlessly; to the best of my ability; unawed, un- 
 terrified, uninfluenced by caprice or favor — the will of 
 assumed rulers, or the more fearful influence of pas- 
 sion, of popular applause, or of popular excitement and 
 prejudice. 
 
 But, before I proceed further upon this view of the 
 case, I propose, candidly for a moment, to look at the 
 law of privilege to members of the Legislature of this 
 State, and, with all intended respect to the argument of 
 your honorable committee, I deny, I solemnly deny, 
 that the law of privilege of the British Parliament, as 
 claimed by them, is the law of privilege of the State of 
 New York, and I shall show it to be otherwise. I deny 
 that the privilege of the Houses of Congress, is the 
 same law of privilege as that of the State of New York; 
 and while I accord to that committee credit for much 
 research into the law of privilege of Great Britain, I 
 shall show that they did not search far enough to find 
 it ; and it will be seen that their report is entirely defi- 
 cient in the examination of the law of privilege of this 
 State. The law of privilege of members of Congress is 
 
11 
 
 not the same law as that of the British Parliament; but 
 is secured to them in the Constitution of the United 
 States, which limits and restricts the common law of 
 England, as cited in that report. The laws of the seve- 
 ral States differ from each other, and differ from that of 
 Congress. The law of privilege of the State of New 
 Yoi'k is peculiar to itself. It is not, as is that of Con- 
 gress, in the Constitution, but is regulated by a 
 statute. It is so brief in its provisions, that I shall be 
 excused for repeating it. It is all embraced in two 
 lines, to wit : " Eveiy member of the Legislature shall 
 be privileged from arrest on civil process." No lawyer 
 of any standing or credit will deny the rule of construc- 
 tion to be given to this language by a maxim as old as 
 the common law, which, applied to this case, is, " the 
 expression of one privilege is the exclusion of every 
 other." Members of the Legislature of this State, by 
 this rule, are only privileged from arrest on civil process. 
 Would any honorable member of this House; would 
 any free citizen of this Government, like to see the 
 Legislature of this State possess the uncontrollable 
 power of the British Parliament, as cited by your com- 
 mittee? Why, sir, Blackstone says "that Parliament 
 possesses sovereign and uncontrollable authority. The 
 whole sovereign power of the Kingdom is vested in it — 
 legislative and judicial." The English writers say, 
 "That with Parliament the sovereign power is despotic; 
 it runs without limit and rises above all control." Is it 
 the law of privilege of such a Government that seems 
 to have charmed your honorable committee ? It is the 
 privilege of the law of Great Britain, which your hon- 
 orable committee claims to be in force in this State. 
 Sir, with all due respect to that honorable committee, 
 I deny it; and shall show it otherwise. It is the law of 
 privilege of the State of New York only, which this 
 House can assert, and which is now before them for 
 their consideration. 
 
12 
 
 I shall be able to demonstrate, that by that law, no 
 breach of privilege has been committed. It is only from 
 civil process that there is privilege. 
 
 The honoi'able member has not been arrested on civil 
 process. It is impossible in the nature of things that 
 he should have been. The process in question was 
 issued out of the Court of Oyer and Terminer. That 
 court is a criminal court only. It has no jurisdiction 
 in civil cases. It cannot issue civil process. That 
 court possesses the power like other courts, to compel 
 obedience to its process. All the forms of law were 
 complied with. Disobedience to its process was proved 
 by the proper forms of evidence. The court, composed of 
 three persons, not of one individual, solemnly adjudged 
 that there had been a contempt of its authority. It 
 issued its process to arrest for this contempt. This, sir, 
 is the high breach of privilege complained of. 
 
 Was this civil process ? Without intending disre- 
 spect to any member of this body, I assert it to be little 
 less than an absurdity so to claim. The Judiciary of this 
 State I apprehend would be startled at this novel 
 assertion, that this was civil process. The elementary 
 books of authority which influence courts in their opin- 
 ions, say otherwise. They define " attachment " to be a 
 process in the nature of a criminal proceeding, issuing 
 out of a Court of Record against a person who has com- 
 mitted some contempt of court; enumerating among 
 other things, " the disregarding of its process," or 
 " omitting to do anything that shows his disregard of 
 the authority of the court." Burrill's Dictionary, title 
 "Attachment." 4 Black. Com., 284. 4 Stephens Com. 
 19. People vs. Nevins, 1 Hill, 154. Bailey, J. in King 
 TS. Clement, 4 Barn, and Aid., 231. Jac. Law Diet. 
 Attachment. 
 
 So, too, in like authority, is found the definition of 
 criminal proceedings, as follows : " Civil proceedings 
 are distinguished from criminal in this — the former are 
 
13 
 
 for a civil injury, or for a right due from one citizen to 
 another ; the latter is for a breach or violation of some 
 public duty in which the State or community, in its ag- 
 gregate capacity, are interested." In this State criminal 
 proceedings are cases in behalf of the People. In the 
 highest court of this State, in the case of Spalding vs. 
 The People, 7 Hill, 303, the character of this process 
 upon which the honorable member was arrested, was 
 expressly passed upon by the court. Chief-Justice Nel- 
 son, delivering the opinion, (and which case was after- 
 wards affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States), said, among other things, " that criminal con- 
 tempts was where one unlawfully interfered with the 
 process or proceedings in an action, or by the refusal of 
 a witness to attend or be sworn," &c. " All these," 
 says the learned Judge, " are strictly cases of criminal 
 contempts, which have nothing to do with the collection 
 of debts or the enforcement of civil remedies." Enough 
 perhaps upon this head of civil process. Except that I con- 
 cur in the opinion of the Court of Errors of this State; 
 and this learned committee must excuse me, when I am 
 compelled to say, that, as a Judge, I shall in future act 
 upon that opinion, in preference to theirs, at page 9, of 
 their report, in which they hold the contrary rule. 
 
 They must further excuse me from differing with 
 them in the opinion that a member of the Legislature is 
 privileged from the service of a summons or subpcBua 
 to give evidence before a grand jury, or that the service 
 of such subpoena or summons is void. In the recent 
 case of Wooley and others against Benjamin F. Butler, 
 decided in the State of Maryland, the defendant was a 
 member of Congress ; in passing through that State he 
 was served with process, commencing a civil action 
 against him. He applied to the court to set it aside on 
 the ground of privilege. The court held the service of 
 process, which did not arrest the defendant, to be good, 
 and not void. Either that court was in error, or this 
 
14 
 
 honorable committee must be ; and, if between such 
 conflictiug opinions, a Judge should happen to be mis- 
 taken in his selection of authority, is he to be punished 
 for contempt ? But, sir, our Statute has defined what 
 are criminal and what are civil proceedings. 
 
 By the " Code of Procedure " criminal and civil ac- 
 tions are defined as follows : 
 
 \ 2. An action is an ordinary proceeding in a court of 
 justice by which a party prosecutes another party for 
 the enforcement or protection of a right, the redress of 
 a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense. 
 
 § 3. Every other remedy is a special proceeding. 
 
 § 4. Actions are of two Idnds. 
 
 1. Civil. 
 
 2. Criminal. 
 
 § 5. A criminal action is prosecuted by the People of 
 the State as a party against a party charged with a pub- 
 lic offense for the punishment thereof. 
 
 § 6. Every other is a civil action. 
 
 The proceeding pending in the Court of Oyer and 
 Terminer, before the Grand Jury, was a " criminal 
 action prosecuted by the People of the State as a party 
 against a party charged with a public offence for the 
 punishment thereof." 
 
 The same definition in substance is given by Burrill 
 of a civil action. He says, "it is an action brought to 
 recover some civil right, or to obtain redress for some 
 wrong, not being a crime or misdemeanor. In this lat- 
 ter respect it is distinguished from a criminal action or 
 prosecution." — Burrill's Law Die, Civil Action. 
 
 And the same author defines "Civil Eight" to be 
 " the right of a citizen ; the right of an individual as 
 a citizen, to sue for a right due from one citizen to an- 
 other, the privation of which is a civil injury, for which 
 redress may be sought in a civil action." — Id. Tit. Civil 
 Eights. 
 
 And the word "civil" is defined to be something "be- 
 longing or relating to, or affecting a person as a citizen, 
 
15 
 
 relating to or affecting the rights and duties of a citizen, 
 particularly as between one citizen and another." — Id. 
 Tit. " Civil." 
 
 From all these authorities it conclusively appears 
 that '■^ civil process" must necessarilj', ex-vi-termini, in- 
 clude only such process, as one citizen is by the law en- 
 titled to have issued by the courts to enforce or aid in 
 enforcing some civil right in his favor against another 
 citizen or party; and that criminal process, on the other 
 hand, is such as issues" on behalf of the People as a party, 
 to enforce or aid in enforcing the criminal law against an 
 offender and for the punishment of a public offense. 
 Nor so far as the definition of the tei-ni ^^ civil process" 
 is concerned, are we without authority from our highest 
 court. In the People v. Campbell "(40 N. Y. 137) the 
 Court of Appeals, Mason, Justice, giving the opinion 
 said, "It has never been questioned but such a process 
 as this, to enforce a civil remedy, by the collection of a 
 specified sum of money is to be regarded as ^' civil pro- 
 cess." 
 
 But, sir, it is still alleged that the Court of Oyer and 
 Terminer, whose jurisdiction is exclusively criminal, and 
 which has no civil jurisdiction whatever, can yet issue a 
 civil process, and that the subpoena served on Mr. Ray 
 to appear before the grand }nvy, was such ^^ civil pro- 
 cess." If this was true, still the Statute does not ^'pri- 
 vilege" him from such service. A member of Assembly 
 is only exempted from ^^ arrest" on ^^ civil process," and 
 not from its service where it may be served without an 
 arrest being made. Not being privileged from the ser- 
 vice, of the subpoena therefore, then the Statute imposed 
 the duty on him to obey its mandate. 
 
 But it is further absurdly said, that the subpoena 
 being civil process, nothing can be built upon it, or can 
 grow out of it, that makes the party subpoenaed liable to 
 arrest. Sir, no lawyer will make such an argument. 
 By a provision of the Eevised Statutes, vol. 2, page 
 
 o 
 
16 
 
 278, § 10, it is provided that "Every Court of Record 
 shall have power to punish, as for a criminal contempt, 
 persons guilty of the following acts." Among the 
 enumerated acts is, " that of willful disobedience of any 
 process issued by it." And, sir, must not the court 
 issue criminal process in order to punish this dis- 
 obedience ? This, however, is said to be a forced con- 
 struction; that it is not, after all, criminal process; that 
 under such pretence the dignity of this honorable body 
 would be assailed, and its members withdrawn from the 
 State interests ; it is claimed that the true meaning of 
 this statute of privilege is, that it must be a process that 
 would arrest the member for a criminal charge against 
 himself. Sir, a refusal to obey the process of the court 
 is criminal. It is made so by statute, 2 Rev. Stat. 692. 
 It is an indictable offence. If, instead of the criminal 
 process by attachment, the honorable member had been 
 indicted by the Grand Jury for his disobedience; would 
 the bench warrant issued by the District Attorney be 
 civil process ? and would not a criminal Bench wan-ant, 
 equally with a criminal attachment, have taken the honora- 
 ble member fi'om this House? The question oi policy has 
 nothing to do with the law. Sir, the idea of arraigning 
 a Judge before this honorable House, for enforcing the 
 law made by your predecessors, which you, as well as 
 he, are bound to obey, is a new idea in the workings of 
 our system of government never attempted till now. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, I have spent too much time in 
 showing that I have acted right. So far as jour power 
 over me, or over the department of government in which 
 I hold place, is concerned, it is immaterial whether I 
 acted right or wrong. Your honorable body have no 
 more power over me in the one case than in the other ; 
 that is, no power at all. 
 
 Sir, your honorable committee, by their report, in 
 which they have regarded me as an offender, but with 
 which they did not favor me with a copy (but for the 
 
17 
 
 favor of which I am indebted to the honorable repre- 
 sentative of my own county), have stated supposed cases 
 of almost infinite mischief, if the privilege of members 
 is not made as absolute as they claim. I am not here 
 to discuss such a question. I, too, can suppose cases of 
 monstrous public injustice, if their claimed law of. pri- 
 vilege was the law of the land. If a case of murder or 
 felony is committed in the presence or within the 
 knowledge of a member of the Legislature ; and if, 
 without his testimony before a grand jury or a court, 
 the felon would escape public justice, should there be 
 no power in this government to compel his attendance 
 to testify ? Is the dignity of a member of the Legisla- 
 ture paramount to the public security? Do not felons 
 and outlaws now sufficiently abound in communitj- ? 
 Shall new devices be presented beyond the present in^ 
 tricacies of law, by which their escape from punishment 
 shall be secured? But, sir, my duty was to inquire 
 what is the law ; not what is policy. 
 
 It is my duty to say, however, in regard to the par- 
 ticular case before us, in justice to the case of the 
 honorable member whose arrest is complained of here, 
 I neither knew his name, the name of the accused, nor 
 the crime with which he was charged. All I now know 
 about it is, upon the statement of the public prosecutor, 
 that upon the testimony alone of that honorable mem- 
 ber before the grand jury, the accused was indicted and 
 is now held for trial. That the accused bad been per- 
 petrating enormous frauds upon that community, claim- 
 ing that he was acting as the agent of that honorable 
 member. It appears to me, that it should have been 
 the pleasure of that honorable member to do cheerfully, 
 what he did of compulsion; to give the lie to the foul 
 charge, and bring the culprit, who was assailing his 
 fame, to justice. It is justice to him for me to say, that 
 3 
 
18 
 
 I do not think his refusal to appear and testify was any 
 indisposition to have crime punished; but based solely on 
 a mistaken opinion of his privilege as a member. 
 
 I do not further propose to discuss the question of 
 policy presented in the report of your honorable body ; 
 nor would it become a judge to discuss with that com- 
 mittee the policy of a law. Judges, when acting as such, 
 must decide what the law is ; not what it should be, nor 
 what policy dictates. If the law is wrong, it is the 
 province of the Legislature, not of the Judge, to alter it. 
 If the law is obscure, or doubtful, it is equally the duty 
 of the Legislature to declare it and make it plain. If 
 its obscurity or uncertainty is such as to make the Judi- 
 ciary doubt, still they must act upon their best and most 
 conscientious convictions ; and if they mistake in this — 
 if, in the view taken by this honorable House, which is 
 but another, and only an equal department of the gov- 
 ernment — an error has been committed, is the latter 
 clothed with power to punish for a mistake of judgment ? 
 Is this the independence of the judicial department of 
 the government ? Even if the decision of the judge hap- 
 pens to be upon the question of privilege, must he not 
 still decide upon that question also when it comes before 
 him ? Sir, no civilized government on earth, and, above 
 all, no free government, ever placed their judiciary in 
 circumstances so hazardous, so despotic, as this theory 
 proposes; subject not only to accusation; but subject to 
 have their accusers the judges; who shall try them for 
 the offence of a mistaken opinion; and those judges, 
 too, a body easily moved to anger by anything that looks 
 like an indignity offered to their own order. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I crave the privilege of a single word 
 upon the accusation made in the report by your honor- 
 able committee. It is not of materiat facts omitted in 
 their report, which would, if stated, give a moi'o 
 favorable view of the facts of the case, that -I com, 
 plain, although I might complain of that, but for the 
 
19 
 
 great injustice (unintentional, no doubt,) of the statement 
 in one short paragraph of the report, not of.the evidence, 
 but of the conclusions of the committee; as follows : 
 They say : 
 
 " His Honor, Judge Potter, before the committee, in 
 the first place jittempted to extenuate or excuse his con- 
 duct by a statement that the attachment was issued inad- 
 vertently, and that his attention was not called to the 
 fact that Mr. Eay was a member of the Assembly, 
 although it subsequently appeared by the statements of 
 Judge Potter, of the district attorney, and of Mr. Wal- 
 /iron, the surrogate of Saratoga county, that prior to the 
 issuing of the attachment, the fact that Mr. Eay was a 
 member of the Assembly, was brought to the knowledge 
 of the Judge. It will thus appear that the subpoena 
 was issued to Mr. Eay, and the attachment issued upon 
 return of the service of said subpoena notwithstanding 
 such knowledge." 
 
 This statement, in its effect, is not only calculated to 
 create prejudice against me. before this House, by whom 
 it is claimed I am to be ti'ied; but to degrade me in pub- 
 lic estimation. / did not attempt to extenuate or excuse 
 my conduct ; but on the contrary, juntified the act then as 
 I do now ; nor was the act done by inadvertence. That 
 honorable committee will now do me the justice to 
 remember, that though I did state the fact, that at the 
 time I signed the attachment, I did not know that Mr. 
 Eay, against whom it was moved, was a member of As- 
 sembly ; that I signed many on that day, and this among 
 the number ; that it was not stated at the time in my 
 hearino-, that Mr. Eay was a member of the Legislature. 
 This I stated as facts ; but I did declare to that commit- 
 tee that I had previously given the public prosecutor, 
 and also to the surrogate whom he sent, the opinion that 
 a member was not privileged; and I also declared to 
 that committee, tha^ had I known at the time that Mr. 
 Eay was a member, I should have deemed it my duty, 
 to have issued the attachment all the same. I declared 
 
20 
 
 it then ; I declare it now to this House, and the world. 
 Such was, indeed, my opinion. I stated the fact that I 
 did not know of his being a ropresentative at the time 
 the process was issued. I stated this as a fact, because 
 it was true ; and because the honorable Chairman called 
 upon me first to state the facts. But, sir, I deny that I 
 claimed to be excused, or attempted to extenuate my 
 conduct, for that reason, further than the fact itself 
 should have that effect. Sir, the conclusion that I 
 attempted to excuse or extenuate, is inconsistent with 
 avowals before that committee ; that I previously 
 advised the public prosecutor of my opinion of the law, 
 on being asked ; it is inconsistent with my avowal, that 
 had I known the fact of membership at the time, with my 
 opinions of duty, I should have issued it all the same. 
 The honorable member from Oswego will remember 
 that he replied to me; that, with my opinion of the law, 
 he did not see how I could do otherwise. In this, sir, 
 that honorable committee (unintentionally, no doubt,) 
 has done me great injustice. I thrust back such a charge 
 with indignation and contempt, as being against all my 
 convictions. I stand here to defend myself upon the 
 broad ground of duty conscientiously performed, admit- 
 ting that I had given the opinion stated, but still repeat- 
 ing the fact that when I signed the process, I did not 
 know the name of Henry Ray was that of a member. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, the fear of being tedious, compels me to 
 omit the discussion of many points vital to the subject 
 now pending before this honorable body; more vital 
 perhaps, than a mere superficial view would suggest. A 
 conflict between two equal departments of the same gov- 
 ernment, possessing co-extensive powers, each being 
 sovereign within its own sphere; is fraught with dangers 
 too serious for contemplation — too serious to be dis- 
 posed of under an excitement of the moment by the 
 complaining party; who are to sit also in judgment upon 
 their own supposed grievances. For one department, by 
 
21 . 
 
 their action, to attempt thus to reduce another to a state 
 of servile obedience; or to destroy their independence ; 
 to bring the judiciary into a state of servile dependence 
 upon the legislative will; would leave the former at the 
 mercy of the latter; and the institution of an independent 
 judiciary would perish by its own imbecility or want of 
 power. 
 
 Permit me to say, Mr. Speaker, with all due courtesy; 
 in all kindness of feeling; it is my deliberate conviction 
 that your honorable committee, unintentionally, and 
 without the reflection that their resolutions were to in- 
 volve the consideration of such a fearful precedent, 
 would now, in view of its solemn importance, prefer 
 either to withdraw them for further consideration, — re- 
 fer them to the Judiciary Committee, or to the Attorney 
 General of the State, for a legale a responsible opinion 
 upon the great questions of the conflict of power which 
 I have discussed, which are here for action under a state 
 of excitement by those who are to act as. judges; and 
 which questions that committee have not at all con- 
 sidered. 
 
 Thus far, Mr. Speaker, I have argued this solemn ' 
 question upon my individual views : perhaps the argu- 
 ment would carry more profound respect should I cite 
 to its support the opinions of some of the sages of the 
 law, who, with prophetic vision, did consider, and who 
 have given opinions upon this very case. 
 
 I have thus far intended to utter no word of disrespect 
 to this honorable body, and I shall hope to receive from 
 them in return that respect to my department, which 
 the theory of our government has established as its 
 right. In this defence I intend to utter no language of 
 my own, equal in its severity to that of the profoundest 
 expounders of the rights of the Judiciary, under our 
 constitutional system. 
 
 Mr. Justice Story, that distinguished jurist and ex- 
 pounder of the Constitution, whom all so much respect, 
 
22 
 
 said, "Every government must, in its essence, be unsafe 
 and unfit for a free people, where such a department its 
 the Judiciary does not exist with powers co-extensive 
 with those of the legislative department. Where there 
 is no judicial department to interpret, pronounce and 
 execute the hiw, to decide controversies, and to enforce 
 rights, the government must either perish by its own 
 imbecility, or the other departments of government 
 must usurp powers, for the purpose of commanding 
 obedience to the destruction of liberty. The will of 
 those who govern will become under such circumstances, 
 absolute and despotic, and it is wholly immaterial 
 whether power is vested in a single tyrant, or in an 
 assembly of tyrants." He cites the remarks of Montes- 
 quieu with approbation, " that it is found in human ex- 
 perience that there is no liberty, if the judiciary power 
 be not separated from the legislative and executive,'' 
 and he adds " that it is no less true, that personal se- 
 curity and private property rest entirely upon the wis- 
 dom, the stability, and the integrity of the courts of 
 justice." "That government can be truly said to be 
 ' despotic and intolerable, and will be rendered more 
 oppressive and more mischievous, when the actual admin- 
 istration of justice is dependent upon caprice or favor 
 upon the will of rulers, or the influence of popu- 
 larity. When power becomes right, it is of little conse- 
 quence whether decisions rest upon corruption or 
 weakness, uptin the accident of chance, or upon delib- 
 erate wrong. 
 
 In every well organized government, therefore, with 
 reference to the security both of public rights and pri- 
 vate rights, it is indispensable that there should be a 
 judicial department to ascertain and decide rights, to 
 punish crimes, to administer justice, and to protect the 
 innocent from injury and usurpation. 
 
 But, perhaps, this honorable body would better like 
 an opinion still nearer home. That distinguished jurist' 
 
23 
 
 whose name every citizen of New Yoik repeats with 
 veneration, Chancellor Kent, said : " In monarchial gov- 
 ernments the independence of the Judiciary is essential 
 to guard the rights of the subject from injustice of the 
 Crown ; but iu republics, it is equally salutary in pro- 
 tecting the Constitution and laws from the encroachments 
 and the tj'^ranny of faction. Laws, however wholesome 
 or necessary, are frequently the object of temporary 
 aversion, and sometimes of popular resistance. It is 
 requisite that courts of justice should be able at all 
 times to present a determined countenance against all 
 licentious acts, and to deal im'partially and truly accord- 
 ing to law, between suitors of every description or 
 whether the cause, the question, or the party be popular 
 or unpopular. To give the courage and the firmness to 
 do it, the judges ought to be confident of the security 
 of their station. Nor is an independent Judiciary less 
 useful, as a check upon the legislative -power, which is 
 sometimes disposed from the force of party, or the 
 temptations of interest, to make a sacrifice of constitu. 
 tional rights." 
 
 But Judge Story was so imbued with the fear of leg. 
 islative encroachments upon the judicial, that in another 
 place he says, " that there is a great absurdity in sub- 
 jecting the decisions of men, selected for the knowledge 
 of the laws, acquired by long and laborious study to 
 the revision and control of men, who for want of the 
 same advantage, cannot but be deficient in that know- 
 ledge. The members of the Legislature will rarelxj he 
 chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men 
 for the stations of judges, and on this account there zoill 
 be great reason to apprehend all the ill consequences of 
 defective information; so on account of the natural pro- 
 pensity of such bodies to party divisions, there will be 
 no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of fac- 
 tions may poison the fountains of justice." "These 
 considerations," he says, "teach us to applaud the wis- 
 
24 
 
 dom of those States who have committed the judicial 
 power, not to a part of the Legislature, but to distinct 
 and independent bodies of men." 
 
 This may, perhaps, suffice upou this point. But I ap. 
 preach another point, which is, to ask what is the duty 
 of a judge, even if the question of privilege is before 
 him for decision ? Upon this question I demand such 
 an unprejudiced, patriotic, sensible response that this 
 honorable body will dare to stand upon it before an 
 impartial constituency, and before the intelligence of the 
 world. This is, perhaps, one of the most important 
 points in the case. Perhaps the opinion of Chief Jus- 
 tice Marshall might not be inappropriate to cite on this 
 question. Surely no intelligent lawyer, no patriotic 
 legislator, would hesitate to look up to such a source 
 for advice. 
 
 In looking back upon mj' conduct as a Judge in this 
 matter, it is a source of sincere pride, that I may call 
 him, this profoundest of American jurists and noble 
 patriot, to my aid. In Cohen v. Virginia, reported in 
 4 Wheaton, 404, that illustrious jurist said : " The 
 Judiciary cannot, as the Legislature may, avoid a meas-. 
 ure because it approaches to the confines of the Consti- 
 tution. We cannot pass by a question because it is 
 doubtful. With whatever doubt, with whatever diffi- 
 culties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it 
 be brought before us. We have no more right to decline 
 the exercise of deciding, than we have to usurp a power 
 that is not given. The one or the other would be trea- 
 son to the (Constitution. Questions may occur which 
 we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All 
 we can do is to exercise our best judgment, and con- 
 scientiously to perform our duty." 
 
 In another case this great judge said, " the legislative, 
 executive and judicial powers of every well constructed 
 government (9 Wheat., 818), are co-extensive with each 
 other." If this is sound, where is the power of the one 
 
 o 
 
25 
 
 to call the other to account ? In still another case (1 
 Peters, 814), Justice Johnson said, "in conflicts of 
 power and opinion, inseparable from our very peculiar 
 relations, cases may occur in which the maintenance of 
 principle and the administration of justice may require 
 different courses ; and when such cases do come, our 
 courts Tmist do their duty." 
 
 Mr. Speaker, i do not stand here to deny the power 
 and authority of this House to punish, as for contempt, 
 one who commits au act amounting to a breach of priv- 
 ilege of one of its members ; but I stand here denying 
 that as an individual I have committed 'any such act, or 
 intended to commit any. The act was that of court, of 
 which I was but one of its ministers, and that as such 
 minister I boldly assert that I am protected by the 
 sanctity of the position — by the fact that it was judicial 
 action; that my decision was one in which duty called 
 upon me to act, and I was bound to render such a 
 judgment in the matter as a conscientious conviction of 
 duty demanded. It is human to err. If I have mis- 
 taken the law, it is such an error as every other Judge 
 who has ever sat upon a bench has committed ; and 
 this is the first instance in the history of American 
 jurisprudence in which a Judge has been arraigned for 
 having mistaken the lav?. Yes, sir, and I may predict, 
 it mill be the last. 
 
 But, sir, have I even made a mistake ? No court has 
 ever adjudged it to be such. I trust none ever will. 
 Suppose that in the opinion of your honorable commit- 
 tee it is a mistake; yet my convictions are otherwise; 
 and since the passage of your resolutions I have the 
 voluntarily offered opinions of distinguished jurists and 
 lawyers, more in number than compose that honorable 
 committee, who assure me I am right. The question, 
 then, still remains undecided, which is right, with no 
 hio-h judicial court to pass upon it. Suppose I am right, 
 4 
 
26 
 
 after all; and this honorable House shall decide that I 
 am wrong ? It will not, therefore, be wrong. No, sir. 
 Nor can any resolve that you shall pass make it wrong. 
 Your resolve will establish no law; and no independent 
 Judge will ever pay it the least regard, if he deems it 
 wrong. My opinion here may be disregarded. I can- 
 not vote here on the question, or if I could, for aught I 
 know, one hundred and twenty-eight, .or a majority of 
 that number, men, perhaps, my superiors in legal 
 knowledge, can outvote me. I have said this was an 
 anomalous proceeding. It is so. My accusers, who 
 have already adjudged that I have committed an indig- 
 nity upon their high privileges, are to be my judges. 
 Under such circumstances, I have been told, there is no 
 hope of the act being justified. It rpay be so. It would 
 be so, it is true, if only the party, feeling and acting in 
 the spirit of wounded dignity is to control — feeling that 
 the exercise of their power is beyond control of any 
 other power; and knowing that there is no power of 
 appeal. But, sir, if you shall believe I am conscientious, 
 would it not be a higher magnanimity— would it not be 
 a better spirit of patriotism ; nay, would it not be ele- 
 vating, to divest the case of feeling and prejudice, and 
 to look upon the case as a High Court of law, unin- 
 fluenced by personal considerations, would look upon 
 it? Sir, this spirit of magnanimity gives me hope, even 
 against the spirit of supposed wounded dignity. 
 
 I have already said there are high governmental rea- 
 sons why the precedent now to be established should be 
 a good one; that if the law is in doubt, you have the 
 power to remove that doubt by legislation. The courts 
 have no power to do so, because it has not been before 
 them. If the theory of your honoi'able committee is- 
 wrong, conscientious judges who differ from them, will 
 repeat the error, regardless of your action. " Thus then 
 they will stand, with the terror of legislative precedent 
 suspended over them upon the one side, but with a more 
 
27 
 
 awful terror, that of Almighty vengeance, if they vio- 
 late their consciences, upou the other. Call you, sir, 
 such a position as this, that of an independent Judiciary? 
 Sir, with all respect, this would be solemn mockery. 
 
 One word more, Mr. Speaker. Your committee 
 inform you that they have based their resolutions upon 
 Parliamentary law, and have given you its antiquity and 
 its evidence of i^isdom. They have assumed that this 
 law of privilege is uniform. I have demonstrated by 
 the statutes and constitutions that it is not, and that their 
 conclusions in this particular were in error. I have 
 shown that the National Legislature have their privi- 
 1 eges secured by the National Constitution — that some 
 of the independent States have their law of privilege 
 secured by constitutions, and some by statutes ; that the 
 law of privilege of this State is qualified, and limited by 
 the statute, and differs from that of the Nation, of other 
 States, and of Great Britain. If this honorable commit- 
 tee, as I insist, have been led into unintentional error in 
 this ; if they are equally in error as to the law of privi- 
 lege in Great Britain, may not the resolutions based upon 
 such opinions be also error ? Can you rely upon such 
 a mistaken view of the law as a safe basis of action ? 
 
 Sir, I have read the cases- referred to in that report 
 upon the English law of privilege, and what will be 
 found as most remarkable, is the fact, that not one of 
 those cases was determined within the last century, nor 
 since the year 1700. If that learned committee had ex- 
 tended their research to that -year, which was the thir- 
 teenth year of the reign of William III, they would 
 have found an English statute limiting the privileges of 
 members of Parlfament, which is entitled : " An act for 
 preventing any inconveniences that may happen by priv- 
 ilege of Parliament." In that act, sir, the privilege was 
 so limited'that members of Parliament, including Peers 
 of the realm, were made liable to the service of any civil 
 process which did not arrest their persons ; and service 
 
28 
 
 of such process upon them was not void, as your honor- 
 able committee say of the subpoena, and as has lately 
 been held in the case cited in the State of Maryland. 
 
 If that learned committee had extended their research 
 still further, down to the year 1770, just one hundred 
 years ago, to the thirteenth year of the reign of George 
 III, they would have found another statute, still further 
 abridging the privileges of members of Parliament ; set- 
 ting forth in its preamble that it was to obviate the 
 inconvenience and delay, by reason of privilege to the 
 King, and his subjects in prosecuting their suits, &c. 
 What suits had the King but suits in his name, which 
 in this country are suits in the name and in behalf of the 
 People ? 
 
 In fact, sir, for the last one hundred years, the privi- 
 lege of Parliament has not been such as your honorable 
 committee report it to be — but has been, as it has been 
 here, limited and restricted by statute, and confined to 
 arrest in civil cases — and the English law of privilege 
 now is not materially different from that of the State of 
 New York. Your learned committee have as much mis- 
 taken the law of privilege of Great Britain as they have 
 the law of privilege of the State of New York. 
 
 When this last bill to limit privilege was before Par- 
 liament, that great light of English jurisprudence, Lord 
 Mansfield advocated its passage, and I quote the follow- 
 ing most significant remarks from his speech, which may 
 be regarded as judicial construction of that law. He 
 says : " It may not be popular to take away any of the 
 privileges of Parliament, for I very well remember, and 
 many of your lordships may remember, that not long 
 ago the popular cry was for an extension of privileges, 
 and so far did they carry it at that time, that it was said 
 that privilege protected members from criminal actions, 
 and such was the power of popular prejudice over weak 
 minds, that the very decisions of some of the courts 
 Were tinctured with that doctrine. * * * It was, 
 
said he, undoubtedly an abominable doctrine. The laws 
 of this country allow no place or employment as a sanc- 
 tuary for crime, and where I have the honor to sit as 
 Jvdge, neither royal favor nor popular applause shall ever 
 protect the guilty." * * Noble patriot ! In another 
 IJart of his speech, he said, "that members of both 
 Houses should be free in their persons, in cases of civil 
 suits, for there may come a time when the safety and 
 welfare of this whole Empire may depend upon their 
 attendance in Parliament. God forbid that I should 
 advise any measure that would in future endanger the 
 State. But this bill has no such tendency. It expressly 
 secures *the persons of members from arrest in all civil 
 suits. I am sure were the noble Lords as well acquaint- 
 ed as I am with but half the difficulties and delays that 
 are every day occasioned in the courts of justice under 
 pretense of privilege, they would not, they could not 
 oppose this bill." The bill, sir, passed ; and for one 
 hundred years that is the law of privilege in Great 
 Britain, and is not now, as your honorable committee 
 have reported it to be. 
 
 No case can be found like those cited by your honor- 
 able committee since the passage of that bill, even in the 
 English courts. The cases cited by your honorable 
 committee are before that time, and, as that noble man 
 declared, they contained a tincture of that abominable 
 doctrine. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, have I not shown errors enough, in the 
 .basis, upon which your honorable committee have pro- 
 posed action, to show that the law of privilege is not in 
 jthis State, what is claimed for it ? There is not now 
 even an approach to it, as laid down by your committee, 
 in England. Why, sir, ten years before the passage of 
 this last English statute. Lord Preston, a Peer of the 
 realm, was committed by an inferior court of that realm, 
 a court of quarter sessions, for refusing to give evidence 
 before a grand jury on an indictment for high treason. 
 
30 
 
 He obtained a habeas corpus before a higher court — the 
 King's Bench, for his discharge. When Holt, Lord Chief- 
 Justice, said : " He hadcommitted a great contempt, 
 and had I been there I would have fined him, and com- 
 mitted him till he paid the fine." 
 
 But, sir, I have done with English authority. 
 
 Now, sir, it only remains to give construction to the 
 words civil process in our statute. If an attachment 
 issuing out of a criminal court is civil process, then have 
 I been misled by books of authority; then have I mis- 
 takenly erred in deciding the law. If it is not civil 
 process, then my decision is law, and must stand approved 
 by the coui'ts, whatever this House may do. Oh 1 the 
 peril to an independent Judiciary ! Would to God, 
 that a Marshall, or a Kent, or Mansfield had the decision 
 of this great question ! That is, if they would stop one 
 moment to entertain such question. But, sir, I am not 
 called upon to establish that the subpoena issued by the 
 District Attorney was criminal process, that burthen is 
 not legally put on me. No lawyer will say it was cioil 
 process. I did not issue that, the statute makes it the 
 duty of the District Attorney to do that, — and yet, in 
 theory, it issues out of the Court of Oyer and Terminer; 
 and disobedience to its commands is regarded as con- 
 tempt of that court. But tjie question is not that. If 
 regularly issued, its service was good, and not void. It 
 was in the eye of the law a contempt to disobey it. And 
 all the question that remains is if this honorable body 
 have the power, and could entertain it at all, was the pro- 
 cess issued upon that contempt a civil process 9 This 
 honorable body is called upon to vote distinctly upon the« 
 meaning of those words. I am not unwilling to see 
 that record of names. I have no indisposition to see 
 the lawyers of this House put their names to such a 
 record. If with the light of intelligence of this day — 
 if with a sacred regard for judicial independence — if 
 with a patriotic desire to avoid conflicts between the 
 
31 
 
 co-ordinate and co-extensive departments of the sover- 
 eign power — if you shall act with freedom from all 
 spirit of wounded dignity — if with jealous care you feel 
 that you are sitting both as accusers and judges, and 
 that the sovereign people will hold you responsible for 
 your action — if you shall place yourselves upon that 
 lofty plane of devotion to the Constitution and the best 
 interests of this noble State ; if it shall be your just 
 pride to guard and protect the rights of an independent 
 judiciary from the terrors of aggression of a co-ordinate 
 power; then, sir, I have no fears of the result. 
 
 I invoke these noble and elevating considerations to 
 your honorable boJy. But, Mr. Speaker,' I desire to 
 say again, that my appearing here to-day is out of respect 
 to this high department of the Government — not waiving 
 my right to protest against being brought here at all. 
 Nay, sir, by* the advice of my counsel I should not have 
 appeared here at all, and should have put in defiance 
 the power of this body, — should have allowed your 
 oflBcer to execute the process of this House upon my 
 person and held you responsible for the act. But my 
 own judgment has dictated to me to come here out 
 of courtesy — without waiving my right of pi'otest or 
 acknowledging myself in your custody. Although I 
 have appeared here and offered this defence, I do not 
 say that I submit this case to you, though probably that 
 will be the effect of your action ; but, sir, I stand here 
 PEOTESTING, earnestly PROTESTING, that I am not 
 here in obedience to your power, but here out of cour- 
 tesy to an independent department of this Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 At the close of this argument, Mr. Fields made a 
 motion that Judge Potter now withdraw from the 
 House until his case be disposed of 
 
 The Speaker then informed the honorable Judge that 
 he could now withdraw to the library room until his 
 case was decided. 
 
32 
 
 Judge Potter — I prefer to stay, and unless driven 
 from the House by its power, shall remain. 
 
 The Speaker — The request of the honorable Judge 
 will be granted. 
 
 ■Judge Potter — I have made no request — and took 
 his seat. 
 
 A long and exciting debate followed. 
 
 Mr. Fields offered the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Hon. Piatt Pottei-, in issuing the attachment 
 for the arrest of Hon. Henry Eay, a Memher of Assembly from the 
 First District of the County of Ontario, was guilty of a high breach of 
 the privileges of this House, and censurable therefor, and that he be 
 reprimanded by the Speaker in the presence of this House. 
 
 This resolution received no support, and was with- 
 drawn. 
 
 Mr. Alvord offered the following amendment to Mr. 
 Field's resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Hon. Piatt Potter was mistaken as to the priv- 
 ileges of this House in the action taken by him in the arrest of Hon. 
 Henry Eay, and did commit a breach of its privileges in so doing ; but 
 this House do not believe that any intention or desire to interfere with 
 the independence or dignity of the House actuated him in the per- 
 formance of that which he deemed his ofiBcial duty. 
 
 Mr. W. D. MuKPHY offered the following as a sub- 
 stitute : 
 
 Resolved, That the Hon. Piatt Potter, a justice of the Supreme 
 Court of this State, be discharged from the custody of this House until 
 the hour of twelve o'clock on the first day of March, and that in the 
 meantime the opinion of the Attorney-General be communicated to 
 this House as to the construction of the term " civil process," in the 
 statute exempting members of the Legislature from arrest. Lost. 
 
 The question was then taken upon the resolution of 
 Mr. Alvord, and was adopted by a vote of 92 to 15, 
 and the case was discharged. 
 
33 
 
 At the dismissal of the case against the Judge^ Winsor 
 B. French, Esquire, District Attorney of Saratoga, (who had 
 notice also to appear at the bar of the House to receive 
 punishment for the contempt he had committed) voluntarily 
 appeared, and in a clear, abl,e and ciimpact argument, (Ke- 
 ported in 55 Barbour's K.) fully demonstrated, that by the 
 law, and by the express provisions of the Statutes of the 
 State of New York, every act he had performed in the 
 premises was not only in conformity to his duty as a public 
 officer, but was expressly prescribed by the Statutes. He 
 had no power to exercise a discretion, to excuse a wilful 
 delinquent who refused obedience to lawful authority of the 
 highest court of original jurisdiction of criminal law upon 
 preteHce of privilege; he could not take official notice that 
 the delinquent was entitled to any privilege ; but he also 
 demonstrated that the delinquent had no privilege whatever 
 in cases of criminal proceedings. At the dose of this argu- 
 ment, a unanimous resolution was passed by the House, 
 dismissing him, and also the deputy sheriff, without inflict- 
 intr the threatened punishment proposed in the notice, and 
 without a reiteration, that there had been a breach of priv- 
 ilege of the House by their action. 
 
 The case was novel and unprecedented. Neither in the 
 legislative or judicial history in this State, had any case of 
 like or kindred character been known, The result settled 
 no parliamentary law, or breach of legislative privilege. 
 No precedent was or could be found, to sustain thfe action 
 of the Assembly. It stood alone. Its action was but its 
 own unique self-interested, unsustained, unauthorized, unpre- 
 -eedented opinion. Their resolution to discharge, seemed like 
 an attempt to escape from their awkward condition, and to 
 be as discreditable for- its insincerity, as for its unsoundness 
 of reason. By their dismissing the charge by resolution 
 only, without attempt to arrest or reprimand, they preduded 
 the Judge from testin-; their action judicially, as to which, 
 he was prepared, in the contingency of their attempting 
 the exercise of jurisdiction over his person by arrest. 
 
34 
 
 A distinguished Judge, occupying an office near the 
 Capitol, had consented, in case of an arrest, to grant an 
 order for Habeas Corpus, that the question might be brought 
 for review in the courts. The case therefore stood upon 
 the issue made between the opinion of 128 . members of 
 Asseinbly of the great State of New York upon the one 
 side, claiming a high breach of privilege, and a single mem- 
 ber of the judicial department upon the other, charging 
 them in defence with usurpation upon the independence of 
 a co-ordinate department of the government ; a striking 
 disparity in the numbers of the contesting parties to these 
 two antagonistic propositions it is seen, was presented. 
 
 Thus the case was closed ; each party holding to its own 
 faith. Thus separating, — the reasons which moved each 
 party were submitted to the ordeal of public opinion. 
 
 The following letters are the voluntary offerings of the 
 writers of them, jurists, statesmen and lawyers, names dis- 
 tinguished in the state and nation. They were written to 
 the Judge as the endorsement of the soundness of his argu- 
 ment upon the question of the "Independence of the 
 Judiciary." They were not written with the object of 
 publication. Some of them contain matters personal and 
 complimentary to the Judge, which would be eliminated if 
 it could be done without marring the force intended to be 
 given to the writers. In number, it is true, they fail to 
 equal 128 Members of the Assembly, but they are submitted 
 for whfftever of weight they may possess in sustaining the 
 views of the single Judge in his defence before that body. 
 They may serve for useful reference, should a like occa- 
 sion bring the question of legislative privilege up for 
 consideration. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE WARD HUNT, JUDGE OF THE 
 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Utioa, Feb'ry 19, 1870. 
 
 My Dear Judge : 
 
 I have just read your speech to the Assembly. Allow 
 
 me to congratulate you on your successful appearance as a 
 
35 
 
 Parliamentary orator. It was an excellent address ; in 
 good taste ; fully sustaining the dignity of your Court ; but 
 quite free from bluster and bravado. Without opportunity 
 for examination, or time for reflection, I should say also, 
 that it was entirely sound in its positions. 
 . 1 am very respectfully, 
 
 WARD HUNT. 
 The Honorable Piatt Potter, 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE JOHN K. PORTER, LATE JUDGE OF 
 THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Nbw Yobk, Feb'y 19, 1870. 
 My Dear Judge : 
 
 I have just read with great delight thes account of the 
 manner in which you met the attempt to arraign you before 
 the Assembly. 
 
 Accept my hearty congratulations on the ability, the 
 fearlessness, and the dignity with which you vindicated the 
 rights of the judiciary — and with which you arraigned in 
 turn those who sought to raise an issue between two co- 
 ordinate branches of the government. The bench and bar 
 of the State will sustain your position with one accord, and 
 will regard with no ordinary gratification and pride, the 
 manliness and independence of your bearing, on an occasion 
 of so much interest to us all. 
 
 Yours most truly, 
 
 JOHN K. PORTER. 
 
 Hon. Piatt Potter. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE JOHN H. REYNOLDS, LATE OF THE 
 COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Albany, March 5, 1870. 
 
 My Dear Judge : 
 
 I have to thank you for a copy of your defence of an 
 " Independent Judiciary." It is most ably done -and you 
 deserve the thanks of the legal profession and of mankind. 
 * * I do not believe a word in the assumption of 
 the Assembly. 
 
36 
 
 If it prevails, I do not see why Tom Field & Co. may 
 not silence the judicial voice of the State. 
 
 Biit I have only now to thank you on my own account 
 and hope for the pleasure of saying a few words hereafter. 
 Sincerely yours, 
 
 JOHN H. REYNOLDS. 
 The Ho?i. Piatt Potter. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE AMASA J. PARKER, LATE JUSTICE 
 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Albany, March 4, 1870, 
 Hon. Platt Pottee : 
 
 My Dear Sir — I am greatly obliged to you for a copy of 
 your argument just received. It reminds me that I have 
 been intending to write you for ten days past on the sub- 
 ject of what seems to me a grossly mistaken claim made on 
 the part of the Assembly to exercise jurisdiction over the 
 judicial acts of the Supreme Court, and I thank you for the 
 bold and dignified attitude assumed by yon in defence of 
 the prerogatives of the Court. 
 
 If there is anything I would \\i,vq done differently, it 
 would have been to refuse "to appear at all, and thus bring 
 the question before the Courts for decision, by Habeas 
 Corpus, if any attempt should be made to arrest. 
 
 I was in Washington the week 'when this proceeding 
 before the Assembly took place. If I had been here, I 
 should have volunteered my services as your Counsel on the 
 occasion, for I felt then, and now feel, that there was a 
 question of principle involved which we all ought to be 
 ready to defend when raised. 
 
 With great regard, I am 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 AMASA J. PARKER. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE HENRY E. DAVIES, LATE CHIEF 
 JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. NEW YORK. 
 
 New Yokk, March 16, 1870. 
 Hon. Pl^tt Pottee : 
 
 My Dear Sir — I thank you for the Pamphlet containing 
 
37 
 
 your argument before the Assembly. It is exbaustive, able 
 and conclusive, and demonstrates the folly and absurdity of 
 calling a Judge to account for a Judicial decision of a 
 court of which he is a component member. In fact my 
 first impression was that you should have taken no other 
 notice of the summons to appear at the Bar of the House, 
 than, to have addressed to the Speaker a communication, 
 stating the facts and circumstances of the decision. That it 
 was the act of the court of which you were a member, and 
 Presiding Judge ; that if the decision was erroneous, it was 
 subject to review in a legal manner, and that you could not 
 submit to be called to account for a judicial act, by that or 
 any other body. 
 
 Perhaps the course you adopted was in the whole the 
 wisest. And as it is said, that " success is the best criterion 
 of acts," I feel, no disposition to criticise the manner of its 
 attainment. 
 
 With kind regards, * * * . * 
 I remain very truly yours, 
 
 HENRY E. DAVIES. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE JOHN W. EDMONDS, LATE JUSTICE 
 SUPREME COURT, NEW YORK. 
 
 New Yoke, March 8, 1870, 
 Dear Pottee : 
 
 I havejec|ived and read your argument in the contempt 
 case, before ™fe Assembly. It was what might have been 
 expected from you ; clear, forcible, patriotic and firm, and 
 put to shame these flippant sticklers for privilege. 
 
 You ought to be gratified for the opportunity. Felix 
 opportunitate mortis. « * * * 
 I subscribe myself as ever. 
 
 Your friend, 
 
 J. W. EDMONDS. 
 Hoji. P. Potter. 
 
38 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN D. SILLIMAN, tATE 
 U. S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY, NEW YORK. 
 
 Bkooklyn, March 17, '70. 
 
 How. Platt Pottee : 
 
 Dear Sir — I took the liberty in Washington a few days 
 ago of saying to Hon. Caleb Gushing that I would ask you 
 to send to him a copy of your demonstration of judicial 
 independence, and limitations of Legislative power. He 
 had not seen it though he had heard of it. It is, so far as 
 my reading goes, the grandest, firmest and most conclusive 
 sppech ever delivered on the subject. It ought to be pub- 
 lished as an elementary work for the benefit of all who are 
 to be well edur-ated in regard to our institutions, instead of 
 being so much limited to the profession. I tiiiuk, my ilear 
 sir, that you and John Qaimy Adams have taught Legisla- 
 tures the limit of their powers — and in each case with a 
 boldness, dignity, learning and logic which were irresistible. 
 
 If you have a copy to spure for Mr. ("ushing, he will 
 appreciate it, and I sliall be much your debtor if you will 
 forward it to him, or, if for any reason more agreeable to 
 you, it you will forward it to me; and I will send it to him. 
 
 1 have the honor to be, dear sir, with great respect. 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 BENJ. D. SILLIMAN. 
 
 The Hon. Platt Potter. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE CALEB CUSHING, LATE ATTORNEY 
 GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, EX-JUDGE SUPREME 
 COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS. MINISTER T09SSKiAe^Si.^. 
 
 "Washingtoit, MaichB^th, 1870. 
 To THE Honorable Platt Potteb, Schenectady, New York : 
 Dear Sir — I was informed by a distinguished friend, a 
 few days since, of an argument made by you before the 
 Honorable Assembly of your State, upon the question of 
 the limitation of the legislative power, and of the independ- 
 ence of the judiciary. I requested him to furnish me with 
 a copy of the argument. Before its receipt, however, I was 
 referred to the case as already reported in the 55 vol. of the 
 
89 
 
 Supreme Court Reports of your State by Barbour. I read 
 the case with great interest and pleasure, and 1 cannot 
 restrain the expression of my admiration of your courteous 
 and dignified bearing on that occasion, and of rendering my 
 thanks to you for your able and successful protest against 
 encroachment by the legislative, upon the judicial depart- 
 ment of the government. One remarkable as well as 
 important feature that marks the case is, that it seems to be 
 the first attempt at usurpation by the legislative depart 
 ment of power upon the independence of the co-ordinate 
 department, the judicial : and permit me to say, that since 
 your bold expose of the attempt, that I entirely concur 
 with you in the prediction, " that it will be the last one." 
 Your argument is unanswerable and conclusive. 
 
 It may not be quite becoming in me to criticise the legal 
 wisdom of this branch of the legislative department of the 
 great State of New York. I must, however, be permitted 
 to express my opinion, that this attempted arraignment 
 of a high judicial officer for an act performed in the legiti- 
 mate and constitutional performance of his duty was not 
 well considered. It was as unwise, as it was unauthorized. 
 
 To a stranger to the proceeding, the case seems also to 
 bear upon its face, a most undignified and unbecoming 
 manifestation oi partisan spirit by the usurping body. The 
 implied discourtesy in the address of the Speaker to you, 
 representing as you did, the judiciary of the State, upon 
 your voluntai;y appearance at the bar of the House — his 
 refusal to' atlow you the clear constitutional right to appear 
 by counsel, and his anxiety to get rid of you at the close of 
 your argument, appears to me to be as discourteous to you 
 as it was undignified in him and of the body he represented. 
 Yonr forbearance as to his manner on the one hand, and 
 your independent resistance to the order to leave the House 
 on the other, is only equalled by the noble triumph of sound 
 reason by demonstration of your being in the right, and the 
 consequent humiliation of the whole body, who saw them- 
 selves as having committed a grave error. 
 
40 
 
 A still graver error in my view, it was in that body, that, 
 instead of magnanimously acknowledging their error and 
 discharging the proceeding on that gi'ound, to attempt an 
 escape, by a resolution of justification of their act, the more 
 discreditable because- carrying upon its face to the most 
 common observer, an insincere and unjustifiable reason. 
 Had you sought occasion to perpetuate your fame as a 
 jurist, no other opportunity in a life time, could have 
 equalled that furnished you by this legislative body. 
 
 My thanks, the thanks of the Judiciary, and the thanks 
 of the country are due to you for this defence of the rights 
 of this co-ordinate department of government so ably, so 
 boldly presented. 
 
 I am with great respect. 
 
 Truly yours, 
 
 CALEB GUSHING. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE LUCIUS ROBINSON, COMPTROLLER, 
 EX-GOVERNOR, &c. 
 
 Elmiea, Sept. 13, 1870. 
 My Dear Sir : 
 
 I thank you for the copy of your argument before the 
 Legislature. I watched the proceedings with much interest 
 at the time and have read your argument with great 
 pleasui'e. I am glad that the bench still maintains its 
 dignity and independence, whatever may be thought of the 
 Legislature. 
 
 I regretted that we had not the pleasure of seeing you at 
 our house. We shall hope for better success when you 
 come again. 
 
 Yours very truly. 
 
 L. ROBINSON. 
 Fton. Piatt Potter. 
 
41 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE AUGUSTUS BOCKES, JUSTICE OF 
 THE SUPREME COURT. 
 
 Wednesday Evening, ) 
 February 16, 1870. ) 
 Dear Judge : 
 
 I heard just this moment of your perfect triumph at the 
 Bar of the Legislature — Perfect and complete triuinph ! 
 
 You are entitled to the thanks of the Judiciary. 
 
 This was a mean attempt to interfere with the plainest 
 principles of right, and the parties have been foiled. 
 
 You were of course informed of the cause of my absence 
 from Albany. Nothing less than my excuse — the burial of 
 the dead of my family — could have prevented. 
 
 I had examined the question and had arrived at the con- 
 clusion that you were entirely right,. and intended to be in 
 Albany prepared either to stand by you in the House with 
 a protest and a speech to support it then — or to aid if neces- 
 sary by the exercise of judicial authority. 
 
 Please accept my congratulations in eonsideratian of 
 
 your triumph. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 A. BOCKES. 
 Judge Potter. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE ENOCH H. 'ROSEKRANS,. JUSTICE 
 SUPREME COURT. 
 
 Fonda, N. Y., Feb. 18, 1870. 
 Mt Db4B Judge: 
 
 I cannot delay the expression of gratification and thanks 
 to you for the dignified and undaunted stand you took 
 before the Assembly. Your words were fitly spoken, and 
 the degradation which was intended for you and the 
 Judiciary of the State, has recoiled upon those who pur- 
 posed and originated the outrage. Tlie insolence of the 
 attack might have induced a more impulsive judge to have 
 said something less agreeable to the Assembly ; but the 
 manner yon assumed was more appropriate. You treated a 
 co-ordinate branch of the Government with with all the 
 
42 
 
 courtesy and consideration it deserved, and maintained the 
 dignity of the Judicial Department. 
 
 You were right in your actions at the Circuit, and have 
 been " rectus in curia''' ever since. I have no time to 
 write more, and write this in haste. 
 Again •! express my tlianks. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 E. H. ROSEKRANS. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE A. B. JAMES, JUSTICE SUPREME 
 
 COURT. 
 
 ()gden8B0kg, Feb'y 21, 1870. 
 Beo. Pottee : 
 
 I returned from our Circuit Saturday night, and did not 
 see the Legislative proceedings, in your case, until yester- 
 day. I read your reply with real pleasure and satisfaction ; 
 it was not only unanswerable, but annihilating. I thank 
 you for not lowering the flag of your Judicial position. I 
 am mortified that the Assembly had not the dignity to back 
 square out of their unauthorized and unconstitutional action. 
 But " Pigmies are pigmies stiU though perched on Alps." 
 
 It would seem the body thought it had no dignity to 
 spare. Is it not possible for you to bring some kind of an 
 action so as to get the Speaker before the courts ? or the 
 Committee ; and we might teach him, or them, more law ; 
 and the latter, perhaps, more manners ? or, are you not 
 satisfied with your success ? 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 A. B. JAMES. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE G. M. SPEIR, JUDGE OF THE 
 SUPERIOR COURT, NEW YORK. 
 
 Deal Beaoh, July 10, 1870. 
 HoN; Platt Pottee : 
 
 Dear Sir — I have just finished the readiug of your argu- 
 ment in the case of a high Breach of Privilege which you 
 were kind enough to send me. 
 
 I now wish to say to you in all sincerity, I have not been 
 
43 - 
 
 more interested in a case since I have been on the Bench. 
 Let me give my reasons : 1st. The manner you have treated 
 the subject by presenting the big point with such masterly 
 force lying at the foundation of the Government— the co- 
 ordinate and independent functions of the Judicial and 
 administrative departments. 2Hd. The bold and unflinch- 
 ing manner you saw fit to assume to a set of tyros in legis- 
 lation who seem to have been ignorant of the first principles 
 of the law-making power, and finally, the complete route of 
 the whole body of nincompoops including the renowned 
 Tom Fields, "now sojourning in foreign parts," setting a 
 first class example of an American law maker. * * 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 G. M. SPEIR. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE CHARLES DANIELS, JUSTICE OF 
 THE SUPREME COURT. 
 
 Buffalo, March 5, 1870. 
 Hon. Platt Pottek : 
 
 Dear Judge — I am very much obliged indeed for the 
 copy of your argument made before the Assembly. I have 
 read it with very great interest, and have no doubt what- 
 ever of the soundness of all your positions. This proceed- 
 ing on the part of the A ssembly was both inexcusable and 
 disgraceful. It merited, and ought to have received the 
 unqualified condemnation of the press and the public 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 CHAS. DANIELS. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE GEORGE MORRIS, COUNSELLOR, 
 
 &c. 
 
 Ogdensbubg, March 7, 1870. 
 Hon. p. Pottek: 
 
 My Dear Judge — You must accept my warmest thanks 
 for the dignified, fearless and masterly manner in which 
 you "handled" the Assembly on the questi9n of " Preach 
 of Pr vilege.'' I read ycmr argument with a great deal of 
 interest, as it appeared in the papers, and have read the 
 
44 
 
 corrected copy you seut me with renewed interest. Your 
 defence of your position i& overwhelming. It reminded me 
 of Demosthenes reply to .^chines when accused of seek- 
 ing the crown. 
 
 Sincerely respectfully yours, 
 
 GEO. MORRIS. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE HORACE E. SMITH, PROFESSOR OF 
 THE ALBANY LAW SCHOOL. 
 
 Johnstown, N. Y., March, 1870. 
 Hf>N. Platt Fotteb: 
 
 Dear Sir — I have just read with great satisfaction your 
 extinguisher of the New York Assembly. I thank you 
 both for delivering it, and for sending me a copy. Before 
 its receipt from you I had not seen anything like a full 
 report of it, and had been thmking, of writing yon for a 
 copy. Your argument seems to me to be triumphant, 
 unanswerable; a complete vindication of yourself and the 
 Judiciary. I am glad that you decided to appear before 
 that "august body" as a matter of prudence and courtesy, 
 instead of defying their assumed authority. The effect, it 
 seems to me, was much better. You thus showed a dispo- 
 sition to treat the ^issembly with all the respect possible, 
 under the circumstances, without compromising the dignity 
 and prerogatives of the Judiciary which was assailed in your 
 person The exhibition of a wilhngness to show suitable 
 respect to a co-ordinate department of the government, 
 gave point and dignity to your defence of the department 
 so faithfully and ably represented by yoa. It is not proba- 
 ble that either this or any succeeding Legislature will 
 repeat the folly enacted in your case. 
 
 But while rejoicing in your personal success, and the 
 signal vindication of the dignity and independence of the 
 Judiciary achieved, I feel badly for the Assembly, especially 
 the Committee who took you in hand. In spite of myself I 
 cannot help sympathising with the weaker party in a con- 
 test, when that party comes out very badly damaged, how- 
 ever much I may desire the triumph of the right. 
 
45 
 
 Why should those fellows have struck out so recklessly 
 beyond their depth into English, history, and the law of 
 privilege of the British Parliament? It can only be 
 accounted for by the oft-repeated heathen maxim, " Whom 
 the gods would destroy they first make mad." 
 
 The final resolution adopted, gravely announcing that 
 you had mistaken the privileges of that House, but 
 acquitting you of any bad intention, was a fitting finale to 
 their farce. 
 
 Probably it affects you much as a proposition of Pitt did 
 Sheridan, in one of their numerous sharp encounters. Pitt 
 said he would award tu Sheridan the privilege so dear to 
 women— ^the last word. S. in reply said that he would 
 not accept a privilege so appropriate to his adversary, for 
 he, S., was quite contented with the last argument. Tou 
 have reason to be, and doubtless are, contented with the 
 last argument. 
 
 KespectfuUy and truly yours, 
 
 H. E. SMITH. 
 
 FROM THE REV. LAURENS P. KICKOK, D.D. LL.D., LATE 
 PRESIDENT OF UNION COLLEGE. 
 
 Amherst, March 9, 1870. 
 Hon. Platt Pottbe: 
 
 Dear Sir — I have read your triumphant protest before 
 the N. Y. Legislature and am greatly obliged by its kindly 
 transmission. I had read the paper accounts at the time, 
 but am glad to have, and keep, your full statement. You 
 safely, I think, predicted, that as it is the first such arraign- 
 ment, " 80 it will be the last " of the kind. * * 
 Cordially yours, 
 
 L. P. HICKOK. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE CHESTER A. ARTHUR, VICE PRESI- 
 DENT ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 New York, March 10, 1870. 
 My Deab Sir : 
 
 I beg to thank you for the cqpy of your argument in the 
 
46 
 
 matter of alleged breach of privilege of the Asseinblj in 
 the case of Hon. H. Ray.' 
 
 I have read it with much pleasure. 
 
 Yery faithfully yours, 
 
 C. A. ARTHUR. 
 The Hon. Piatt Potter, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE J. W. BRADBURY, LATE SENATOR 
 IN CONGRESS AND EX-GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF 
 
 MAINE. 
 
 Augusta, Sept. 15, 1878. 
 Mt DiCAB Sue : 
 
 Please accept my thanks for a copy of your admirable 
 and conclusive argument in defence of the rights of the 
 Judiciary before the Assembly of the State of New York. 
 
 I have read it with much interest. 
 
 To receive the testimonial that was tendered you upon 
 your retirement from office must afford a satisfaction inferior 
 only to that which arises from a consciousness of having 
 earned it. 
 
 I recall with much pleasure the incidents of our meeting 
 and brief acquaintance at the mountains, and hope we may 
 meet again. 
 
 Please remember me to Mrs. Potter and the ladies of 
 your party. 
 
 Mrs. B. joins in regards. 
 
 Yery respectfully as truly yours, 
 
 J. W. BRADBURY. 
 
 Hon. Piatt Potter, Schenectady. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE WM. A. DART, U. S. CONSUL AT 
 
 CANADA. 
 
 Potsdam, Feb'y 18, 1870. 
 Hon. p. Pottee: 
 
 My Dear Sir — Having emerged for a few days from my 
 temporary sojourn in Her Majesty's d aninions in tlie North, 
 and having just seen in the Utica Herald that you have 
 
47 
 
 been making an effort in the Hon — the Assembly of New 
 York, where you must have got into a profuse perspiration 
 and inhaled the atmosphere of that place, you are doubtless 
 much in need of a Turkish bath and a good fumigation. I 
 would respectfully recommend for the latter Chloride of 
 Lime as the best article known for such purpose. 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 WILLIAM A'. DART. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE E. P. HULBURT, LATE JUSTICE 
 SUPREME COURT. 
 
 Albany, March 24, 1870. 
 Ron. Platt Pottee: 
 
 I have read with interest the case of " Breach of Privi- 
 lege,'' which you were so kind as to send me, and congratu- 
 late you on the iorce of your argument and your fortunate 
 escape ; but I am of the opinion, that if at the close of the 
 case, you had been arrested under the Statute to " prevent 
 cruelty to animals," you would not Lave got off so easily. 
 However, I am glad that you remain at large, that the dull 
 world may enjoy that old time humor, of which I trust the 
 gravity of tlie Ju ige has not divested you. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 E. P. HULBURT. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE HOOPER C. VAN VORST, JUDGE OF 
 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW YORK. 
 
 106 Beoadway, New Yoek, March 4, 1870. 
 Hon. Pliltt Pottee: 
 
 Dear Sir — I return you many thanks for the copy of 
 your masterly argument before the Assembly of New York 
 in the matter of H. Kay Your discussion of the subject is 
 both exhaustive and dignified. 
 
 I liad watched the whole proceeding with much interest 
 and I was right glad that it was in your hands to stand up 
 for the Judiciary. I knew that you had the principles to 
 
48 
 
 stand up for the courts, and ability to defend the right, and 
 you have done it well. 
 
 I remain yoar ob'd't serv't, 
 
 HOOPER C. VAN VORST. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE WILLIAM A. BUCKINGHAM, LATE 
 SENATOR IN fcONGRESS OF U. S., OF CONNECTICUT, EX- 
 GOVERNOR, &c., &c. 
 
 Norwich, Conn., Aug. 25, 1873. 
 Hon. Platt Pottee: 
 
 Dear Sir — I have been interested in reading your argu- 
 ment before the Assembly of New Yorli. 
 
 The position taken by yon appears to me to be impreg 
 nable and I am astonished that the Assembly should have 
 passed a resolution declaring your action a breach of its 
 privilege, and that it should have added the insulting 
 declaration, "that you was mistaken.'' 
 
 But the resolution does not determine the character of 
 your act. It was right and without such action every 
 scoundrel like Bill Tweed may defy the government and 
 escape all penalty due for his wrong doing. 
 
 Believe I am yours with great respect, 
 
 WM. A. BUCKINGHAM. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE THOMAS BARLOW, LATE STATE 
 SENATOR. 
 
 Canastota, April 12, 1870. 
 Hon. Platt Pottee : 
 
 Dear Sir — Excuse me for delajiing the acknowledgment 
 of the receipt of the pamphlet copy of your argument on 
 the alleged Breach of Privilege. 
 
 I read the proceedings carefully at the time they trans- 
 pired and felt you were entirely in the right in your views 
 of the case. Your argument is unanswerable in matter, 
 principle and policy ; and I am pleased that yen frankly 
 stood to your rights and triumphed in your defence of 
 them. 
 
 Yours most respectfully, 
 
 THOS. BARLOW. 
 
49 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE CORNELIUS L. TRACY, LATE SUR- 
 ROGATE.MEMBER OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CON- 
 VENTION, &o. 
 
 Tboy, March 14, 1870. 
 Hon. PLiTrPoTTEE: 
 
 My Dear Sir — 1 have received and read with a great deal 
 of satisfaction your defence of the Judiciary before the 
 Assembly of New York. I had hoped to express my 
 thanks to you personally for your dignified, unflinching, 
 persistent conduct of this whole matter, but the receipt of 
 the pamphlet prompts me to this expression of my 
 sentiments. 
 
 The * * « ,)^gj, ^Ijo have converted the 
 Legislative Hall into "a den of thieves," finally seemed as 
 anxious to be rid of you as were the magistrates of Philippi 
 to have St. Paul to depart from the city. 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 CORNELIUS L. TRACY. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE AZARIAH C. FLAGG, LATE COMP- 
 TROLLER, SECRETARY OF STATE, &c. 
 
 New Yoek, March 29, 1870. 
 Host. Platt Potter : 
 
 Dear Sir — I have received a pamphlet containiiig yonr 
 argument before the Assembly at Albany on an alleged 
 breach of privilege, for which accept my thanks. 
 
 Your triumph over the ill-judged measures of the Assem- 
 bly was complete. I was greatly interested at the time, and 
 am extremely gratified at the result. 
 
 We all desire to be kindly remembered to Mrs. Potter. 
 Faithfully yours, 
 
 A. C. FLAGG. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE AUGUSTUS C. HAND, LATE JUSTICE 
 OF THE SUPREME COURT. 
 
 Elizabkthtown, Feb'y,, 1870. 
 
 Mt Deak Jbdge : * * * 
 
 I was deeply interested in your case before the Assembly. 
 
50 
 
 I had not and have not examined the subject as much as 1 
 ought to have done, and I confess I was inclined at first to 
 think there is such a Parliamentary privilege. . But, what 
 struck my mind with great force was, that this was a 
 Judicial act, the exercise of your judgment while silting 
 as a court. And your remarks, which I have read with 
 care, have strengthened my impressions on that point. 
 How can you be called to ac-ount in this way, at least, for 
 such an act — for exercising your judgment ? 
 
 Samuel and self were in Schenectady last week, and pro- 
 posed to pay our respects, but you had just left for Hudson 
 to attend a wedding. 
 
 Yours, 
 
 A. C. HAND. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE F. FISH, COUNSELLOR, &c. 
 
 FuLTONviLLE, N. Y., Fcb'y 12, 1870. 
 Hon. Platt Poxtek : 
 
 Dear Sir — I have noticed the proceedings of the Assem- 
 bly in relation to your action as a Judge in the matter of 
 the attachment against Ray, and I join in the general 
 acclaim of indignation at this foul attempt to degrade the 
 State Judiciary by a personal thrust at yourself. 
 
 Not doubting that this most atrocious attempt to damage 
 and trouble you will come to grief, I, nevertheless, as one 
 of those who have through a long course of years been a 
 constant witness of your official conduct, ofier whatever of 
 support an expression of entire confidence in the purity of 
 purpose that has always characterized your course on the 
 bench, may give. 
 
 If the action of the Assembly shall be followed up, dO as 
 to make an attempt upon your fair fame, I think you may 
 count upon the united support of the bar in your defence. 
 Believe me very truly and respectfully yours, 
 
 F. FISH. 
 
51 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE A. H. TANNER, MEMBER OF CON- 
 GRESS, &c. 
 
 WxsnmGTON, D. C, 5th March, 1870. • 
 My Dear Sik : 
 
 I have received a copy of the argument made by you 
 before the Assembly of New York. 
 
 Permit me to tender my thanke for the vindication of 
 "judicial independence," and the " limitation of legislative 
 prerogative," of which your address is a conclusive demon- 
 stration. T hope that it may be preserved in a permanent 
 form in sbme of our reports. 
 
 Yours very respecttully, 
 
 A. H. TANNER. 
 Hon. Piatt Potter, 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. BOGART, LITERARY 
 CORRESPONDENT, &c. 
 
 Albany, 2d March, 1871. 
 Deae Judge : 
 
 I am glad that you did not forget to send me the«copy of 
 your argument in the, alleged, case of breach of privilege. 
 
 Especially glad am I, because it has enabled me to see 
 what I so seldom have the luxury of witnessing, the truth 
 of our institutions of balanced power vindicated. It is 
 fresh and wise language, and I wish all the State could be 
 induced to read it. There is with us a perpetual disposi- 
 tion to eulogise power. We have so changed Pope's axiom 
 that it shall read, whatever is strong is right. You stood 
 by your order, as Earl Grey said when the Eeform bill was 
 in the House of Lords, and I honor you for it. 
 
 I think so much of the argument that I have sent it to 
 the B!>ston City Library. 
 
 With great regards, 
 
 WILLIAM H. BOGART. 
 
52 
 
 FROM PROFESSOR ELLICOTT EVANS, OF HAMILTON COL- 
 LEGE. 
 
 Clinton, Nov. 5, 1872. 
 Hon. Platt Pottee: 
 
 My Dear Sir — 1 am much obliged to you for your 
 pamphlet, which I read with much interest. From a 
 person in your position it was o/ course necessary to treat 
 the subject in the dignified way yon have done, as this 
 exposition will become one of our authorities on the subject 
 of Breach of Privilege. If this had not been due to your 
 own self respect, and respect for tho Judiciary, I should 
 have been glad to see those blockheads rapped over the 
 knuckles with a " reductio ad absurdutn,^^ by showing 
 them the nature of their blessed precedent in its history in 
 the British Parliament, a body which, even now, permits 
 reports, and even visitors only on sufferance, and which in 
 1700, the date you quote, regarded any disclosure of 
 debates as little better than treason. A pretty authority 
 for a nation, which embodies liberty of the press in its very 
 Constitutional Law, as an addition to the absolute rights 
 which Blackstone quotes, as those of the British subject, 
 but which, even down to the time of John Wilkes, was a 
 perfect abomination to the powers that were. 
 
 Excuse me for throwing in any suggestions, which of 
 course are altogetlier incompatible with the valuable reason- 
 ing that makes your argument a part of our jurisprudence ; 
 but I can't help showing a little irritation when 1 see such 
 ignoramuses resolve " that the Hon. Piatt Potter was mis- 
 taken " in the law of the question, which was evidently 
 altogether above their comprehension. 
 
 Mrs. Evans sends her best regards. 
 
 1 am very respectfully, 
 
 ELLICOTT EVANS. 
 
 FROM ISAAC W. THOMPSON, COUNSELLOR, &c. 
 Hon, Platt Potter, Schenectady, N. Y. : 
 
 Dear Sir — The receipt by mail this day under your own 
 handwriting with your compliments, of your remarkably 
 
S3 
 
 neat and unanswerable argument before the Legislature of 
 this State on the question of " High Breach of Privilege," 
 &c., affords me opportunity, whilst thanking you for so good* 
 a thing to read, and then to preserve, to say, your dignified 
 stand and handsome mode of presenting unanswerable and 
 most lawyer and statesmanlike arguments, has conferred a 
 great favor upon courts, the bar, and the people also. 
 
 B enceforth I shall more than ever feel to put more con- 
 fidence ill courts; especially when their high duties fall 
 into the hands of those who, appreciating the powers belong- 
 ing to a high position, will not surrender a thing from fear, 
 affection or reward, or the hope thereof, nor shy even at 
 sight of the Ra<jk. 
 
 If you will allow me so to express my appreciation, then 
 I will say "yonr head is level." 
 
 1 am yours truly, 
 
 ISAAC W. THOMPSON, 
 
 Gbanville, N. Y., March M, 1870. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE E. P. PRENTICE, BANKER, &c. 
 Mount Hope, Albany, Oct. 16, 1871. 
 Judge Potter : 
 
 My Dear Sir — I am in receipt of the Pamphlet you was 
 8i> kind as to send me on Saturday. 
 
 I remember to have swung my hat as high as the highest 
 when the argument was first published ; that so much inde- 
 pendence had survived a popular election. I have now re- 
 read it with increased interest and pleasure, in consequence 
 of a new interest in the author. All iinite in kind regards. 
 I am, my dear Judge, 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 E. P. PRENTICE. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE RICHARD PECK, JUDGE, &c. 
 
 Wells, N. Y., March 22d, 1870. 
 Judge Pottee : 
 
 Dear Sir — Please accept my thanks for the Pamphlet 
 containing the proceedings of the Assembly in the matter 
 
54 
 
 of a high breach of privilege of H. Ray, one of its mem- 
 bers. 
 
 I cannot call to mind any act of our State Legislature so 
 farcical, trivial, or ridiculous as this. 
 
 The language of the Speaker on your arraignment was 
 not as respecttul as the circumsstaiices demanded. It was 
 undignified in him. 
 
 The manly and fearless vindication of yourself, from the 
 imaginary indignity entertained by the House, must have 
 lessened them in public estimation, as expounders of the 
 law, if not in their own. Had the House possessed one 
 spark of magnimity they would havt dismissed the case 
 without note or comment when you closed your address. 
 
 I sincerely hope there will be found in tho next Legisla- 
 ture some lover of justice, who will rise in his place and in- 
 troduce a resolution, drawing black lines around their pro 
 ceedings and expunge it from the Journals of the House. 
 Very respectfully yours, 
 
 RICHARD PECK. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE STILLMAN FOOTE. 
 
 Ogdensbukg, Feb'y 18, 1870. 
 Hon. Platt Pottee: 
 
 My Dear Sir — The expression of my opinion cannot 
 amount to much, but I feel impelled to thank you for your 
 noble vindication of the dignity and independence of the 
 Judiciary. The good sense of the people will sustain you, 
 and applaud the firmness with which you stood in defence 
 of the great bulwark of society — "the independence of our 
 courts of justice.'" 
 
 Very sincerely, 
 
 STILLMAN FOOTE. 
 
 FROM PETER G. WEBSTER, ESQ., COUNSELLOR, &c. 
 
 FoET Plain, Feb'y 22, 1870. 
 Hon. p. Pottkb: 
 
 My Dear Sir — I have just finished the perusal of your 
 
55 
 
 great argument before the legislature of this State upon 
 your recent arraignment before that body. 
 
 It is a bold, able and fearless vindication of the rights 
 and powers of the- judiciary of this State from an attempted 
 encroachment upon the same by the Legislature. 
 
 You are evidently right upon principle, and manifestly 
 sustained by an overwhelming array of precedents and 
 authorities. I am proud of your effort on the occasion 
 referred to ; and as well by reason of its importance and 
 general interest, as a precedent, associate your name with 
 the distinguished jurists in England and America who so 
 sternly rebuked similar attempts to sacrifice constitutional 
 rights. 
 
 I merely concur in the general expression of approbation 
 when I say that it was good — emphatically good. 
 I am, my dear sir, truly and sincerely yours, 
 
 P. G. WEBSTER. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE M. L. LINDLEY, MEMBER OF CON- 
 GRESS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Bew Orleans, 2l8t March, 187C. 
 Hon. Platt Potter : 
 
 My Dear Sir — 1 am in receipt of your argument in 
 defence of the Judiciary, as illustrated in your own case, in 
 answer to the action of the Honorable the Assembly of the 
 State of New York, charging you' with a high breach of 
 privilege. I hardly need to assure you that on the first 
 allusion to the matter by the press, I felt a lively interest 
 as to how it might eventuate, retaining meanwhile a fair 
 share of confidence that you could " fill the bill " if per- 
 mitted to have fair play, and you have done it not only to 
 the shame and diss^race of the Assembly, but to the com- 
 plete satisfaction of your friends and, I doubt not, the 
 Bench. Accept my thanks for the copy, which is but just 
 received. « * * * 
 
 Believe me very truly yours, (fee, 
 
 M. L. LINDLEY. 
 
56 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE E. H. OWEN, COUNSELLOR, &c., 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 71 Wall St., New Yoek, March 18, 1870. 
 Deab Judge : 
 
 1 have received and read Vith great pleasure and satis 
 faction your able argument before the House of Assembly. 
 It is so clear and convincing that I am surprised the House 
 did not at once withdraw its proceedings, instead of adopt- 
 inic the course of insisting that your acts were a breach of 
 privilege but excusing you on the ground that you did not 
 intend to violate their rights. This was pitiful in the 
 extreme ; but what else could be expected from such a 
 body? 
 
 Thanking you for your kind remembrance, I remain as 
 ever, 
 
 Your truly, 
 
 E. H. OWEN. 
 
 Hon. Piatt Potter, 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE PETER J. WAGNER, LATE MEMBER 
 OF CONGRESS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Fort Plain, March 8, 1870. 
 
 Judge Potter: 
 
 Dear Sir — I thank you for your late vindication before 
 
 the Legislature on the " Breach of Privilege " charge. As 
 
 a member of your Judicial District, I do most sincerely 
 
 congratulate you for your able and unanswerable argument, 
 
 and my only wonder is, that yon were not instantly and 
 
 triurnphantly discharged. But I can readily account for 
 
 this. It is to be ascribed to the fact, that the body you 
 
 addressed was composed in a large proportion, as Doctor 
 
 Not' would have said, of the '^•QoTnmon herd of Mankind^' 
 
 who care and know but little, and tliink less, of logic and 
 
 law, * * and though there was a sprinkling of lawyers 
 
 among them, yet their judicial and parliamentary learning 
 
 were inad< quale to comprehend and appreciate the force of 
 
 your complete vindication. You were ^''primus inter pares." 
 
57 
 
 Tour address therefore, was " argumentum ad ignomn ■ 
 tiam.''' • 
 
 ' Allow me to say my dear sir, I feel proqind of your coq- 
 clusive defeni-e. * It is an enviable monument to the judi- 
 ciary department, and especially to Judge Potter; let me 
 add, worthy of the conspicuous note in Barbour's Reps , 
 Vol. 55, and will survive for many centuries the members 
 of the present Legislature, your ill advised accusers, after 
 they " shall have gone to their kindred dust," and " sunk 
 to that slumber which will know no waking until the morn- 
 ing of resurrection." 
 
 If our obliged friend and humble servant, 
 
 : iP. J. WAGNER: 
 
 FROM W. P. PRENTICE, COUNSELLOR, &c., NEW YORK. 
 
 New Tokk, Oct. 20, 1871. 
 Hon. p. Pqttee: 
 
 Dear Sir — I have had the honor to receive a copy of 
 your argument in the Assembly in the Kay Privilege case, 
 and I have had the pleasure of re reading it ; for I suppose 
 no lawyer has failed to use the opportunity the public 
 prints gave us at the time. As a climbing man, in the pro- 
 fession, I was glad to see its liead so illuminated, so firm, 
 and so far above members of assembly as yon showed it. I 
 have to thank you for your kind remembrance, and for the 
 privilege of filing this pamphlet away with so agreeable i 
 and useful associations. 
 
 I remain with respect very truly yours, 
 
 W. P. PRENTICE. 
 
 FROM A. H. AYRES, ESQ., COUNSELLOR, &c, 
 
 FoBT Plain, March 9th, '70. 
 Hon. p. Potteb: 
 
 Dear Sir — lam greatly obliged for the pamphlet copy 
 of your fit and conclusive argument beibre the Assembly; 
 showing that we have " a court amongst us." 
 
 1 had preserved the newspaper publication for scrap 
 
58 
 
 book. The profession, so far as I learn, are not only 
 grateful for the ample vindication of the Judiciary, but that 
 so much learning was garnered for future reference and 
 availability. 
 
 With great respect, 
 
 A. H. AYRES. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE JOHN C. HULBURT, JUDGE, &c. 
 
 Sabatoga Springs, Feb'y 17, 1870. . 
 Deae Judge: 
 
 Well, you have been down among the thieves and " Plug 
 Uglies " who represent wortliy constituents. If you got 
 off without having your poeket-book stolen you did better 
 than that fellow who went " down to Jericho " some years 
 since. If you lost that " t^'ash '' you certainly retained 
 your own honor, and maintained the rights of the Judiciary 
 right gallantly The spectacle of arraigning a Judge 
 before the law-makers for a contempt .for issuing a process 
 for the enforcement of a law that is the work of their own 
 hands, is another disgraceful chapter to insert in the his- 
 tory of the Empire State. 
 
 I got an impression from reading the Legislative proceed- 
 ings from the Journal last evening that you put the Legis 
 lature on the defensive before you got through with them, 
 and that the members who got their hands in the dirty 
 work, were glad to escape by passing a Resolution that 
 contained a glaring falsehood on its face. Your position 
 and defence did not justify the allegation that your process 
 was issued by mistake. If 1 am not mistaken, you justified 
 the act, and threatened the issuing of another in like case. 
 
 When the impartial historian makes up the record of this 
 transaction he will record the fact that " Mr. Piatt Potter " 
 censured the Speaker and other members of the House. 
 Yours truly, 
 
 JNO. C. HUL5URT. 
 
59 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE ARPHAXED LOOMIS, ONE OF THE 
 AUTHORS OF THE CODE. 
 
 LiTTtE FiLLB, March 5th, 1870. 
 Hon. Platt Potteb: 
 
 My Dear Sir — I thank you for the pamphlet copy of 
 your defence before the Assembly on the privilege question. 
 
 I had observed the proceedings and watched them with 
 interest from the beginning, and read jour defence as it 
 appeared in the paper, and am obliged to say that I think 
 your views sound and that the House was in the wrong. 
 You are entitled to the thanks of the Judiciary, the Bar 
 and indeed the Public, fol" your vindication of the independ- 
 ence of the Judicial Department of the Government. * * 
 
 This proceeding will d9 you no harm and your defence 
 
 does you no discredit. 
 
 Truly yours, 
 
 A. LOOMIS. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE D. O. BRADLEY, MEMBER OF 
 
 ASSEMBLY. 
 
 ' Dobb's Febey, N. Y., Sept. 5th, 1877. 
 
 Hon. Platt Pottbk : 
 
 My Dear Judge — I have read your Breach of Privilege 
 argument with pleasure and satisfaction. I am obliged to 
 you for sending it to me. 
 
 With great respect, I am yours, 
 
 D. O. BRADLEY. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE HENRY SMITH, LATE SPEAKER OF 
 THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY. 
 
 •Albany, March 5th, 1870. 
 Deae Judge : 
 
 I thank you for the copy of your argument before the 
 Assembly which I have just received. You most gloriously 
 vindicated yourself and the high official position you 
 occupy. Your course" in the premises is universally 
 admired and approved. 
 
 1 am respectfully yours, 
 
 HENRY SMITH. 
 Hon. P. Potter, Just. Sup. Court. 
 
60 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE E. M. K. GLEN, LATE MEMBER OF 
 THE ASSEMBLY. 
 
 Macedon, March 7th, 1870. , 
 
 How. PlATT POTTEK : 
 
 Mj Friend — I hare your defence before the Hon. (?) 
 Assembly ; it seems to me complete. I had always sup- 
 posed that the privilege of membets of the Legislature — 
 was only from civil process — silch as the Warrant to col- 
 lect a debt under the Law of this State prior to 1831. Of 
 course 1 did not pretend to know much about the law of 
 Breach of Privilege. I was sorry that you had to 
 aipply tlie term Honorable so often to the scamps, but yon 
 have abundant of precedents. St. Paul addressed " Most 
 Noble FestuB." This Ray wiiS once my witaess before 
 John O. Oole, Esq. He seemed quite reluctant to tell the 
 truth. He was last winter (1869) in some of the corrupt 
 rings. I was glad you gave him a rebuke. I fully endorse 
 your conduct aside from the argument. 
 
 Truly, 
 
 E. M. K. GLEN. 
 
 from m. t. walworth. esq. 
 
 69 East 52nd St., New Yoek Gftt, ) 
 March 8th, 1870. 5 
 
 Hon. Plait Pottee : 
 
 Dear Sir — Many thanks for the printed copy of your 
 Diost able and admirable defence before the Assembly at 
 Albany. It was sent to Saralpga (wliere 1 roside only dur- 
 ing the summer months), and from' there some one mailed it 
 to me at my residence here as above ^ where I spend nine 
 months of the year. 
 
 I have read yonr legal argument in the case with your 
 citation of English and American • authorities with great 
 interest. I assure you, dear sir, that as a member of the 
 Bar of this State I appreciate your strong and lucid argu- 
 ments and as a man I sympathize with your clear, manly, 
 outspoken protest against encroachment upon " the inde- 
 
|)endence of the judiciary." I shall file this in'con trover tible 
 argument among my pamphlets as a most valuable docu- 
 ments I jremaiiij dear sir, with thte highest respect, 
 f: Your obedient servant, i 
 
 MANSFIELD TRACEY WALWORTH. I 
 
 F'ROM THE HONORABLE JOSEPH D. HUSBANDS, COUNf 
 SELLOK, &c. , ' ' ' "'-• 
 
 EooHESTEE, Feb'y Itth, 1870. 
 Hon. Platt Pottek f 
 
 My Dear Judge — As an old friend, allow me to congratu- 
 late you on the maintenance of judicial dignity and independ- 
 ence. I had supposed that one claiminjir a privilege fronj 
 arrest must move the court'^r his discharge. Lyell v. Good- 
 win, 4 McLean Ej 29 ; &eyer v.. Irwin, 4 Dal. 107. The 
 court say in respect to a member of the Assembly: ''Every 
 privileged person must at the proper time, and in -a proper 
 manner, claim the benefit of bis privilege. < The Judges are 
 pot bound judicially to notice a privilegej nqr-^to grant it 
 without a claim " Also 1 Johns. Qas 415; 4 Wend. 204 j 
 Gr. Pr. 2d ed. 123;^^ j^^. , ;, ,■[■■■ : . 
 
 : If the privilege n>ust be claimed to, and granted by. the 
 court, it is difficult tp conceive how the Judge can b^ 
 arrested for an, act on the propriety of which he himself _ha| 
 a right to pass judicially, unless, tlie whole theory of the, 
 official independence oi' the Judiciary is a myth. 
 , In your case, however j as you were courteous and the 
 House backed down. as best it could, I cannot see that any-- 
 body IS hurt unless Mr. Ray feels sore for any cause. \. 
 conclude, as I started, with personal gratulatiohs. I called 
 to Bee you in 'Commencement week but you were out. 
 Yom's very truly, 
 
 J. D. HUSBANDS. ■ 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE L. H. NORTHRUP,' JUDGE, &c. 
 
 Sandy Hill, J^'eb'y 19thj 1870. 
 Mt Dbab Jotgb! ■ 
 
 I have read with great care your protest -at the bar of 
 
62 
 
 the Assembly. I think you have declared the law as it 
 was — as it is — and as it should be. 
 
 It seems to me that if the principle on which the Assem- 
 bly acted should be carried out, it would be fatal to the 
 independence of the Judiciary. 
 
 Your position was dignified ; and your efifort, in my 
 judgment, was worthy of a Story, a Marshall or a Kent. 
 
 You have the best of the fight. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 L. H. NORTHRUP. 
 
 Hon. Piatt Potter. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE I. C. ORMSBY, DISTRICT ATTOR- 
 NEY, &c. 
 
 WATBBFOftD, iSIarch 4th, 1870. 
 Judge Pottee : 
 
 Dear Sir — * * * Much obliged for the copy of 
 that other opinion delivered by you to those fellows in the 
 Assembly chamber. How glad I am you stood on the 
 dignity of your position as a Justice of the Supreme Court, 
 and taught them in so handsome a manner their lesson. 
 That day was indeed well spent, both by the law giver and 
 the pupils, hard and hardened as many of thera were and 
 are. » * • j consider the action of the House 
 as commencing with farce, proceeding with the wealcness of 
 a whim, and ending with a back-down. I hope to have 
 your vindication as delivered by yourself printed for circu- 
 lation. Judges and lawyers ought to have it for the public 
 benefit. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 I. C. ORMSBY. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE CLIFFORD A. HAND, NEW YORK. 
 
 New York, March 25, 1870. 
 Dear Judge : 
 
 Dear Sir — ^I was very glad to receive the pamphlet of the 
 proceedings in the "privilege" case — because the newspaper 
 reports were too meagre to supply your friends with the 
 
63 
 
 best mformation for the purpose of repelling attempts at 
 criticism of your action. I am now armed to exercise intel- 
 ligently, my right to stand out as an old friend upon any 
 occasion arising from this debate. 
 
 It was an ancient and favorite method of coercing the 
 Judiciary in high political times to summon them before 
 the bar of the house. And when the Judiciary were simply 
 representatives and appointees of a King with whom Parlia*- 
 ment was at deadly feud upon vital questions of Constitu- 
 tional (or uncsonstitutional) prerogative, it was sometimes, 
 perhaps, a matter of necessity. The state of things, of neces- 
 sity, prevented the operation of just or ordinary rules — in a 
 condition of practical war between executive and legislature, 
 the Judiciary could not hope to escape violence or to assert 
 its functions with immunity from the open and active war 
 of factions — a war moreover to which it was itself more or 
 less a party. 
 
 , In a country at peace with its various departments of 
 Government, all directly and equally coming from and 
 responding to the People, and exercising their powers under 
 a written Constitution, these precedents, derived from times 
 of war and violence, cannot prevail. * * *. * * 
 With kind regards, yours truly, 
 
 C. A. HAND. 
 
 Hon. P. Potter. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE W. W. PECK, UNITED STATES DIS- 
 TRICT JUDGE OF WYOMING. 
 
 New York, Feb'y 12, 1870. 
 My Dear Sir — The papers announce that you are sum- 
 moned by the House of Assembly to appear at its Bar on 
 the 16th inst., either to explain or to apologize in the matter 
 of Eay (the member lately compelled by you to attend 
 at your Saratoga Circuit to answer to an indictment). 
 Hoping that I may not seem to you to be obtrus- 
 ive, let me advise you not to appear, only in the custody of 
 the 8ergeant-at-Arms, and thus put upon the House (its 
 
64 
 
 Demiocmtitt element) the entire responsibility of an atf empti 
 to invade the jurisprndenee of the jnditiary-r-rfot snch it is 
 -^and dictated by the desire to humble yon because placed 
 in office by the Republican, party. 
 
 The (reported) resolution of the House is without even 
 the color, of propriety. The privilege of membership of the. 
 Legislature certainly does not protect the members from 
 criminial process. * * • 
 
 I am with respect, yours, 
 
 WILI^IAM WARE PECK. 
 
 The Hon. Piatt Potter. 
 
 FJiOM THE HONORABLE J. R. FLANDERS, jyOGE, &c. 
 
 Malone, March, 1870. 
 Allow me to congratulate you upon your signal discom- 
 fiture of Fields & Co. in the Assembly ! 
 , Yours truly, 
 
 JOSEPH R. FLANDERS. 
 . Hon, Piatt Potter. 
 
 Tboy, N. Y., March 5, 1870, 
 Deab Judge : 
 
 Dear Sir--I was present and listened with much pleasure 
 to your response to the Legislature upon the occasion of 
 your being charged with contempt. I suppose you will 
 probably print your remarks and if you could oblige me 
 with two copies, one for myself and one for a friend — I 
 would esteem the favor. 
 
 .(.(i Truly yours, 
 
 FRANCIS RISING. 
 
 With the Bar of the State, the expression of opinion was 
 unanimous, that the Assembly had attempted a gross usurpa- 
 tion upon the rights of the Judiciary, and had been at the 
 time reproached for the act with fearless independence, and 
 with becoming indignity. This expression of the bar was 
 made at the time of the retirement of Judge Potter from the 
 
65 
 
 bench, and at a general term of the Supreme Court. A 
 public meeting of the members of the bar was called to give 
 expression rtf respect to him personally, and of the manner 
 in which he had performed the duties of his office. The 
 Hon. Horatio Ballard was chosen to preside, and S. L'Am- 
 ereaux and E. W. Paige appointed secretaries, when it was 
 resolved that a fitting memorial should be prepared, signed 
 by every member of the bar in attendance, and presented to 
 the Judge as a testimonial of their regard fof his character 
 as a jurist. The memorial was prepared, and adopted, 
 beautifully engrossed, signed with autograph of each, and- 
 bound, and presented to the Judge. 
 
 Among other complimentary expressions therein was the 
 following: . • • 
 
 " We recur also with satisfaction to the fact that it was 
 your fortune (as well as fortunate for the independence of 
 the judiciary of the State) that you should in person receive 
 and repel the invasieu of legislative privilege upon the 
 rightful functions of the judiciary department. Your 
 learned and spirited vindication of the one against the 
 pretensions of the other will doubtless be accepted as the 
 guide in similar cases so long as our form of government 
 shall eildure. * * 
 
 Yery respectfully yours," 
 
 Theodore Miller, Hudson, N. Y. 
 
 John K. Reynolds, Albany, N. Y. 
 
 John Gaul, Jr., Hudson, N. Y. 
 
 Charles Hughes, Sandy Hill, Wash- 
 ington Co., N. Y. 
 
 H. Sturges, Cooperstown, N. Y. 
 
 H. Dunkel, Canajoharie, Mont- 
 gOreiery Co., N. Y. 
 
 A. P. Smith, Cortland, N. Y. 
 
 Sam'l A. Bowen, Cipoperstown, N. Y. 
 
 D. D. Walrath, Chittenango, N. Y. 
 John E. Van Etten, Kingston, N. Y. 
 M. Schoonmaker, Kingston, N. Y. 
 R. H. Duell, Cortland. N. Y. 
 Matthew Hale, Albany, N. Y. 
 
 Jno. B. Gale, Troy, N. Y. 
 
 L. Van Demark, Stillwater, N. Y. 
 
 E. D. Stronk. Albany, N. Y. 
 Sam'l B. Pike, Saratoga Springs, N.Y. 
 Charles E- Parker, Owego, N. Y. 
 
 J. N. Dexter; Waverly, N. Y. 
 Henry R. Mygatt, Oxford, If. Y. 
 J. A. DeRemer, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 
 John M. Parker, Owego, N. Y. 
 
 C. L.' Allen, Salem, N. Y. 
 
 E. F. Bullard, Troy, N. Y. 
 
 Horatio Ballard, Cortland, Corti Co., 
 
 ' N. Y. ■ 
 
 W. Lansing, Chittenango, N. Y. 
 
 M. M. Waters, Cortland, N. Y. 
 
 J. S. L'Amoreaux, Ballston Spa, 
 
 N. Y. 
 O. M. Kellogg, Cortland, N. Y. 
 T. R. Westbrook, Kingston, N. Y. 
 A. Schoonmaker, Jr., Kingston, N. Y. 
 E. H. Prindle, Norwich, N. Y. 
 James M. Dudley, Johnstown, N. Y. 
 Samuel Hand, Albany, N. Y. 
 Lj L. Bundy, Oneonta, N. Y. 
 R. E. Andrews, Hudson, N. Y. 
 Amasa J. Parker, Albany, N. Y. 
 P. H. Cowen, Saratoga Springs, N. Y. 
 Chas. G. Burrows, Little Falls, N.Y. 
 Wm. J. Hadley, Albany, N. Y. 
 Walter T. L. Sanders, Schenectady, 
 
 N. Y. 
 
66 
 
 James H. Cook, Canajoharie, N. Y. 
 Alonzo P. Strong, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 Edgar L. Fursmaii, Tioy, N. Y. 
 G. P. Jenks, Castleton, N. Y. 
 David B. Hill, Elmira. N. Y. 
 J. S. Potter, Whitehall, N. Y. 
 U. G. Paris, Sandy Hill, N. Y. 
 S. W. Jackson, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 Irving Browne, Troy N. Y. 
 Edwin M. Holbrook, Ogdensb,urg, 
 
 N. Y. 
 James Gibson, Salem, N. Y. 
 E. H. Benn, New York. 
 R. A. Parmenter, Troy, N. Y. 
 Frank Hiscock, Syracuse, N. Y. 
 Sam'l T. Benedict, Schenectady, N.Y. 
 D. C. Smith, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 Alex. J. Thomson, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 Rob't S. Hale, Elizabethtown. N. Y. 
 
 J, S. Landon, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 E. W. Paige, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 Martin I. Townsend, Trov, N. Y. 
 W. S. Hevenor, Albany, N. Y. 
 Chas. F. Doyle, Cohoes, N. Y. 
 Stephen Brqwn, Glen's Falls, N. Y. 
 A. D. Wait, Fort Edward, N. Y. 
 J. F. Crawford, Cohoes, N. Y. 
 Z. S. Westbrook, Amsterdam, N. Y. 
 Edward C. James, Ogdensburg, N. Y. 
 Esek Cowen, Troy, N. Y. 
 E. E. Ferrey, Schenevus, N. Y. 
 R. A. Stanton, Norwich, N. Y. 
 Grenville Tremain, Albany, N. Y. 
 J. O. Lynes, Cooperstown, N. Y. 
 John Sanders, Glenville, N. Y. 
 Chas. Hastings, Schenectady, N. Y. 
 D. Pratt, Syracuse, N. Y. 
 
 The following letters in reference to the proceedings of 
 this meeting of the bar, were forwarded : 
 
 FROM THE HON. NOAH DAVIS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE 
 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK. 
 
 New York, March 16, 1874. 
 Hon. Fla.tt Pottee: 
 
 My Dear Sir — * * • j ^^^g ^j^^j ^■^^^^ ^^ your 
 
 retiring from the bench the bar gave fitting recognition to 
 your valuable and able judicial service, and the high charac- 
 ter you have established throughout the State. I regretted 
 the necessity of retiring, which advancing years and the con- 
 stitution imposed upon you, for I doubt not you have in you 
 n:any years of good work. 
 
 It is sad to see so many of our great and good men pass- 
 ing away. May Heaven long preserve you in liealth and 
 strength to enjoy the well earned honors of your useful life. 
 
 I am very respectfully, 
 
 NOAH DAVIS. 
 
 FROM THE HONORABLE AUGUSTUS BOCKES, JUSTICE OF 
 THE SUPREME COURT. 
 
 Jan'y 30, 1874. 
 
 My Dear Judge Potter : 
 
 Dear Sir — I suppose you are now enjoying your otium 
 
 cum dignitate; and well you may after years and years of 
 
67 
 
 patient, enduring, pertinacious toil. How relieved you must 
 feel ? I almost envy you your quiet. 
 
 Well, dear Judge, you have made a record among the 
 high officials of a great State. You may x*egard yourself as 
 in its history, and may well be proud. Certain it is, that 
 we are proud of you and of your fame. 
 
 I hope for you years of peaceful enjoyment — trust you 
 will have them until called to meet that placid end "the 
 jewel of the just." 
 
 With kindest regards to all, I am, yours, 
 
 A. BOCKES.