The Daily Dispatch: November 15, 1861., [Electronic resource]

To convict of prissy there must have been violence used or the employment of some messas to put the captain of the Joseph in fear, and in this case there was no violence or threats proved. He then spoke of the question of variance as to the authority of Jefferson Davis to grant the commission to Captain Buker. He referred to the United States against Harrman in 19th Peters, where the prisoners were indicted for stealing a Treasury note for bearing one percent, interest, but it was found that it was to bear one mill per cent., objection was taken and the Court held that the variance was fatal. So is this case, he (Mr. Brady) contended that the indictment designating the commission as having been issued by one Jefferson Davis, without stating that he claimed to be President of the Confederate States, was a variance, and fatal. If the Government made war on the South, as the defence commands it did, by the acts of Mr. Lincoln, the South had a right to herself — to arm vessels had grant letter, of marque, and to oppose force to force. After some further argument Mr. Brady concluded by saying; Gentlemen, I will detain you but a few moments longer. I have endeavored to show, in the first place, that those man cannot be convicted of piracy, because they had not the intent to steal essential to the commission of that offence, and that you are the judges whether that intent did or did not exist. If it did not, then these men are entitled to acquittal on that ground.

If the act of 17th be constitutional, and if it can be construed to extend to a case like this, then eight of the prisoners are to be discharged and the other four also, the other four having acted under a commission issued in good faith by a Government which claimed the right to have existence, acted upon in good faith by themselves, and with the belief that they were not committing any lawless act of aggression. In this connexion. I hold it to be immaterial whether the Confederate Government was one of right, established on sufficient authority according to the laws of nations, and to be recognized as such, or whether it was merely a Government in fact. Now, then, we claim, beyond all that, and apart from the question of Government in law or Government in fact, that there exists a state of civil war which entitles those defendants to be treated in every other manner than as pirates, which may have rendered them amenable to the danger of being regarded as prisoners of war, but which has made it impossible for them to be ever dealt with as fulous. Now, I am sorry that it has become necessary in this discussion to open questions for debate, any inquiry about which at this particular juncture in our history is not likely to be attended with any great advantage.--But, like my brethren for the defence, I have endeavored to state freely, fearlessly, frankly, and correctly the positions on which the defendants have a right to rely before the Court and before you. It would have been much more acceptable to my as a citizen if we had been spared the performance of any such duty. But, gentlemen, it is not our fault. The advocate is of very little use in the days of prosperity and peace — in the periods of reposits, in protecting your property or aiding you to recover your rights of a civil nature. It is only when public opinion, or the strong power of Government, the formidable array of influence, the force of a nation or the fury of a , in directed against you, that the advocated of any use. Many years ago, while we were yet colonies of Great Britain, there occurred on this Island what is known as the famous negro is surrection — the result of an idle story, told by a worthless person, and yet leading to such an inflammation of the public mind that all the lawyers who then practised at the bar of New York and it is the greatest stigma on our profession of which the world can furnish an example, refused to defend the accused parties. One of them was a poor priest of. I believe, foreign origin. The consequence was that numerous convictions took place, and a great many executions. And yet all mankind is perfectly that there never was a more unfounded rumor — never a more idle tale — and that judicial murders were perpetrated on the face of the earth more intolerable, more inexcusable, more without palliation, than the act to which a refer. How different was it at Boston, at the time of what was called the massacre of Massachusetts subjects by British forces. The soldiers, on being indicted, sought for counsel, and they found two men of great eminence in the profession to act for them. One of them was Mr. Adams, and the other Mr. Quincy. The father of Mr. Quincy addressed a letter, imploring him on his allegiance as a son, and from affection and duty towards him, not to undertake the defence of these men. The son wrote back a response, recognizing, as he truly felt, all the which he owed to that honored parent, but at the same time taking the high appropriate ground that he must discharge his duty as an advocate according to the rules of his profession, and to the obligation of his official cath, whatever might be the result of his course.--The struggled is the history of the world, to have, in criminal courts, as honest judiciary, a fearless jury and a faithful advocate, disclose a great deal of wrong and suffering inflicted on advocated alleged by force, trembling at the bar where they ought to be in the discharge of their duty, inflicted on juries fines, and imprisoned and kept them lying in for years, because they dared, in State prosecutions, to find against the direction of the Court.

The provisions of our own Constitution, which to men trial by jury and all the rights incident to that