{"character_count": 4797, "word_count": 811, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9599999785423279], "ccnet_perplexity": [2183.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
 supreme courtotthe nation may not be submitted to without parting with the sovereignty of the state: to resist 1t is treason i-N O. Courier.

 COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.

 Judge Peck--Doctfine of Contempt-- Liberty of fhe

 Press.

 EXTRACT TO THE EDITOR, DATED

 Washington, Dec. 20.

 The Senate sat to-day Court of lmpeach- ment for the trial of Judge Peck, District Judge of Missouri, on charge of unjustly and op. pressyely committing Luke F. Lawless. an At torney of his Court, to prison for twenty-iour hours, and suspendlng him from practice for eighteen months, for an alledged contempt to- wards the Judge, in the publication of some an lmadyersions upon his opinion in tho case of Soufard's heirs against the United States. The House of Representatives were present in q body at the opening of the trial. The facts are oriefythese: Five or six years ago, heirs of Sou lard In Missouri, claimed q right. uIdcr an al- ledged grant of one Of the Spanish Lieutenant GoverItors of Louisiana, to quantity of lands situated h the present state of Missouri. These lands were in possession of tho United States, as part of the public domain. The claimants instituted sait, undera special act of Congress, against the tinted States, to try the legality and validity ot their claim to the land in dis pute. MT. LaWiess was their counsel. The CourE decided against the claimants. Some months after the decision Inc Judge voluntarily published the opinion of the Court en the sub Ject, ln the Missouri Republican,. Mr. iawless. ill consequence ot tllis publication. inserted in ne St. Lotus Enquirer, a srief exposition of what Ire considered the errors of law ard fact. contained ln the opinion of Judge Peck. That xpostionjscoachedia decofoes language. but he Judge, because he considered 1t a mis- representation ot his opinion, calculated 10 i'm. par the pubic confidence ip the integrity and intelligence of the Court, and to bring it into disfeputc, hatred, contenlpt, and ridieale. al. Judged the publication of Mir. Lawlcss to oe q contempt of the Court; imprisoned and suspend ed him from practice, as above stated, and now contends that lie was justified by the Constitu- ton d Jaws oi tic land, pu,isiiig Mir. Law less by the summary process of attachment, in the manner in which he was punished.

 On application of MT. Lawless, who is the brother of the Irish patriot John Lawless, ot i5eiiast, and is san adopted American citizen. the House of Representatives referred the subject to tteT Judiciary Committee, at the last session. That committee unanimously made q report. that the Judge ought to be inpeached for his ar bitraT} and oppressive conduct in tine case.Ae- cordngly, the Rouse directed them, hv yery large majority. to draft an Article of lnpeach- ment against him. They did SO; and the Judge was, towards the close of the last session. ar raened before the Senate, filed his answer to the charge, and asked for postponement of the trial until this session.

 Mir. M'Dufie, one Of the Managers of the Impeachment, commenced the speech opening the case against the accused this day. lie had not concluded when the Senate as q Court of Impeachment, adjourned over until l3 o'clock tomorrow. Mr. M'Dufie was explicit. strong. and decided, in his reproduction of lhc conduct of Judge Peck. His language and manner were of the most uncquiyocal, bold, and reproachiul character. His argument was interspersed with vein of bitter irony, sarcasm, and denuncia- ton, seldom heard in the halls oi Courts or Sen ates. Whatever may have been thought of his manner, his speech was most thorough and tri- umphant assertion of the liberty of speech, of the press, and of theetizen, against all invasion of 1t by Courts or Judges. The doctrine he maintained was, in substance, that the Judicial power to punish for contempt was, at best, found ed npon necessity, the tyrant's plea; that he ad- mltted the force of that plea so far as the DOW CT might be necessary to preserve ordcrin Court, to prevent the Court or Jury from insult or as- sault, and the regular and fair administration of justice from being obstructed; and farther than this, it was neither legal nor constitutional to stretch the power; that the publication by Judge Peck, of his opinion, was an extra-udiciai act and the opinion itself, as published, an extra-iu- dicia1 opinion; that it was competent to any cit izen to critcisc or condemn any judicial opinion, whether published in this or a more regular way; that for thus animadverting upon it, he was not liable to attachment for contempt nor even 10 indictment; that there was nothing in the Constitution or laws of the land, to justify the illegal and tyrahcal nsurpation of power perpetrated by Judge Peck; that no contempt was committed by MT. Lawlcss; that the com