Source:Fleming-war-of-judges/content
LAST Sunday's story concerned Judge Alexander Addison mainly and reference was made to his impeachment and removal from the bench in 1803. Today will be presented the history of that removal and the politics involved that led to grave injustice and positive wrong.
Alexander Addison was the first judge appointed to the Common Pleas bench of the Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania under the Constitution of 1790. The district was then composed of most of the counties in Western Pennsylvania, but for many years since it has been Allegheny county only.
Addison was a profound scholar. His character was set forth last week, quoting Judge Agnew as authority. Addison was also a deep patriot. The worst that has been alleged against him is that at times he was a bit testy. If the want of a sunny disposition remained a cause of impeachment and consequent removal, more than one attorney whose viewpoint has compelled him to differ with the court, will doubtless admit the possibility of numerous vacancies.
But it was not the bar that warred on Judge Addison, but his associate, Judge Lucas, and it was dirty politics. The word warred is used; in modern parlance it will be understood when the expression is used—Lucas went after Addison and got him.
Supporter of Washington.
Addison was a Federalist in politics, warm in his support and admiration of Washington and Adams. In the elections of 1800 the Federal party went down in defeat.
Then came Thomas Jefferson to the fore and triumphant Democracy in the original sense. Lucas came upon the bench by appointment of Gov. McKean as an associate justice July 17, 1800.
It is stated in various histories of Allegheny county that Lucas was a layman, that he frequently differed with Judge Addison on points of law, and that he would frequently charge petit juries in opposition to the views of Addison, the president judge.
Although sitting as a lay judge, Lucas was not only a doctor of the civil law but the canon law as well, and an attorney as the brief biography below attests. Lucas took the place of Gen. John Gibson, who sat on the bench in the capacity of associate judge from August 17, 1791.
With him there were appointed by Gov. Mifflin under the provisions of the constitution of 1790, George Wallace, John Wilkins, Jr., and John McDowell. Addison was appointed president judge at the same time.
In 1796 George Thompson took the place of Gen. Wilkins who resigned. Gibson, who was the uncle of that celebrated jurist, John Bannister Gibson, must have resigned also. Judge White says he died in 1800. Col. Thomas P. Roberts, grandson and biographer of Judge John B. Gibson, says Co. [sic] Gibson died in 1822 at the house of his son-in-law, George Wallace, in Braddock.
Lucas Succeeds Gibson.
There is no doubt that Lucas went on the bench in Gibson's place in 1800. Wallace resigned in 1798 and Wilkins in 1796, so that in 1800 the lay judges were McDowell, Thompson and Lucas. One one occasion, when Addison and McDowell composed the majority of the court, Lucas insisted on reading a written harangue to the grand jury directly at variance with a previous charge of Judge Addison's. Judge Addison promptly stopped Lucas and remonstrated with him.
No doubt in his indigation [sic] Addison used strong words. There was provocation enough.
Henceforth Addison walked a thorny path. Envy and hatred in the rancorous politics of the day were potent factors in Addison's downfall—but he fell not through any weakness of his own. He was pulled down by the main strength of a heartless junta, chief of them Lucas, with Hugh Henry Brackenridge aiding and abetting.
Addison's court scene with Lucas gave the pretext for legal proceedings. First there was an application to the Supreme Court of the state to file an information in the nature of an indictment against Addison for misdemeanor in office. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, saying the papers did not show an indictable offense. These proceedings are reported in 4th Dallas, 225.
The next step was to have Addison impeached by the Legislature. The articles of impeachment contained but two charges: First, that when Lucas charged the petit jury, Judge Addison told them they should disregard what Lucas said because it had nothing to do with the case. Second, that Addison prevented Lucas from charging the grand jury (as instanced above).
Senate Tries Case.
The House ordered the impeachment and the Senate tried and convicted Addison. Sentence was pronounced by the Senate January 27, 1803, removing Addison as president judge of the Fifth District, and foreever [sic] disqualifying him for holding a judicial office in Pennsylvania.
Addison had stood out bravely on the side of law and order during the troublous times of the whisky insurrection, and after that incipient rebellion. Bitter animosities had been aroused and still rankled. With the political triumph of Addison's opponents he was a doomed man.
The unkindness and wrong done a worthy man and a just judge had its effect in shortening Addison's life. He died in Pittsburgh, where he had removed from Washington, Pa., November 24, 1807.
A full account and discussion of the Addison impeachment can be found in Judge Daniel Agnew's address at the centennial celebration of Washington county in 1881. John Bach McMasters, in his "History of the People of the United States," volume 3, page 154, has also something to say of it under the head "Judge-Breaking in Pennsylvania."
Judge J. W. F. White, in his sketch of the judiciary of Allegheny county, observes:
No person can read the report of the trial of Judge Addison without feeling it was a legal farce, that gross injustice was done him from the beginning to the end, and that the whole proceedings were a disgrace to the state. The trial took place at Lancaster where the Legislature sat. The House and Senate refused to give him copies of certain papers, or to give him assistance in procuring witnesses from Pittsburgh in his defense.
Strong Partisan Feeling.
The speeches of counsel against him and the rulings of the Senate in questions raised during the trial, were characterized by intense partisan feeling. It was not a judicial trial, but a partisan scheme to turn out a political opponent. It resulted in deposing one of the purest, best and ablest judges that ever sat on the bench in Pennsylvania.
The same year the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania were recommended to be impeached on charges of oppression and false imprisonment. The impeachment failed in the Senate by a vote of 13 to 11–not two-thirds in the affirmative. These judges were Shippen (chief justice), Yeates and Smith. Even the highest court was made to feel the weight of political vengeance.
Judge Addison in his defence said in part:
In vain does the Constitution prescribe that the judges shall hold their offices during good behavior with their salaries undiminished if the Legislature may harass them with frivolous impeachments or arbitrary addresses for removal. These are abuses of legislative authority, frauds upon the Constitution and oppression of the judges. It is destroying the protection of the people, for it is humbling, degrading and enervating a power established for the protection of the people. It is removing all motives for a manly and useful exercise of judicial authority, and teaching the judges a tame obsequious spirit of sycophancy and base compliance. It is making the judges ready tools of every reigning party and reigning passion, prostitutes to popularity and fluctuating slaves to influence.
Again, he said:
Beware of considering the prevailing clamor of the day as the steady, solid, permanent voice of the people, or the present domineering demagogue of the people's steady, permanent friend or favorite. The party which one year is triumphant may be defeated and prostrate the next, and the persecuted man may turn on the persecutor and avenge the injuries of the proud day of prosperity. Set not an example of converting your government to a shifting scene of giddy revolution, where every officer is but the pageant of a day, just showing himself and vanishing.
Appeal Is Futile.
Prostitute not the power of impeachment to trivial occasions, or you will render it contemptible. Reserve it as it ought to be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Golden words—all of them—but uttered in vain.
Now as to Lucas. Most American biographers are silent concerning him. However, old authors of this class have given us his history, notably Blake, followed by F. S. Drake, who seems to have boiled down Blake's biography. From these we learn all that is now known of "our" Judge Lucas.
John B. C. Lucas, D. C. L. (University of Caen), politician and jurist, was born in Normandy about 1762 and died in St. Louis, Mo., in September, 1842. He practiced law two years in France and in 1784 came to America and located on a farm near Pittsburgh.
In 1792 he entered public life. He served several terms in the Pennsylvania Legislature and as judge of the Court of Common Pleas of this district. He was a member of Congress from Western Pennsylvania 1803–'05, and from 1805–'20 judge of the United States District Court of Upper Louisiana. He served on the commission for the adjustment of land titles in Upper Louisiana until its dissolution in 1812. A son, James H. Lucas, was a prominent citizen and banker in St. Louis for many years.
Remember Louisiana territory was the vast purchase from Napoleon by Jefferson in 1803 and Upper Louisiana comprised the states of Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, etc.
Biographer J. L. Blake tells us that on Lucas' arrival at the village of St. Louis he purchased a farm adjoining it, but when the village became a city, and the corporation laid out streets, squares and building lots on his farm, he moved a little beyond the corporate boundary where he resided until his death. Blake says:
Well Read Man.
Judge Lucas was a well-read and generally intelligent man, remarkably simple and unpretending in his style of living and manners, and distinguished for energy and decision of character. He became a Republican while at the University of Caen, and as an American citizen by example, as well as precept, did honor to the social and civil institutions with which he had become allied.
He attained the age of 80 years, Blake informs us, but Blake has not a line on Alexander Addison nor has Drake.
Neville B. Craig knew Alexander Addison. Craig was 16 years old at the time of the impeachment. His story of the Judge is as follows:
In 1802 Pittsburgh and the country around it were greatly excited by the impeachment of Alexander Addison, the President Judge of the Jdicial [sic] District, a man of great talent, of extensive learning and undaunted integrity. He was, perhaps, too impatient in his temper, not sufficiently courteous to his demigogical [sic] colleague, and thus afforded ground for an impeachment.
In the very able and manly speech of the Judge in his own defense, we find the following passage:
"A gentleman of whose praise even a proud man might be vain, handed in the following note:
"'During the twelve years of your presidency there has been no bill of exceptions, no writ or error on a demurrer, or case put upon the record, no second ejectment, except in two instances (one of which has been affirmed, the other not yet tried), though on an average more than forty ejectments are tried every year. Perhaps this evidence of confidence in the opinion of the court cannot be found in any other part of Pennsylvania, or the United States, or of any other country.'"
Party spirit then ran exceedingly high, and a pretext was only wanting to the Democratic party to get rid of an honest man and an able judge, whose charges had received the emphatic approval of Washington.
The Legislature of Pennsylvania, therefore, under the influence of most intolerant spirit, inflicted the highest penalty in its power upon an offense of the most venial character and where there was no imputation of a want of integrity. For a mere want of courtesy, was a worthy man prosecuted and found guilty, and the citizens of the judicial district deprived of the services of a man of most peculiar fitness for his station, and of integrity so bright and clear even that his most bitter enemies never doubted it.
It was within the power of the Pennsylvania Legislature to make the most emphatic commentary on its own conduct and to exhibit in the strongest light their own harsh and arbitrary decision in the case of Judge Addison, and this commentary and exhibition were afforded in the acquittal of Judge Franks a few years after.
Judge James Veech, in his story of the Whisky Insurrection, calls Addison the Sir Matthew Hale of his day—
"For deep discernment priased
And sound integrity not more than famed
For sanctity of manners undefiled."
Addison's will dated October 17, 1807, is always referred to as a model of conciseness. It reads:
I, Alexander Addison of Pittsburgh, do hereby make my last will and testament.
All my estate, real and personal, I hereby give and devise (after payment of my debts) to my wife, Jean, her heirs and assigns, forever, and I make her my executrix.
In witness whereof I have hereto set my hand and seal this eighteenth day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seven.
ALEXANDER ADDISON (Seal.)
Witness: JAMES ROSS.
The inventory was filed December 23, 1807, and all the personal estate, including cash, bank stock, household goods, law library, historical and literary works all itemized, was appraised by John Wilkins, Jr., and John Woods of the Bank of Pittsburgh, and totaled $5,333 37. No final account is of record. Letters testamentary were granted Mrs. Addison November 26, 1807, and the will is of record in Allegheny county, Will Book No. 3, 517.
