Complete Works. Hamilton Alexander

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ brother at the corner of Harrison and Greenwich Streets, and afterward boarded with the Rings. For some days after the murder, which took place between eight and nine o'clock on the night of December 22, 1799, no clew could be obtained as to the identity of the murderer, but finally Weeks was arrested and indicted. He was in every way an exemplary young man, and the girl's relatives were loath to believe him guilty; nevertheless, suspicion pointed very strongly, at least, to his knowledge of the fate of Guilielma, if he himself was not actually the murderer. It was known that she was last seen with him upon the night of her death, and their voices were heard in the hallway of the Ring house shortly before she left, never to return. He was almost distraught, but could give no explanation of what had occurred. The girl's body, when found, bore abrasions, but no indication of strangulation or other violence. After his arrest Weeks engaged Hamilton and Aaron Burr, who were associated with Brockholst Livingston in the trial, while the prosecution was represented by Assistant Attorney-General Cadwalader Colden. The case was tried at the old City Hall, formerly the Federal Hall, at the north-east corner of Wall and Nassau Streets, and the site of the present Sub-Treasury building, before Mr. Justice John Lansing, the then Mayor Richard Varick, and the Recorder Richard Harrison.

      The trial was exceedingly sensational and, if anything, attracted more attention than any recent proceeding. It began Tuesday, March 31, 1800, and continued several days. Burr made the opening speech, and Hamilton interrogated most of the witnesses, and summed up. It would appear that from the first the presiding justice was not convinced of Weeks's guilt, and regarded the evidence as so flimsy that he virtually directed the jury to bring in a verdict of acquittal, which they did. This, however, was most distasteful to the excited public, who were quite sure of the prisoner's culpability, and wanted him punished. It appeared in evidence that though the deceased girl, who was very beautiful, had been very intimate with Weeks, her relations with others had been decidedly promiscuous and improper; it was likely, therefore, that some of them had made away with her. Mrs. Ring's anger and violence when the verdict was brought in were intense. Shaking her fist in Hamilton's face she said, "If thee dies a natural death I shall think there is no justice in heaven." In this connection it is a curious fact that both Chief Justice Lansing and Hamilton died as she had predicted. The former was not seen alive after he left his hotel one day, in 1829, to reach the Albany boat, and his body was never found.

      An alleged sensational incident of the trial, which is, however, untrue, has been referred to by several of Hamilton's biographers. It is in effect, that one of the witnesses, a man of bad character named Croucher, who was suspected of being the real murderer, was made to betray himself by a dramatic expedient devised by Hamilton, who held two lighted candles close to his face while he was on the stand during the latter part of the day. Although this witness Croucher was a lodger in the Ring house, there was no proof that he had anything to do with the crime, but he sought to throw suspicion upon his rival Weeks. The report of the trial shows that a lighted candle was simply used for the identification of Croucher.

      Parton, who was Burr's biographer, has made him the hero of the story. In this connection it may be stated that Hamilton had always believed in the innocence of his client, and that he would not have taken his case had he had any doubts of his position. In fact, some of his legal associates at the time, in giving their impressions of his methods, have stated that he never entered a case simply as an advocate, but that he first convinced himself of the suspected individual's innocence, and then went heart and soul into the defence.

      The field of his professional labors was no restricted one, and he was often in Albany, or again in Kingston, or Pough-keepsie, or other places, taking long journeys by river sloops, or stage-coaches, or in the saddle in company with other lawyers who followed the circuit. Much of his intimacy with Chancellor Kent grew from this close contact. In his expense-book appears a charge of four hundred dollars for eight days' work at New Haven, at fifty dollars per day, he having been employed by the State of New York. From the same source we are informed that on May 10, 1796, he received a retainer of five hundred dollars from the "United States for attendance on Philadelphia for a fortnight's work in arguing the question of the Constitutionality of the Carriage Tax."

      His letters to his wife were written under the most varying conditions. He wrote from Albany, October 7, 1796, to Mrs. Hamilton at 69 Stone Street: "This moment I came from Court and I fear I shall not be disengaged from it before Saturday. Judge of my impatience by your own. I am quite well. Adieu my darling Eliza." He later said, he hoped to 'finish my business so as return on Thursday. If vessel offers at the time and a fair wind, I may take that mode of conveyance.' He again informed her from Albany of his painful detention there by the slow progress of the court, and of his extreme anxiety to be with her, and tells her he has written to her "by water to the care of Capt. Boyed. "Being engaged in court in Poughkeepsie, he refers to the excessive heat and says: "I have resolved to moderate my movements which will unavoidably occasion delay. But my Betsy will prefer my staying somewhat longer to my seriously risking my health. The Vessel passed West Point in the night so that I shall have to make that visit on my return. Have patience, my Angel & love me always as you have done. God bless you prays always yr aff. A. H."

      From Hudson he writes: "I am chagrined at the prospect of being detained longer than I expected. Our adversaries have made strong efforts to postpone the cause to another circuit, and though defeated in this they have obtained a delay till Wednesday next. However disagreeable and inconvenient to me to stay, it is not possible for me in this situation to quit." This was probably during the Le Guen trial.

      What has been said of his modest idea of the value of his services which was shown in the Le Guen case may be again referred to. Moreover it would appear that he would not consent to ally himself with any case that was at all suspicious, or in which his professional reputation might suffer. He evidently carried this very far if we may judge from the many endorsements to the applications that were made to him.

      As an example of what is meant, the following incident may be related. One of his clients wrote to him in May, 1796:

      Dear Sir: Wishing to have the benefit of your much esteemed counsel as a lawyer in important cases, if unfortunately I should be hereafter involved in any, I have enclosed you my note for one thousand dollars, payable in five years at five per cent per annum, which I beg you to accept with interest.

      This was endorsed by Hamilton: "Returned as being more than is proper. A. H."

      Many of his papers are also endorsed with comments which show that he would not accept employment if the interests of other clients could, in the least way, be affected by his action. In fact, he was punctilious to a degree in the matter of professional ethics.

      His ideas of compensation were certainly not extravagant, especially in the beginning of his career, although it is said his professional income was considerable before he accepted the Treasury portfolio. Legal compensation in those days was paltry compared with the charges of to-day, when the return from a single great case is likely to make the lawyer rich for the rest of his life; but it must be remarked that the labors of a lawyer then were more conservative than they now are, and the modern pursuit of promotion was almost undreamed of. Specialties, too, were unknown. The hardworking lawyer of the latter part of the eighteenth century was as much at home in the criminal court as in the trial of civil actions, and it was not considered infra dig, to lend one's talents and efforts to the defence of an accused person, no matter how poor. It is somewhat curious to find, notwithstanding the dignity and conservatism of the practitioner of those days, that even Hamilton was not above a retaining or conditional fee, as the following note will show:

      Johnathan Jackfon for Argument

      Bamett vs. Underwriters

      prepared and attending at Albany $100

      If successful an additional hundred.

      As a rule, his retaining fee in the many years of his practice, and even afterward, was one pound sterling, although he received many yearly СКАЧАТЬ