CONTAINING THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, AND THE CHarge of CHIEF JUSTICE DURFEE. BY JOSEPH S. PITMAN, ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY TAPPAN & DENNET, 114 Washington Street. 1844. ENTERED according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by JOSEPH S. PITMAN, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District of Rhode Island. GEORGE COOLIDGE, PRINTER, 57 Washington Street. F 83.4 , D72 The following Report has been prepared with great care, and no effort has been spared to make it perfectly correct. It has been prepared from notes taken in full by the Reporter, and from the notes of one of the Judges, who sat during the trial. The Arguments of the Attorney General and of Alfred Bosworth, Esq. have been written out by those gentlemen from the notes taken by the Reporter. The Charge of Chief Justice Durfee was prepared by the learned Judge. The importance of the trial has rendered more than usual care necessary in the preparation of this Report, and it is believed it is correct, and impartial. 6 College Street, Providence, J. S. P. REPORT. The adjournment of the March Term, A. D. 1844, of the Supreme Court, for Newport county, in the State of Rhode Island, commenced on Friday morning, April 26th, 1844. Chief Justice Durfee, Judges Haile, Staples, and Brayton, were present at the opening of the Court. The Attorney General, James M. Blake, was assisted in the prosecution by Alfred Bosworth, Esq. Thomas W. Dorr conducted his defence, with the assistance of George Turner and Walter S. Burgess, Esqrs. His principal Counsel, Samuel T. Atwell, Esq. was prevented by severe illness, from appearing in his behalf. This adjournment being held for the purpose of proceeding in the trial of Thomas Wilson Dorr for the crime of Treason, it was moved by the Attorney General, that Thomas W. Dorr be brought into Court for trial. The Court therefore directed the Sheriff to bring him in. The Clerk was directed to call the panel of Jurors, and seventy Jurors answered to their names. Thomas Wilson Dorr was then brought into Court. George Turner, Esq. Counsel for the Prisoner, moved the Court to issue compulsory process for witnesses for the Prisoner, at the expense of the State, on the ground that although the Prisoner has means to employ Counsel, he has not means to pay witnesses, and that they will not attend without such process, or their fees being paid. The Prisoner moved the Court to the same effect, confirming the statement made by his Counsel. The Chief Justice said, the Court will apply the same rule to this case that they have heretofore established in capital cases. This rule is, that the accused can have compulsory process for witnesses at the expense of the State, upon its being satisfactorily shown to the Court that he has not the means of paying witnesses, and that the witnesses will not attend without process. If, however, the accused possess the means to employ |