Mr. CARLISLE here rose, and, for the space of ten or fifteen minutes, with the crowded audience hushed to a grave-like silence, he interspersed resistless logic with noble sentiments, in a strain of eloquence rarely, if ever, surpassed. He vindicated every word his colleague had said, both as to matter and manner, and obtested Heaven to preserve American tribunals of justice from following the examples of the worst times of English judicial tyranny, when the basest minions of the crown were elevated to the bench, that they might overawe and abash counsel in their defence of prisoners whom the king had foredoomed to punishment. Judge CRAWFORD. (Trembling with emotion.) Mr. MANN’S course of argument was perfectly legitimate. It was the inflammatory language that I objected to. It was the language, and not the argument, that was objectionable.] Mr. MANN. Gentlemen of the jury, as the interdict against the line of argument I was pursuing,--now acknowledged to be just and proper,--has been withdrawn, I take it up where I left it, and proceed. Mr. KEY, district attorney. I demand to know from what paper the gentleman reads. Mr. MANN. (Holding up the paper and pointing to its heading.) From Mr. Ritchie’s Washington Union, of April 20th. Isn’t that good authority on this subject? Mr. KEY. From whose speech does the gentleman read? Mr. MANN. From the speech of the Hon. Henry S. Foote, a senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi. Mr. KEY. The gentleman cannot read a paper to the jury, unless he expects to prove it. Mr. MANN. I deny that as a principle; but, if required, will call Mr. Foote to swear to his speech. Judge CRAWFORD. Mr. Mann knows Mr. Foote did not mean his language for _our_ slaves. (A suppressed laugh around the bar.)