Mr. Ashmead next read from the revised statutes, showing that an accused person should have a preliminary examination before being indicted, and contended that a great privilege had been taken from his client, and by this means a blow had been struck at the liberties of the citizen. He alluded to the fact that Mr. Draper had not been before the Grand Jury at all, and yet this poor man had been indicted for a libel on him; this was a proceeding which, if sanctioned by the Jury, would establish a perfect tyranny by breaking down all the safeguards of the law which surrounded the citizen. He insisted that the prosecution had taken away every privilege from this man, and environed him by a wall, so that he could not escape, by getting up this Trinity of indictments. These three indictments were united so that one should support the other. The Recorder had said that Mr. Draper was old enough to take care of himself, but wisdom didn’t come with length of year, and certainly Simeon Draper was not bred in the school of Chesterfield, for he forgot common courtesy by saying the alleged libel was a lie. Mr. Ashmead then commented on the conduct of the prosecution in putting in only one half of the libel in the indictment, and keeping out that part which had a foundation in truth, which he said was a piece with the remainder of these proceedings. Such conduct struck a serious blow at our free institutions, and as Erskine said if such proceedings were to obtain, our halls of justice would be turned into altars, and the poor victim would be immolated at the shrine of persecution. Mr. Ashmead then proceeded to explain the law of libel, contending that it was necessary that “malice” should be proved, in order to sustain an indictment for libel. He spoke of the law in England, which would not permit the truth to be given in evidence, and contrasted such with the laws of New York, which provided that if an article was published without malice, it was not libellous; for it permitted a reporter to publish the proceedings of a meeting or of a legislative body without holding him liable, provided it was proved that it had been published without malice. The counsel then commented on the remark made by the Recorder relative to his taking no decisions but his own, and that Mr. Ashmead’s points would not be fit for a Kamschatka Court, and proceeded to justify his own course in the matter. The Recorder remarked that Mr. Ashmead must have forgotten his own observations, he had said that “a certain decision had been made by one of the Judges of this Court” and that caused his Honor to make the remark to which he had alluded.