In the so-called official report of the Castner Hanway trial, which involved the final disposition of all the treason cases, it is fitly stated by the author and editor that “the ability which marked the trial throughout, the patient attention of the judges, the eloquence and learning of the Counsel, and the full examination of every matter of fact and law in any manner involved, gave to the trial a deep and abiding importance, such as will make its perusal interesting to the general reader, and of indispensable use to the Legal Profession.” It is not to be expected, however, that a detailed report of these proceedings or a presentation of their technical aspect falls within the scope or prescribed limits of this sketch. Those desirous of perusing them can get access to Mr. Robbins’ report in many libraries; lawyers will find the case reported for their special benefit in Vol. II of Wallace’s Report of Circuit Court Cases for the Third District, pp. 134-208. The report of Attorney General Brent and the message of Governor Lowe, in the Maryland State Documents, 1852, constitute an interesting history of the facts and valuable discussion of the law; and Mr. Jackson’s reply undoubtedly corrects and modifies some of the impressions that the complaints of the Marylanders would tend to create. Even outside of these quasi-official documents there remain signs that there was some division of counsel, if not conflict of opinion, among those engaged in the prosecution as to the most expedient course to take and the more effective remedy to apply to the broken law. Whatever the private opinion of U. S. District Attorney Ashmead may have been, his presentation of the case and his entire part in the trial evinced no lack of preparation or ability and no want of sincerity in the Government’s cause. He shrank from no responsibility that his position imposed. He was, moreover, the direct representative of the Law Department of the Fillmore administration. His chief was Attorney General John J. Crittenden and Daniel Webster was the premier of that Cabinet. There was at that time no “Department of Justice” as now organized; there was simply the office of the Attorney General, and an investigation of the archives of the Department fails to disclose anything whatever with respect to the affray or the trials. There is, however, authority for the statement that the final determination to prosecute for treason was made by Webster and Crittenden, who concluded and advised “that even if a conviction were not obtained, the effect of the trial would be salutary in checking Northern opposition to the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.” Some question of professional etiquette arose between counsel who appeared for the State of Maryland and those who represented the United States by direct employment for the Government. Mr. Brent reports that this was “satisfactorily adjusted in a personal interview” with Mr. Ashmead. He further says: