"I flatter myself," he added, "that I have satisfied your honor there is no profane language in the case; and that ought to be sufficient for my purpose, even though the court should be of opinion that the prisoner was guilty of reviling; because the words of the statute are in the conjunctive, providing punishment only where profane speaking and reviling are united, being levelled, not at one alone, but at both as one act. It should also be borne in mind, that the statute is penal, and for that reason must be construed, strictly, in favor of liberty. But I will now proceed to inquire whether there has been any reviling in the sense of the statute. Who was intended to be protected against injurious language? Reasonable beings only, certainly. Assuredly not the delicate feelings of horses, or cows, or pigs, and if so, much less those of an inanimate object, like a book. Now, it will be recollected that the language uttered characterized the contents of a book, not Mr. Davenport. The words were consistent with the supposition that the prisoner cherished the highest respect for him, whatever his opinion might be of the sermon. It was then absurd to pursue a man criminally for criticising a book, and requesting another not to read it, which was all that had been done." Here Ketchum inquired how his brother Tippit would get over the words, "man of sin," which it was testified had been applied by the prisoner to Davenport. Mr. Tippit treated the inquiry with great contempt. "Does the gentleman," he asked, in turn, "claim for Mr. Davenport a superhuman degree of piety? Would he have us understand that Mr. Davenport is not a sinful man, and is the expression made use of by Mr. Holden more than tantamount to that? I do not think the words worthy of notice," he said, "nor am I disposed to waste time on them." Mr. Tippit concluded by saying, that if a man, in the honest expression of his opinions about a book, was to be dealt with criminally, free speech, free action, the noble inheritance of our ancestors, were gone, and the liberties of the country no more. Collecting himself for a last effort, he represented the Goddess of Liberty, like Niobe, all tears, weeping over the fate of her children, should the iniquity, contemplated by Ketchum, be consummated.