Meredith. We make no request: your Honours must exercise your own discretion in the matter. Cadwalader. Though gladly availing ourselves of your Honours' wishes on the subject. Reed. We prefer the other room. Meredith. We merely made a suggestion in regard to privacy, addressing it to your Honours as men and gentlemen. Reed. And it is to your Honours as men and gentlemen, that we suggest the opposite course. Ingersoll. (After consultation among the counsel for the relator.) We do not wish to be misunderstood: we have asked for no privacy in the hearing of this case, and think it might be very prejudicial to the petitioner. We can see no good reason why such an extraordinary course should be adopted. We should prefer entire publicity. The petitioner is a foreigner, and if, when he finds all the courts abroad open to the public, he sees them here closed, the thing may be greatly misconstrued. Leaving your Honours to decide this matter, we merely express our preference for the open court. We desire no privacy: such has been our sentiment from the beginning. We were indeed unwilling that the affair should get into the newspapers, before the service of the writ, and, therefore, on presenting the petition, suggested temporary secrecy to his Honour, Judge Barton. Further than that we have said nothing about privacy. Meredith. We before understood, though not expressly told, that because the relator was a foreigner publicity was desired by his counsel. We now, for the first time, understand the reason why secrecy was desired in the first instance. Ingersoll. I have stated it distinctly. Cadwalader. We have never requested privacy-merely suggested the subject to your Honours. The judges retired for a few moments to consult. Barton, P. J. (After their return.) We have not had time to consider this matter carefully, and a difference of opinion existing among us, have arrived at no conclusion. We will adjourn to next Tuesday, at half past three o'clock, and notice of the place of meeting will be given on Saturday. Conrad, J. If we sit in public at all, it had better be in the largest room. Either entire privacy or entire publicity is desirable. Meredith. Will your Honours give us to understand, whether we are to go into all the matters introduced into this suggestion? Reed. Your Honours will perhaps hear us even upon that question. Meredith. Certainly. SATURDAY, JULY 18TH. General Sessions Court-room. Barton, P. J. We promised to announce our determination, as to the place of meeting, to day. After a careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, we think it our duty to sit in public. The affair has already gotten into the newspapers, and, now, by a private hearing, great injustice would probably be done to one party, if not to both. Perfect privacy or entire publicity is desirable. The former being out of the question, we must decide upon the latter. It is with pain and reluctance we make this decision, but nothing else is left us. After some conversation, the District Court room was determined upon as the place of session. TUESDAY, JULY 21. District Court room. Mr. Cadwalader said, that in order to prepare a proper reply to the suggestion filed on behalf of the relator, it was found necessary to send to Boston for certain papers. He therefore asked a further continuance— say for a week. Barton P. J. I regret that we did not know of this before, for today the jury was discharged, in order that we might attend to this case. However, it seems proper to grant the request, and allow further time for the preparation of your response. Reed. We have prepared an additional suggestion, which we now ask leave to read. It was filed on Saturday last, at twelve o'clock, and notice was immediately sent to the opposite counsel. ADDITIONAL SUGGESTION. And your petitioner craves leave to make this further suggestion to your Honours, which he desires to be taken as part of his original suggestion: In relation to that part of the return of the said Ellen, which refers to the alleged attempt, on the part of your petitioner, to remove her forcibly from Paris, in the month of April, 1838, he denies ever having meditated a plan for forcibly removing his said wife. Neither his conduct, nor his correspondence, all of which he prays may be inquired of, by your Honours, authorizes such a charge. He admits, freely, that he did come to Paris, without previously communicating to his said wife the precise time at which he should arrive, which course of conduct was pursued for the following reasons, and under the following circumstances. The conduct of the said Miriam C. Sears, whilst residing in Switzerland with her daughter and your petitioner, after their marriage, her avowed discontent with it as a residence for her daughter, her habitual complaints made openly and offensively, her jealousy and general disquietude, were such, as taken in connexion with the unbounded influence she had, and seemed determined to maintain, over her daughter, justified, fully, the fears which your petitioner had, that if she apprehended a separation from her daughter, however voluntary and necessary, they would fly from Paris. So far was your petitioner from being desirous to conceal from his wife his intention to come for her to Paris, that he had previously written to her from Geneva, so soon as he was satisfied that his father's state of health would prevent him from going to America at that time, to announce that it would, on that account, be impossible to accede to her wishes, and that he should come. for her to Paris. The original of that letter he presumes to be in the respondent's possession, and he hopes may be produced. All that was not communicated was the precise day on which he should arrive. He did arrive at Paris on the evening of one day, and on the morning of the next, having nearly completed the necessary arrangements for the convenience of his wife in travelling, he wrote a note to her, saying that, at a given hour, he should call for her. He respectfully suggests to your Honours, that the precautions which he felt justified in using, and the reserve or secrecy of which the respondent and her family so much complain, were rendered necessary by the previous conduct and determined intentions of the respondent and her mother, and which can only be appreciated by your Honours, after the evidence shall have been given to you. As to a deliberate or concerted plan to resort to force, such as is imputed in the said return, your petitioner utterly and unreservedly denies it. Public sentiment and the laws forbade it, and to well directed public sentiment and the laws, either in this country or Europe, your petitioner never has opposed his wishes or actions. That his wife, in a moment of exaggerated apprehension, or through the influence of counsels which have never been directed to restore peace and concord, should have taken the step she did, and by an appeal to diplomatic protection, made family difficulties public, your petitioner then regretted and regrets still. It was wholly unnecessary and ill-advised. At the suggestion of Governor Cass, to whom your petitioner was a comparative stranger, he called at the Hotel of the American mission, and there had an interview with the respondent. That her condition was painful and distressing your petitioner freely admits. She appeared to be in a state of high nervous excitement, and your petitioner regretted to find, that her mind, already by evil counsel in a measure estranged from him, was filled with the most vague and irrational alarm. His distress at such a spectacle was scarcely less; and an interview of but a short time was required, to enable his young and afflicted wife, by her tears and passionate entreaties, to induce him to recede from his determination, and to renew the consent (which he now has so much reason to regret) that with her mother she should come to America. It was, however, renewed as your petitioner avers, and the respondent will not deny, under a solemn promise on her part, that after her confinement she would return to Switzerland. The very words and the earnest manner in which that promise was given are fresh in your petitioner's recollection. This, as your petitioner suggests, is a brief and candid statement of what is called his attempt to force his wife from Paris. It merits none of the strong language which has been applied to it, and was followed by a restoration of kind feeling on each side. Your petitioner, in his anxiety to do all that his wife seemed to wish, and in his distress at the effect which this exaggerated alarm appeared to have produced on her, determined to accompany her to America, and letters were written to his parents, then at Lyons, advising them of his determination and of the state of the respondent's health, and desiring them if possible to come to Paris. At no little risk to his father's health, they immediately repaired thither. Your petitioner further suggests, that he only relinquished his intention of accompanying his wife to America, by the rapid recovery of her former health, and by the decline of that of his father. In yielding to the impulse of watching by a father's sick bed, and relinquishing his wife to the guardianship of her mother, the mortifying consequences which have occurred satisfy him that he erred. He trusted to the promise-the solemn promise of the respondent, and now suffers the penalty of his misplaced confidence. Your petitioner further suggests, that in coming to the United States, in the year 1839, he embarked at Liverpool and arrived at New York. That, for the passage, he used the name of Daniel, one of the names he bears. That in not announcing or using his full name, he was actuated by two considerations, which he does not hesitate to state to your Honours, and which he suggests were not unreasonable. He had every reason to apprehend, from the temper of the previous correspondence on the part of the respondents, that if his arrival were publicly known, his wife and child might be secreted or withdrawn from him, an apprehension which the result shows not to have been unreasonable; it being distinctly admitted by the respondent, that on hearing of your petitioner's arrival, "She instantly departed with her child and servant, and went to a place of refuge and privacy." Perhaps your petitioner, in avoiding the use of his full and ordinary name, was also influenced, being a stranger to the laws of the United States, by the mysterious terrors "of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts," with which, in his letter of the 23d September, 1838, Mr. Sears had threatened your petitioner, in case he ventured to follow his wife and child to the United States. On the day of his arrival in the city of New York, he presented himself, by his proper name, to Henry C. De Rham, Esq., the consul of the Swiss confederation, to whom your petitioner's family were well known, and, from that time, remained in New York without any attempt at secrecy. Your petitioner further suggests, that on the 23d September, 1838, Mr. Sears addressed to Mr. Couvreu, beside the letter which has been already suggested to your Honours, another, though not as a postscript, which he craves leave to add to this his suggestion. The original is in your petitioner's possession, and can be produced. "Boston, 23d September, 1838. "My Dear Sir:-I much regret that I am obliged to write to you, in English; but my knowledge of the French language is too limited to enable me to express myself in writing. I can, however, understand it well enough. The annexed letter is the last which I have written to Mr. Gonsalve d'Hauteville, and I was then ignorant of his conduct towards my daughter, which was not known to me until after her arrival with her mother at my house. I beg you to ask some responsible person, to have the goodness to make a written translation of it, as well as of the letters I shall hereafter address to you, of course in strict confidence. "Permit me to assure you, my dear Sir, that I earnestly desire that this affair may be arranged with the least possible publicity. I hold, however, but to this-that my daughter and her child, if she should have one, may be rid of (debarrasés) her husband and his family-with great consideration, I have the honour to be, my dear sir, "Your very humble servant, "M. Frederic Couvreu, Syndic de Vevay, Canton de Vaud, Suisse." All of which is respectfully suggested. G. GRAND D'HAUTEVILLE. Paul Daniel Gonsalve Grand d'Hauteville, the above petitioner, being duly sworn, says, that the facts set forth in the above suggestion are just and true to the best of his knowledge and belief. Sworn and subscribed before me, SAMUEL RUSH, Recorder. G. GRAND D'HAUTEVILLE. After the reading of the additional suggestion, some conversation took place, in regard to the time to which the case should be continued. Ingersoll. With the present application we shall not interfere, but I feel bound to notice a remark made by one of your Honours, in which the paper to be prepared, on behalf of the respondents, was denominated a "response." The act gives to the petitioner a right to suggest, and to the respondent a right to amend his return-nothing more. I apprehend that there can be nothing in the shape of regular pleadings, as at common law, in this case. The rules of ordinary pleading are not applicable to it. We have no objection to an amended return; but if we are to have a response-a perpetual see-saw-a and replication, rejoinder and sur-rejoinder, rebutter and sur-rebutter, the pleadings are likely to be protracted in secula seculorum. İ repeat it, the act gives the right to the petitioner to make suggestions, and to the respondent to file an amended return. plea Cadwalader. The object of the suggestion is to enable the respondent to meet every material allegation, by his pleadings. As the first return enables the relator to anticipate our defence, and reply thereto, so, on our part, there may be a response to all new matter that he suggests. This title-response-is, it seems to me, peculiarly appropriate: our paper is to be taken as prima facie true, only so far as it is responsive to the suggestion. To whatever new matter is put on the record by the actor, we have a clear right to respond. An amended return properly relates to what was before on the record; where new matter has been introduced, what relates to it is more properly a response. Meredith. We think much time is likely to be wasted in this course of proceeding. The other day, we wanted your Honours to decide, whether we were to go into the causes of the separation. Barton, P. J. The ground covered by the case, as now presented, is certainly very great. Meredith. Your Honours perceive that the suggestion contains grievous charges against all the parties. We are perfectly ready to answer them, if compelled to go into matters which we consider irrele vant. Continuance to WEDNESDAY, JULY 29th. General Sessions Court room. Cadwalader. Are the court ready to hear the additional paper prepared on behalf of the respondent? Reed. We must beg leave to ask what it is? Cadwalader. The caption will answer that question. (Reads the caption-See post.) |