1824. V. The People McEvoy et al. NEW-YORK, quenched its rage in the blood of its own votaries, they saw their error, and were shocked at the idea they had in a moment of phrenzy entertained, of casting off the protection of the British government. They suddenly repented, and with an impulse which usually follows political enthusiasm, they vibrated into the opposite extreme. To restore public confidence, and to secure themselves more effectually from the Catholics, they superadded to the oath of allegiance one of loyalty and renewed attachment to the government. And because the Protestant ascendancy was first achieved by William, Prince of Orange, they chose him as their patron saint, and renewed the celebration of the victory over James. The former derived the name of Orangemen from the Prince of Orange and emblems of that colour, the latter being distinguished as Ribbonmen, owing to a green ribbon, the badge of the order of the United Irishmen. The great political union being thus broken, the Catholics cohered with more inflexible attachment to each other, and condensing their energies, directed them to their emancipation from penal laws, and restoration to equal rights. With these motives and objects, and distinguished by their respective emblems, the Ribbonman has celebrated his Patrick's day on the 17th of March, and the Orangeman his King William's day on the 12th of July. In later years, these celebrations have been attended in Ireland with frightful breaches of the peace. The parties, armed and unarmed, have, in imposing numbers, arrayed themselves against each other, and prompted by the most infuriated passions, aided by traditional animosities, have steeped the adverse emblems in blood. Whether these associations are legal in themselves, or become illegal only in their consequences, It is NEW-YORK, 1824. may be a question, but is one of little moment. sufficiently manifest they cannot be endured. In Ireland they have been discountenanced, whether voluntarily as some, or by statute as others pretend, is immaterial. Gentlemen-Those wild and crude transactions were formerly matter of history, or at the most, of information carried across the Atlantic from the troubled and bloody scene of action; but they have, in an evil hour, with all the secresy, malignancy, and wide-spreading mischief of a pestilence, found their their way to the peaceful bosom of society here. On this subject an experiment has been made in the neighbourhood of our city last July, into the nature and effects of which one jury has inquired and passed as against the Orange party; and it is reserved for you, in the administration of even-handed justice, to inquire into and pass upon the demerits of the adverse party. It will appear that, early on the 12th, the Ribbonmen hung out a green flag in view of a few Orangemen at work in the shop of one Green; that much abuse accompanied and followed the insult; that the party at Green's subsequently erected a pole and crowned it with an Orange wreath; that shortly thereafter a party of Catholics came round, armed with clubs, and challenged the Orangemen out to fight; that this being declined, they prepared themselves for a battle towards the evening, and actually fell upon two or three Orangemen, of which the complainant was one, in great numbers, and armed with bludgeons, which they used to the great terror of the neighbourhood, and the almost entire destruction of their adversaries. Testimony on the Part of the Prosecution. Henry Bush testified, that on the 12th of July last, a 53 NEW-YORK, party of Catholics were assembled at the house of one 1824. Morris, in Greenwich. They commenced with great abuse towards the Orangemen. About 8 or 9 o'clock, witness saw a green flag out of Morris's window-Saw James Murney there. He, in particular, was very abusive. In the afternoon, Moore, Mullen, and Lowry had an Orange handkerchief on a pole. Came to Morris's with it. Went from Morris's to M'Keever's, and then went towards their boarding-house. Witness then saw ten or fourteen men come from M'Evoy's yard towards the Orangemen. The Catholics, aided by about fourteen more, attacked the Orangemen, and when witness ran up to save Moore from being murdered, he was knocked down by Cassidy, and beaten by all the defendants. Mrs. M'Evoy struck witness after he was down. Witness was much hurt. Did not take part until the Orangemen cried "murder," after they had been attacked by the Catholic party. Mrs. M'Evoy had a club, and threw stones. (Cross-examined by Mr. Sampson.)—Witness was not stripped to fight. Struck somebody on the head when they were all coming upon him with bludgeons, but does not recollect who it was; defended himself all he could. Mrs. M'Evoy struck witness with a club. Witness does not recollect that he struck Hugh M'Evoy. M'Evoy struck with a pole; M'Williams struck with a stick.— Witness and Ralph Irving did not go to Morris's together. Witness went to ask the Orangemen to come home. The Court-Gentlemen, had you not better confine yourselves to the circumstances immediately connected with the affray? Sampson. We introduce these circumstances to show 1824. that the Orange party was engaged in an unlawful act. 'NEW-YORK, Nobody has a right to wear the star-spangled banner, and go about challenging persons out to fight. Catholics are to be protected. The Court.-Protestants and Papists stand among us on the same footing. Sampson. Not if Protestants call out for Papists to murder them. Fay. We wish to show that it was an insulting epithet that the prosecutor used towards the Catholic party; and if he induced an injury to himself, he cannot now turn round upon the party--he must take the consequences. Graham.-The counsel assumes that the prosecutor called them Papists, and that he was of a party. He expressly stated, they were called Papists, not that he called them so ; denied that he was of a party, and says that he did not come up until "murder" was cried. The Court. We are of opinion, that in this case the prosecutor is not the party seeking redress-that he merely appears to testify on the part of the people. The question here is, has a breach of the peace been committed? and if so, did the defendants commit it? -We think, however, if we understood the witness rightly, he said not that he called the Catholic party Papists, but that they were called so by way of description. (Cross-examination resumed.)-Witness saw M'Evoy about an hour before the affray at Morris's. Saw MEvoy go back and forward frequently, and his men go up stairs. The Catholics where at Morris's, the Protestants. at Green's. The Court.-All about Protestants and Catholics had The People v. McEvoy et al. 1824. NEW-YORK, better not be said, as it cannot weigh a feather. We are sworn simply to try the fact of assault and battery. Sampson.-It becomes important to ascertain whether the witness correctly states what took place, otherwise the defendants must be convicted by a terrible falsehood. The People V. M'Evoy et al. Graham. We are under the direction of the Court. From the course pursued in the other trial, I had anticipated similar proceedings in this. I agree with the Court that these were simple trespasses, and as such ought to have been regarded throughout. But having commenced with party distinctions, and our clients presented to another jury in the unpopular character of Orangemen, I thought it but right the distinction should be kept up on this trial, and they should have the benefit of it in their turn. We are contented, however, that the Court should control the testimony, relying on their impartiality in distributing the judgments. Sampson. I did not put them before the last jury as Orangemen. I put them simply as persons who had broken the public peace, and as such they were convicted. Fault, my clients have none, unless that they are papists, and cling faithfully to their religion. I give them credit for it. We can show that they were peaceable, and that the first attack was made on them by the party complaining now. I hope the corporation, alive to the interests of this unfortunate class of this community, will step forward in their defence, and protect them from such gross and unprovoked attacks as this in future. Evil epithets have been used, in order to prejudice this jury and obtain a conviction; but such, I know, will be disregarded by the jury. Graham. I have used no harsh epithets. I have opened the case broadly, anticipating the same extent |