I have read the copy of the letter, signed John Nicholson, directed to Council and dated the 15th. day of May last, which, at my request, you was pleased to furnish me with last week. In that letter he says, that, on the trial of certain issues between the Commonwealth and Timothy Matlack Esquire one was, “Whether the Defendant be or be not intitled to like fees with those received by the Keeper of the Great Seal under the late Government of the Province of Pennsylvanie?” And that he remembers, the Court, by His Honor the Chief Justice, in the charge to the Jury respecting an allowance to Mr. Matlack for Militia Commissions, said, “that the fee for affixing the same Seal to every other instrument was fixed by law and regulated by practice at 6s.” Then that they “would be at no loss to allow the same sum in this case, which shews that the court also considered this to be one of the points before that Jury; “tis true, (he adds) “it was an abberration from truth, and this one instance thereof alone, in the charge from his Honor to the jury, I am well persuaded, lost the State upwards of £800 specie in that cause, for it is a fact, the fee for this Seal, when affixed to another instrument, was fixed by law and regulated by practice at 2s. 6d. only.”
On this most indecent and extraordinary paragraph I beg leave to observe, that notwithstanding it appears, there was something rankling from the day of the trial to the date of the letter, in Mr. Nicholson’s breast, and that he may have, for ought I know, a pretty good memory; yet I will venture to assert, from my notes taken on that trial, he is mistaking, both in the matter and of that charge, and intirely so in the consequences of it. But I will take it for granted, that what he alledges respecting the Great Seal was delivered in the charge and examine how the fact stands; whether this is one instance of an Abberration from truth. If we have recourse to the Act of Assembly, intitled, “An Act for regulating and establishing fees,” page 239 of the first volume of our Laws, published in 1775, we will find the fees allowed to the Keeper of the Great Seal, are from 20s. the highest, down to 6s., the lowest sum for affixing it to any instrument. Now here is a plain positive Law upon the subject, which, I conceive, proves clearly and conclusively, that the court, by the Chief Justice, when they laid down the law to be,“that the smaller fee, allowed for affixing the Great Seal to every other instrument, was 6s. were guilty of no Abberration from truth. It rests therefore with the learned, delicate and modest Mr. Nicholson, to shew that the fee was fixed by law and regulated by practice at 2s. 6d. only.
Upon the trial it was proved by Judge Bryan, that Timothy Matlack Esquire had the actual custody of the State Seal from March 1777 until October 1779 (during which period he had been Vice-President and that it was used by him under direction of Council; and that he kept it afterwards was not denied.
Mr. John Reeves, formerly a Clerk under Richard Peters Esquire Secretary, proved, that he received 45s. fees, for the Commissions of a Captain, Lieutenant and ensign.
Joseph Shippen Esquire, the last Secretary before the Revolution, proved, that he took fees for military commissions, some by Law, others by usage, and that he received for a Captain’s commission 20s. a Lieutenant’s and an Ensign’s 8s. viz. two days pay for each officer’s commission that his office of Secretary and Clerk to the Council was, communibus annis, worth about £700. And that Richard Hockley Esquire was Keeper of the Great Seal, and received the fees for it.
General Lacy’s deposition was, that, as a Sub-Lieutenant of Bucks County, he had received commissions from Mr. Secretary Matlack for Militia Officers of that county, for which he had paid him—that some of those officers had refused to repay him, and that he then charged such commissions to the State, amounting to £39 7s. 6d., and was allowed them by the Legislature. See Journals of the Assembly 1780, page 468.
There were several other Witnesses sworn, but the charge, so far as it related to the Militia Commissions, was chiefly grounded on the foregoing evidence, and only recommended a quantum The names of the special Jury, who were the sole Judges of the facts, and to whom the cause was intirely submitted by the court, are as follows, viz. Magnus Miller, Thomas Britton, Joseph Spencer, Thomas L. Moore, John Shields, Samuel McKean, James Ash, Thomas Tillyer, Joseph Carson, Leonard Dorsey, William Laurence and David Duncan. I thought their Verdict was right; and, I beleive, every person, who attended the trial, were of the same opinion; unless Mr. Nicholson be an exception, whose wishes, it appears, were not
If the court had misstated any point of law, in the opinion of the Attorney General or James Wilson Esquire, who were of Counsel with the Commonwealth, they would certainly have taken their exceptions at the time, agreeably to the practice in such cases, and brought a writ of Error to the High Court of Errors and appeals. I will make no odious comparison between them and Mr. Nicholson, with respect to law-knowledge, or anything else; they knew their duty, and faithfully performed it.
No civil action, nor indictment will lie in any court against a Judge, for any thing said or done by him as such; and Mr. Nicholson [did] or ought to have known that the Supreme Executive Council had no authority to hear any complaint against the Judges of the Supreme Court but upon an impeachment by the House of Assembly. His letter therefore can be considered in no other light than as an infamouse Libel upon the Supreme Court. He has too frequently with impunity under the pretended colour of office, calumniated his Superiors; and in such language as vulgarity itself would blush at. I hope this will be the last instance of it. Even ignorance, when it is wilful, becomes
I will repreat a sentiment, that Mr. Nicholson was no stranger to a year ago: a good office shall always have my countenance but I should esteem it a better fame to be named as one, who had always done complete Justice to every Individual, that had claim upon the Public, than who had saved thousands to the Commonwealth by filching from Individuals, by critical niceties, rules of my own, or ostentatious parsimony.
Permit me Sir, to request of Council, that, if they suffer Mr. Nicholsons letter to remain among their files, they will be pleased to this along with it. I am Sir, with great regard Your Excellency’s and the honorable Councils Most obedient humble Servant