e said to be conquered,
who never had the opportunity or means of resistance; nor can time
run against one unborn. Those who lean to a contrary doctrine should
well consider to what it leads them. For no rule of reason is better
received, or clearer, than that force may be always resisted by force;
and whatever is thus established, may, at time, be lawfully overthrown.
Or, on the other hand, if error is made sacred by its antiquity, there
is no absurdity or crime which may not be dug up from its dishonored
tomb, and erected into an idol around which its scattered votaries may
reassemble."

Mr. Bradley then went on to argue upon the tendency of the libels, and
contended that they were not calculated to excite sedition. They are
not addressed to the colored people, nor adapted to excite insurrection
and revolution among them. They are calm appeals to reason, designed
to produce measures to arrest a danger which they think threatens them,
in common with their brethren of the South.

He next adverted to the law of publication. There were two grounds of
publication--one is legally to be inferred--the other actually proved.
The monstrous doctrine is contended for by the prosecutor, that if a
man has a libel in his possession, if it was publicly circulated in the
country, the possession is _prima facia_ evidence that he put it in
circulation. To show the absurdity of such a position he took a case
of a favorite popular libel, which would be all sold in a day, and said
that it would be impossible to find an impartial jury to try a case
under such a law--because it would not be easy to find twelve men drawn
as jurors who would not have been possessors in some way of the libel,
and of course equally criminal.

Having a written copy of a published libel in one's own handwriting may
be _prima facia_ evidence; but it is not so with a printed copy. The
publication must be brought home to the defendant. An actual publication
is when the party puts the libel in circulation--when he gives it to a
third party, either by himself or an agent, for the purpose of having it
put in circulation.

The evidence in this case, he contended, afforded not only no proof,
but no presumption that he published the libel. The one copy he allowed
King to take was not given to be circulated. He had been warned of the
danger, and had avowed his opposition to having such papers put in
circulation. There could be no pretence that it was given to stir up
m