ugh one or two persons were in the
office while he was doing it; and Mr. Key certified, that on the first
day of the trial, before they were sorted, many persons in court took
different numbers of them to look at, but he believed they were all
returned, and he took pains to request them who took them to hand them
back to him. To the best of his belief, the pamphlets now in court were
the same which were delivered at the jail, without addition or
diminution.

_P. R. Fendall_ was connected with the office of the Colonization
Society. The Anti-Slavery Reporter was sent from New York in exchange
for the African Repository published by the Colonization Society; some
controversy had existed between the two Societies, and it was necessary
to read their attacks in order to be able to answer them. The papers
received were open for the use of members, and were sometimes loaned
to others to take away and read.

_Key_ then offered four numbers of the second volume of the Anti-Slavery
Reporter to the jury.

_Bradley_ claimed one as his, which never was in the possession of the
prisoner.

_Key_ requested him to be sworn, and

_Bradley_ testified, that he could identify the paper by several marks
which he pointed out. He received it in November last, in consequence of
a letter which he had written with a view to procure two or three, which
were sent on through the post office. He wrote for them in consequence
of conversation with Crandall; (but he was not allowed to state the
substance of what Crandall said.) How this paper came into Mr. Key's
possession he did not know, but this disappeared from his desk in court,
and two others had been taken from his office.

Considerable argument ensued upon the point, whether it was competent to
give in evidence a printed copy of a _known published libel_, or whether
in order to be evidence against the person on whom it is found, it must
not be a written copy. On one side it was argued that every one might
innocently have a printed copy, but the having a written copy would show
some extraordinary interest in the libel; and the books all spoke of a
written copy only as evidence of publication. For the prosecution it was
urged that having a printed copy was stronger evidence than a written
one, especially when the party had a number of copies of the same libel,
endorsed in his own handwriting with words that showed an interest, and
an intent to circulate it.

_The Court_ was of opinion tha