The undersigned members of the H of R have seen with unalloyed regret, the decision of this House, in favor of the resolutions against impeaching, John Pearson Judge 7^th Judicial circuit, upon the charges and specificat[ions] lately professed against him.

Those charges are of a high and grave character, and as evidence that they were so considered by the House it will be seen that the House resolved by a very large majority, to hear the proof relied upon to sustain them.

That proof has been heard; it has not only tended to sustain but it has established, by the highest grade of testimony every specification, made alleged against the respondent nor is there one fact stated in those specifications which has not been proved either by the records of the Circuit Court or the oaths of Two respectable and intelligent witnesses.1 And we here embody in this protest some of the facts thus established, It has been proved that John Pearson Judge 7^th Judicial Circuit has violated the right of trial by Jury by refusing to permit the Counsel for the prisoner, a peremptory challenge to a juror his prescribed number of challenges not being exhausted, alleging as the reason therefore, a rule of practice of his circuit which was unreasonable against the forms of the law, and the ^letter^ spirit of the Constitution He has prevented an appeal from his decisions to a higher tribunal, by refusing in numerous

cases to sign "bills of exceptions" containing a statement of his decision and the testimony on which such decision was based, when he as well as the counsel in whose favor he decided admitted [...?] these statements to be true, and when the statutes of the state expressly making it his duty to sign such bills of exceptions have been read to him he still persisted in his refusal, saying that such statutes were but a "legislative flourish."2

He has arrogated to himself the right of final decision subject to no appeal by refusing to hear and disobeying the process of the Supreme Court of the state of Illinois, commanding him to sign a bill of exceptions, thereby treating the mandates of a superior court with contempt, and denying an appeal from the tribunal over which he presided3

He has treated with Contempt and scorn the process of a court of the United States, which he was bound to obey by refusing to hear it and by treating it with utter neglect.

He has acted in an arbitrary and oppressive manner, by threatening to punish counsel for presenting in a respectful manner the process of the Supreme Court and the Court District Court of the US, and by actually punishing them for so doing, not once only but repeatedly, under the influence of passion

and excitement thereby perverting the power placed as a sacred trust in his hands to the indulgence of personal feeling and private resentment.

He has shown culpable ignorance of the law, by quashing an indictment, for the sole reason that the clerk had left out one word in the copy delivered to the prisoner and by quashing [twenty?] indictments at one term for the single reason that the date in the caption was in figures when the statute of the state, expressly directs the caption to be so written, Thereby permitting crime to have a free course, obstructing public justice, and degrading the character of the judiciary in the eyes of the world.

These facts have been proved in the presence of this House, and every candid observer will bear us witness that they have received no darker coloring from our statement, and yet with these startling facts fresh in the recollection of the House, it has been solemnly decided by a majority in which was included [ ?] every member agreeing in political sentiments with the [...?] the respondent that they did not afford reason that the said John Pearson should be impeached that decision is final

[...?] has this moment past the House of Representatives Deciding against and impeachment against Judge Person4

he is again to ascend the bench again to be entrusted with the "issues of life and death" & again, to officiate not merely as a minister of stern and impartial justice, but as the representative of the majesty and dignity of the bar,

To permit this result, without the formality of a trial, is in our estimation dangerous if not fatal, ^to the purity of the judicial character^ to the judicial character, we consider it a We have ever struggled to maintain the independence of the judiciary, and to place it high above the assaults, of party violence and political feeling, but we have also desired to see all judges, amenable to the5 law, they are called upon to administer, and and subject to those [...?], restraints wisely provided for in the practice of other countries and the constitution of our own, we believed that in this case the authority of precedent, the usages of the past and the dictates of the constitution have been a like disregarded and being firmly of opinion that

of this House

the6 decision, will tend to render our judges irresponsible, and to bring our courts into contempt, to destroy the rights of individuals, and [...?] cast disrespect on the administration of public justices, we therefore present this [...?] of facts remonstrance against the judgment of the house.

And if when time shall have made these prediction pro

And if when as citizens of the state rejoicing in her honor, and sorrowing in our shame, we shall find these predictions fulfilled, if and the temple and be compelled to look back to the action of this honorable House as the fruitful source of judicial opp. . . ^t[yranical]^ and op[p]ression casting a stain upon the public character and bring any ruin to individual interests we at least desire, that all men may know, that as we [have] not assented to the decision, so we are not answerable for the consequences wherefore against the resolution of this House, declaring that the Hon J. P[earson] Judge &[c][etc.] should not be impeached and brought to trial, we do most earnestly respectfully but earnestly protest7