Oracle post — Portsmouth, N.H., 1805-03-19 00:00:00, page 1

And if he did so confider them, was it not bis
&ty to prevent them from being read to the jury,
except under thole reftridions, and for those pur
poles ? Would his duty permit'him to fit silently,
and fee the jury imposed on and milled? To fit
silently, and bear a book read to them as contain
ing the law, which he knew did not contain the
" ' law ; Such Silence would have rendered hima
party to the deception, and would have justly fub
jefted him to all the contumely, which a conlcien
. tious and courageous difchargi of his duty, has so
uumeritedly brought on his name.
IWith refpca to the Oatuets of the United State s,
which he is charged with having prevented the
prisoner's counsel from citing on the aforelaid trial,
he denies that he prevented any ad of congress,
from being cited, either to the court orjury, on the
, laid trial ; or declared ^ aa y *me, that he would
not permit the prisoner's counfei to read to the ju
ry or to the court, any ad of congress whatever.
Nor does he remember or believs, that he expieffed
on the laid trial, any disapprobation of the con
duct of the circuit court before whom the said
/, case was firft tried in permitting the a&s of con
' grefs relating to crimes less than treason, common
**" ,iy called the (edition ad, to be read to the jury.
- He admits indeed that oe was then and flill is of o
pinion, that the said ad of congress was wholly
Q irrelavent to the issue, in the trial of John Fries, and
therefore ought not to have been read to the jury
or regarded by them. This opinion may be err
neous, but he trulls that the following reasons on
which it was founded, will be conffaered by this
honorable Court, as fufficienly Strong to rentier it
possible, and even probable that such an opinion
might be fincerly held and honestly expressed—
% That congress did not intend, by the sedition
law, to define the crime of treason by " levying
roar." Treason and (edition arc crimes very diftind
-to tbelf nature, and fubjed to very different pun'
ifoments ; the former by death, and the latter by
fine and imprisonment. 2dly, The (edition law
makes a combination er toufyitacy, with intent to
Vol XVI.]
[IV CONTINUATION]
Do the opinions now under coo federation bear
any of ihefc marks ? This honorable court need
not be informed that there has existed in England
ho Inch thing as treason at common law since the
year 1350 when the statute of theegth Edward 111.
chap. 2. declaring what alone should in future be
judged treason, was puffed. Is it perfcaly clear
that decisions made before that statute, 430 years
ago, when England, together with the rest al Europe
was still wrapped in the deepest gloom of ignorance
and barbarism ; when the system of Englifli juris
prudence was still in its infancy ; when law justice
and reason, were perpetually trampled under foot
by feudal oppression and feudal anarchy ; when,
under an able and vigorous monarch, every thing
was adjudged treason which he thought fit to call
so ; and under a weak one, nothing was considered
treason which turbulent, powerful, and rebellious
nobles thought fit to perpetrate : is it perfedly clear
that decisions made at such a time, and under such
circumftances,ought to be received by the courts of
this country as authorities to govern their decisions
or lights to guide the underftaoding of juries ? Is it
perfectly clear that decisions made in England, on
the fubjed of treafon,before the revolution of 1663,
by which alone the balance of the English confuta
tion was adjusted, and the Englifli liberties were
fixt on a firm bafi, ; decisions made either during
the furious civil wars, in which two rival families
contended for the crown ; when the viciffiludes
of war, death and confifealion in the forms of law,
continually walked in the train of the vidors, and
anions were treasonable or praise worthy, accor
ding to the preponderance of the party by whose
adherents they were perpetrated ; during the reigns
of three able and arbitray monarchs, who iucceeded
this dreadful conflid and relaxed or invigorated the
law of treason, according to their anger, their poli
cy, or their caprice : or during those terrible strug
gles between the principles of liberty, not yet well
defined or understood, on one hand, an arbitrary 1
power, infatuating itfelf under the forms of the
constitution, on the other ; struggles which pre
sented at tome times the wildest anarchy, and at
others, the extremes of servile submission, and after
having brought one king to the Icaffold, ended in
theppulfion of another from his throne : Is it
dear that decisions on the law of treason, made in
times like thefe,ought not only to be received as
authorities in the courts of this country, but aifo to
have great influence an the decisions ? Is it clear
that decisions made in England,as to what ads will
amount to levying war against the king, perlonally
and not against his government, are applicable to
the constitution and laws qf this country? Is it
clear that such English decisions on the fubjed of
treason, as are applicable to our constitution and
laws, are to be received in our courts, not merely
±s the opinions of learned and able men, which
may enlighten their judgment, but as authorities
which ought to govern absolutely their decisions ?
Is all this so clear, that a judge could not honestly
and fincerly have thought the contrary ? that he
could not have expressed an opinion to the con
trary, without corrupt or improper motives ? If it
be not tQus clear, then mull it be admitted that
this respondent, lincerely and honestly, and in the
best of bis judgment, contidered theta decisions
as wholly inadmissible, or admissible only for the
purposes and to the extent which he pointed
out.
IN SENATE
ASA
HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.
Judge Chase's Answer.
National Legislature.
OF ALL TME DISPOSITIONS AND HABITS WHICH LEAD TO POLITICAL PROSPERITY, RELIGION AND MORALITY ARE INDI PENSABLE SUPPOP T S.—W ASHING TO N.
01 APT F PART
impede the operation of any law of ths United
States, or the advising or attempting to procure a
ny infurreaion or riot, a high mitdemeanor punifb.
able by fine and imprifoment ; but a combination
or conspiracy with intent to prevent the execution
of a law, or with inxtent to raise an iniutreaion for
that purpose, or even with intent to commit trea
son is not treason by " levying war" against the
United States, unless it be followed by an attempt,
to carry such combination or conspiracy into effea
by an a&ual force or violence. ,H y, The Consti
tution of the United States isthe fundamental and
fuDreme law, and having defined the crime of trea.
son, congress could not give any legislative inter
pretation or exposition of that crime, orpf the part
of the constitution by which it is defined, qthly,
The judiciahuthority of the United States, is atone
veiled with power to expound their couftitution
and laws.
And this respondent further answering faith, that
after the above mentioned proceedings had taken
place in the said trial, it was postponed until the
next day, Wednesday, April 23d, 1800; when at
the meeting of the court, this respondent told both
the above mentioned counsel for the prisoner,
"that to prevent any misunderstanding of any thing
that had passed the day before, he would inforfa
them, that although the court retained the fame 0-
pinion of the law, arising on the overt a&s charged
in the indi&ment against Fries, yet the counsel,
would be permitted to offer arguments to the court
for the purpose of fliewing them that tuey were mis
taken tn the law; and that the court, if fatisfied
that they had erred in opinion would corredit:
and also, that the council would be permitted to
argue before the petit jury, that the court were mis
taken in the law." And this respondent added,
that the court had given no opinion as to the has
in the case, about which both the counsel had de
clared that there would be no controversy.
After fame observations by the said William
Lewis and Alexander James Dallas, they both de
clared to the court, " that they did not any longer
consider themfelvcs as the counsel for John Fries
the prisoner." This respondent then aftl the said
John Fries, whether he willed the court to appoint
other counsel for his defence ? He refufed to have
other Counsel assigned ; in which he aded, as this
respondent believes and charges, by the advice of
the said Willian Lewis and Alexander James Dal
las; whereupon .the Court ordered the said trial to
be had on the next day, Thursday, the 24. h of A
pril, ißeo.
On that day the trial was proceeded in ; and be
fore the Jurors were sworn, they were, by the di
reaion of the Court, severally asked on oath, wheth
er they were in any way /related to the prisoner,
and whether they had ever formed or delivered any
opinion as to his guilt or innocence, or that he
ought to be puniihed? Three of theo tanfweri..g
in the affirmative were withdrawn from the pannel.
The said John Fries was then informed by the
Court that he had a right to challenge thirty-five of
the Jury, without brewing, any caule of challenge
against them, and as many moteas hecould thew
cause of challenge against. He did accordingly
challenge peremptorily thirty-four of the Jury, and
the trial proceeded. In the evening, ttee court ad
journed until the next day, Friday, the 25th of A
pril; when after the district attorney had stated the
principal fads proved by the witnesses, and had ap
plied the law to those fads, this respondent, with the
concurrence of his colleague, the said Rich'd Pe
ters delivered to the jury the charge contained and
exprefled in exhibit marked No. 3, and herewith
filed, which he prays may be taken as part of this
his anfWer.-
Immediately after the Petit jury had delivered
their verdia, this respondent informed the said Fries
from the Bench, that if he, tr any perlon for him,
could fliow any legal ground, or fufficient cause to
arrest the judgement, ample time would be allow
ed him for that purpose. But no cause being (hewn,
Sentence of death was passed on the said Fries, on
Tuefday the 2d day of May, 1800, the last day of
the term ; and he was afterwards pardoned by John
Adams, then President of the United States.
And this respondent further answering faith, that
if the two instances of mifeondea, firft stated in
Support of the genety charge, contained in the fitft
article of impeachment, were true as alledged, yet
the inference drawn from them, viz. " that the
• said Fries was thereby deprived of the benefit of
counsel for his defence,'' is not true. He infills
that the said Frits was deprived of the benefit of
counsel, not by any mitcondua of this respondent,
but by the conduct and advice of the above men
tioned William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas,
who having been with their own content, assigned
by the Court as counsel for the prisoner, withdrew
from his defence, and advised him to refufe other
counsel when offered to him by the court, under
pretence that the law had been prejudged, and their
liberty of conducting the defence according to their
own judgment improperly reftriaed by this respon
dent ; but In reality because they knew the law and
the fads to be against them, and the case to be d ef
per^te, and foppofed that their withdrawing them
ftlves under this pretence, might excite odium a
gaioft the Court, might give rife to an opinion that
the prifonee had not been fairly tried.; and in the
event of a conviaion, which from their knowledge
of the law and the fa&s they knew to b&almoft
certain, might aid the prisoner in an application to
the President for a pardon.— That such was the
real motive of the said prisoner's counsel for depri
ving their client of legal assistance on this trial, this
respondent is fully persuaded, and expels to make
appear not only from the circumfiances of the case
but from tffir own frequent and public declara
tion.
A, little can this respondent be justly charged
with having by any condud of his endeavoured to
" wrest from thejury their indisputable right to
TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1805.
hear argument, and determine upon the question of
law as well as the question us fad involved in the
verdi& which they were required to give." He de
nied that he did at any time declare that the afore
faid counsel should not at any time address thejury,
or did in any manner hinder 'hem from addressing
0e jury on the law as well as on the fafts arising
ihthc case. It was exprefty flared in the copy of
his opinion delivered as above fe t forth to William
pewi; that the jury had a tight to determine the law
^5 weii as tite fa& ; and the said William Lewis,
tyd Alexander James Dallas were exprtffly inform.
^ before they declared their resolution to abandon
'he defence that they were at liberty to argue the
^ tf to the juy. This refpondear believes that
fr fid William Lewis did not read the opinion
fy:v^e.l a him as aforefaid, except a very ftpall
tbe beginning of it and of course, a&ed
'" u ' ' c ?" n# "^ ' tr c 'n'e^ ;*od the
larf afexanJerJames Dallas read no part of the said
opinion until about a year ago, when he saw a
very imperfca copy, made in court by a certain
W.S. Biddle.
TUESDAY, JAN. 22, 18€$.
Mr. EUSTIS offered the following resolution; w
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide by law
for defraying the expence incident to fitting and
preparing one of ffie navy yards belonging to the
United States, and lying near the margin of the o
cean, for the reception and repairing of such ships
df war as are now at sea on their retdfrn to port,
and such other shi^ or vessels of war as may here^
after return from their cruises of stations.
Mr. Eustis said the resolution now submitted
to the consideration of the, House had grown out of
ah opinion which impressed itself on his mind, when
he fir# beheld the whole naval force of the United
States moored in the easten branch of the Potomat.
He had ever considered the establishment of a navy
yard in this city as the principal naval arsenal, to
be among the errors or misfortunes which had pre
sided over many other arrangements respecting this
city & territory. As the United States were at that
time at peace with all the world, excepting the
Dey of Algiers, as a small part of the force only
was necessary to carry on this warfare, and as
the ships had been actually hhnled up at a consul
erable expence there appeared to be no immediate
necessity for incurring a farther expence in their
Finally, this respondent, having thus laid before
this Honourable Court a true sQte of his case, so
as respects the first article of impeachment, de
clares upon the strictest review of his conduct during
the whole trial cf John Fries for treason, that he
was not on that occasion unmindful of the solemn du
ties of his office as judge ; that he faithfully and im
partially, and according to the best of his ability
and understanding, discharged those duties towards
the said John Fries ; and that he did not in aty
manner, during the said trial, conduct himself ar
bitrarily, unjust or oppressively, as he is accused
by the honorable House of Representatives.
And the said Samuel Chase, for plea to the said
fir^t article of impeachment, saith, that he is not
guilty of any high crime qr misdemeanor, as in and
by the said first article is 'alledged ; and this he prays
may be required of by this Honorable Court, in such
manner as law and justice shall seem to them to re
quire. ———
" NOTE.
47" This is the whole of the answer to the first
'article of impeachment.—ln the same able manner
Judge Chase proceeds to examine and demon
strate the falshood or Absurdity o, ALL the char
ges preferred against him; Frequently convicting
his accusers of gross omissions in the recital of the
laws he was said tv home violated ; —and ofthe most
barefaced partiality proving, that in APERY
decision made by him, he met the full concurrence
of the Judges who sat with him on the bench ; and
who (because one of them is a Virginia democrat)
are considered by the Impeachers, as innocent ;
while he alone is accused as criminal. The limits
of the Oracle are too circumscribed to allow us
to insert this answer at length ; but from the spe
cimen given, our Readers will be able to form a right
judgment of the excellence of the whole.]
— —
And this respondent farther answering, saith, that
according to the Constitution of the United States,
civil officers thereof, and no other persons, are sub
ject to impeachment ; and they only for treason,
bribery, corruption, or other high crime or misde
meanor, consisting in some act done or omitted, In
violation of some law forbidding or commanding it ;
on conviction of which act, they must be removed
from office ; and may, after conviction, be indicted
and punished therefor, according to law. Hence
it clearly results, that no civil officer of die United
States can be impeached, except for some offence
for which he may be indicted at law ; and that no
evidence can be received on an impeachment, except
such as on.an lindictment at law, for the same of
fence, would be admissible. That a judge cannot be
indicted or punished according to law, for any act
whatever, done by him in his judicial capacity, and
in a matter in which lie has jurisdiction, through
error of judgment merely, without corrupt motives,
however manifest his error may be, is a principle
resting on the plainest maxims of reason and justice,
supported by the highest legal authority, and sanc
tioned by the universal sense of mankind. He hath
already endeavored to shew, and he hopes with suc
cess, that &llthe opinions delivered by him in the
course of the trials now under consideration were
correctin themselves, as in the time and manner of
expressng4hem ; and that even admitting them to
have been incorrect there was such strong reason
in their favor, as to remove from his conduct every
suspicion of improper motives. If these opinions
were incorrect, his mistake in adopting tliem, or in
the time or manner of expressing them, cannot be
imputed to him as an offence of any kind, much
less as an high crime and misdemeanor, for which
he ought to be removed from office ; unless it can
be shewn by clear and legal evidence, that he acted
from corrupt motives. Should it be considered
that some impropriety is attached to his conduct,
in the time and mode of expressing any of these 0-
piaious ; still he apprehended that a very wide dif
ference exists between such impropriety, the casual
effects of human infirmity, as a high cliiane and
misdemeanor for which tie may be impeached, and
muston conviction be removed from office.
IN TILE HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES
removal. Our maratime concerns have now ex
perienced a change. We are at war with another
of the Barbary powers, and a greater number of
ships have been necessarily taken into the service.
We have at this time six frigates, and five or six:
smaller vessels on duty in the Mediterranean. After
a certain time, these ships must Be relieved. O
thers must be sent out to take their stations. Those
which return, will require repairs ; & in order to
prepare for these contingencies, it was proper that
some one of the navy yards nearer to the ocean
should be put in a condition toreceive them. This
was the object of the resolution. It was desireable
that some place should be selected easy of access,
where the water was deep and in the neighbour
hood of some large maratime town, having large
markets and magazines of tiie variety of articles
required for repairing and fitting ships for sea,
with the artisans employed in. that business. It
was not his intention to describe the advantages or
di^GV^dX-s ^f ^c place or of another. The U--
luted states own six navy yarns. 'lhe whole coast
is before the executive, tiid such a place will be
selected as will combine the greatest number of
advantages, and best promote the public interest.
To those who believed that ships of war could ba
repaired or fitting out with the same dispatch, at the
same expence; and with the same ease and conven
ience at a place three hundered miles distant from
the sea as they could be in one of the ports lying
on its margin, and possessing the advantages which
had keen stated, no reasoning could be applied
which would change their opinions; The proposi
tion was offered to the House to be decided by com
mon sense and understanding.
There was one objection, which he had anticipa
ted, and which had some weight in it. The busi
ness of the department would in that case be remo
ved from the eye of the government, and from the
more immediate inspection and contrcul of the in^
telligent and capable officer who directed its opera
tions, this inconvenience would be balanced by the
more ample means and resources which his agents
would find in the large towns, and bv ^hich'they
would be enabled to earry his instructions more
promptly into effect.
THE EMPEROR'S SPEECH.
At the opening of the Legislative Body, Which
took place on the 27th, a variety.of ceremonies were
observed applicable to the recent change of the
Government; The following is the Speech of the
Erfperior on the occasion :—"Gentlemen, Deputies
ofthe Department to the Legislative body. Gentle
men Tribunes and members of my Council of State,
I now appear before you to preside at the opening
of your Session. The character which lam anx
iotis to impress on your labours, is at once the most
august & the most imperious. Princes, Magistrates,
Soldiers, Citizens we have alone in our career one
object—the intarests of our country. If the Throne
on which Providence and the wishes of the nation
have placed me, be at all dear to my heart, it is
only because it gives me the power of protecting
& preserving the most sacred interests of the French
people—Without a strong and paternal Govern
ment, France would have had to dread the return
of all the miseries which it has formerly endured.
Imbecility in the Supreme power is the greatest
calamity which can befal a nation. Soldier or first
Consul,*! had only one sentiment: as Emperor, I
retain the same—and that is a wish for the pros
perity ofthe French people. I have been fortunate
enough to contribute to this object by my victories,
to consolidate it by treaties, to stem the torrent of
civil discord, and to pave the way for the restoration
of manners, society, and religion. If lam not on.
SATURDAY, FEB. 9.
A Lill extending the right of suffrage in the Mis
sippi Territory, was twice read, and committed.
After passing upon several local bills, &c. the
House in committee attended the trial of Judge
Chase. ——
FRIDAY, FEB. 8. 1805.
The bill to appropriate a sum of money to build
Gun boats, passed to be enacted.
TAX ON SLAVES.
Mr. Southard, after a few introductory remarks,
moved the following resolution :—
Resolved, That a tax of ten dollars be imposed
on every Slave imported into the United States—
which was referred to, a committee of the whole
for Monday next.
A bill for carrying into more complete effect the
JCrh article of the treaty of friendship, limits and
navigation with Spain, was amended and finafy
passed.
MONDAY, FEB. 11.
Several petitions and reports on private and lo
cal subjects, were variously disposed of: when the
House, again attended the trial cf Judge Chase.
TUESDAY, FEB. 12.
A committee was appointed on the subject of the
votes for President and Vice-President ; and to reg
ulate the time, place and manner of administering
the oath of office to the President.
A resolve passed, appointing Messrs. Nicholson,
R. Griswold, and Bryan, a committee, on the part
of the House, to report what further measures, if
any, ought to be adopted for the accommodation of
the President of the United States, after March
next.
A petition that Buckstown, a thriving settlement
in Maine, may be made a port of entity and deliver
ry, was committed.
An order, directing the mode of procedure in
counting the Electoral votes, and the record and
declaration of the result, was “Concurred in by th#
H ouse.
WEDNESDAY, FEB. 13, 1805.
THE trial of Judge Chase,—James Triplett,
John Heath, and John Basset, were this day ex*
amine'd.' The Court rose at 4 o'clock.
FOREIGN NE WS.
RECEIVED VIA NEW-YORK.
c®#^7
LONDON, JAN 15, 1805.
Last night we received a number of Paris pa
pers which contain an account of the opening of the
Legislative body on the 27th ult. with a speech of
Bonaparte on that occasion. The speech is in that
sort of abrupt style which characterises most of his,
pordhetions.
l/'The resolution was taken up on a subsequent
day, and debate had thereon.
[No. 27.