The Wheeling repository — Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.], 1807-11-26 00:00:00, page 3

ved for them to declare, that to give a
meal’s victuals to one guilty of treason,
was a crime of the same malignity as 1»
v) ing war against the throne, or as aim
ing a dagger at the heart of the monarch.,
“This was the case of the lady Alicia
Lisle, who was indicted 1 Ja. 2, for high
treason, in comforting, upholding, and
maintaining, one John Hicks, (not then
convicted) by giving him meat and
drink : upon which indictment she was
convicted as a principal in high treason,
and executed. True it is, that infamous
judgment was reversed hv act of parli
ament alter the revolution, “ because
the 6aid John Hicks was not, at the trial
of the said Alicia I.isle, attainted or
convicted of any such crime but the
law in other respects, remains unaltered
mere, and the giving a traitor meat and
drink, knowing him to have committed
treason, is, of itself, an act of high trea
son oi the same nature as that, of which
the traitor himself hath been guiltv.
“ Now, let us appeal from this deci
sion oi judges, learned in the law, to
common sense and reason for a decision
thereon, under the constitution of the
United States.
“ Let us suppose that John Hicks had
been concerned with John Fries, in the
Northampton insurrection ; and, that
some weeks after the termination of that
a flair, he had repaired to the house of
the iady Lisle, situated in Philadelphia,
and had there been entertained by her,
by giving him, meat, drink, and lodg
ings for one night (as was the case i'or
which she suffered) she knowing at the
same time that he had been concerned
in that insurrection. Is there a man in
the United States, who could under
Such circumstances, upon his oath, say
that tlie lady Lisle had levied war against
the United Slates ?
i put the question thus, because the
consitution says, that treason shall con
sist only in levying year against the U
nited States. And 1 repeat the ques
tion—would this condui t in the lady
I.ijle be an overt act oj levying war a
gainst the United States ?
“ il common sens'-, and reason dare
not answer this question lest they should
be brow-beaten by the authority of the
sages of the law, let us hear what one
of them will say to us.
ik Though the receiver of a traitor,
knowing it, be a principal traitor, and
shall not be said an accessory, vet this
much he partakes of an accessory...That
%i« indictment must be special of the
receipt, find not generally, that he did
the thing.” Now if the indictment must
not be general, that he did the thingy that
is, that she, the lady Lisle, in the case
supposed, levied the war. I would fain
know how she could be found guilty of
treason against the United States ?
ts If there be not a man in the United
States (and I trust there is not) who, in
the case here supposed, would have
found the lady Lisle guilty of levying
war against the United States, nor have
directed a jury to have found her so
guilty, then have I proved that the word
in the constitution, must be con
strued to have cut off this branch of con
structive treason ; that is, I have proved
that whatever will make a man an acces
sory after the fact in felony, will not
make him a principal in treason in the
United States.
■L.et us now inquire, whether it be
true, that whatever act will make a man
an accessory before the fact in felony,
will make him a principal in treason in
the Unred States ?
“ Let us suppose the same lady Lisle
to have been a resident of Maryland, at
the time ot Fries’s insurrection, and that
John Hicks, lu aring of the intended in
surrection in Pennsylvania, had inform
ed her of his intention to join the insur
gents ; and that sue had lent him a horse,
or money, to assist him on his journey.
u Now, if Ilicks had not gone after
this, but had kept the money, or rode
away \vith the horse, and nev er returned
him,this would not be treason in either,
even according to the English authori
ties ; but if he had gone and joined
T l ies, he would have been guilty of trea
son in England. But in neither case,
could it be said, that there had been
rvur levied in Maryland. I ask then, if
the lady Lisle hud done, what we have
above supposed, in the state of Mary
land, would such act of lending a horse
or money in Maryland, have amounted
to levying war in Pennsylvania where
she never was ?
sne were indicted m Maryland,
the indictment must allege,that war was
levied in Maryland. Now could it be
given in evidence to a jury in Maryland,
that war was levied by John Hicks in
Pennsylvania, in order to charge the la
dy Lisle with treason in levying war in
Maryland, by construction. On the o
thcr hand, if she were apprehended and
tried in Pennsylvania, where the war
was levied by Hicks, could the fact
which took place in Maryland* be given
in evidence to a jury in Pennsylvania ?
V\' e might vouch the English authori
ties, were it necessary, to prove that
neither of these things could be done,
except under the authority of some spe
cial act of parliament. And we may
with confidence answer, that under the
provisions of the federal constitution,
she could not possibly be found guilty of
treason, without rejecting the word onlyy
and without spurning at that direction
ol the constitution, which secures a tri
al in that state and district, in which the
(.rime shall have been committed. For
having never been in Pennsylvania, she
could not be found guilty of levying war
there—Evidence that a war was levied
in that state, would not be evidence to
any jury, in any other state ; and with
out a violation of the constitution, she
could not be carried out of Maryland,
where her offence, whatever it might be
deemed, was committed, to be tried in
Pennsylvania,where she never had been,
tor a constructive treason imputed to
her, by relation to a fact done in another
state.
“By what finesse or subtilty, a Jeffries
(were he to rise from the dead, and a
gain to preside at the trial of the unfor
tunate lady) would support the prosecu
tion, I should be sorry to be able to dis
cover. But with that understanding,
which I possess, I deem it impossible,
that she could be convicted even in this
case.
lo proceed, then, one step higher.
It divers persons conspire together to
levy war, this is not treason, even in
England ; but if war be levied in conse
quence of this conspiracy, by a part of
them, although the rest of them have
nothing further to do in the business,
this is treason in the whole of them ; as
well those who are absent & do nothing
as in those who are present at the fact.
A similar doctrine was laid down,on the
trial oi Fries. How far it might, or
might not have applied to his case, I
will not undertake to say. But let us
put the following case :
“ A, B, and C, meet together in Bal
timore and conspire together to levy war
against the United States. In pursu
ance of this conspiracy, A and B pro
ceed to Pennsylvania, and there levy
war : C goes not with them, nor has any
further communication with them, but
remains peaceably at home in Maryland.
Now this conspiracy being formed in
Maryland, but nothing being done in
^consequence of it in that state, no trea