Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1804-03-14

lsa naecedent, hostile to the rights o. the q.
t;ren-ruinous to the trial by jury,-and
degrading to the character OF the protessl
| on.
The candour and humanity which have
induced you to interpose, in the present
mode. have also, however, influenced our
decision and, if you will allow for the
different effect of arguments, publicly deli
vered before jury entitled, in capital
case, to pass both on the law and the tact
with whom, too, even doubt would lead
to an acquittal) we, confidently, offer for
your consideration, the following general
POSITIONS
| 4. That there has been a nnlstrlal,
2. That thesofence charged. IS not trea-
son.
8. That anew trial ought toshave been
|vawarded.
/. That there has been mistrial.
1 v0k =. CT. s. go. 4. BY the Judiciary act
Suits Edit. il is4declared I" that iii
cases punishable with death, the trial shall
be had in the county where the offence was
committed, or where that cannot be done
without great inconvenience, twelve petit
Jurors, at least, shall be summoned from
thence"
q. The offence was committed by Fries
in the county Of Northampton but his
trial was in the county of Philadelphia.
8. The language OF the act is mandate
ry:--es the trial shall be had IN the county
where the offence is committed; and some
& great Inconvenience" must appear, f,tdi-
cifrl2,y. 10 the court, before they can exer-
else the discretion Of ordering a trial in a
ny other county. No such inconvenience
| was suggested on the record, or even stat
ed at the bar; and, if it existed in the pre-
sent instance, it must forever exist In all
future cases, and this clause Of the law be
rendered altogether useless.
g. DaA 513.4. It's true, that an inef-'
fectual motion was made on the first trial,
to change the place of trial; but it was O.
verruled on grounds which have no aPpll-
cation to the second trial For,
1. There was no inconvenience, owing
to the riotous state Of the country OF
Northampton, at the time ofthe second
trial.
2. And the court (being bound to notice
every thing that was essentials to an exercise
of iurisdiction) might have ordered the tri-
al ia the proper county before 1t was COM
menced in Philadelphia, by finding of the
new indictment, a mol. pros. having been
entered on the old one.
6. Co. IL. 6. Hack. IS. For any mistyial,
p. CO. 9 Oh. ~. S. on account of Jury
IL ID. BE-, Oh. 27 process, or on any
S. fO8, other account, the
verdict must be set aside.
II. That the offence charged was not
/. uol. D.. IS. co,lst.- &. The constitution
act. 8. s. 8. H. 100 defnestreason to be,
5. /. ''levying wan against
the United States, Ssc.o and the act Of
Congress infic:s the punishment Of death
on the person convicted Of the crime.
2. Asthe spirit of the constitution is op.
posed to implied powers, and constructive
expositions, we are bound to take the plain,
manifest, meaning of the words OF the de-
fnition, independentofany glossary, which
the English courts OF writer's, may have
affixed to the words OF the English sta
tute.
8. The plain, manifest, meaning q the
words, is "a forcible opposition to the
power of the government, with intent TO
subdue and overthrow it. -
a. This meaning may embrace a forci-
be attack upon the legislature, Cor, per-
haps, any other principal department Of
the government to compel the repeal OF a
law.
S. But it does not embrace the case OF
an opposition to the execution Of a particu-