The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-03-26
[NoLuME J.

but that he thought he would leave il to the
| court and jury. On which Judge Chafe ex-
claimed " Then we will be your council &
| by the blef1ing of God do You AS much iulice,
as thofe who were aligned TO yon" Mr. Lew.
is and had vilited Fries in prfon during the
preceding afternoon we had told him our de-
termination TO withdraw from his defence, un-
lefS he and his friends wiifed us to refume it;
we declared it TO be, in our view of the cafe,
his beft chance to efcape, AS we could entertain
no hope of changing the opinion of the court.
He finally, left the matter to us and, think,
MIR. Lewis, in my hearing, with my concur
renee, advited him not to accept other couu.
Eel, if the court ihould offer to aflign them.
The ret of the facts, ftated by Mr.. Lewis,
correipond 70 preciftlv with my recollection,
that prefume, after this recognition, il is IN.
neceiiary to repeat them. / with it, however
to be properly undertood, that on the fecond
day, both the judges were extremely anxious
to prevail on us to proceed in the defence: and
as underttood, withdrew all the reftri6tions of
the preceding dav. We perfftyd, however, in
our determination: becaufe after what bad
happened. we deemed it the hen chance to fave
our clients life ; and not becaufe we wi1,ed
las has been infnuated)to bring the court into
diierace or odum. Fries was, accordingly,
tried, and convicted without council.
1t is. perhaps, proper to fate, what pafed
on the tirft trial of Fries AS it has been much nE-
underitood, or mifreprcfrnted. The general
courle of argument, on tire fats, was an endea-
vor to thew that the acts of Frirs and his COM
panIons amounted to nothing more than 4 riot
Gus oppoi:ion to the direct tax officers, or OBJ
itructlon Of the martial in the execution OF pro-
ceis; and the refcue of particular defcri,tion
or pHioners, whom the MARTIAL had arreGted,
We drew to our aid, in this part of the difcuf-
non, the iectio1S of the penal law, and the fcdi-
ton act, which provided for the puniniment of
tuch Offences, dftintt from the crime of treafon.
The general courfe of our argument, on fbe L9zp.
was an endeavor to fhew, that the offence did
not amount to an act of levying war aEainit the
United States. The contribution defines that TO
be the only treafon that can be committed: and
neither the Legislature, nor the courts, can am
pity, or alter, the definition The words of
the contribution, however, require praSfical
expedition. This expedition can only be OBJ
tanned bya confederation of the natural the "a
mIIiar, and the Reasonable import of the words
/ themieves, or by reference to the elofarv of
the EngIifh decifon< ON the fame branch oftres.
ION exprefied in the fame terms, in the Figlfh
ftatute OF EdzV0rd3. The gIofary of the Enelifh
decihoHS outtt not to be relied on. Jr is true.
that hnce the En9lih revolution OF 1888, and,
particularly, fDce the ftatute of UTLiq,,, Q.
(Which firft gave judicial freedom TO the Enplilb
bench) the judges of England have been indie
pendent well as wife and virtuous and i'm
/ r.
ments upon all matters originally flbmit'et 70
their inrifdi9ion. BIT the EneliIl Judges. 6pcr
inc revolution Of 1865, are bound to adminifer
the law, according to the precedents enahCI
cd by the Englifh judges, before that revolution.
! although either in criminal, oriu civil matters.
II the queitIon were res mfeera, they would
| tnem'e'Ves have decided in different way.
hence, the council of Fries were induced TO cite
common law authorities, and authorities md
the ttdtufP nf EINuarJ O Z T.
law OF England was or ought TO be. not ,yb.t
the law OF the United States was. or OUGHT IN
DC, putt what had been the eXtray agance of de.
pendent Judges, in fetting the precedents, which
the independent Judges of England were hound
to follow. Among other books they rad RACK,
tones Commentaries, where niiluRration ora
pohtIve or imputed treafon, the commentator
cites the cafes under the natute Of Edward 81
or one man being hung as a traitor, for r,vino
that his fon was heir to the crown. becauc. he
was himtelf the owner of a tavern, witt, thr fon
OF the crown and of another MANS rneetioo
the lame fate, beCauft he will,ed the horn of b;s
buck, which had deem killed nv the king. in tbs
belly of the monarch. Theft were. indeed. The
lutrations of Backbone, and not of Fries,e
counfsl; but what profei1ional man need he A.
ihamed, to be fuppoftd capable of ref ,r,ing 70
the lame authorities, TO enforce an ARGUMENT
which Backbone had employed Though the
Engih judges were thus bound bv precedents
ettablihed in very bad times of the inridicaI biC
tory OF England, Fries's council coatended that
the American judges were not under the C,ne
obligation and that the era Of our federal con-
Intuition furnifhed a favorable opportunity to
emancipate ourfelves from the trammels ofcon.
ltructIons, given TO the words of our counifu.;on
by corrupt and dependent courts, before the
Enshh revolution Referring, then, 70 the ma
tura, familiar, and reafonabIe, import of the
words, 1t was urged, in defence Of Fres. ON the
hrt trial, that It was not cafe Of treafon. hut
OF riot, obitrut'ion of procefs, and refcu. ofpriC.
onerS; that the df rimination in the offences.
was marked by the very didind nature of the
actions; and that the fediton q having treated
the after cafe, as caf- Of mifIemeanor. il ,vas
legislative contribution, that it was not cafe
OF treafon. There was llill ground enough for
the conititutional prIvhon TO occupv IAN at
tempt by force to fubvert the government. 10 de-
feat the legitimate operation of its Drincir,,i de-
Parments, to attack, or to reGR, It's military
power, &C. and, after the pafing of the fsdition
act, it might be prefumed, fuch ground alone
was intended to be occupied.
On this COURT Of argument, we eopl1 not af.
certain the opinion of the court, nor how fgrthe
cafe of the Wefern infureeion would be dem.
| cd to apply, till the charge was pronounced.
But, after hearing the Charge arJ 10. ..