The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-06-18
9~a.e. ~ -, rsE--s-.,-ss,r.z-rr

Icrur'Wg 10 iuCn filgn.I authorities as Trey BE-
leved appohte, or from citing certain ftatutes
of the United States, which they deemed iu,.
+ trative of the pof'iors upon which they intend
ed TO ter the defence of their client" This
charge confifts oftwo parts; it complains of re-
friSion As TO Englih authorities, and rs TO ~
Inerican aatutes. wiifconiider them tiftinetly
-hrit, iir, permit me to remark that thcfe ale
cations are made to iiippor. the general charge
= OF Partially, oppreflion and iniuitice. But
what becomes of theie prctences, when we bear
in mind the tetmony of MIR. Rawle, the difriGt
attorney, and always, and in every ftuation. a
! gentleman whole character, in all its relations
both public and private, bears the firlt hanp of
{ fefpcttahility, and fears competition for Gre
dit. re has informed this hon, court that this
rchrie.ion 70 grcviouly complained of, and
now the fuhiea of criminal profecuton, was
iinpoted upon him as well as upon the couule
of Fries. Is This the character or the conduct
of Partially or oppreilion Does it evince that
frong appetite the Judge is faid TO have, to
drink the hearts blood of this unfortunate Ger
man, ard Aain the pure ermine of iuitice with
his gore (? have always underItood by par;ia-
hty IN judge, favourirg bias to one party 10
the prejudice of the other; but where retric-
ton is put equally on both fides, Cannot con-
lecture bow it can be refoived into partially or
oppreiiion. It will be feen prefently that as far
as this restriction could have any operation, it
But, sir, what was this re1ritiion 70 much COM
planned Of and now u,agnifed into 4 high crime?
That certain Engliih deciiions in IL law of trea-
ION, made before the revolution of 1858, ihcuid
not or ought not TO be read 70 tie Jury. And
pray, FIR, what were theft deciions will
take their character from Mr. lewis himttif,
2nd no man is better acquainted with them.
He iays they were decfons of dependent and
corrupt Judges, who carried the doc riue Of con-
NrtlttIye 10 thr mn ,,,j
trayagant lengths. True, they were fo-fan-
gnnary. cruel and tyrannica in the extreme
and could the execution OF fuch cafes ini,rc
John Fries? If cafes which ex.enuated and
tcftcced the crime of treafon had been rejected.
he might indeed have uttered but how he was
or could he injured b. keeping from the jury
thofe cafes which aggravated his offence, am
really IT lois to learn The reftrifion there
was on the United States. Had they bee, addu
ced by the attorney general, no douht they
would have been ably antwercd by the defend
arts couDfel; bit the ability of the council
was not inferior 70 Fries's council; and If nudge
Caate had indeed deiign TO opprcis and injure
john Fries, and to convict him on nrained con-
ftructions OF treaion, his beft policy would filre-
ly haze been to have fufered thefe cafes TO have
cc1e forward, and if Imported by his authori-
~ and the talents OF the council OF the United
States. they might have had their influence with
the jury, notwithstanding the able refutatious
they might have received. But why and for
what good purpote did the eeunfel defire TO
read thete cafes, operating, if they oPcratcd at
al. directly acainft tie life of their client? WHY
would they fatigue the court and in,po6r upon
the jury with thoie wicked and ridiculous deci-
5 tions asaln!t nan who wiihed his flags horns
in the kings bc!y--aDd another, who declared
ne would make his fon heir to the crown. Sir,
there could have been but one obiea in this at
tempt. Il was this, to excite flch horror in
ttc minds Ct the jurors by re-citing thefe tales
o: tyranny and blood, as would create general
prejudice in them agant all the laws of treafun
! The adherence which would ne honetly given
20 fiich extraordinary cafes of cruelty praeSifcd
under the law Of :rcafon, they hoped would ex-
tend itief TO all cafes of treafon, even the mott
jua and upright. l know another and ingenious
coiouring and pretence has been given for this
deiign, this Grange anxiety to read cafes, which
10 froaeIY fupport profecutions for treafon 1t
has been fid by Mr.. Lewis, not here as A Wit.
pefs, but in Philadelphia as council for John
Fries, that his obie!9 in deii,ing TO read thefe
extravag2nt cafes was OF this fort. That MANY
cf the deciions the law of treaf;)n made 6oce
the revolution Of l6ss. and which are received
as authorities IN modern courts, were actually
grounded on the iniquitous cafes decided be-
fore the revolution; and therefore, fays MIR.
Lewis, rs wl!hed TO lay tbefe cafes before the
jury that they might place no reliance on thof+
fince the revolution, which were derived from
them. Gould the gentleman be lincere in tlis
pretence? How Gar would he carry it? To
all dccifions Ince The revolution, and are we 70
have no adiuiications on this fIb;e0 which NAV
be relied Uron rs found, legal and virtuors? /
apPrshcrd he does not mean 10 much. He de-
fred prefune only to difcredis fiich of the
Englilh dccihons 1nce the revolution, as were
derived from thofe corrupt fources alluded 70.
Then rnof afire!iy, he was premature in his
attempt to read thele precious cafeq. IF the
diariet attorney {hould read, and rely upon any
cafe decided Iiuce the revolution to convi9 Iohn
Fries, and Mr.. Lewis could trace that deciGoo
back 20 the horrible times fpokcn Of, and lhey
that il was derived from and grounded upon he
opinions Of thofe corrupt aud dependent iude-
&c, it would fGrely have been competent for
him 10 do To, and no court wonid have attempt
cd 10 prevent him. Bat that he is to deIuee
tho court and Jury with = MATS of train and cor
ruptio1, aud 10 declared 70 be by himEIE, hv
way OF anticipation, and when no recciiitv had
occurred or probably woud occur 70 iufify il,
could not De endured by any conrt knowing is
duties and refpeding its dignity. 'Fbeie cafes
arc law, orthey are not law. If the former,
their operation and Influence were againn the
prifOner If thc latter, the court ficuid not
fuGer them ~ be read 70 millead and iropof-