Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1805-03-15

which he has alledged for his conduct,
and by which it seemed to him to be full,
" justified, shall come. to be carefully
weighed, they will be sufficient to prove,
if not that his conduct was perfectly re-
xular and correct, yet that he might sim
cerely have considered it as right; and
that il a case where SO much doubt may
exist, to have committed mistake is
not to have committed a crime.
And this respondent further answer
ing insists, that the opinion thus deli
vercd to the prisoners council; viz. that
any insurrection or rising Of any body
Of people within the United States, for
the purpose ofresisting or preventing by
force and violence, under any pretenee
whatever, the execution of any statute
of the United States, forlsvying or col
iecting taxes, OF for any other object of
general or national concern, islevying
war against the United States, within
the esnss mplation and tue meaning Of
the constitution Of the United States"
is a l. gal and acorrect opiAion support
ed not only BY the two pscvisus opinions
aforementioned, but also by the plainest
principles of law and reason, and BY the
snilorna tenor Of legal authorizations in
England and Grnat Britain, from the
revolution in 1853 10 this time. 1t ever
was, and now is his opinion, that the
pace and safety Of the national federal
government, must be endangered, by
any OF her construction ofthe terms ale.
wing war against the United States"
used by the federal constitution and
he is con6den, that no judge OF the lede-
raj government, no judge Of a superior
state court, nor anv gentleman of esta-
bllshed reputation for legal knowledge,
would or could deliberately give a con-
trarr opinion.
Hhowever this opinion were errone-
Gus, this respondent would be far less
eensurable than his predecessors, BY
whose example he was led astrav, and
BY whose authority he considered him.
self bound. Was 1t an error to consider
himself bound by the authority Of their
previous decision! lit were, he was
led into the error by the uniform course
of judicial proceedings in this country
and in England and is supported in it,
BY one of the fundamental principles of
our jurisprudence. Can such an error
be a crime or misdemeannr
' IT on the other hand, the opinion be
in itself correct, as he belle YES and in.
Sists that il is, could the ekrres sion Of
correct opinion on the Law, wherever and
however made. uaiAlcsd the Jury, in
fringe their rights, or give an i'm proper
bias to theirjudgmen's! Could truth ex-
cite improper pre- iudice Could the iu- !
~ be less prepared to hear the law dis
Cu,srd, and to decide on it correctly.
because it was correctly stated to them |
by the court? And is not that a new
KIND OF offence, IN ';his country at least,
which consists in telling the truth, and I
giving correct exposition Of the law.
As t" the second specific charge addu-
ced In support of the first article Of i'm
Te@chment, which accuses this respon-
cent, " OF restricting the counsel for the
sad Fries, from recurring to such EH-
gtIsh authorities as they believed Apo
side, OF from citing certain statutes of
the United States, which they deemed |
illustrative of the positions upon which
they inteAded to rest tie defense oftheir
client" this respondent admits that he
did, on the aforementioned trial. rx.
press II as his opinion to the aforesaid
COUNSEL for the prisoner, tint the de.
c'slons IN England, IN cases of indict.
men's tor tire ason at pmmon law, against
the Pers5a OF the king, eugh, no, to BE-
read to the jury, on trials FOR treason un.
DIR the constitution AMI statute, Of tn.
United States; because such drcis;,.
could not inform, but ght misIead
81 |'eeeTe the jury; tia, any decisions
on c ses OF treason, in the courts of En-.
gianFi,, briore the revolution of 168s
ought to have very litt't influence in tn,
courts Of the United STATES; that h.
would permit decision, in the courts Of
Eng land or Of Great BrilA,a, since the
4 If A !