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


+fh Gsy = ft''uary, 4. D. 1905.
The United Safes IS. Samuel Chase,
JudSe Chases Defence continued.1
It was for tatse reasons, that, on the
2ad day OF Arnl, 1900, when the said
John Fries, wssbrought into court, and
placed in the pq.onc,'s box Tor trial, but
bet,.r. ths pet, Jury was innpannelled to
In it.r,, 'a., !<srcr:l-nk in1o1 med The
aforementioned William Lewis, one 81
his counsel, the aforesaid Alexander
James Dallas not being then in court,
"that the court had deliberately consi-
dered the indictment against John Erie.
for tire ason, and the three several overt
acts Of treason stated therein: that the
crime of treason was tie fined by the con-
stiturion of the United States: that as
the federal legislature had the power to
make, alter, or repeal laws, SO the judi
ciar, oni. had tie power, and it was
their duty. to declare; exPound, and in-
mrPreu TIC constitution and laws of the
United States and it was the duty Of
the court, in all criminal cases, to state
to the petit jury their opinion of the law
arising on the facts; but the petit jury.
in all criminal cases, were to decide
both the law and the facts, on conside.
ration OF the whole case: that there must
be some constructive exposition OF the
terms used IN the constitution, LEV, ing
war against the United States , thar
the Question what acts amounted to le.
vyIng war against the United States, or
the government thereof, was a question
OF law, and had been decide by Judges
Patterson and Peters, in the cases of Vi
gol and Mitchell, and by Judge IredelI
and Peters, in the case of John Flies.
prisoner at the bar, in April 1899: That
.AAse PsHev~ r-F"":a-d q tbs same apin... -
on, which he lad twice before delivered.
and he, this respoIdent, on long and
great consideration, Concurred in the
opinion of 'urgcs Patterson, Iredell and
PeterA Flat to prevent unnecessary
delay, and |" save time on the trial of
John Fries, an to prevent a delaV of
Justice, in tnc gr, at number Of civil cas-
es depending io' trial at that term, the
court had drawn up in writing their opi-
non OF The law, arising on the overt acts,
stated in the indictment against Tohn
Fries aud Lad directed David Cald-
well their cltlk, to make out three CO..
pies al their opinion, one to he deliver
cd to the attorney Of the district, one 10
the counsel for the petit jury, after they
shou! ! have Leen impannelled anu heard
the lndictmen, read TO them by the clerk.
and after the district attorney should
have stated to the M the law en- the overt
acts ahedged in the Indictment, as it ap-
Pearsd to him."
After these observations, this respon.
dent delivered one ofthe ahovemention-
ed copies to the aforesaid William Lew
IS, then attending as one of the PRISON.
er's counsel: who read part Of it, and
then laid it down on the table before him.
Some observations were then made on
the subject, by him and the abovementi. r.
Onesd Alexander lanes Dallas, who had
then come into court but this r.spsn.
dent doth not now recollect those obsrr.
va,ions, and cannot undertake to state
them accurately.
And this respondent further saith,
that the paper mark ed exhibit No. 2, and
herewith exhibited, which he prsvs leave
to make part Of this his answer, is true
copy OF the original opinion, drawn up
By him and concurrsd in by the said
Richard Peters, as above set forth, which
original opinion is now in the possession
OF tn. respondent, ready to be produced
TO this koncurable court. He NAV have
erred in forming this opinion, and in the
tirhe and m amer OF N Akins it known to
the counsel for the prisoner. Ifhe err
I'd in forming it, he erred in common
with his colleague and with two Of his
predecessors and he presumes to hope
th,st anT rror which has never been dee m.