The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-02-19
[ V oLUME J..

, oo.e Hehtiohed Richard Peters, then difrict
! lndge OF the United States for the diariSt OF
rennfyiVania, did according to law appoint the
next circuit court of that diGnd. to be h.,i ~
Norris Town therein Purtuaat 10 which an
Pointn'ent, a circuit court was held At Norris
own atoreiaid, in and for the faid dilrid on
the J. 18th day or October in Che lan mentiou, {
year before Buihrod Warrington, Eta. then one
or the Allocate iuitices of the iuprr,ae court
OF the United States, and the above nlentione,,
l\ichaTd Peters at which court no nroceedn 5
were had on the afurefaid indictment 7r,;nii
john "ries, becauie, rs this Respondent hath
! been informed aud believes, the comuiiIion ,f
| the inar,ha' of the laid diGri6l had expired, he.
| fore ne iummoned the jurors 60 attend at The
iaid court, and had not been renewed BY rea-
lon OF which no legal panncl of Jurors could DC
formed.
! On the nth day Of April, a. u. 1900, and
J rom that day until the % day of May in the
lame year, circuit court OF the United States
was held at Philadelphia, in and for the djRritf
OF Pennfylvani7, before this reiDonoent. ,be,
one of the afIoca.e jufices ofthe irpre,nr court
| OF the United States, and the above lnertioneI
Richard Peers, then diitri6t Judge of the UNI
tea States for the dinriGf OF Ptnniylvanis. Ar
TINS court, the indictment on which the fail
John Fries had been convicted rs above mepti.
oncd was quathed eX 0f!icio by William Rav,l-.
Eiq. then attorney OF the United States for The
diitrlct of Pennsylvania, and a new indictment
was by him preferred againlt the fiid John Prize,
TOR treaio7 oflevying war againf the Unirei
States, By rettting and preventing by force, il,
the manner above iet forth, The execution ofthe
ABOVE mentioned acts of Congrefs, for the W.
luation OF lands and dwelling-huufrs and the D..
Enumeration O. ilayes, and for levying and co..
Letting direct tax. This indictment. Of
which true copy marked exhibit No. / Is
herewith c%aib.tsd by this Respondent, who
PraYs that 1t may be taken as part of this bis
aniwer, being found by the grand Jury o, tb-
10Th day or April, 1900, the iaid John F.ies
was on the fame day arraigned thereon, and
plead not guilty. William Lewis, and Alcxa,,-
der James Dallas, Efqrs. the fame perlons who
mad conducted his defence at his former trial.
were again at his requef aligned Nv the court
as his council and his trial was appointed ~
be had, on Tuefddy the ED day of the lat
mentioned month Of pril.
after this indictment was found bythe yrapd
jury, this Respondent conEdered # with preat
care and tsAherati0n, and finding, from the
three overt GttS 81 trcaiod which il CHARGED
that the quriion O law arGng lloon il, WAS n.
fame quehio1 which had already been decded
twice ~ the i-me court, on fosfan aleCmCut
and elaboration, and one in thai yerv car he
coniIdereG tht laV as !Ctslsd by thofe decifoos,
with tHe correctness of which ON fuil -ov6i--
i'ioh a. vas enfiteiY iaushed and ty the qr-
thoriey q WHICH ne inouid have dseuel Lin.{sjf
bound, even had lie regarded the Orefion as
dau5tfuin itfelf. They are moreover IN ner-
feci conformity with the Uniform ,eucr of'de-
c'il"ns IN tiie courts of England and Greet BIZ
TAN nom the revolution, in lcee, 70 the pre-
lent time, whIchln his opinion, added greatly
to their weight and authority.
And iurcIy he need not urge 10 this hono-q
Ole court, the correctness, the importance. ard
I've, ah'aA"te ':ecs.iy u dtficTHg 10 principles
or law once eftab.iihed, and OF confderipg the
law as finally ftttieG, after repeated and rSlenn
decihons by courts of competent iurfd;a;gn.
q contrary principle would uniettle TIC baf,
OF our whole iyftem or iurifprudence, hitherto
&c 'ale guard our boat ;would seduce the law
OF the land, and fnbieGt the rights OF the citizen
TO the arbitrary VIII, the paGious, or the carricc
OF the Judge in each particular cafe and yyou,d
tubiutute the varying opinions Of various me7.
nitead OF that fixed, permanent rule, in when
the very offence of the law coniits. IF thisreg-
Pohdent erred IN regarding this point as f,stled,
ny the repeated and tolemn adiudicatious of
his predecesloTs, IN the fine coATt and IN the.
fame cafe fhe erred in luppofing, thai Grin
cPie etablthed by lolemn decioas, wa
obligatory upon him, fitting in the fame court
where th"ie deciiions had been made if nc er-
red in believing that it would be the h;gheA mr.
iumPtIon in him, to tct up his opinion and i,idg
meat over that OF bis colleague, who hal twice
decided TIE lame dneitIOn, and of two Of his
predeceilors, who iuHiy rank among the ab,-e
Judges that have ever adorned court if in ali
this he erred, it is an error of which be cannot
be ATTAINED, and which he fruits viii not h.
deemed crminalin me eyes Of this honorable
court, of his country, or of that poaerity b;
which be, his sccufers, and his judges, mult one
isv b. judged.
Under he influence of thefe considerations,
this re'pondent drew up an opinion ON the law,
ariuC from the overt acts nated IN the ftid IN
d'ctmcnt which was couformsblc TO he Ger;-
Gons before given as above mentioned, ard
which be iCnt TO lis coll .ague the r id Richard
Peters, for bis confederation. That centlemaa
returned it to this reipJ1deut, with iomc a.
mcndments affecting the form oa!y, but not Ia
any manner touching The fI5Gance.
The opinion thu5 agreed 60, dis respondent
thought It proper % commune e 10 the phi
ioner's ,ouniel-teycral rea(3ns concmred in
favor of this communication.
In the irii pace, FMS Respondent coufdered
himieif and the court, as bound b. .he auiho-
rity Of the tJrmc- decilio1s; Especially the nG
Of them, which was OH the fame cafe lie con-
idcred the law iettled, and had every rsa-
ion 60 believe that bis colleague viewed II in
the fame light. i was not fuggeGed or UNDER
food, that any new evidence was TO be offered,
which could vary the cafe, il would render
wholly iuapplicable both the opinion and tie