Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1805-03-08
IwnoIl No. ,oal

his judicial capacity, eonduct himself IN
a manner highly arbitrary, oppressive
and unjust" s@tse 3.
This general accusation, too vagucin
itself for reply, is supported by three
specific charges of misconduct. 81
1st "In delivering an opinion in writ
ing, on the question Of law. on the con.
struction ofwhich, the defence ofthe ac-
cused materially depended :" whieho.
pinioa, il is alleged, tendedoss to preiu.
dice the minds ofthe Jury against the case
of the said John Fries, the prisoner, be-
fore counsel had been heard in his ia
vonr." g..
Cd. "In Restricting the councillor the
r,iG .'ohn Fties, from recurring to such
English authorities as they believed ap-
Posite J.. or from citing certain statutes Of
the United States, which they deemed
illustrative of the positions, upon which
they intended to rest the defence Of their
client" sEzz@& -.
I'd. In declaring the prisoner from
his constitutional privilege Of addressing
the jury (through his eounsel) on the
law, az well - on the fact, which was 10
determine his guilt. or innocence, and
at the same time endeayouring to wrest
from the jury their indisputable right to
hear argument, and determine upon the
question Of law, a. well ~ the question:
Of fact, involved in the verdict which
they were required to give" ,'C%t. {
The first article then concludes, thas
in consequences If this irregular conducS
Of thi, respondent, 1.-THE said John FRIES
was deprived of the righ. secured 10 him
BY the eighth article, amendatory of the
constitution and was condemned to
death, without having been heard, by
counsel, in his defence" r ~. =
- BY the eighth article aniendatofy nf
the constitution, this respondent suPpos-
IS is meant the sixth amendment Of the
constitution of the United States which
secures to the accused, in all criminal
prot =cution. the right to have the assis.
tanee Of council for his defence.
In answer to these three charges. the
respondent admits that the circuit eourt
Of the United States, for the district Of
Pennsylvania, was held at Philadelphia.
in that district, in the months Of April
and May, in the year Of our Lord, one
thousand eight hundred: at which court. 4
John Fries, the person named in the said
first article, was brought to trial on an
indictment for treason against the United
States; ard tina, this respondent then
held commission, as one of the asso-
eia:e justices Of the supreme court Of the
United States by virtue Of which of /
ice, he did pursuant 70 the laws or the
United States, preaide At the above men,
toned trial, snd was assisted therein by I
Richard Peters, ESQ. then, and still
dissrict judge Of the United States, for
the district Of Pennsylyania who a ii.
rectsd BY the laws Of the United States. -,
sat as assistant judge a the said trial. :.
With respect to the opinion which iS
alleged 10 have been delivered BY this
respondent, at the above mentioned tri.t
q. he bsss leave to lay before dis no..
nourabie court the true state ofthattrans--s-=
action, and to call ito attention. to some
tacts and considerations, BY which his
conduct on tina. subise win, he prssamess
be fully justified. =
The constitution Of the United S,a.e.y.
in the third section Of the third article. =,
declares that " treason Against the u
nited States, shall consist oaiy in kevuius
tp0r against them or adhering to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort"
BY two acts of congress, the 6rs. pass
ed on the third day Of March. 1891, and
the second on the eighth day Of May,
t7s7, duty was imposed on spirits dis
titled within the United States, and on
stills, and various provisions were made
for its collection. -. .ss SIS
In the year 1874, an insurreetion soek
place in four ofthe western counties or
Pennsylvania, with view Of resisting,
and preventing BY force the execution Of
these tive statutes j and Il ! circuit court
of the United States, held al Philadel-