Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va.) 1802-1810, 1805-03-22

opinion, III 1t the said act Of congress was
wholly Irrelevant to the issue, in the tri-
al Of John Fries, and therefore ought
not to have been read to The jury, or -
garded by them. This opinion ma" be
erroneous, but he trusts that the !oliuw-
ing reasons on which it was foundt d " II
be considered b, this horonrable court,
as sufficient strong to render itPossihlc,
and even probable that such an opinion
might be since1el, held and hon, s,h tx-
pressed list, that congress did not in.
tend, BY the sedition law, to define The
crime Of treason by levying war;
Treason ard sstition are crimes very
distinct in their nature, and subject TO
very differs Mt punish,n. nts ; the former
BY death, and the latter by fine an'l im-
prisonment.-2dlv, The sedition law
makes a combination or conspiracy, with
intent to impede the operation of AM "
OF the Unite d States, or the advising or
attempting to procure any insure. ton
or riot, nigh misdemt amor punishable
by fine and imp,isonmt MT I'nt-a ,"mHi-
nation or conspiracy with int nj to r,e-
vent the execution Of "a law, or wl'h in-
tent TO raise an insure ton for that pur.
pose, or even with intent TO C m,niltr' a-
son, is not treason b> ''ltvling val" a.
gainst the United States, unle SIS it lie
t"tlowtd b> an attsHp pit to carry suth
combination or conspiracy into e. Ct, hy
actual force or Vic l.nte. 3dl,, ! he
constitution Of the United States is the
Fundamental and supreme law, and h,.v-
ing defined the crime OF treason. COM
gress could not give any Legislative inter-
probation or exposition OF that crime, or
OF the part of the constitution BY which
it is defined. 4thly, The judicial au-
thority of the United States, is alone
vested with power to expound their con-
stitution and laws.
And this respondent further answer
ing saith, that after the aboveme ntioned
proceedings had taken place in the said
trial, it was postponed until the next day,
Wednesday, April 23d, 1900; when
at the meeting OF the court, this respon-
dent told both the above mentioned coun-
sci for the prisoner, - that to prevent a.
nv misunderstanding of any thing that
had passed the dav before, he would in
form them, that although the court re.
tanned the same opinion Of the law, aris-
ing on the overt acts charged in the in-
dictment against Fries, vet the counsel
would be permitted to offer arguments
to the court, for the. purpose of showing
them that they were mistaken in the law
and that the courf. if satisfied that they
had erred in { Ion, would correct it ;
and also, thI, sd. counsel would be per-
n1i,trd to argue before the petit jury,
that the court were mistaken in the law"
And this respondent added, trat the
court had given no opinion as to the facts
in the case, about which both the coan-
sci had declared that there would be no
controversy.
After some observations BY the said
William Levi, and Alexander James
Dallas, they both declared to the court,
:. that they did not any longer consider
themselves as counsel for John Fries tho
prisoner" This respondent then asked
the said John Fries, whether he wished
offence! lie refused to have other
counsel ass gaed in which he acted, as
this rrsponur Mt believes and charges by
the advice Of the said William Lewis and
Alexander James Dallas: whereupon
the court ordered the said trial to be had
on the mex, day, Thursday, the 2+rh Of
April, 1900.
On tha,dav the trial was proceeded il;
and before the jurors were sworn, they
were, bv the direction Of the court, Sc
verallv asked on oath, whether they were
in any way related to the prisoner, and
whether they had ever formed or deli
vered anv opinion as to his guilt or inno-
cence, or that he ought to be punished !?
Three of them answering in the afhrma.
tive, were Withdrawn from the pannel.
The said John Fries was then informed
BY the court, that he had right to ChAl-