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

attorney hao st9tSO tne PtlHC'PaA A~StS
proved by the witnesses, and had APP
piled the law to those facts, this resPon-
dent, with the concurrence OF his COL
league, the said Richard Peters, deli
vered TO the jury the charge contained
and expressed in exhibit No. >, and
herewith iiled, which he prAy' may be
taken as part Of this his answer.
Immediately after the peti: jury had
delivered their verdict, this respondent
informed the said Fries, from the Bench,
that If he, or any peraoa tur aim, could
shew ANY legal ground, or suaI lent cause
to arrest the judgment, ample tune would
be allowed him for that purpose. But
no cause being shown, sentence OF death
was p4s,ed on the said Fries, on Tues
day the 81 Of May, 1900, the last day
OF the term and he was afterwards par
doned By John Adams, then president OF
the United States.
And this respondent further answer
ing saith, that if the tive instances OF
misconduct, first stated in support OF
the general charge Contained in the FIRST
article of Impeachment, were true az al
legged, yet the inference drawntrom them,
viz. :. that the said Fries was thereby
deprived of the bene fit Of counsel for his
defence" is not true. He insists that
che said Erie. was deprived Of the bene-
fit of Counsel, not by any misconduct of
this respondent, but by the conduct and
advice of the aforementioned William
Lewis and Alexander Jane. Dallas, who
having been, with their own consent,
assigned by the court as counsel for the
prison.f, Withdrew from MS defence,
and advised him to refuse other counsel
when offered to him by the court, under
pretence that the law had been prejudg-
ed, and their liberty OF conducting the
defiance, according to ,heff own judg-
ment, improperly restricted 6vthls res
pendent but in reality because tAsy
knew the law and the facts to be against
them, AMI the case - Dc desperate, and
supposed that their Withdrawing them
selves under this pretvnte, m'sh. excite
odium against ihe Govt; mis- :: give rise
to an op,nicn that the prisoner had not
bee flr.v ttied and In the event Of
conviction, which from their knowledge
OF the law and the facts, they knew TO be
almost certain, might aid the prisoner in
an application 20 the president ior par
don. That suyh WAS the real motive of
the said prisoners counsel, 70" deprive
ing their clien; Of legal assistance on his
trial, this respondent is fully Psrsuaded,
and expects to make appear, not only
from the circumstances Of the case, but
from their own frequent and public de-
clarations.
AS li,tle can this respondent bc justly
charged with having by any conIuSt Of
his, endeavoared to 'wrest from the
jury their ind,.putaoie right to near ar
Gument, and determine upon tAe questi-
on oflAw as well as the question of fat
involved in the verdict which lnev were
required to give" He denies, that he
did at any time declare that the Aforesaid
counsel should not at any time :Gd'ess the
jury, or did ia ann manner hin!-r them
from addrsssing ting jury on the law as
we'll a. on the facts arising in lhe case.
1t wa. expresSl ~ stated il the cop ri hts
opinion dei;vere IL above set forth to
William Lewis, that the jury hal Alright
TO determine the law as well as the fact
and the said William lewis, and Alex
anaer James DA!a. were expressly in
for sn2d, hhe!ore thcy declared their reese
luton to abandon The. defence, that th.v
were at liberty to Argue the law to the
jury. This respondent believes sha. the
said William Lewis d,I not rad the o.
pi1ionTfelivered 10 hisn as Aforesaid, ex-
eept a very small part al tae 1-g:"niug
Oft, and Of course aCtt! upon 1t |'ithnI,
knowing its con,.nts; nd hat the said
Alexander Jane. Dale, read no part Of
the q. i'd opinion until a ",t year ago,
when he saw a very in ,t,::.t copy made
in court by a eer:aln w. s. Biddle.
And This respondent further answer
ing saith, tAAt according 20 tho co"ati-
Union of th- United St.yes. Cio!! 2Hcers