The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-03-23
or believe that the circumhance of their being
civil cafes occa6oned the leaf variation in the


civil cafes occa6oned the lean variation in the
mode Of procedure in the criminal cafes.
Mr. LesviJ faid he had one thing further TO
ftate, that MIR. Dallas and he withdrew from a
deGre to fave the life of John Fries, and becaufe
they thought it mott likely tina. it would be eff
feetea by doing 10, and not becaufe they were
influenced 10y any other considerations, and that
had it not been for DISQUALIFICATION, he would
have periiheti in the exercife of what he deemed
his profefhonal rights until he was actually top
ped by the authority of the court.
Mr. Harper. Did you not appear for vigol |?
Mr.. Lezois. l did.
Mr.. Harper. With what overt acts was he
charged?
Mr.. Lesvit. The overt aa was levying of
war, particulariling the time and place.
Mr.. Harper. will ak you whether on the
trial OF John Fries in 1899, in which Mr.. Dali
las and you appeared as his counfel, you did not
make this point of law-that to reiiit by force
the execution of particular law of the United
States does not amount to treafon, but to riot
only? Or what was the point of law?
Mr.. LegviJ. On the firf trial of Fries we
made this point of law. Before the trial before
judges Chaie and Peters came on, had conf
dered the fubje6t with great deberation, and
my determination was to inlift, that, although
reiiRng the laws generally even particular
law respecting the regular forces or militia OF
the nation was treafon, yet that rehfting any o.
Their particular law was not treafon.
| Mr.. HARPER. Was not the fame point made
| on the irit trial
Mr.. Le4pi5. 1t was.
Mr.. Marper. Was it not ruled by the court
that fuch acts amounted to treafon.
| Mr.. LezviS. 1t was.
Mr.. Harper. When then the court granted
a new trial did they exprefs any doubt on this
point, orwas it not granted on acollatera point
Mr.. Leqvi5. The new trial was granted fole-
| !y on collateral point.
Mr.. Harper. How long did the trial lat?
| Mr.. LeqVi5. cannot tell; but it was very
long trial. The point of law was argued TO the
tullett extent, and we quoted all the authori-
ties we thought relevant. was ailifted by MIR.
Dallas. We fpoke very fully, and were laid I'M
der no reftretons. AT the lait trial we meant
| TO have aifo taken other ground, and to have
commended that the trial could not take place in
Philadelphia, but mnit be in the county in which
the offence had been committed, according to a
law of the United States, which provides that
in capital cafes trials fhall take place in the coun-
| ty where the crimes are committed, unlefs this
Cannot he without great inconvenience-This
we had before contended-and had been then
over-ruledbecaufe it was alledged the county in
which the ofencehad been committed was not
free from fate of infurrection or the effects OF
1t. AT the time of the laft trial, there was no
iniurrection in the county where the offences
charged agant Fries had been committed, and
we believed him therefore entitled to a trial in
that county.
Mr.. Harper. Did any part of Judge Chafe's
written opinion go to this point'
| Mr.. LezciJ. 1t was not mentioned to the
| court, AS Mr.. Dallas and determined to have
| nothing further to do in the cafe.
Mr.. Harper. why didyou abandon that part
of your clients cafe II was new point, upon
| which you might have had the declion of the
court.
Mr.. Lezvi5. Ibid not wifi, to have any thing
more TO do with the cafe, after the manner in
which we had been treated by the court.
Mr.. Hopkinjon. Did not the court ak Fries
whether he would have council aligned him
Mr.. LezviJ- believe there is ma doubt or the
fact.
Mr.. Randolph. undertand you to fay that
| by Withdrawing from the defence of Fries, and
the not having council ALIGNED him, you expect
ed to ferve your client. Wherefore did you
think the caufe of your client would thereby be
ferved?
Mr.. Lezvi5. 1t appeared to me that the con-
duct of the court juftiied us in withdrawing,
after not being fufered to go in the sfual man.
ner, and thought it more probable that a man.
thus convicted, would be pardoned by the Pre-
| iident, than that we fhould be able by any thing
we could fay, to alter the opinion of the court
Mr.. Meboyfm. Were the jurors prefcnt?
Mr.. Lezvi5. They were--- called over as ufil-
al, but DO not know that they were called foi
the trial of Fries. 1t was believe ufua to cal
over the lit on the morning of each day.
ITO be continued.
-s-...=zs<s-s---.--s---s--