Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1805-02-27
Il2 l-2 Gents Single.]

CorulUR 10 Jaw ana the ABOVE tnentloneC
Richard Peters, then district Judge of The
United States, for the district Of Pennsyl.
wanna, who sat in The said circuit court as
assistant judge.
; 10 this Iiak which was conducted with
great solemnity, and occupied nine days,
the prisoner was assisted by William
Lewis, and Alexander James Dallas.
Esqrs. two very able and eminent coun-
sellors; the former of whom, William
Lewis. IS the person who assisted as a.
aforementioned, in conducting the de-
fence of V.goI, OH similar Indictment.
These gentlemen, finding that The facts
alledged were fully aud undeniably pro-
we'd by very minute and elaborate ex<
animation of witnesses, thought proper TO
rest the case of the prisoner, ON The ques.
ton OF law which had been determined
in the cases OF Vigol and Mitchell above
mentioned. and had then been acquesced
! in, but which they thought propSr a.
gain To raise. They contendeei, :" that to
resist by force of arms particular law of
the United States, does not amount 10 Ie-
vying war against the United States,
within the true meaning OF the constitu-
ton, and therefore it is not treason. bu, a
r;of only" This question they argued at
great length, and with all the force of
their learning & genious; s. aGera very Iull
discussion ~ the bar, and The most mature
deliberstion b. the court, the learned and
excellent Judge Who then presided, and
who was no less distinguished by his bu-
manity and tenderness towards persons
tried before hial. than by his extensive
knowledge ard great talents as a LAWYER,
pronounced the opinion Of himself and his
colleague, " that to resist or prevent by
force, tie execution OF particular law Of
the United States, does amount to levy
ms war against them, within the true rnea-
ni0g OF the constitution, and does therefore !.
constitute the crime of treason :" thereby q
adding tie weigh, of another and more So.
Term decision, to the precedent which had
Deen established in the above mentioned
cases of ViEol and Mitchell.
4 Under this opinion OF the court on the
question OF law, The Jury. having no doubt
aS 70 the facts, found the said John Fries
gnily of treason, on the above mentioned
nuiclment. sui a new uial was granted
oy Tue court, mt by reason Of any doubt
as to the correctness Of the decision on
| me question OF law, but solely On the
( ground as this respondent hath undes-
s.oou and believes, that one of the Jurors
oil the petit jury, after he was summoned,
out before he was sworn on the trial, had
made some declaration unfavorable to the
| prisoner.
The yellow fever having appeared in
Philadelphia in the summer OF the year
i7Sy, the above mentioned Richard Pc
trrs' then district judge OF the United
states for the district 81 Penns,lvsnia, did
| according to law appoint The next circuit
/ court OF that district, 10 be held at Norris
Town therein: Pursuant 10 which an.
Pointment, circuit court was held at
MOTIFS Town aforesaid, in and for the
sad district, on the iih day of October
~ the last mentioned year before f3nsh-
roo Washington Esq. then one Of the asso.
sociate justices oftbe supreme court of The
Onned States and the above menti oned
Richard Peters; ut which court no pro-
ceedings we're had on the aforesaid in
dictment against John Fries, because, as
this respondent hath been informed and
believes, the commission Of the marshal
oil the said district had expired, before he
summoned the jurors to attend at the said
court, and had not been renewed by rea-
son of which no legal paunel of lusors
could be formed.
On the llth day OF April, a. d. 1900,
and from that day until the Cd day OF May
IN the same year, circuit court cf The
United States WAS held at Philadelphia, in
and Tor The district of Pennsylvania, be-
fore this respondent, then one of The as
soeiate justices OF The supreme court of
/ The United States, and the above mem
I toned Richard Peters, then tistriG indgs
Of the United States for the disiTiel Of
Pennsylvania AZ this court, the indict-
ment OH which the said John Fries bad
been convicted rs ebove mentioned, was
quashed ex ofiicio BY William Rawle, esq.
then attorney OF the United States for The
district Of Pennsylvania, and new indiel-
ment was by him preferred against Inc
said Jehn Fries, for treason oflevying war
against the United States by resisting and
preventing by force in the manner above
set forth, the execution oi the above men-
toned acts of congress for the voluation
OF lands and dwelling houses pHd the emf.
me rofs e ~. A..