Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1805-03-09


prisoner, .sthal 10 prevent any mlsn"der-
standing of any thing thai'had passed the
d,v >. fore. he would inform them, that
al,heogh the court ieialned the same OPT
MON o. the law, arising on the ~vei t-acts
charged n;thein,liclmeu, against fries, yet
the counsel would be permitted to offer ar
guments 10 the court, Tor the purpose OF
showing them that they were mstaken IN
the law: and that The Court If satisfied that
they had erred IN opinion, would correct
1t: and also that the counsel would he
permitted TO argue before the petit Jury.
that the court were mistaken In the law :"
--And this respondent adced, tha, the
court had given 80 opinaon as TO The facts
IN the case, about which both the couo~el
had declared that there would be no con-
troversy.
Alter some observations by the said
William Lewis, aud Alexander James
Dallas, they both declared to the COURT
= lha, they did not any longer consider
themselves as the counsel FOR john Fries
the prisoner" This respondent asked the
said John Fries, whether he wished the
court 10 appoint other counsel for his de-
fence? He refused TO have other counsel
assigned ;tin which he acted, as this re-
spondent believes and charges, by the adj
vice of the said William Lewis, and Alex
ander James Dallas whcreupon the court
ordered the sand trial to be mad on the
next day, Thursday, the oath of April,
1900.
On that day the trial was proceeded in |;
aud before the Jurors were sworn, they
were by the direction OF the court, seve-
rally asked Oh oath, whether they were ~
any way related 20 the prisoner, and whe.
cher they had ever formed or delivered
any opinion as 20 his guilt or innocence,
or that he ought to he punished Three
ct them answering in the affirmative, were
Withdrawn from the pann.l. The said
John Fries, was then Informed by the
court, that he had right to challenge
thir.y-five OF the Jury, without showing
any cause oil challenge against them, and
as many more as he could shew cause of
challenge against. He did accordingly
challenge peremptorily thirty four of the
jury, aud the trial proceeded. In the e.
vening the court adjourned ill the next
day, Friday, the 25ih Of april; when af
ter the district attorney had stated the
principal facts proved by the witnesses,
aud had applied The law TO those Gacls, this
respondent with the Concurrence of his
colleague, the said Richard Peters, deli.
vered to the jury the charge contained
aud expressed in exhibi. marked No. 3,
and herewith 6led, watch ne prays may
be taken as part of this his answer.
Immediately after the pctil Jury had de.
iiveEed their verdi6i, this respondent in-
formed the SAID Fries, from The Bench.
that II lac, or any person for him, could
show any legal ground, or suilicicn, cause
to arrest the judgment, ample time would
be allowed him for that purpose. But no
Cause being shewn, sentence of death was
passed on the said Fries, on Tuesday, the
second day of May, 1900, the las. day Of
the term; and be was afterwards pardon
ed by John Adams, then prcsidcn, OF The
United States.
And this respondent further answering
saiih, that II the two instances of miscan-
duct, tirst stated ia sup 9ori OF the gene.
RAT charge, contained in the first article OF
'mpeachment, were true as ailedged, We.
the inletcOce drawo from them, viz. $ that
HE SAID John Fries was thereby aepriy.
ed OF The benefit Of counsel FOR his de.
icnce," is not true. He insists that the
said Fries was deprived Of the benefit of
counsel not by any misconduct Of this re.
spondent, but by the conduct and advice
OF the above mentioned William Lewis,
and Alexander James Dallas, who having
been, with their own consent assigned by
the court as counsel for the prisoner, with
drsw from his defence, and advised him
TO refuse other cousel when offered to him
by the court under pretence that the law
iad been prejudged, and their liberty Of
the defence, according to their
own judgment, Improperly restricted by
his respondent but in reality because
hey knew the Law and the facts to be a.
sainst them, and the case to be desperate,
x supposed that their withdrawing them
selves under this pretence might excite O.
i'um against the court; might give rise
% an opinion that the prisoner had not
been fairly tried and in the event Of
which from their knowledge
of the law and the facts they knew to be
almost certain, might aid the prisoner in
40 application TO the President for q par.