Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-08-26

/ of force, uhere .thr7traitsroas design is
! clearly proved, rs not necessary, is IN my
judgment ipdispptably certain. See
lfaoss. I'll, SIS East !, 81, $500 Hale
! I46.
Bat whether lam correct IN this remark
or NOT, is immaterial. In our ownscoun-
Try the Judges Of the supreme court'hsys
placed this point beyond the reach OF COP
.troversy.
You will prohsb!y be told sirs, that Ger
| tain,y iDIriminalcasesi important, and IN
! that part Of ii which relates To treason, es,
sen,ialto public liberty. Youmay be re-
minded Of az observation Of the celebrst
! ed Mon,esquieu, who says that uncertain
Iiy on this single point, is sn6iciens OF H.
selfto change free into an arbitrary 60
vernment /. is not admitsed that this
observation is applicable 20 our govern
meet, dependent as it is, on the people, or
TO cur people informed as they are of
their rights. Russuppose tito be so. The
answer is obvious. By the decision Of
the supreme court the law is certain. +.
vervman who can read knows the situation
Ia which he stands, and at what point he
must stop, if he wishes to avoid the im-,
.puarion and guilt Of treason.
You will probably be told of the dan
ger OF constructive treasons: that IS, says
Blackstone, 4 vol. rs, - TO raise BY forced
and arbitrary constructions, offences into
,he puuishmens and crime OF treason,
which never were suspected to be such. =
OF ,his some terrible examples eSist 10
the earlier part Of the English history,
when The people were Ignorant and the
Judges entirely dependent on ,heklng.
1t is sdai,sed that the doctrine which
shal let in ,reasons, not defined by the
constitution bymere arbitrary construction,
Inference, or analogy, as in England tor
merly, ough, not TO be counssnanced.---
But in fact ia this country, there is no
danger to be apprehended. Issmay serve
as topic Of dc lamston, ,but the apprehen.
sion OF mischief lrom his source is abso.-
lusely visionary. u
Ii would be absurd 70 call the treason
defined by the supreme court consiruc.
tive treason. The wosds "leyying war;
do no. prese II TO the mind clear and dis.
timer idea, like ,ae words riAidering
NAM or stealing horse 1t lae qnes-
ton, wha, is lrvSing war? were PROFOUND.
ed distinctly ADD separately to every man
ia This ASSEMBLY, or even TO the mostin-
;elligens among them, there would be great
hesitation, doubt and neutrality-suspicious.
half as many opinions as men. Necessity
then requires that he courts should sscer-
tain the construction ef these words. II
is their province, it's their duty TO do SO );
and IN giving the dehni;iso for which con
tend, they have performed that duly,,--
lHe then read passage from Fries trial.
cop.airiag some remarks Of judge Peters,
page two hundred and six, applicable 10
this poiut.
If The law thas established by the SD
preme court shall be said 10 be a conssruc.
.iye treason, the infcrsnceis either thai Inc
iadges should not give any construction al
the constitution on this subject. which
would be illegal and absurd, ADD would
moreover be leaving every thing 10 the de,
cision of iaries, produce all the m;schlefs
OF uncertainty, on the mos. IN etesticg OF
all legal subjec,s; or that the opinion OF
the supreme court is erroneous. Ths lai-
ter isis presumed, is a position, which the
council for the prisoner will hardly under
take TO support.
L, however. they do ucder,skes this
task, If they do contend that an assem-
blaes Of men with trai,orous design IS
not sufficient, bat that hestiisies must De
commrncsd, actual violence must be used
before tseasonis complete, sheaconssi'u!lon
is a dead letter. No man can be Pronounc.
ed to be traitor, until he has, by ssrikieg
Blow, .shewn that he is or couceives him.
self 10 be oa, Of tk= reach OF the law
The case, then, Fyrsepts question or