Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-09-24

! act has been committed; may be pro- y
i ed 10 be guilty Of an overt act laid 70 ne
indictment ia which he had 10 personal
participation. by proving that he advises
Eit, or that hs committed othsr acts.
This is perhaps too sxtravagant 20 spe
! ID terms maiptaincd. Certainly II can
notbe supported By the doetrlns Of the
Engiish law. .s.
| The opinion OF Judge Patterson 10
/ MitchcIl's case has been cited on snls
point. = Dial. s4s. ss.l
The indictment is DOW specially ststea
butfrom the case as reported il must have
beeDcisher general forlcxying var IN the
coun,v 81, Ailegany and the overt act lad lpd
muss have been ths' a.ssmblage OF men and
/ ievying Of war id that county or e must
have been detail Of the IRRESPONSIBLE
,, trans actions 10 that county. Ehr hfst sup
position is the most probable, but let the
i0dictmentbe 10 The one form or.the other,
|. and the result is the same. The facts
Of the case are, that . large body OF men
of whom Mitchell was one, assembled At
Braddsrk's fields 10 the county Of AHeggas
by, for the purpose OF committing actslot
violence al PlitsbuIg- That there was also
an assemblage assa different time atCoueh-
es' fort, at which the prisoner also attend
ed--The genera. and avowed object Of
that meetiae was 70 concert measures Tor
resisting the exrcation Of public law,
Al Couchcs' fort, the resolution was taken
to attack the house of the inspector, and
the body there assembled marched TO that.
house and attacked il. Il was proved byl
the competent. number Of witnesses. that
he was at Couches' fort armed, tia, he Of.
fered 10 reconnoiiYe The house to'br atack.
ed, tia. he marched with The insurgents
towards the house, that he was with them
after the action attending the. body Of one
of his comrades who was killed in Is one
witness swors positively ,hathe was pre-
sent at the burning of the house, and a
second witness said that it ran IN his
heed he had seen him there. 49, That
doubt should exis, 10 such a case as
,hia, is s;roDg evidence of'the necessity
that the overt act should be uneguivo1al.y
proved by two witnesses.
Bat what was the opnion OF the judge
10 this case? Couchss' for. and Nesille's,
house being 10 the same county, be as
semblage having been at Couches' tort and
the resolution to attack the house having
been there taken, the body having ter the
savowed purposes moved in execution Of.
that resolution towards The house IN be at
tackled. he inclined 10 think that the ACT Of
marching was in itself lesying war. If il
was, then the over, act laid IN the indics-
men, was consun,ated by the assemblsge.
al Couehes and the marching from thence,
aud Mitchell was proved to be guilty By
more than two positive, witnesses. Bns
withou, deciding Ibis to be the law, .he
proceeded TO censider.the meeting at Cop
ches, the immediate marching TO Nevile's
house, and The attack ,aed burning Of the
house, as one tran.ac,ion. Mitchell was
proved by more thau two positive Wit.
nesses to have been 10 kha. transaction, 70
have takenan active parsiu il, and the,jnd.
pes declared i, TO be unnecessary tina, all
should have seen him at the same tine. and
place. at
z ~ I 49,
But suppose net a single witness had
proved Muchell to have been al -Gouches
or on the march, or. at Neville's. Suppose
he had been at the sine potoriously absent
in aydifFerenr state. Can it be believed BY
any personwho observes the caution with
which Jndge Patterson repaired the con.
s,isusiopal proof Of two witnesses to the
same orer, get, that he would have said
Mitchell was csns,ruc.iveiy present. aud
might on that s.raining Of. a legal fiction
be found guilty oftreason? Had he deli.
vered such an opinion what would have
been the Language Of this couotry con
ceroing il? Had he given this opinion, il
would have,rrquired all the correctness Of
his life TO strike his name from that bloo>
DIV LIST In which the b anne of JefTrics is en-.