Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-09-25
TcoNTINuEn.l

pcV tor tue CnNcd FOtatcS' = 1e 49,
understands il to.be directly charged, thar
{ ,hc prisoner did assemble with she multi
s.-udc and did march with them. Nothing
will more clearly ties, this construction
than putting the case into shape which It
may possibly take. Suppose the law TO be
that The Indictment was defective unless u
alledgsd the presrnce of the person indIct-
ed !, the fac, of treason. If upon special
verdict facts should be found which a
moun,ed 10 als.ying of war by the aceus-
ed, and his counsel should insist tina. he
gould DOT be condemned because the indict.
meet was defrcuve IN not charging that he
was himself one of the assemblage which
constituted the treason, or because u al.
lodged the procure nent 1eiecsiseIy, would
ihr attorney admit this construction OF his
indictment 10 be correct? am persuaded
that be would DOT, and that he orghs not
TO make such concession. Ii after yer.
dict, the Indictment oughsto be construed
10 alleage thar the prisoner was one OF the
asse mblsse at Blanneraasseu's island, II
ought 10 be SO construed now But this is
unlmportan,, for if the Indictment alIedges
tha. The prisoner procured the assemb!age,
that procurement becomes part ofahe vert
ACT and must be proved as will DC shown
hereafter.
The I'd position is founded on Hale
214. 25S 81. Easter.
While declare that this doctrine con-
trad;cts every idea 4 had ever entertained
on the Subject of indictments. since it ad
mis- that one case may be stated and
very different case may be proved, Twill
acknowledge that it is counienaueed by the
So hofities adduced 10 its support. To
counsei or advise unreasonable assemblages
AID 10 be Que of that assemblage, are GER
tainly distinct acts, and therefore ough,
notto be charged as the same act. The
great objection TO this mode OF proceeding
Is, that the proof essentially varies from
the charge 10 tie character and essence OF
the offence, and 10 the testimony by which
the accu.ed is to defend himself. These
dicta of lord Hale, therefore, taken in the
extent 10 which they are understood by the
counsellor the US seem TO be repugnsns
10 the declarations We fad every where,
that an overt act must be laid and mast be
proved. No case IS cited by Hale in sup.
port of ,hen, and am strongly inclined
70 the opinion that, had The pubic receiv-
ed his corrected, instead Of his original
manuscript, they would. if not sxpunged,
nave been restrained IN their application to
cases of particular description. Laic
down generally. and applied universally 10
all cases OF treason, they arc repnguant TO
the principles for which Hale contends, Tor
which all the elementary writers contend,
and from which courts have IN no case,
,ei,hrr directly reported or referred to 10
the books, ever departed. These prtuci.
pies arc, that the Indictment must give no.
tice of the esfence, thar the accused is on,
" bound 10 answer the particular charge
which the Indictment contains, and that the
overt act laid is that particular charge
Under such circumstances, II IS oniy DO.
ine Justice 10 Hale TO examine his dicia.
and'if they will admit OF briag understood
in limited sense, not rePugnant to his
own ooc,rines,s nor to the general princi.
pies Of law, to understand them IN that
sense.
&C IF many censpire to couuterfei,,y or
counsel or abet il, and one of them doth
the fact upon ,ha. counselling or couspis
3 rscy, il is treason 10 all, and they may be
all induced for ,counserfeiting generally
within this statute. for 10 such case 10 trea-
I son sllsre principals"
This is laid down as applicable sineIy
. 60 the treason OF codnterfeltipg the CON,
and is not applied by Hale to other trea'
sons. Had he designed TO apply the
principle universally he.would have stated
Il as general proposition. he would have
laid il down in treating GA other branche.
of,hcstasute as we'll ss in rho chapter re.
specsipg the coin, be would have LAID i