Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-09-22

mrnr 20 allrdge generally that the accused
lrv;rd war sgalos, the IS. The charg
mooss be more particularly sPecltled by iay
ING WHAT'S sermed 30 osers act OF iesyint
war. The law relative TO an appeal a
cited from Stamford, is strongly corrobo
rative OF this opia'on
IF il be necessary 10 specify the charg
10 the Indictment II would seem 10 follow
irresls,sbly, .ha. the charge must bePtov
ed as laid.
All. the authorities which require al
over, act, require also that this ovef' &C
should be proved. The decision in Vaug
hans case is particularly inpolnt. Mign
ii be otherwise, the charge OF an over
act would be mischief instead OF 40 ad
vantage to the accused u would leae
him from the true cause and nafure OF INK
accusation instead of infor mlng him re
spectng It.
But i, IS contended on the part OF tht
prosecution that, al,hcogh the accused hdk
been never with he par y which asse . Die s:
al BlAnnerhssseit's island. and WAS, a tns
time, at . great distance, and 10 Il r
eu, sta,e. he was We, legally present, aad
therefore may properly be chaIgs 10 ms
indictment as being presentio fact.
l, is therefore necessary TO enquire whe'
Their in his case The doctrine OF coGsiruc'
tive presence can apply.
It's conceived bs the court 10 be posi-
bic ,hs q person may be concerned 10
IRRESPONSIBLE conspiracy and yet be legal,
as we'll as actually absent while some sue
act OF the treason is perpelrated II
rebellion should be SO extensive as &c
spread through every state 10 the union Il
Will scarcely be commended that every ind''
v,dual concernedin j, is Legally present al
every overt ac commiued IN the course OF
tina, rsbHlhou. ~ II ~ ou!d be very violen
presumption inbred, too yiolent 70 b,
m de without. CLEAR authority, to presume
ina, even the chisf of he rebel army was
legally present al every such overt act. ii
he NAN teb i army wigh The chief a, lis
head should be prosecuting war at one tx
tr miy # our territory, say 10 N RI. |!
his indie ment. instead of alIedging an o
were act which was true in poipt OF tac'
should alledge ,ha he had assemble 8 nae
small parry which ln>.ru h he had not seen,
and had levied war BY engSg'n in a Skin
mish III Georgia at sine whes IN realty
he was fighting a battle in N. II 1T such
evidence would support such au ind'ct
mept by the hc'ion tha he was Legally pre-.
sent though really absent, all would ask c
what purpose arrsthose provisions 10 III
constitution which dlrec, the place Of trial
and oraain that The accused shall be III
Termed of the patare and Cause OF ,he &C,
cusation?
Bat that man may be legally absen'
who has C., unselied or procured a yea
souable ac', is proved br all those books
which treat upon the subject, and which
concur in declaring that sucn person Is =
principal trator, no. because he was i s lily
present, but because 10 treason all arr
principals. Y, the indic'mer, ga, upon
neral principles, woui6 charge him &c
c. rd' 6 10 the truth OF the case. lord
Coke says If many coospire. 20 levy war
and some of 'beln 10 levy the same &C
cerdiag to the conspiracy, this is high fcsa
son in al" Why? Because all were lie
gally present when the war was levied
No ''For in treason continues lord Ok
sll.be principals, and war is lesied." lh
this case the Indictment, reasoning from
analogy, would nor charge that the sbse ri
cousprators were present but would state
the tru,h Ct the case. II .he conspira,or
had dime noting which amounted tc levy
Jog of war and If by our constitution the
doctrine thar an accessory becomes prin
cipal be not adopted, in consequence Of
which the conspira,or could 20, be con
demoed uoder an Indictment statirg he
,x,,.h &c thaicaax IL mould heee-nir or uery