The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-08-21

NUT fubmit, how far have fucceeded in
ijuaifyiHg the propricty of my having omitted
"arms" in the definition of treafon.
have alio omitted, that the perfons airem-
bled for treafonable purpofe have committed
holtil'ties or employed any actual force Icon
tend that it is not neccf1ary to have waged bat
tie or to have committed any act of violence.
Perhaps the other fde may, however, contend
(though am fcarcely psrfuaded that they willy
that there mut he arms and actual force. Bur
1t they do contend for this, obferve the embar-
raiiment IN which they will be involved by
their doctrine. If 10 600 armed men were to
march to Wilmington in order to take poiTef-
iion of the capital of the U. States ftnd the
Prehdent to Monticello and turn Congrefs out
o! doors; thefe perions thus Attended are no
traitors, becaufe they have not yet truck a
blow. They meet with no oppofi: ion the 60
vernment dfperfes through fear but there is
no treaion. The doctrine that wonld make
force, the prefence and actual exertion of
arms, necehary to. the contamination of trea-
ION, would be eminently fatal. 1t is the very
doctrine that traitors met together to make
laws for their own fecurity, would be mott To-
licitous to recognize for if they were not trail
tors, ere they had truck blow, they would
take care never to trike one until they could do
1t with effeet.-I contend that my doctrine is
unequivocally confirmed by the decilion of the
fupreme court. There is not Jingle word in
1t which makes force or actual no Utilities necef.
! fairy to treafon.
| know not, but gentlemen may be difpofed
to take fhelter under an opinion, exprei1ed by
Judges Chafe and Peters in the cafe of Fries,
| p. 1877 and mott candidly admit. that there
are certain exprefiions in that opinion, which
ieem to oountenance their doctrine. But if the
obfervation were correct in facl, fill it ihould
be recoleeted that it was but the opinion of
subordinate judges, which cannot be oppofed
to the declfon of the fnpreme court. 1t mutt
ALTO be recolIe6ted, that their opinion on this
point are extrajudicial; by that term mean,
that 1t was not fuch point as was necenary
to be fettled in the cafe before the court. The
queition before them was not, whether force
does actually enter into the competition oftrea-
ION /; for in the cafe of Fries, there was force
enough Employed. 1t was cafe of an actual
oPpohtion to the laws of the United States by
force. Now the opinion of any court is ne
yer oonidered as good auth GRITTY, unlefs it be
delivered on the very point actually before the
court.-lt will be feen too upon an accurate
infpection, that the opinion of Judge Chafe is
not even confident with itfelf. In his defni-
ton Of treafon, (Fries's trial, page 1861 he ex-
Preisly fays, that l" any infurreetion or riling
&c of any body of people within the U. States,
to attain or effect by force or violence any
object of great public nature, or of public
and national concern, is levyng of war
"againft the u. States, within the contempla-
I" ton & contribution of the conftituton' -
| Thus excluding from his definition the two
circumstances which have excluded from mine,
military weapons, and The adaal employment of
force. In the next page, he expressly ftates,
that military weapons, &c. are not neceliary
in the contamination of treafon. And yet in
the courfe of the fame charge he feems to think
| finn fnrC6 he Hafo I.
crime is legally complete. The ideas of Judge
Peters on this point (fee page 2o4 and page 9o7)
teem to be in like manner at variance with each
other. The truth is, that they did not express
themfelves on this fubjea, with the preciion
which they would have diiplayed, had the qsef-
ton before them been what it was before the
| fupreme court and what it is here.
| Judge Patterfon in his expedition of the law,
in his contribution Of the contribution, agrees
with the fupreme court in their decifon. Q
Dali 335, and even Mr.. wis, an advocate
in the cafe of Fries, diftinguifhed no lefs by hi.
zeal, than by his legal erudition, feems to con-
| cede that the crime may be contaminated with.
out the actual commi1ion of hofiities, or EN-.
| ployment of force.
The Englifh adjudications are to the fame
| effect. Treafons, in the populous country OF
| Great Britain, where numbers are concerned
are generally accompanied by force; but that
the actual emPloyne mt OF force, where the trail
ferrous deGgn is clearly proved, is not necefIary
is in my judgment individually certain. See
Fof. Gil, 2ls. EAT /, 81. Hale leo.
| But whether am correct in this remark or
not, is immaterial. In our own country, the
judges of the fupreme court have placed this
point beyond the reach of controversy.
You will probably be told, Sirs. that certain.
ty in criminal law is important, & in that part
of it which relates to treafon, efental to public
liberty. You may be reminded of an obferva
tion of the celebrated Montefqueu, who fays
that uncertainty on this Jingle point, is of itel
| fufIicient to change free into an arbitrary 60.
yernment. 1t is not admitted that this OFFER.
walton is applicable to our government, de.
pendent as it is on the people, or to our PEG.
pie, informed as they are of their rights. But
fuppofe it to be 70. The anfwer is obvious
BY the decifon of the fupreme court, the law
is certain. Every man who can read, knows
the fituation in which he ftands, and at VIVA,
point he mutt flop, if he wlhes to avoid the i'm.
putatioD and the guilt OF treafon.
You will probably be told ALTO, of the danger
of contruelive treaionS that is, fays Black
| ftone, vol. IS, " to rsife by forced & arbitrary
contradictions, offtnces into The crime and pu-
nfhment of treafon, which never were fufpe6fed
to be fuch." OF this fome terrible examples
exit in the earlier periods of the Englifh his.
tory, when the people were ignorant, and the
judges entirely dependent en- the king.
1t is admitted that the doctrine, which f1all
let in treafons, not defined by the contribution,