Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-09-19

have given particular tietail Of the frca =
sopable transactions in that county. The
first superstition is the most probable bur
let the indictment be IN the one form or the.
other, AND the result S he same The f,ct;
| OF the case are, that q large body Of men,
! of whom Mitcbcl was one, assembled 20
! Braddock's fcid, in the county Of Allcgha.
ny, Tor the purpose OF ConImiitirg acts Of
jviolence at pitisburg. That there was ai-
| so an assembiage 1T Z different TING 1t
Couches fort, at which the YFisUner also -.
| tended The general and ;.vowed object
of that meeting was to concert measures
| 'or resisting the execution of Il public lug,
! At Couches fort, the resolution was taken
! 20 attack the house Of the Inspector, and
the body there assembled marched 70 thar
! house and attacked it, IL was proved Sy
the competent number oF Witnesses, that he
was at Couches fort armed, that he Of
tered toreconnOitre the house TO he attack.
| ed, that 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 III il one
witness swore positively that he was prs@
sent at the burning OF the house, and Sc
cond witness said that 60 it ran IN his he'd
that he had seen him there" That doubt
should exist In such Il case as this, is strong
evidence Cfthe necessity That tie overt ct
should he unequivoealy proved by two
Witnesses.
But what was the opinion Of the Judge in
this case /? Couches fort and Eevi,}e's
house being in the same county, the assem-
blagc having been at Couches fort and tie
resolution to attack the house Eavine been
there taken, the body having for the a.
vowed purposes moved in execution OF that
resolution towards the house to be attack.
cdS he inclined to think that the act e
marching was in itself levyiug war lis
was, then the overt act laid in the indct-
ment was c0nsummated by the assemblace
at Couchcs and the marching from ,hercc,
and Mitchell was proved 20 be guilty hv
more than two posi- i've vi ncss4s. But
without deciding this to he the t1u. he
proceeded TO COZ slider the meeting at Ceu-
ches, the Immediate marching to Nevr'C's
house, and n t * and 'urring # the
house, as one transaction Mitchell VS.
proved by more than two positive wines
ses 10 naVe bsen ~ th.t tren ac,ion, I'd
have taken an active part in i,, and the
Judge declared II to be unnecessary that all
should have seeli him az the same time and
place.
Eut suppose nota single witness had pro-
we'd Mitchell TO have been at Couches, or
had been at the tine notoriously absen: in
different state. Can it be believed by
any person who observes the caution with
which Judge Patterson required the con-
stitutional proof Of two witness Is 20 the
same overt act, that he wsu!i have said
Mitchell was construct:voly present, and
might on that straiuing Of l,eaI fiction,
be found, guilty Of treason Had he de-
livered such an opinion what would lave
been the language of this country respec-
ting it Had he given this opinion, IL
would have required al the correctness of
his life to strike his name from that bloody
liStin which the name OF Jef.llcs is enrol.
led.
But to estimate the opinion in Mitchcll's
case, let lis circumstances be TT; nsftrred
TO Burr's case. Suppose the body # men
assembled in Biannerhasset's Island had
previous y met at some ether pl.Ce IN the
same county, and that Burr bad been pro-
we'd to be with them by four w"nesses -
That the resolution 10 march to Bianncr-
hasset's island for reasonable purpose
had been there taken ; thai he had been
seen on the march with them ,hat one
witness had seen Him on the island, ,hae
another thought he had seen him thcre
that he had been seen with the party di-
rectly aiter leav ng he island thar this
indictment bad charged the Icvyirg Of
war in Wood county generally the cases
would then have been precisely parallel,
and the decisions would have Dc.n the
same.
In conformity with principle and wlih nu-
thorty then, the prisoner az the bar was
IneitHer legally nor actually present at
BlanncrhasscJ's island aud tie court 10
strongly inclined TO the opinion that With
TOUT proving an actual OF lessiDrc,ence bv
I,wo Witnesses, The overt act LAID II this iE.
ldiCtmcnt cannot be proved
but this opinion IS ConuoyeIted On two
grounds.
The first is, that The indictment d Is
inot charge the prisoner to haze Jecn pre-
-cnt.
The second, that although he was absent,
ct, If inc caused Tie assemJlagc he NAV
re indicted 70 beng present, and convicted
% evidence that he caused the t,easoa,.y. c
| CT.
The first position 10 to be decided bSthe
Indictment Itself The court uhdcrsl nds
The cEition differently .rUm The 1T orncv
for tho = States The crort understands
1t TO be directly charged, hat the prisoner.
did assemble with the multitude afh did
march with them. Nwbug VIII more
clearly test this construction than putting
the case ito q shape which 30 ma. ro.yi-
ply take Suppose tie law Co he, tAat tie
indictment wau bC detective unless 10 .l4
edged The presence Of The por.on Indicted
b, tne ct of treasons fupon D. ecisl YER
.lci ..Cjs should be found WhiC auUun .l