Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-08-29

'I''S NC ClItl foSt. oJo, 35A, Hale +5Y. |
Fest. $40, and $50. where it is stated to be
sufficient for an individual who is absent,
20 DC CT the same party, and upon the same
pursuit with these who arc present; con-
sent'rg to the same design and having the
same expectation of mutual defence and
support. Applying the doctrine to cases
OF treason, he appealed to , Dallas 355,
$50, and to the opinion of the supreme
court OF the United States, in the case of
5otIn:an ard SU'artwout, in which the dec
trine is laid down that "all those who per-
"form any part however minute, and how
lever remote from the scene Of action, SS
" who are actually leagued in the general
"conspiracy, are principal traitors" This
part OF the opinion, he observed, was not
eXtrajudicial; hut related Immediately to
the point which was in controversy, in that
case, and appears to have been formed
and pronounced with great dciiberation (;
Tor IN different shapes, the same sentiment
10 several times repeated.
Ii is unnecessary now, said Mr.. NJ Rae,
70 notice authorities or arguments relating
10 the mode OF indicting accessories, or the
necessity of previous conviction of the
principal; because this is not IL case of ac-
| ocssorial or deriyative treason.
MI U!c&HaDl, however, says the indict-
| msnt is defective in not inserting the word
public ); IN support of which doctrine he
cited st. Ir 219, and ST. Tr. 2lS. Here
! Mr.. Wickham observed, that he had al
ready conceded that the Insertion OF the
| word "pubiic" was not neccs;Qrv: he had
only c0ntended that it ought to have been
inserted, OH the present occasion, because
this indictment was against IA man who
was not present when the treason was said
to have been committed. The war ought
tn have been stated to lie "Iublic - o.
| therwise 1t could not be presumed that he
had any notice OF it. Mr. lMRae said he
had understood his argument d ,fferentlv.
and wasprepared to shew from YuugkQs:' s
case, ) st. Tr. II, and John Ramnaeu'S
case, 81. TT 208, that it is not necessary
that the war should be hUbHc.1 Another
lo6Ieciion was that the names of the accom-
phces OF .7a',on Bnrr ought to have been
inserted IN the indictment. TMr fIck-
ham again explained; and declared that
he had not stated the indictment 10 be de-
tectlve in iSeY; but, since the fact had
appeared IN evidence that .Iaysu P,ry
was absent at the time of the act CHARGED
70 have been reasonable, the indictment
iHuGheto have given him full information
"a t'e nature cttAac act, and the persons
loy whom 1t was committed. Mir lLRoe
sa'C ne certainly understood the gentleman
rs ccntendinS that the names of the accom-
phccS ought 20 have been inserted. and
t'iat the omission rendered the indictment
detective he Lad even cited FIVE cases in
Support or chat doctrine; viz: St. Tr.
|'9 and 80! , 81. rr. ISL and 29l: and 4
Ut ~. .. Inc &. Jus. SAID that Mr. IITck-
hgm had stated his argument correctly.
Nir DI'IFae to shcw that the forms of in.
oncunents for treason Go not require the
insertion 81 thc names of accompiices. re-
erred TO nine cases, which he had examin-
CO. IN opposition to those cited by Mr. Wick.
h%m VIZ: 6 ST. Tr. 60, 229 5 St. Tr.
~; 81. Tr. 997; 4 81. TT. 2os, 142 :
!ohn Fern!ey's and William Rings cases.
I'D. and lastly, Fries's case.
Inc last point made by Mr.. JJickAam
ilAd been that the overt act of treason
vas not sufficiently proven. Mr. N4.i2ae
SI'eo BAG. l2l; Naughan's case, ST..
r. 81 roster 20S, 2l8 and I East 81,
oo' III Wnich the doctrine is laid down that
INC aSSs milling or men, armed with wea-
PohS offensive and defensive, with a trea-
sonabie intention is treason. tho nothina
De d"nej and the case of Rollman and
o"art"out to shew that actual pioIcncc
ana arms are not necessary TO constitute
ltreaSon; an assembage of men for a trea-
sohable purpose being sufficient. He OBJ
! served that "GrmS" were only an evidence
ol reasonable intention and if that inten
''oh can be otherwise proved "arB,sn are
not necessary. He commended too that the
counsel Tor the u. S. were not bound to
prove, in the first instance, every thing ne
CesSary to explain the nature of the overt
dCt at one place /; because overt-acts. at
0I"eT places, may be proved, by wav of ex-
Plahation, or aggrava.ion; in support of
winch ne cited FoSt. and %; 4 81. Tr
S6I, 696, 722; St. Tr. 286, 287 / East
| ~, ~; l Dallas SIS. This, however.
sald Mr.. lH'Rae, is question proper for
inc J"ry to decide. If the court undertake
I" determine whether the overt-act has
oeeh proven or not, they invade the pro-
vince OF the jury. Let us suppose that the
Court should give their opinion that the e.
violence has been sufficient to establish the
oVert-act; would they not take from the
prisoner his privilege of trial by Jury p
l" She" mat the jury have right to find
Inelr VERDICT upon the ia7U as well as the
Ilacb ana TO determine what amounts to
tne overt-act oftreason, he cited 1 East &c.
W , ana some expressions used by the
Chief Justice HIMSELF in his opinion lately
denVered, on the subject Of the order in
when the evidence OIL the part of the u
>. was TO be introduced.
"a sketch Of Mr.. U1rPs speech in the
! next Argus.)
LATEST PROCEEDINGS IN qBE TRJA1.
WEDNESDAY,, Aug o6