The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-09-26
Mr.. WINS Speech Continued.

it is this "becaufe fthe prifoner be principal
in the treafon at all he is principal in the f.
cond degree and his guilt being of that kind
which is termed derivativc, no farther pnrol evil
dence can be let in to charge him until we ihew
record of the convitton of the principals in
the hrtt degree" BY this petition the gentle
man is underftood to advance in other terms
the common law doctrine, that when man is
rendered principal in treafon by acts which
would make him an accefIary in felony, he can
not be tried before the principal in the firft de-
gree. believe this to he, indeed, the doctrine
OF the common law. But it has no manner Of
application TO this cafe;
LIT. Becaufe it is the mere creature of the
common law of England.
2dly. Becaufe If the common law Of England
be our law, this petition afIumes what is de.
MED, that the condstt of the prifoner in this
cafe is of an accefiiona! nature.
1. Becanfe this petition is the mere creature
OF the common law. Neither our contribution
nor act of congrefs difingufh between prnci-
pals III the hrR & fecond degree all who levy
war againit the U. S. whether prefent or abfent,
all who are eaeued in the confpiracy whether
on the fp0t of the sf1emblage, or performing
tome minute & uncomfortable part in it, a thou.
land miles from the fcene of action, incur equal.
~ the fentence Of The law: they are all equally
traitors. This fcale, therefore, which graduates
the guilt of the offenders and eRablihe, the or
ger OF their refpeetive trials, if it ever exifted
here. is completely abroga ted by the highet au-
thor'ties in this country The convention
which formed the contribution and defined trea.
ion; congrefs which legiflated upon that defini-
ton, and the fupreme Judiciary of the country
expoundine the contribution aud the law have u
nited in its ahrogation. But let us for a mo-
ment put the convention, congrefs and iudici
airy aide and examine how the cafe will ffant ::
f.o1s pf ia
nam mas given US, IS the creature eftbe common
Iazv; but he himfeif in another branch of his
argument has emphatically told us that the
common law does not exit in this country {;
mas itated that the creature prcfuppofes the
creator and that where the creator does not
exit, the creature cannot. The common law,
then, being the creator of the rule which Mr.
Wickham has given US, and that common law
not exiting in this country, neither can the rule
~hich is the mere creature of it, exft in this
country. So that the gentleman has himfef
iurnlihed the argument which refutes this nfa-
!ihle point Of his, on which he has 70 much re-
hed. But to try his petition to its utmof ex-
tent, let US not only put Aide the contribution,
act OF Congrefs, and decifion of the fupreme
court, but let us admit that the common law
does exlft here fill, before the principle could
apply, it would remain to be proven that the
conduct OF the priioner in this cafe has been &C.
cefior'ai - or in other words, to give il its
orotdrit footing, that his acts in relation to this
.rea'on are OF fuch nature as would make him
an accefory in felony.
Belcg row on the general doari,e oe ,r;,,;
pal and accefIory, as they exit at common law,
VIII follow the gentleman through the whole
range OF his remarks on the fubie6f, and notice
Tome winch he advanced under his firf head
ne ia'd that accefiories are the mere creatures
OF the Common law {: hence, fad he, when
Hattie is made in affirmance of common law mr.
IN aid oft, all common law confeouences fol.
low as when Ratute is merely declaratorv
OF common law felony, whether the natute
lays any th'ng about accefTories or not, they
are embraced by it, becaufe they exiRed in the
oHence at common law but where the ffatufe
Srea'es new felony, not known at common
law, as the ftatute Of Henry 8, making piracy
eiohy, acceiiorIes are not comprehended hy
H. upon this groundwork he his bnt the arpu.
,neht mat as sue have no comm on law, the con-
H'u'IoD and act of Congrefs which define trea
ION, Rand alone (; and as they merely embrace
thote who actually levy war and are therefore
inc principals, thofe who procure or are other.
VIE accefory 10 it, are not comprehended
sue hence ne concludes that the pTifoner who
merely brought about this treafon bv procure-
menf, is not within the contribution and ar oe
Nongreis. his argument is perfectly charac
tftnfc OF the ingenuity and fubtlety ofthe mind
"hich produced 1t but let us try the (trenpth
OF thls curionHy woven web. The frft remark
soe fature about it is, that the whole Of il ia
a5emanatIon of that common law, upon whole
non-exiheuce in this country the gentleman
fonndshis concIu(ion. His premifes are laid in
The common-law and he derives from the com.
mon law of Interpreting the Britilb Aatutes.
principe which he applies analogically TO the
8, .'erPTetaiion of our contribution and which
ives him his refut, only upon the bo6aidfg0,
Shat mere rs no Common law in the IT, s. Ru,
.et US wave mis- objection and examine his pre-
Imifes themfcIves.
Frt, Is II true that latute made in afir.
nance OF Common law or IL aid oft, carries \.
Iong all common law conftqnences The
book referred to by the gentleman, does not
prove " 10th St. Tr. 4Se, which he cited q.
authority without producing it, is merely The
argument OF Hume Campbell one of the conn.
lei III The cauic, and againft whom that capfs
was determined. ! believe, fr, it ia not urnal
Tor genIamaD citing an abfent author in f,n.
port ct bis doctrine 20 refer to the argument OF
counitl as the opinion of the court. But Adj.
Hiiiiag that the diaVn of Hume Campbell
were authority, be does not haie the doctrine
whIch ne ~ cited 10 fuppor. He faye merely
that g ~ aaiuie fpeaks of Diafsrr5 known a,
commooiIw, il NUT ar 10 fbaf matter. be con.
hrned and extended according to The common
law" IN fupport Of his poii'on Hume Camp.
bell cites Coke Lit. SsI, Hobart % and mod
Ife' OF tbeir thee authorities Mr.. Wickham