Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-09-11
opINroN
or Tie Court on the monon to afrestssh
evidence. DeAserea on
MONDAY, August 81.
IfcoNT1NuED.1

war, without which no act can amount to trea
son, but he does not particularize the parts t
be performed by the different persons con.
scerned IN that war, which shall be s~ufhclenl
to ix on each the guilt OF levying It,
Foster says " the Jaining with rebels IN an
act of rebellion, or with enemies IN acts o.
hostility will make a map a traitor sur
nishing rebels OF. enemies with money, arms,
arnrnle;e.cn or other neccssaries Will trims
r1cie make a man a traitor"
Poster does not say tnat he would be a trail
tor underthe words OF the statute indspend-
eus of the legal rule which attaches the guilt
softke principally an acccessary, nor that his
treason is occasioned by thar rule. Ia Eng
land this discrimipa ion need not be made ex-
cspt for the purpose of framing the indics-
ment, and therefore In ne English books we
do not perceive any efor o make II. Thus
-surrendering a castle 10 rebels, being in con-
federacy wi h mem is said by Hale and Eos
ter to be treason under the clause of leFying
war, but whether it be leyyiAg war In fact,
or aiding those who levy it Is not said. Upon
this point Blackstone is not more satisfactory.
Although we may find among the comnenta-
tors upon treason enough to satisfy the cnqui-
sy, what is a state of internal war; Yet no
precise information can be acquired from them
~wIlchwoald enable us to decide with clearness
whether persons not In arms but taking psrt
in a rebellion, could be said to levy war, in
dependent Of that doctrine which attaches co
the accessory the guilt ofhis principal,
Fin adjudged cases this question has been
-aken up and directly decided, the court has
not seen those cases. The arguments which
may be drawn from the form of the indict-
ment, though strong, is not conclusive. In
she precedent foundin Tremaine, Mary Spoke
who was indicted for furnishing provisions to
the Duke of Monmouth, is indicted for fur
nishing provisions to those who were levying
war, not for leyylng war herself. 1t may corr
rectly be argued, that had this act amounted
TO leyying war, she would nave beenindicted
sor ievying war, and the furnishing of proyi-
sions would have been laid as the overt act
The court felt this whoa the precedent was
produced. But the argument, though strong,
IS not conclusive, because in England, the en-
quiry whether she had become a traitor by le-
vyiag war, or BY giving aid and comfort to
those who were levving war, was %unimpor-
tant, and because too it does not appear from
the Indictment that she was actually concern
ed in the rsbellion, that she belonged to the
rebel party, or was guilty of any thing fur
Their than a criminal speculation in selling
them provisions.
Is is DOT deemed necessary to trace the
doctrine HAT 10 treason all are principals
TO IFS source RS origin is most probably
stated cntrectlv By judge Tucker, in a
work, the merisof which is with pleasure
acknowledged. But If a spurious doc
trins has besu Introduced into the com.
mon law, and has for centuries been ad.
mit,ed as genuine. it would require grea:
hasdihood in a iaoge TO rejrcs il. Ac
.eordinely, we fad those of the English
i~arists who seem TO disapprove the prinei.
pie, declaricg that it is now TOO firmly
settled to be shaken
II is unnecessary TO trace this doctrine
TO IT'S source for another reason. The
: m of the constitution comprize po4ques
iibu respecting the principal aud accessory
so far as either may br,said 20 be truly ano
in fact said TO levy war: Whether iii
England a person would be indicted il
express terms fer lsvying war, or for as
sissiDg Others in levying war, yes If ii
cerrecs andleg allsngaage be can be said t.
have levicdswar, and if il has never beer
decided thar she &C. would not amour Il
leyyiog war, his case may without violen
construction be brought within the lette
and the plain~ msaning OF the conssitu
ton.
In examiBing these words the argamen