The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-09-24
Tho Law OF Treason.

The Law OF Treason.
"In Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, few days
since party of whites attempted to arrest seve-
raj negroes, claiming them their property, un-
der a law of the United States. The negroes re-
sisted, forcibly, and mob of negroes acting evil
IDENTIFY in concert, came to their aid resisted the
seizure, and killed the claimant. This is Of
fence against law. and must be punished as such.
No one will contend that these negroes acted
from their conscientious convictions of duty-that
they killed this man because they really believed
it their duty to do So They acted from passion,
from malice, from determination that the ne
groes should not perform duties and hold posi-
tions which the law had recognised as imposed
upon them We observe that the offenders are to
be indicted for treason. Their offence may techn-
caly be considered treason; yet it seems to us
sadly to belle the definition of that grave crime.
These negroes resisted the marshal-resisted the
execution of the law; but doubt whether they
designed to overthrow tho Government of the
United States. 1t is not easy to say what would
fill negro's mind under such circumstances;
but we do not believe that any of them had really
any thought of dethroning the President, scatter
ing his Cabinet, and usurping Federal powers.
And yet some such intention this-at least
some dim purpose of upsetting the Federal Con-
stituton, seems to US essential TO the idea usually
entertained of levying arms against the Govern
ment' of the United States.
"Marshals and sheriffs have been often resisted ;
laws of the United States, and of the several
States, have often been trampled upon. The Of
fence, as was proper and necessary, has been
punished; but it was not called treason Cover
nor Johnston, in his letter to Messrs. Cadwalader,
Swift & Co., puts this matter in its proper light.
He cautions them against exaggeratons of the
offence committed. 1t is heinous enough in itself
They have committed murder, and will be tried
and punished therefor. The idea Of rebelion-of
an insurrectionary movement in Lancaster coun-
'ty-he treats as absurd The laws, he says have
been grossly violated, and the judicial tribunals
will punish the offenders. He thinks it unwise to
give the crime committed undue dignity, or to
pursue such course rs shall inspire distrust of
the regular course of law. We think so too"
Ne,o York Daily Times.
We copy the above paragraphs from an arti
Gle in public journal recently established in
the city of New York, by a gentleman of in
teligence and editorial experience. The view
which they present of the recent lamentable
affair in PENNSYLVANIA is one not generally
taken by our northern newspapers; though
there may well be an "usual" misunderstood
ing of the law of treason, when journals so well
informed as the Times present such erroneous
views of it.
The Times gives its readers to understand
that design ''to overthrow the Government of
the United States"-"of dethroning the PRE-
sIDENT, scattering his Cabinet, and usurping
Federal powers"-some "dim purpose of up
setting the Federal Constitution is essential
to the idea usually entertained of levying
arms against the Government of the United
States" The implication is, that, in the
judgment of the Times, the idea casually en-
tertained" in this regard is the law of the
land
The crime of treason by 'levying war"
has been too distinctly defined by the tribunals
of the United States to leave room for any Sc
rious question in regard to it.
In the case of MITCHELL, who was indicted
in the Pennsylvania district on the charge of
high treason, in "levying war;" by resisting
and preventing the execution of certain acts of
Congress imposing duty on spirits distilled in
the United States, the circuit court said Mr..
Justice PATTERSON delivering the opinion: eff
the object Of the insurrection was to suppress
the excise office, and 10 prevent the execution
Of an act Of Congress by force and intimida-
tion, the offence in legal estimation is High
Treason; it is an usurpation of the authority of
Government; il is High Treason by the leupng
Of acar."
In the case of FRIEs, indicted in the same
district, for combining with certain others to
oppose and prevent the execution of the laws
by means of intimidation and violence, and also
for opposing the marshal, &c., his counsel,
with great ability, contended that, to resist by
force Of arms a particular law of the United
States, though public one, did not amount to
levying war, within the true meaning of the
Constitution, but was only riot. After full
discussion, the principle established in MITCH
ELLIS case was reatlirmed by Judges IRE
DELL and PETERS, "that, to resist or prevent
by force the execution of particular law Of
the United States, did amount TO levying
war against them, and was therefore trea-
son."
On the new trial granted to Fries, Judge
CHASE reaffirmed the law Of the above. cited
cases. He declared his opinion to be that any
instruction OF "rising Of any body Of the peo-
'ple,1 to resist or prevent by force or violence
the execution of any statute Of the United
States, under any pretence. las that the statute
was unequal, burdeusome, oppressive, or pp-