The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1851-11-06

for this opinion is that an instruction to resist
or prevent by force the execution of any statute
of the United States, has direct tendency to
dissolve all the bands of society, TO destroy all
order and all laws: and also all security for the
lives, liberties, and properties of citizens of the
United States
"The court are of opinion that military weap-
ons (as guns and swords mentioned in the in
dictment) are not necessary to make such insur
rection or rising amount to levyng war; because
numbers mag supply the rant of military redp-
onS !, and other instruments may effect the In
tended mischief: the legal guilt Of leyying
war may be incurred without the use of military
weapons or military array"
This part of the opinion is, | humbly con-
ceive, likewise extra Judicial: there being no
question as to the fact that Fries and his party
were furnished with arms, as guns and swords,
&c
The court are of opinion, that the assembling
bodies of men armed and arrayed in warlike
manner for purposes only of private nature, is
not treason; although the judges or other peace
| officers should be insulted or resisted or even
great outrages committed to the persons or
property of our citizens"
"The true criterion to determine whether acts
committed are treason, or less offence, las
riot is the quo qntmO or the intention with
which the people iu1a Assemblies When the IN
tcntion is universal, or general as, to effect
some object of a general public nature it will
n -I@sc+s 80 nsnae rs. 30 - rrertr7I-
ed or reduced to a riotn -. This part of
the opinion seems likewise to be extrajudicial
and questionable, for the reasons mentioned
under the first paragraph.
"The commission of any number of ielonies,
lto..
nature, SO as to make them amount to treason.
And on the other hand if the intention and act
| together amount to treason, they cannot be
sunk down to felony or riot. The intention
with which any acts las felonies, the destruction
of property, or the like) are done, will show to
what classes of crimes the case belongs"
| "The court are of opinion, that if body of
people conspire and mediate an insurrection
to resist or oppose the execution of any statute
of the United States by force, that they are only
guilty Of high misdemeanor; but if they pro-
coed to carry such intention into execution by
force that they are guilty of the treason oflevy-
ing war n and the quantltn of the force employ
ed neither lessons nor increases the crime
Whether by one hundred or one thousand per-
sons, is wholly immaterial"
"The court are of opinion, that a combina.
ton or conspiracy to levy war against the
United States is not treason, unless combined
with an attempt to carry such combination OF
conspiracy into execution some actual force
or violence must be used in pursuance of such
design to levy war but that it is altogether I'M
material, whether the force used is sufficient t.
effectuate the object; any force connected will
the intention, will constitute the crime of levy
ing war"
"In treason all the partieipes crtminis ar
4 principals there are no accessories TO TIN
crime Every act which in the case of fclon.
would render o man an accessory, will IN tn
case of treason make him a principal To rem
I der man an accomplice and principal in felo
ny, he must be aiding and abettng al the fact
or ready to afford assistance if necessary. If
person be present at felony, aidngand assist
ing, he is principal"
Here again, | apprehend, this part of tn
courts opinion is perfectly ertrdjudiciat' Be
cause Fries, if guilty at all, was guilty as
principal in the first degree; being present anC
not only aiding and abetting, but commanding
And the correctness of this opinion (eyen were
it not extrajudical) likewise seems to be very
highly questionable, for reasons which Will bt
mentioned hereafter, when we inquire INTO the
import of the word only. This doctrine
founded upon that artificial and abstruse rea
soning, of which the English common lawyers
were pre-eminently fond, as will appear to any
person who reads their ancient tracts and re-
ports
The Judge proceeds thus. 1t is always
material to consider whether the persons charg-
ed are of the same party, upon the same pur-
suit, and under the expectation OF mutual de-
fence and support All persons present aiding,
assisting or abetting any reasonable act are
principals. All persons who are present and
countenancing and are ready to afford assist
ance if necessary, to those who actually commit
any reasonable act are also principals If a
number of persons assemble and set out upon a
common design, rs to resist and prevent by
force, the execution of any law, and some OF
them commit acts of force and violence with
intent to oppose the execution of any law, and
others are present to aid and assist if necessary,
they are all principals. If any man joins and
acts with an assembly of people, his intent is al
ways to be considered and adjudged to be the
same as theirs and the law in this case judg-
eth of the intent by the fact If number OF
persons combine OF conspire to effect certain
purpose, as to oppose by force the execution of
. law, any act of violence done by any one OF
, them, in pursuance OF such combination and
with intent 10 effect such object is, in conside-
ration of law, the act OF all who are present
; when such act of violence is committed IL per.
sons collect together to act for one and the same
common end any act done by any one Of them
with intent to effectuate such common end, is q
| fact that may be given in evidence against all
: Of them; the act of each is evidence against al
concerned See Trial Of Fries, p 1856 10 1893
Most devoutly is it to be wished, that NJ
future case may occur, wherein our courts may
} have any further occasion to inquire into thu
> true exposition of this part of the text of thu
> Constitution but if such cases should arise i
seems to me that the safer course would be fol
judges to consult the text and spirit of our Fed
J eral Constitution and Government only fo
otherwise, the plain text will be completely hid
den, and lost sight of in the multitude Of pre-
cedents, founded upon artificial reasons, and con
illusions drawn from different source.
!, 1t is observable, that in all these cases th,
judges seem to have overlooked that obviou
distinction before mentioned, between such act
} OF force and violence as may amount to Treason
against particular State, though not reducib,
to either head of treason against the Unite,
States, and such AS may properly fall undc
the latter description.
-
See State Trials, per Bromley, G. j., who may b.
considered as the father Of this doctrine. He says
lie that doth pgOcnre another man TO commit fco
ny, or murder, the law doth adudge tho procure
then folon or a murderer And in Of treason
~ hath always been so taken and repucd Page ~
"ALL FLESH is GRAssn-Bishop Hughes. il
sermon to his parishioners, repeated the quo
. tnA. eI..A a III Ill