The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1851-11-26
Wtfkly Crpre55.
WEDNESDAY MORNING ........-. NOV 26.
TREASON.

In Tuesdays Herald, we have definition
what the editors consider treason.
AS this article was probably called forth. i
response to short paragraph which appeare
in the Express of previous date, asking then
to define treason, as also the crime of those
+, who were participators in the Chrstiana mur
der, we may be expected to make few remark
in reply to that article.
1t is denied that the offence at Christians
was treason, or partook in any respect of tha
character, and the laws of Great Britain, are re
ferred to, as authority to establish the fact ant
the Sd section of the Sd article Of the Consttu
ton, is quoted to establish what treason consists
Of
| 1t says, treason against the United States shal
consist in ierying against them, or in adler
ing to their enemies, giring them aid and com
fort The question arises, whether the iudicia
tribunals of the country, in constituting this Ian
guage, are to be confined to the literal mean
ing of the words, as expressed. According tc
the position of the Herald, it would seem tina
they are, but large number of our most dstin
guished jurists have thought different. Now
we are no lawyer, nor the son of lawyer, mol
do we pretend TO as much 2rotundty of thought
and research, dignifed with most liberal dis
tribution of it, as our neighbors yet we imag-
inc that we may differ with them upon this sub.
ject, without subjecting ourselves to the Gen.
sure, of either ignorance or impertinence.
1t is necessary for the protection of society,
that there should be government and law. 9th
erwise, physical force would be the common ar
bitter in oil conflicts of opinion, or disputed
questions which might arise among men, and
the strong would invariably prey upon the ,ecak
This government and lam, pre- -supposes that
there are to be governors, and those, who are
to be governed-that laws are to be made and
those laws to be observed. That while the gov
ernment yields the citizen protection in the en-
joyment of life and property, he should. and is
expected, to recprocate, by yielding implicit
obedience to the laws.
Did the men of Chrstana d. this' No, far
from it. A body of some eighty men conspired
together, TO resist the operation Of law of the
government-armed themselves and lay in wait
for the officers, who were legally appointed to
execute the law-and when those officers made
their appearance, assaulted them with guns,
pistols and knives, killing one and wounding 9TH
ers. Here was an armed resistance to the law land
SO far relates to this particular case, an efec.
tual overthrow Of it. Had the number been a
thousand times greater than it was, and had the
Commander-in-C Chief, at the head of the militia
ry force of the country, been present, and in at
tempting to enforce the law, been killed and his
fence one iota. The motive was to defeat the
operation of an established law of the land-a
combination was organized for that purpose
and the work was accomplished by resisting
ing of one law, by force, is as culpable, as the
resisting of every law in the statute, and as the
attempt to overthrow the government by forci-
bly, resisting its laws, is defined by the most a.
BILE and learned jurists of the country to be
levying war, and that such act is treason, we
hesitate not to say, that these men were guilty
of that crime. The mere fact that they attempted
to subvert but one law ofthe land and that they
were few in number, when compared with the
power to overcome them, can neither add to-,
nor diminish from their offence. Their mOtire
was apparent,and the fact, that they had not suf
fcIent force to permanently effect their object,
can neither lessen their offence, or their guilt.
Suppose the abolitionsts at Chrisiiana, had been
$4,000 strong, in place of eighty. which was
the number assembled OH that occasion, would
the editors pretend, that it was not a formidable
resistance to the law for its overthrow, and a
reasonable design cgainst the government p
Garry the supposition still farther and suppose,
that each State north of Masons and Dixons
line, furnished an equal number of reckless
men to join in an armed resistance to the author
tiles, would the editors feel no alarm for the
safety Of the government and be willing to pass
upon the actors, mere rioters? And will
they presume to draw distinction between this
offence, as committed by one hundred, or one
thousand men?
But, as the editors have cited the laws OF
Great Britain, to sustain their position, let us
quote their authority and see where it leaves
them. We quote from Blackstonc's Common
taries, which, we presume, they will not ques
ton Volume four, page ff,y-four. In de-
fning treason, this commentator says, "J
a man do lery ,rar against our lord, the King,i,
his realm" ".4nd this may be done by taking
nrmcs, not only TO dethronc tie King, Lut unde,
pretenee to reform religion, the la,cs, or to re
more erH counscllors, or other grievances
,cActhcr prctcrded or real"
Again, he remarks on page Sc of the same
volume: "The last species Of treason, ascer
taimcd by the statute, is, IF man slay til
chancellor, treasurer, or the Kings justices o
the one bench or the other, Justices IN eyre or jus
,ices Of assise. and all other justices assigned {
hear and determine, Icing in their places DOM
their Offices p"
This authority applies most forcibly to thi
case. 1t was to 'rcform the taaes'' that the abe
litionists assembled at Christina, and they sic,
and manned, not the King justices, but the Es
ecutive's chosen officers, ''being IN their place
doing their ctices.'
In l7S6, fourteen men concerned in Shay
rebellion in Massachusetts,, were convicted
treason and sentenced to death, and were onl
saved from ignominious death, by the interpos
ton of Executive clemency.
In 1894, an insurrection took place in four
the western counties OF Pennsylvania, to resis
by force, the execution of certain acts of Coz
gress, imposing duty on spirits distilled in Il
United States. In the trial of Mitchell wi
was nditcd for treason, in the Circuit Court
the United States, over which Justice Pattcrso
presided, the Court held, that, "to resist or pr
rent, by armed force, the c1teut,on Of partie
= lar la,c of the United States, Is ierying of
against the United States, and, consequent
n treason eithin the meaning of the Constitution
III And on the trial of Fries, for treason, befo
: the same Court in 1899, Justice Iredell pre-
ding, delivered the same opinion, and Fries W
convicted.
b. Upon new trial granted Fries, the Co,
lie then composed of Judges Chase and Pete
% held, "hat any such insurrect.on to resi-
L. n H.