The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-09-15

one way; it harmonizes in all its parts; it proves
that the prisoner was a member of the party Who
went to Rsisan's house, and afterwards to the
house Of V,lls, in arms, marshalled and arrayed,
and who, at each place, committed acts of vio-
lence and devastation.
"With respect to the intention, likewise, there is
not, unhappily, the slightest possibility of doubt
To suppress the office of excise in the fourth sur
'vey OF this State, and particularly, in the pre-
sent instance, 10 compel the resignation of Ves,
the excise officer, 30 as to render null and void in
effect an act of Congress, constituted the appa-
rent, the ayowed object of the insurrection, and
of the outrages which the prisoner assisted to
: commit.
combining these facts and this design, the
crime of high treason is consummate in the con-
temptation of the Constitution and law of the
United Siatss-2 Dial. r., 346
VIGoL was convicted of treason, and SEN
fenced to death, but was afterwards pardoned.
So well-setted was the law considered at this
time that the able counsel of the prisoner did
not take the exception, or raise the question of
law, whether resisting and preventing by
armed force the execution of particular law
of the United States be levying of war"
within the meaning of the Constitution, though
the decision of this point in the negative would
have disposed of the case in favor of his client.
But this question was distinctly raised in the
case CT MITCHELL, indicted for the same Of
fence, and was argued before the same court,
and is the very point in judgment. eff" said
the court, (Mr. Justice PATTERSON delivering
the charge,) the object Of the insurrecton was
to suppress the excise officer and 10 prevent
the execution cf an act Of Congress By force
and Intimidation, the offence in legal estima-
ton is High Treason it is an usurpation of
the authority of Government; ii is High
Treason By the levying Of uar."
few years afterwards Congress passed an
act (l79S) providing for valuation Of lands,
&c.; and in the same year an act laying a
direct tax. In the year following an insurrec-
ton took place in the counties Of Bucks and
Northampton, in Pennsylvania, to resist the
execution of these acts. Fries was arrested
and committed as one of the ringleaders in the
Instruction. The Indictment charged that the
said Fries. (giving time and place. with a
number of persons to the jurors unknown, " a
great number, to wit, to the number of one
arrayed in 4 warlike manner, that is to
say, with guns, swords, and other warlike
weapons, as well offensive as defensive,
being then and there unlawfully and trail
torously assembled, did traitorously assem-
BILE and combine against the said United
States, and then and there, with force and
arms, wickedly and traitorously, and with the
wicked and tratorous intention to oppose and
prevent, by means of intimidation and vio-
lence, the execution of the said laws of the
said United States within the same, did ar
ray and dispose themselves in warlke and
: hostile manner against the said United States,
and then and there, with force and arms, in
pursuance of such their traitorous intention,
he the said John Fries, with the said persons,
SO as aforesaid traitorously assembled, armed
and arrayed in manner aforesaid, wickedly and
traitorously did levy war against the said
United States. There was second count,
stating Fries and the others opposed the mar
: shall of the United States, in and for said dis
trict, in the execution of his duty and office,
&C., There was also third count, for resc,i-
ing persons in his custody, &c."
FRIES was brought to trial at circuit court
held in Philadelphia in April, 1899, before
Judges IREDELL and PETERS. The facts al
legged in the indictment being fully proved,
LEWIS and DALLAS, the able counsel of the
prisoner, rested his defence on the points of
law. They contended that, to resist by force
of arms particular law of the United States,
though public one, did not amount to levying
war, within the true meaning of the Consttu-
ton, but was only riot After full discus
sion, the principle established in MITcHELL's
case was reaffirmed, "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.
new trial was granted in this case on the
ground that one of the jurors, before he was
sworn on the trial, had made some declaration
unfavorable to the prisoner. On fully examin-
ing the indictment, the court found the question
of law arising on it the same as had been deci-
ded in MITcHELL's case, and on FRIEs's first
trial Holding themselves bound by this deci-
sion, Judge CHASE drew up an opinion, which
Judge PETERS approved, reafiirming the law
Of the cases above cited. This opinion affirms
in substance that any instruction or ''rsing of
any body of the people," to resist or prevent
by force or violence any statute of the United
States, under any pretence, ''as that the statute
was unequal, burthensome, oppressive, or un-
constitutional, is levying war against the
G 4ol he
and because this has direct tendency to dis
solve all the bonds of society, and to destroy
all order, and all laws, and also all security for
the lives, liberties, and property of the citizens
of the United States.
In the same trial he stated the opinion Of
the court TO be /" that if body of peo-
pie conspire and mediate an instruction
to resist or oppose the execution of any
statute of the United States by force,