M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1862-05-15

ana ana comfort" relates TO a public
war with a fo;eigu enemy. The learned
couseI cited to numerous authorities in
support Of his proposition. The Court
took the motion under advisement,
and yesterday morning Justice
SwaYne delivered the following com.
plete end very able opinion.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.
The United States Us. James W. Chea9reil
Indictment for Treason - Motion "a
qudsh The Indictment,
SwAYNE, JUSTICE. The indictment
contains two counts. As they are
identical, rs regards the qustion row
to be decided, the frat count only will
be particularly adverted to.
That coUu; charges, substantially,
that there is in progress an insurrcc.
.tion aud war against the Government
Of the United States, by persons styl.
lug themselves "the Confederate
States of America :" that the defend.
ant, residing within and owing allie.
glance to the United States, well know
ing the premises, but not regarding the
duty Of his allegiance, and corsplring
aud intending 10 aid and assist the
persons styling themselves qs afore.
said, during the insnrrection and war,
to wit : On the Goth day Of June, 1850.
anu on divers other days, before and
alter thst day, at the city oil Cincinnati,
in the Southern District OF Ohio, did
traitorously adhere TO tho persons styl.
ing themselves as aforesaid. then aud
yet being enemies Of tie United States;
and that in the prosecution ofhis trai.
torous Odheriag aforesaid, he did pro.
cure certain supplies and munitions of
war 10 wit: 90 Colts navy revolving
pistols, 10 fve.inch revolving pistols
and 80 pistols, Of one Salhuel Drey.
loos' and iroh ivers other persope Un.
known, with intent traitorously to
deliYer 10 the persons styling them.
selves as aforesaid said supplies and
munitiona of war; and thar, in further
prosecution Of his trditorous adheFipg
aforesaid, hc dN, on the days ars ut
the PLACES aforesaid, deliver to the aAd
persons styling themselves as aforesaid
the said supplies and munitions of
war, Tor the aid, comfort and use OF
said persons in the prosecution Of their
said insurrection and war against the
United States.
The Constitution of the United
States, Article 8, Section 8, provides
that "Treason against the United Sta.
tes shall consist only in levying war
against them, or in adhering to their
enemies, giving them aid and com.
fort"
The Act of Congress eff April 80,
1900, Section l, is as follows:
"lf any person Or persons owing al.
legiance to the United States of Amer
lea shall levy war against them, Or
shall adhere to their enemies, giving
to them aid and comfort, within the
United States or elsewhere, and shall
he thereof convicted" &c., they "shall
suffer death"
This Indictment is framed under the
second provision of this section OF the
statute. That provision relates ex-
clnslvely 20 adherlng TO the enemles
Of the United States, and giving them
aid and comfort. The prior provia.
ion relates to levying war against the
United S&tes. 1t has no connection
with the question involved in this
motion, and need not be further dyer
ted to.
The secoud provision is a literal
translation-.mu'atiS mutdndjs-. from
the Norman.french, Of the provision
upon the same subject in the English
statIte, Of the 25tb Edward the Third
InOn soft adhefent as enemies nostre'
signiour lie roy, rux eux donant
aid ct comfort en- so r0ialme ct alors. "
In support of the motion to quash,
| it IS claimed that the provision in the
English statute, upon which this in.
dictment is founded, has always been
held by the English courts to apply
only to those who adhere and comfort
to foreign enemies, and that it has no
application to those who commit the
ike acts in respect Of domestic trail
tors, engaged in insurrection or REBEL.
ion against their own Government.
The following authorities are relied
upon in support of this proposition f: 8
Coke's Inst, II: Hale's z. O., $50
Fosters c. L., ch, 23S, sec. 70 ; 2
Gritty. Cr. L., 81 +. b. Com, g.,
6 Danes Ab., 697.
We have carefully examined these
authorities. They sustain fully the
proposition they have bsen cited to
support.
1t ia fnther claimed py the counsel
for the defendent that this provision
of the English statute having been