Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1922-09-28
Not Many Trials For Treason.

Inc conviction Of Walter Allen on
the charge OF treason a few weeks
ago in the Circuit Court OF LETTER
son county was an interesting episode
IN our States history. In his charge
10 the jury Judge J. NJ. Woods said:
III you believe from the evidence
and circumstances in the case that the
defendant, Walter Allen, was present,
which presence at any time must be
proved by at least two witnesses for
the State, with the said armed assemb-
lage in the county of Logan, with the
intent OF him, the said Walter Allen,
to levy war against the said State and
for the purpose of invading Mingo
county. OF said State, With the obicc,
to nu!i!fy, destroy CT overthrow martiai
law in Mingo county, then he. the said
walter Alien, is guilty of treason, an
you should therefore render a verde;
Of guilty"
This instruction of the court follows
hard on an opinion handed down pre-
viously, in which the question Of what
| constituted treason was gone into at
some length. The court held, in effect,
that the armed asSemblage described
in the voluminous evidence introduced
was, in fact, a reasonable assemblape:
that Its object was to levy war upon
the State. The court, in defining
treason, held that treason, according
to the authorities, consisted in an
effort to overthrow the government al
together-to subvert it, "To override
1t, probably, would be what that would
mean," the court added.
Pursuing this subject further, the
court drew an analogy from the crime
of assault upon an individual. The
crime of treason, it held, consisted of
an assault upon the State itself
Now" said the court, whether we
say the beginning of the march con-
stituted the levying Of war and there
fore treason, or whether we say mobi-
lization itself constituted the leeying
of Wharf.-The threat against the State
makes little difference in this case, be-
cause both steps were taken"
This is the first treason conviction
ever obtained in the State Of West Viz
ginia and one of very few in the United
States. Probably score or more men
were convicted Of treason in connection
with the whiskey rebellion during
President Washington's administration,
and in that generation treason does not
appear to have been regarded with the
seriousness that attaches to it at pres
ent.
The tendency to try for treason after
riots and similar assemblages was
halted sharply by the famous Marshall
opinion in the Burr case. Butt was
acquitted, and Marshall defined treason
So sharply that very few indictments
appear to have been found on the
charge after that.
Those recorded in law books follow:
Fourteen persons convicted after
Shay's rebellion in Massachusetts dur
ing the early days of the republic.
A mao named Fries, convicted in
connection with outbursts in Pennsyl-
vania against liquor and other taxes.
He was granted a new trial after his
first conviction, was convicted again,
and was afterward pardoned by Pres
ident Adams.
A man named Paine, in Vermont, in
dicted, but acquitted, after the delivery
of some 90 prisoners from party Of
militia.
Three cases-Pryor, Of Pennsyl-
vania; Hodges, of Maryland, and Corn
well, of New York, for acts during the
war of 1912. All were acquitted.
In 1912 man named Dorr tried to
take possession OF the State Capitol of
Rhode Island after alleging he had
been fraudently counted out in an
election. He was convicted and sem
fenced to the penitentiary for life.
Hanway, Of Pennsylvania, headed a
mob which tried to prevent the recap
ture Of fugitive slaves. He was &C
quilted.
John Brown, in 1889, tried, convict
ed and hanged, after capturing a
United States arsenal at Harper's Fer
ry (then in the State of Virginia.
He was tried in the same courthouse
where Allen heard the verdict against
him last week.
Several cases growing out of the
Civil War-Greathouse, Harpending