be moved or not, I cannot say, but I know at best it is doubtful. The court therefore ought to proceed in the clearest manner not to run the risk of defeating the prosecution of a cause so important. It is the great desire of this court to do the most impartial justice between the public and the prisoner, and not from private humanity on the one hand, or resentment on the other, to lean either way. As to the common law principles of vicinage, there are advantages and there are disadvantages attending it. The advantages are, that the parties are known by, and know their jurors and witnesses, that their characters may be viewed, and the most impartial justice done. But if nearly one whole county has been in a state of insurrection, can it be said that a fair trial can be had there? We may at least presume it could not, because the President of the United States ordered a military force there, to enforce the execution of the laws. It was by this military force that the prisoners are now convened in this city, and I have reason to believe, from the opinion and knowledge of the judge with whom I now act, that it would be exceedingly improper to hold the trials there. It was hinted that troops are still there, and they could promote the execution of justice; but what sort of justice is that of the sword? If they would operate at all, it would be by intimidation, and this would be to the prejudice of the prisoner, and in no respect in his favor. This consideration alone, in my opinion, would make it "manifestly inconvenient" for a trial to be held there. With respect to the principles of common law, the gentlemen well know that the venire may be changed, that is, that parts of the jury may be summoned from other counties. I do not know whether there is a power in the courts to change the venire in England in a criminal case, but I know that in some difficult cases, where partiality was to be apprehended, an act of Parliament has been passed to remove the trial. This was done respecting the rebellion in Scotland, for the manifest reason of partiality. This proves that we ought not to look to one side only, but to both, and then form our determination.

Upon the whole, I am clearly of opinion that, as the motion could not be granted without running the risk of these uncertainties, but certain inconveniences, it would not be expedient to allow it, and therefore the trial must go forward.

Indictment in the Circuit Court of the United States of America, in and for the Pennsylvania District of the Middle Circuit.

The Grand Inquest of the United States of America, for the Pennsylvania district, upon their respective oaths and affirmations, do present that John Fries, late of the county of Bucks, in the District of Pennsylvania, he being an inhabitant of, and residing within the said United States, to wit, in the district aforesaid, and under the protection of the laws of the said United States, and owing allegiance and fidelity to the same United States, not having the fear of God before his eyes, nor weighing the duty of his said allegiance and fidelity, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil, wickedly devising and intending the peace and tranquillity of the said United States to disturb, on the seventh day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine at Bethlehem, in the county of Northampton, in the district aforesaid, unlawfully, mali

ciously and traitorously did compass, imagine and intend to raise and levy war, insurrection and rebellion against the said United States; and to fulfil and bring to effect the said traitorous compassings, imaginations and intentions of him the said John Fries, he, the said John Fries, afterwards, that is to say, on the said seventh day of March in the said year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, at the said county of Northampton in the district aforesaid, with a great multitude of persons, whose names at present are unknown to the Grand Inquest aforesaid, to a great number, to wit, to the number of one hundred persons and upwards, armed and arrayed in a warlike manner, that is to say, with guns, swords, clubs, staves and other warlike weapons, as well offensive as defensive, being then and there unlawfully, maliciously and traitorously assembled and gathered together, did falsely and traitorously assemble and join themselves together against the said United States, and then and there, with force and arms, did falsely and traitorously, and in a warlike and hostile manner, array and dispose themselves against the said United States, and then and there, with force and arms, in pursuance of such their traitorous intentions and purposes aforesaid, he, the said John Fries, with the said persons so as aforesaid traitorously assembled, and armed and arrayed in manner aforesaid, most wickedly, maliciously and traitorously did ordain, prepare and levy public war against the said United States, contrary to the duty of his said allegiance and fidelity, against the Constitution, peace and dignity of the said United States, and also against the form of the act of the Congress of the said United States, in such case made and provided.

WILLIAM RAWLE, Attorney of the United States for the Pennsylvania District. The prisoner having been set to the bar, pleaded not guilty. The petit jury impanneled, consisted of the following gentlemen: WILLIAM JOLLY, City.

SAMUEL MITCHELL, Bucks.
RICHARD LEEDOM,

do.

ANTHONY CUTHBERT, City.

ALEXANDER FULLERTON, City.

JOHN SINGER, City.

WILLIAM RAMSAY, Bucks.

SAMUEL RICHARDS, City.

GERARDUS WYNKOOP, Bucks.

JOSEPH THORNTON, City.

PHILIP WALTER, Northampton.

JOHN RHOAD, Northampton.

Some difficulties arose as to the two latter gentlemen being qualified, they being Germans, and not sufficiently understanding the English language: however, it was agreed that any difficulties of that nature might be explained to them, and it was urged that they would understand many of the witnesses better than others, several of those being Germans also, and could not speak English, on which account Mr. Erdman was sworn for interpreter.

MR. SITGREAVES opened the trial as follows:

Gentlemen of tHE JURY :-By the indictment which has been just read to you, you perceive that John Fries, the prisoner at the bar, has put himself on trial before you, on an accusation of having committed the greatest offence which can be perpetrated in this, or any other country, and it will devolve on you to determine, according to the evidence which will be produced to you, on the important question of life or death. It is the duty of those that prosecute, to open to you, as clearly as they are able, those principles of law which apply to the offender, and then to state to you the testimony with which the accusation is supported. This duty has devolved upon me, and I hope, while I regard my duty as accuser, I shall do it in such a way as shall do no injustice to the prisoner. However, if I should be incorrect, there are sufficient opportunities for me to be corrected by the vigilance which the counsel engaged on behalf of the prisoner will use, and the order which the court will observe. These are sufficient to correct any mis-statements, but I will use my utmost endeavours to be guilty of

none.

The prisoner is indicted of the crime of treason. Treason is defined in the Constitution of the United States, section 3, art. 3, in the words following: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

This crime appears to be limited to two descriptions: the one, levying war against the United States, and the other adhering to its enemies. With respect to the latter branch of the description, there will be no occasion for any explanation, or to call your attention in the least to it, because it is not charged upon the prisoner; he is charged with having committed treason in levying war.

This expression, phraseology, or description as adopted by our Constitution, is borrowed from a statute of Great Britain, passed in the reign of Edward III., which has, ever since it passed, commanded the veneration and respect of that nation, almost equal with their great charter: it is considered as a great security to their liberties. Indeed the uniform and unanimous consent given to this statute, through a great lapse of time, by the most able writers on law; its never having undergone the least alteration amidst the most severe scrutinies, and its adoption into the Constitution of the United States, without the least amendment, are sufficient encomiums to prove its worth. I shall state to you, as far as is necessary to the present application of that statute, the most able and judicious expositions, but without recurring to a variety of authorities which might be quoted.

The crime of treason, as it has been laid down by those writers, generally allowed to be the most able on law, whose accuracy is unquestionable, is the highest crime that can possibly be committed against the good government of a nation, and a considerable inroad into the liberties of a subject. In discussing this crime, I shall only recur to the notes which I have taken, and my own knowledge of the law; if that statement should be inaccurate, there are sufficient opportunities for amendment in the course of this trial. Treason consists in levying war against the government of the United States: it may confidently be said not only to consist in joining or aiding the hostile intentions of a foreign enemy; nor is it confined to rebellion in the broad sense in which that word is generally understood; or in the utter subversion of the government and its fundamental institutions: but it also consists in the raising a military force from among the people for the purpose of attaining any object with a design of opposing the lawful authority of the government by dint of arms, in some matter of public concern in which the insurgents have no particular interest distinct from the rest of the community. This is the best

description of the crime of treason, as it relates to the matter before you, which I am able to give. A tumultuously raising the people with force, for the purpose of subverting, or opposing the lawful authority of the government, in which those insurgents have no particular interest distinct from the people at large.

Agreeably to the division made in the definition of treason by Lord Hale, it must consist both in levying war, and in levying war against the govern ment of the United States. Respecting levying of war, it is to be understood, agreeably to the most approved authorities, that there must be an actual military array. I mention this because I think it proper to be particular in so essential and important an inquiry, and because I think we shall prove to you that this was actually done by the prisoner. Another thing I wish you to bear in mind is, that war may be sufficiently levied against the United States, although no violence be used, and although no battle be fought. It is not necessary that actual violence should take place, to prove the actual waging of war. If the arrangements are made, and the numbers of armed men actually appear, so as to procure the object which they have in view by intimidation, as well as by actual force, that will constitute the offence.

It must be war waged against the United States. This is an important distinction. A large assemblage of people may come together; in whatever numbers; however they may be armed or arrayed, or whatever degree of violence they may commit, yet that alone would not constitute treason; the treason must be known; it must be for a public and not a private revenge: it must be avowedly levying war against the United States; if people assemble in this hostile manner only to gratify revenge, or any other purpose independ ent of war against the United States, it will only amount to a riot; but if it is an object in which the person has no particular interest, this constitutes the offence of treason. There are a variety of instances which might be produced in order to illustrate this definition of the law, but it is not necessary to turn to them. Suffice it to say that it is the intention or end for which an insurrection is raised, which constitutes the crime. This of course you will have in mind when the testimony is gone into. I will just observe, as applicable to this case, that one instance which is defined, of the crime of treason, is, to defeat the operation of the laws of the government; any insurrection, I will be bold to say, to defeat the execution of the public laws, amounts to treason. Having given you this explanation of treason, so far as I suppose it is connected with the present awful occasion, I shall now proceed to state the amount of evidence we mean to produce, in order to prove that the unhappy prisoner was guilty of that high crime.

It will appear, gentlemen, from the testimony which will be presented to you, that, during the latter months of the year 1798, discords prevailed to an enormous extent throughout a large portion of the counties of Bucks, Northampton, and Montgomery, and that considerable difficulties attended the assessors for the direct tax in the execution of the duties of their assessment. It is not in the nature of this inquiry to explain for what purpose, or by what means, the opposition was made: it is not necessary to say whether the complaints urged were well or ill founded, because it is a settled point that any insurrection for removing public grievances, whether the complaints be real or pretended, amounts to treason, because it is not the mode pointed out by law for obtaining redress. It will then be sufficient to show you that discon tents did exist, and that in various townships of those counties: that in several townships, associations of the people were actually formed, in order to prevent the persons charged with the execution of those laws of the United States from performing their duty upon them, and more particularly to prevent the assessors from measuring their houses: this opposition was made at many public township meetings called for the purpose; in many instances resolutions were entered into, and reduced to writing, solemnly forewarning

the officers whose duty it was to execute the laws, and these, many times accompanied with threats if they should perform that duty. Not only so, but discontents prevailed to such an height, that even the friends of the government in that part were completely suppressed by menaces against any who should assist those officers in their duty. Repeated declarations were made, both at public, as well as at private meetings, that if any person should be arrested by the civil authority, such arrests would be followed by the rising of the people, in opposition to that authority, for the pupose of rescuing such arrested prisoners. It will appear to you farther, gentlemen, in the course of evidence, that, during those discontents, indefatigable pains were taken by those who were charged with the execution of the laws, to calm the fears, and to remove the misapprehensions of the infatuated people; for this purpose, they read and explained the law to them, and informed them that they were misled into the idea that the law was not in force, for that it actually was; at the same time warning them of the consequences which would flow from opposition; and this was accompanied with promises that even their most capricious wishes would be gratified on their obedience. The favour was in many instances granted, that where any opposition was made to any certain person executing the office of assessor, in some townships proposals were made for the people to choose for themselves, but notwithstanding this accommodating offer, the opposition continued.

After having shown to you the general extent of this combination and dangerous conspiracy, which existed in all the latitude I have opened to your view, we shall next give in evidence full proof that the consequences were actual opposition and resistance: in some parts, violence was actually used, and the assessors were taken and imprisoned by armed parties; and in others, mobs assembled to compel them, either to deliver up their papers, or to resign their commissions; that in some instances they were threatened with bodily harm, so that in those parts, the obnoxious law did remain unexecuted in consequence of this alarm. Seeing that the state of insurrection and rebellion had arisen to such a height, it became necessary, in order to support the dignity, and indeed the very existence of the government, that some means should be adopted to compel the execution of those laws; and warrants were in consequence issued against certain persons who had so opposed the laws: these processes being put into the hands of the marshal of the district, were served upon some of them: in some instances, during the execution of that duty, the marshal met with insult, and almost with violence: having, however, got nearly the whole of the warrants served, he appointed head quarters for these prisoners to rendezvous at Bethlehem, where some of them were to enter bail for their appearance in the city, and others were to come to the city in custody, for trial. It will appear to you, that, on the day thus appointed for the prisoners to meet, and when a number of them had actually assembled agreeably to appointment, a number parties in arms, both horse and foot, more than an hundred men, accoutred with all their military apparatus, commanded in some instances by their proper officers-marched to Bethlehem, collected before the house in which were the marshal and prisoners, whom they demanded to be delivered up to them, and in consequence of refusal, they proceeded to act very little short of actual hostility, so that the marshal deemed it prudent to accede to their demands, and the prisoners were liberated.

This, gentlemen, is the general history of the insurrection. I shall now state to you the part which the unfortunate prisoner at the bar took in those hostile transactions. It will appear that the prisoner is an inhabitant of the township of Lower Milford, in the county of Bucks; that some time in February last, a public meeting was held at the house of one John Kline in that township, to consider, in relation to this house tax, what was to be done; that at that meeting certain resolutions were entered into, and a paper signed; (we have