. ii i - ,;ti , .1 ,1 r""nr,-"-'i'i:iir4 y-S'-Y-"- anTu.i H ,j rf AxJc-, v"-", '
'fr
XL JL AJT
mm
Ouri are the plans of fair delightful petce,
Unwarp'd by pmty re, to live like brother!.
23
No ,233,
Monday, April 2,
in Jin xi M'm mmM1! u&ts 4' .4'
" v.r ' ' : '' ' v"' f'"' ' "v:; ' '
MctMGaoliiria Stale l-azetti,
l
IMPEACHMENT
exhibited jn the fart of the
i1! Htchard ttttri. or either of
ihetn
J AvClc you prcvai- -
f John Friis for high treason, in the
fu'cuit coart of Pennylvania--in the
years 1799 ana isuu.
2. Who presided ait those trials ?
3, What were the- circumstances,
eneralty which aUendkl them ?
& 4. Were the counsel for the pri
soner, t the first tripl, permitted to
areue the Point whether the offence
charged amounted 'to; high treason I
5, Vcre thy prevented by the
t f,-nm arcuinc that uomt on the
second trial ? ; ;
' (j, vVas the prisoner condemned
without counsel being heard in his
.defence ? j
7. Did any correspondence ever
Tuss between you and the Executive
of the United States on that occasion ?
and if any, of what nature ?
8. Is that correspondence now in
jour posse ssin ? i
9. Relate eveiy thing 'within your
knowledge which happened at the last
trial ? ' . i
19. Are you acquainted with the
circumstances which'attcuded the tri
al of Thomas Cooper for sedition?
11. Relate; those circumstances ?
12. Wasa siabpcena to summon any
witness in behalf of the accused refu
sed i how ? and by whom ?
The'wfwers of William jLewis to the al0Te
interrogatories.
I, William Lewis,! of the city of
Philadelphia, being one of those peo
ple called Quakers, and conscientious
ly scrupulous of takijig an oath, on
my solemn -.affirmation declare and
rm os follows
)That I was present at the trial of
Jok Flies, for treascln in the circuit
court of Pennsylvania, in the yer
1799' and assisted him as his counsel.
at hia request, and I believe under an
assignment for that purpose by the
court, but I have no 'recollection of
being present at any part of his trial
for treason in. 1 300- ;
That the first trial was, before the
honourable James Iredell, one of the
associate justices of the supreme couri
of the United States, and the honour-1
abltjRichard Peters,- jij-.lc of the dis
trict! court of Pennsylvania.
That Mr. Dallas,' Mr. W.T.wing
and ; I were council lor the prisoner,
and were permitted freely to produce
every authority, and , to vire every
argument which we thought proper
and relevant, on the ;lav us well as
the facts, to prove that the offence
did not amount to treason, that the
trial was conducted, to the best of my
judgment and belief, with moderation,
patience and indulgence, awl I do not
recollect any thing to have. taken place
during the trial, that. seem' to me to
merit particular notice, except that,
after the prisoner had beeji convicted,
a new trial was granted, on the mo
tion of Mr. Dallas and myself; prin
cipally, I believe, on the ground, that
one ol the jurors, after he had been
Summoned, and be fore he Was' sworn,
had made declarations manifesting a
prejudication of the case. against the
prisoners, m general, and more parti
cularly so against John Fries. '
It is with great regret that I find
jnvself called on at this distance of
tune, when I fear that my recollec
tion may in some degree fail me, to
answer the fifth interrogatory, .and- I
ieel 11 a duty to add,?' that although
tty memory is, I believe a remark
ably accurate one for sifart time, it
JsJar from being so after a -considerable
lapse of time ; and it h there
fore possible that my answers to this
interrogatory may- not- be so correct
I wish them to be, '.but they shall
c as much so as it is in my power
idKe tnem.
To the best, then, of iny recollec
lonand belief, the following circum
stances took place on the' twt days
xt preceding thctrialof John Fries
treason hefore the honourable Sa
uel Chase, one of the associate
1 ges of the sunreme court of the
pfl States, and the honourable
' chard Peters, judge' of the district
ti r r,ennsylvama, in the
wAprd or early in May,
latter
1800.
Houfc of Rcpre4enttives to Willum Lewi
.j Alexander fame Diilas upon the eai-
..rrnoaiories
33 , .v.. io;,.;,.! !MnJnA of Samuel
IMIB III k vuivtni : v '
Mr. Dullas and I were the counsel of
the prisoner, at his request, and I
believe by the appointment of the
COlin. KJll Hie iliac w
when I entered the, court-room, the
judges were on ; the bench, the jury
Were soon alter called anajnany. oi
them appeared, I am unable to say
whether John Frie was at this time
in the bar assigned for criminals or
t: but if he was not then, 1 teel
sur that he was placed there in a
few minutes after Mr. Dallas was
not at this 'time in court, and before
he came, judge Chase handed, or
threw down to ' Mr. Caldwell, the
clerk of the court,' one or more pa
pers, and at the same time delivered
himself, in substance, and as nearly
as can be recollected, to the follow- j
ing effect : That he understood, or j
had been informed, that on the for-1
mer trial or trials, there had been
great waste of time, by counciUma
king long speeches to the jury on the
law as well as On i the facts, and on
matters which had nothing to do with
the business before the courf; and
he particularly, noticed-in strohg and
pointed terms of disapprobation, their
having" read, and. I think having been
permitted to read, certain parts of
certain statutes of the United States,
relating to crimes less than treason,
in' order to shew that the prisoner's
case came within them, and which,
he said, he or the court (I do not re
collect which) would not suffer to be
read again, as they had nothing to do
with the question. He'added, thatj
we are judges of the law and under- i
stand it, or we are not fit to sit here ; j
tnat cases' at the common law, or un
der the statute law of England pre
vious to the -English revolution, had
nothing to do with tlte question, and
that they would Hot suffer them to
be read ; that they had made up their
mind on the laV, and had reduced it
to writing, and that the counsel might
conduct themselves accordingly (or
conformably to it) ; he or they had
ordered copies of it to be made, and
one of them to be delivered to the
counsel in support of the prosecution,
and another to the prisoner's counsel,
and that as soon as the case was open
ed or gone through (I am not sure
which was the expression) on the
part of the prosecution, he orthey
(I am not certain which) should or
der one to be delivered to the jury.
He also added, that" if we had any
fault to find with the opinion of the
court, or had any thing to say on the
law, to shew that they were wrong
or had mistaken it, we must adfttess
ourselves to the Court, and not totsthe
jury. About the time when drudge
Chase began to speak, the clerk hand
ed me one of the papers If I looked
at it, it has escaped my recollection,
but if I did, lam confident that 1
read but a very; small part of it, as
my attention was immediately en
gaged bv the declarations made by
judge Chase, and I vecy Soon threw !
;t from me, declaring in court, but
whether addressing -myself to it or
not I cannot recollect, that my hand
should never be tainted by receiving a
prejudged opinion in any case, much
less in a capital one. The novelty, '
as well asithe nature of the proceed
ing,; agitated me considerably, and I
replied with, that warmth which I
thoufrht the 'occasion demanded, as
nearly a 1 can recollect, as follows :
That in civil cases I demed it pro
per that the consideration of the law
and the facts should be kept as sepa-
rate as possible, and that the former
should be determined by the court,
and the latter by- the jury ; but that
in criminal casesj and especially in
capital ones, it was the constitutional
right of the jury, tcr determine the
law as well as the facts ; that it was
the right of the prisoner for the jury
to pass between him and his country
on both of them ; that it was the right
of his eounsel to address the jury on
the law as well as the facts ; that I
deemed this right a sacred and great
constitutional one, which should ne
ver be sacrificed by me ; and I added r
that I never had, and never would
address the court on the law in any
criminal prosecution whatever.-
That although the constitution and
statute of the UnitedStates might
not .perhaps- be .materially different
from the English statute of treason;!
as 10 levying ot war, and although
thejudjes in England, since their si-!
tuatton was rendered independent,
had been able and upright, itdid noi
follow that tie law of treason, as set-"
uledpii that country, was applicable
here, because the judges there had,
since the revolution, and since their
independence, held; themselves in
many particulars bound by former
decisions,; but that our judges were
not bound by them in the construc
tion of a new statute of our own, and
that I therefore could not submit to
the doctrine, that Whatever was the
present law of treason in England, as
to the levying of war, was the law of
treason in this country. That it was
important to guard at the beginning
against a latitude of construction of
our own constitution and law, by shew
ing the extravagant lengths which
courts in England had gone under the
statute of Edward the Illd. before
the judges were independent, and
when many of the constructions which
prevail at this day were established ;
that I deemed it the right of counsel
to shew this, and if I was deprived of
it, and if the court had made up their
mind on the law before the jury were
sworn, before any evidence was given,
and before the prisoner's counsel had
been heard, and if the counsel were
now to be restricted in the manner
declared by judge Chase, 1 despaired
of being ab.le to render the prisoner
ar-v service, as there Was but little, if
any dispute, rvs to the facts, and his
case depended in a great measure, if
not aitogetner, on tne law. it is 1m
possible for me at this distance of
time to repeat the precise words that
were made" use of, in so sudden and
unexpected an tdtercation ; but I feel
confident that I h.ive stated the sub
stance, and most material parts, and
although I am not conscious -of it, it
is possible that some parts of what I
have mentioned as being said by me,
passed on the second and not dn the
urst day.
Judge Chase apparently heard Tile
with impatience (I mean on the first
day) and most certainly without seem
ing to pay much regard to what had
been said by rne.
In an early -stage of the business I
was struck with th eidea, tha' if judge
Chase had made up his mind on the
law, it was nat likely that any thing
which Mr, Dallas or I could say
would alter it; and that if we with
drew from the prisoner's defence un
der the circumstance which took
place, and left him without counsel,
and if he should be condemned, it
Was not likely that he would be exe
cuted; and I therefore concluded in
my own mind that it would be best
for us to do so, more especially as
we had been a signed by thecourt,
and I thought we might do it with
out dishonour to ourselves.
As soon as I saw Mr. Dallas com
ing into court, I met him, and gave
him a brief (I believe not a, full) ac
count of what had taken place, and
of my determinai-on if he concurred
in it. He did concur, and we went
to the bar together, where he repeat
ed, in part, the sentiments which had
been delivered by me, with some ad
ditional ones. The trial did not come
on that day. I am not sure of the
cause which prevented it, nor have I
the least recollection of havin g heard
judge Peters on that day say a sin
gle word on the subject 'which has
been mentioned.
Mr. Dallas and I informed John
Fries of our determination to w4ih4
draw ourselves from his defence, if
he would agree to it ; and we strong
ly recommended to him to do so, as
we did not think .it likely, after what
had passed, that we could render him
any service in court; and as-our with
drawing ourselves might, and proba
bly would, be of material use to him
with the President, if he should be
convicted. He seemed greatlv ahu-m-
ed at his situation, and perplexed to
know what, to do. We told him that
if he insisted on it, we would go on
in his defence, and render him all the .
service in our power ; but that, after
what had passed, we feared it would
be little, if any.
He at length raid, that his depend
ence was on hsi that he was sure we
would advise him to the hest, - and,
that he would do as we thought p ro-;
per.' It was then agreed that we
should withdraw ourselves, as had
been proposed. I believe it was not,
t thjls timehut trta&W before "he
was called oh in court the next day,
tt struck me: that peyhaps the court
might offer to assign him other poun
sel ; and as I supposed that the rea
son which influenced the conduct of
Mr. Dallas and- me, should equally
apply to them, 1 advised him not to
accept of it, and he agreed to follow
my advice.
When I have said that Mr. Dallas
and I told the prisoner, that if he in
sisted on it we would go on in his
defence, I am not to be understood,
that we would have done it under
the rcslriction: which had been at
tempted by judge Chase", but that we
would have gone on in the usual man
ner, and in the exercise and enjoy
ment of all our professional rights,
until we were stopped by the. court ;
and so far as concerns myself, I so
lemnly declare, thati if I knov my
own mind, I would have gone on iri
this way, or not at all ; that I would
hot have tamely surrendered any one
ot me nents ior wmcn 1 contenaea ;
that I held them, and still hold them
10 sacred, that I should have persist-
ed in them, Until I was stopped by anj
actual exercise of the authoritv of thei
court; and that if thishad taken place,
nothing could have induced me to
have proceeded further, whatever the
consequence might have been.
Having, as I believed, with Mr.
Dallas, faithfully done our duty oh
th,- first day, and satisfied John Fries
of the propriety of bur conduct, and
prevailed on him to follow our ad
vice, I went to court the next day
with a mind somewhat indifferent as
to what might take place, and I be
lieve intending to neither say nor do
anv tiling more than to inform the
court, that neither Mr. Dallas nor I
v.".is any longer the counsel for the
prisoner, and that we should take ho
part in his defence. Soon after the
opening of the court, judge Chase
addressing himself to Mr. Dallas and
me, asked if we were rdfady- to pro
ceed ; on which 1 answered, that we
were" no longer the prisoner's coun
sel, and I began to state in a" few
words our reasons for our -withdrawing
ourselves from hi?, defence, when
I was interrupted by his telling me,
tha; we might. go on in our own way,
as we pkased, and that tht court
would hear us; and to the best of
my recollection he expressed himdelf 1
m terms which evidently shewed a
I willingness that -vt? night go on With
out the previous restrictions ,whtch j
had been insisted on the day before.
Vte refused, on account of what had
passed, and of the determination
w hich we had taken. The court en
deavoured to prevail on us to proceed
but it was in vain, for we were posi
tive and determined not to db it.
Judge Peters said that we might take
W as large a range as we pleased, and
asked if an error hail been committed,
if we would not suffer it to be cor
rected ? or words to this effect. He
added, that the papers which had
given so much offence had been all
called in, and I think he said that
they had been burned or destroyed.
I observed that iJthough that might
be the case With respect to' the papers,
it was not so with respect to the pre
determination on the minds, of the
judges, which still remained, and
would have the same effect as if the
papers were. still in existence. I ad
ded, that many of the jurymen w ho
had been present and heard what had
passed, might be on the triai with
all the prejudices which the de era ra
tion's from the bench on the preced
ing day had created. The court ap
peared anxfous to induce. Mr--Dallas
and me to undertake the prisoner's
defehce, and certainly offered to re
move every pre v ions" restriction which'
had been insisted oh the day before.
Jj We repeated and insisted on seH'eral
i-i of the grounds wl.-ch we had taken
j on the preceding day, and absolutely
I refused to have anv thing further to
do with the 'prisoner's defence before
thecourt. I then left it, and do not
recollect to have been there again
until I was informed of his trial and
conviction ; and I therefore cannot
sajr what circumstances attended' his
second trial. It is proper to add, that
'when judge Chase desired Mr. Dallas
and me on the. second day to go, op
jm our own way, arid as we pleased,
jhe said it wpulcr be at the risk orha
j zard of our characters, if we attemnt-
ecl to conduct' ourselves imtVropVrJvi
ani that- itrrriist be iwh riics d !
tlnn of the court, which -would judge
of what was rigKt, bt words Ho fth& -
ettect. . . . v . . 7
That I have always understood an
believed the prisoner was condemned
without cbunsel, being heard in his
defence; butnbt having been present
atjthe second trial, ' I cannot assert it
of my bwn knowledge.
That soon after senteiice of death
Had, as I understood, beeii pronouni
ced on Fries; t Mr. Thomas Adamsr,
the son of the ,then President AdamsJ
spoke to me in court, and said his
father wished tb know the, points and .
authorities which Mri Dallas arji I
had intended, to rely on in favour of
Fries, if we had defended him oft hii
last trial ; and asked if I had ariy ol "
jectidns to his seeing them ! t said
that I had not ; but the Priesideht he
ver sent to the for them, nor did X
ever send them to him; Shortly af
ter this, Charles Lee, Esq. the them
Attorney General, made a similar re-
quest of me, and assigned as a reasori
for h, that he migj)t perhaps be con- '
suicea Dy, tne rresiaent Q me occa
sion, and wished to consider the case j
but he did not tell me . that the, re
quest came from lhe President, nor
that he intended laying the staternent
which he asked 'for, before him. I
spoke to Mr. Dallas and we agreed
tb comply witH Mr. Lee's requests
Mr. Dallas prepared a statement jji'
the form of a letter, from : him and
me, to Mr; Lee j and. sent it to me j
I made some alterations in it- had It
cBpied, and theh' sent to Mr. Dallas
the original draft and alterations, to
gether with the copy, signed by me; !
The letter was, as I understcqd sign
ed by .Mr.. Dallas, and sent to Mri
Lee. Mr. Dallas being in pbssfessidht
of the original draft and alterations
is more capable of. proving the con
tents than I am; He has sent! me a
copy,, which I suppose'&jjbefbjrect
but &s I have not .cbmpaire4 ' it-wth
the original, I cannot prove t to be '
so, . He is also in. posse ssion pf 3et
te"r in answer tb it, froth Mr. Lee ta
him and me, and can better prove its .
'contents than l ean, although fie has :
famished hie with a copy whichJE -sup- ,
pose to be fcorrect. -'' . ''.-
. I know of no other co.TTesponchmcft
that ever passed betveeti the xecu-T?
live 01 me onitea states ana me, oa
the occasion mentioned in- tl'e"? last"
interrogatory, . - Wi 'LE-feH5
0" Mr .DaUas's nfoer. t thfe.iiW
gatjrics, being of fimdjtr import, is 9stkt.ci. '
5;
The thorouah hr?d HoHc -.
CHARIOT. j!-; V
Brd bv Jbn CKftori," Efcj. who keft't ran hiiiwitll
Oab, 179a ; whra be wa p'MrJ)afcd by Sir WU.e
Gcrirrf, aroacu lit was got by tfo ccUb'rateA H hnV
H.jhaTcr, hi Dam Ptotif by i!d Eclipfc Uvt c! .
great fame as any in Bnglaad. , v- i j - -CHARIOT
is a fine Bv. ftandi irU iv.. n.L.?
high, in f9r,Bne; le-.v, fymmctry.and1 Jiftion, . 'K
, frarcfil to 1 ojulUiiU 11 U rmuit tieTt,iii V t
f nku4:amcJfsft the Crfl Woffes in the CuDtfis Hi,. .
th rac.
xceuetice;Jia b;tn ddbaguffted in for MiUati, .n-i,-in
no infllancctvrhre the ctnta was if rcatbU jprov.'''
fucrefBftjl, having f-uttilr rurf'foar heaf1- t&tlsttiX-:A
CHARIOT bow exhitit. tiAattk'Sih'inil vt--'J
four, and will iUnd tie.enfuiRi 5afo t ''fr?;' f
JAMES LYNE's J0US$:&H
Within one Mile of the SutfciWeS4ft; -
rloCbufh, Gr asTiile Ceuaty, 4 f' '
$Ute of K or th- Carolina. ' I rr.v
inc Miles from MafVin's Ferry, k Miles Vr 'wilT'
lia.&orough.-an fixtwo irom VfaVfearg: t:i
Anif vvtH be ltt Mar w Tin DlUr. thw UV '-
at the &table-dor, Twenty l&fa the SM::-,. -.
j fuie a Foat; md ta every laitance half ' Uelti to th?
The e;fofi mi
Sixteen pear's,; iflaid vrithi. tbe'.Seafoni J-V
iaV bo llifchrarl . .. .'j
r a X . 1 -Warchnd end tfettejr d'-v:
tit; as he will rta.Kl at tip fapie place from' SeaiU .
CHARIOT is a fore Foaligetter. Kis C.Usirt t..
,,-,Kt, -t,e'i0'' ta-"ofe of. ,y Horfe n tbJij.ti-i.i..
Ill, i,t.4ls ::i EngfaiK? are oa the' BrHiih Turf- i , y
are confiifrrt-d the iavoaritei of the i.rifVBttfair.vlns
m every icftnce proved foocefsfal. ' f - .
His RuRnwg-erforrnjifes hav-i fccn aai,l t t-r'
ti moft Uorfes on the Continent, reference be fWt
...ijvfM.MUHjrws years 1702, 1793, .io.
Howk extenflve and welt inclofed ptJis wnh.
Whttl -Its, ted and white Clover Lis, gratC. 'Vt'i
.t will not bjE liable fur ar tkat mV' haifoeii -
ftut Su iti
, J AMIS 8c MINRY L'C- v
f.Thfe Gentlemen who with their Mar t
Grain. my '.e furnished with it at twelve and
cents ' icr ly tQ eacb Mare. Ferfons bringing Mjji
boarded gratis. , ' '
, .- 4 PEDIGREE. I ;
CHOARfOTwas 8otby Higblyer,fvi of HeroJ, fJ
f Tatter, Ton of Partner, out of Melira by Fox -Dam
Pptoii by 1 -liprc, Gradam bv Bla k. fon r,f rtou
dolphin Arabian j great great G andam by C9.1oirl?
Arabian,' great great, great Crandam by win-; rd
turned if the Mares to not prove with Fd&'vUV
jhe piopeity ts in noinBanee ehansed. j,. '. -
-1rc Put to hiai 'be Seafon, which faif pM.- ."V
With Foal, u-.ay have the benefli V,f xwn,,, . ..
CH ARIO r being the fait property of tUe-aftVi
they have U tn their power to pledge tWtffclv
pofnted aticiuioR bema i-id to iuh m r.i-i,' ,
UjfdiwcrmXjryt(,rr Bard Mare y, Vring fiyWix Uv
Arabiaa tijuWcs.. nd fcxteea Rwyal Mares. Wsire ait,i' ?
. I?1. VILLI M JOhVrVw'
n
i 1
libit
1 T
v
if
if
iilii
mm
-a 1 in
I
u
HI
mm
1 1
SAIKJAIIIIi
i 1