The prisoner having been set to the bar, pleaded NOT GUILTY.

The pettit jury impannelled, consisted of the following gentlemen:

• [Page 18]WILLIAM JOLLY, City
• SAMUEL MI [...]CHELL, Bucks
• RICHARD LEEDOM. ditto
• ANTHONY CU [...]HBERT, 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:

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 these that pro­secute, to open to you, as clear 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 council engaged on behalf of the prisoner will use, and the or­der which the court will observe. These are sufficient to correct any mis- [...]tements, 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 [Page 19] for any explanation, or to call your attention in the least to it, be­cause it is not charged upon the prisoner; he if charged with having committed treason in levying war.

This expression, phraseology, or description as adopted by our constitu­tion, is burrowed 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 he 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 he 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 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.

Agreeable 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 government of the United States. Reflecting levying of war, it is to be understood, agreeable 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 enquiry, 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.

[Page 20] 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 independent 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 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 enquiry 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 discontents 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 compleatly 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 arrest would be followed by the rising of the people, in opposition to that authority, for the purpose 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 [Page 21] the execution of the laws, to calm the fears, and to remove the misappre­hensions of the infatuated people; for this purpose they road 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 showed 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 other 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 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 Bethelem, 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 agreeable to appointment, that 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 I berated.

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 some­time 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 endeavoured to trace this paper, so as to produce it to the court and jury, but have failed) this paper was sign­ed by fifty two persons and committed to the hands of one of their num­ber: [Page 22] John Fries was present at this meeting, and assisted in drawing up the paper, at which time his expressions against this law were extremely violent, and he threatened to shoot one of the assessors, Mr. Foulke, through the legs if he did proceed to assess the houses. Again, the pri­soner, at a vendue, threatened another of the assessors, Mr. S. Clarke, that if he attempted to go on with the assessments he should be commit­ted to an old stable, and there fed on rotten corn: we shall further prove that upon its being intimated by force of them to Mr. Chapman, princi­pal assessor, that if they might choose their own assessors things would go on quietly, he directed that they should do so, but still they continued in opposition to the law, and would not choose an officer at all. A general meeting was called to read and explain the law to the people, and thus remove any wrong impressions and mis-apprehensions: the principal as­sessor was at that meeting, but the rudeness, opposition and violence, used by the people, prevented him from doing so, which was an evident proof that they did not want to hear the law, and that they understood enough of it to oppose it: thus the benevolent intentions of that meeting was frustrated. We shall farther show you that the assessor of lower Milford was intimidated so as to decline making the assessments, and that the prin­cipal assessor together with three other assessors, were obliged to go into that township to execute the law; that they proceeded in the execution of their duty during a part of the day of the 5th of March last, without any impediment; that at eleven o'clock in the morning Mr. Chapman met, at the house of Jacob Fries in lower Milford, with the prisoner, when he, the prisoner, declared his determination not to submit, but to oppose the law, and that by the next morning he could raise 700 men in opposition to it: that upon Mr. Chapman telling him, that many houses were assessed, the prisoner flew into a violent passion, absolutely declaring that it should soon be in this country as it was in France. We shall farther shew you, that at another time during the same day the prisoner met with two of the assessors Mr. Rodrick and Mr. Foulke, whom he warned not to proceed in the execution of their duty, accompanied with threats that if they did, they would be hurt, and left them in a great rage. Farther, he proceeded to collect parties, with whom he went in search of those men, and attacked them in executing their duty, one of them es­caped, but the other he took, but not having got Mr. Roderick, who ap­peared to be a particular object of resentment, he let Mr. Foulke go, telling him he would have them again the next day. He told Mr. Clarke that if he had met with Rodrick he would not have let him go so easy, and declared to him solemnly and repeatedly, that it was his deter­mination to oppose the laws. We shall farther show you that, after ha­ving discharged Foulke, he proceeded to Collect a large party in the town­ship, in order to take the assessors is the next day. Accordingly on the day following a numerous party, to wit, about 50 or 60, the greatest part of whom were in arms, collected together and pursued the assessors, and not finding them in that township, pursued them into another, in order, net on­ly to chase them out of the township, but generally to prevent them exe­cuting their duty. This party collected, not only many of them in arms, but in military array, with drum and fife, and commanded by this Captain Fries and one Kuyder: Fries himself was armed with a large horse pis­tol. Thus equipped, they went to Quaker town, in order to accomplish [Page 23] their purpose, where they found the assessors, two of whom they took, but Rodrick tied. Fries ordered his men to fire at the man who fled, and the piece was snapped, but did not go off. Fries did then compel Foulke to deliver up to them his papers, but not finding in them what they ex­pected, they were returned, but at the same time exacting a promise that he, the assessor, should not proceed in the valuation of the houses in lower Milford. Fries was in many instances extremely violent against this law, and preremptory in his determination not to submit to it, as will appear by the evidence.

When they left Quaker town they met with a travelling man who ex­pressed some good will towards the government, and for that expression, they mal-treated him very much, and expressed their general dislike to all who supported the same principles. During the time they were at Quaker town, intimation was received that the marshal had taken a number of persons prisoners in consequence of opposing the execution of this law, whereupon a determination was formed amongst these people to go and effect their rescue, and the people of Milford were generally invited to assist in this business. When they were going, the parted halted at the house of John Fries, and then a paper was signed, by which they bound them­selves volunteers to go upon the execution of this design, this paper was written by the prisoner at the bar, and signed by him and the rest: there­in they engaged to go and rescue the prisoners who had been arrested by the marshal. On the morning of the next day 20 or more of them met at the house of Conrad Marks, in arms, to go on with their design. John Fries was armed with a sword, and had a feather in his hat. On the road, as they went forward they were met by young Marks, who told them that they might as well turn about, for that the Northampton people were strong enough to do the business without those from Bucks county: some were so inclined to do, but at the instance of Fries and some others, they did go forward, and actually proceeded to Bethlehem. Before the arrival of these troops, a party, going on the same business, had stopped at the bridge, a small distance from Bethlehem, when they had been met by a deputation from the marshal, whom be had prevailed on to go and meet them, in order to advise them to return home: they agreed to halt there, and send three of their number to declare to the marshal what was their demand: it was during this period that Fries and his party came up, but it appears that when they came, Fries took the party actually over the bridge and that he arranged the toll with the man, and ordered them to proceed. With respect to proof of the pro­ceedings at Bethlehem, it cannot be mistaken: he was there the leading man, and he appears to enjoy the command. With the consent of his people he demanded the prisoners of the marshal, and when that officer told him that he could not surrender them, except they were taken from him by force, and produced his warrant for taking them, the prisoner then harrangued his party out of the house, and explained to them the necessity of using force; and that you should not mistake his design, we will prove to you that he declared, "that was the third day which he had been out on this expedition, that he had had a skirmish the day before, and if the prison­ers were not released he should have another that day. NOW you observe," resumed he, "that force is necessary, but you must obey my orders, we will not go without taking the prisoners; but take my orders, you must [Page 24] not fire first: must be first fired upon, and when I am gone, then you must do as well as you can, as I expect to be the first man that falls." He farther declared to the marshal; that they " would fire till a cloud of smoak prevented them seeing one another; and executing the office of commander of the troops which at that time over awed the marshal and his attendants, harrangued the troops to obey his orders, which they accor­dingly did, and the marshal was really intimidated to liberate the prison­ers; and then the object was accomplished, and the party dispersed, amidst the huzzas of the insurgents. After this affair at Bethlehem, it will be given you in evidence that the prisoner frequently avowed his opposition to the laws, and justified that outrage; and when a meeting was after­wards held at lower Milford to choose assessors, the prisoner refused his assent to the accommodating object of the meeting, and appeared as violent as ever.

These are some of the points we mean to prove before you. I shall therefore at present proceed to introduce our testimony.

William Henry, Esquire, sworn.

Were you at Bethlehem on the 7th of March last?

I arrived there on the evening of the 6th—we had heard that there was a party of men would collect, for the purpose of rescuing the prisoners who were there in custody of the marshal, in consequence of that I went to assist the, marshal, and, if possible, prevail on the people to desist.—The witness said he was one of the judges of the court of common please for the county of Northampton—About ten o'clock on the morning of the 7th two men with arms arrived at the tavern where we were, the name of one was Keifer, and the other Paulus: they were called into the house, and enquired of by the marshal as to their intention in coming armed, they appeared to be diffident about an answer; after first saying they came upon a shooting frolic, Keifer said they were come in order to see what was best to be done for the country: after that came in several others three of them were David Shaef, Jacob Kline, and Philip Tesch, armed and on horse back, two of them in uni­form, with swords and pistols: the two first men were placed with the marshal in a separate room, in order to await the issue; at this time a considerable number of people had assembled. Henry Shankwyler was in company with the three men: the marshal first went and spoke to these men as to their intention, I also walked out for the same purpose, request­ing them to withdraw, and not appear in arms in order to obstruct the process of the United States laws: Shaeff and Kline answered that they were freemen, and might go where they pleased with their arms: I told them that they ran great risk by appearing in arms for such a purpose as I feared they were come.

Were these three, the whole of the armed men present?

There came in a number, but I don't know how many particularly, as they mixed among the croud.

We requested them to deliver up their arms, but they refused. I also, at the same time told Shankwyler that it would be best for him to surrender himself, and not oppose the process, the others gave me answer, that they had come to accompany their friend Shankwyler, and to see that no inju­ry was done to him. After this I returned into the lower back room of the house, by this time there were a number more collected round the house, but mostly armed. I don't recollect whether it was before these [Page 25] three men arrived or not, that the marshal had sent off four men of his posse, in order to meet the men with arms who were coming forward, and after we were up stairs there were three men arrived as a deputation from the armed body, making enquiry as to the intention of the marshal in taking these prisoners: with these 3 men the 4 deputed by the marshal had returned from the armed body that was the other side of the bridge, in order to learn the marshal's object. The marshal assured them of the legality of the process, and reasoned with them as to the consequences of opposition, or threats to him, or preventing him from executing his duty, but I believe he liberated the two men that were first put in confine­ment, and returned them their guns again. During the time that these two men were in confinement we examined their guns, and found that they were both loaded. I was pretty much in the lower part of the house backward, and there was much of the proceedings of these people I did not see, in the front of the house, but I endeavoured to converse with as many as I knew, informing them of the badness of their conduct, and the consequence of it, but it appeared to be to no effect, as I knew. About one o'clock I think I first saw what was called the main body of this armed force, marching up the street: there was a party of horse preceded the foot came riding up two a breast, I am not certain whether they had their swords drawn, but I believe they had, and then followed the foot, march­ing up in Indian (single) file, when they came up the foot marched twice round the tavern, and placed themselves in front of the house, where they stood some time drawn up in single rank, I believe they were rifle-men they continued there till the rescue was effected. During this time I frequently heard that the prisoners were demanded by them, and they, in­sisted on their release.

Did you hear the demand made?

No, I did not, but I heard in the house that it had been made; I also heard that they intended to force their passage up stairs. I observed a party coming up stairs, particularly one, whom I did not know, [...]pointing a rifle up the stairs, as though levelling it at some particular person. The people appeared very noisy in the lower part of the house, all this time, I frequently heard the cry of " deliver up the prisoners," and it appeared to come from the party at the foot of the stairs. During the affair, I am not certain whether it was previous to this or not, I looked out and saw six or eight men at the foot of the stairs and the prisoner on the stairs conversing with the marshal: while I was standing there, there was an old man, whom I understood afterwards to be John Kline, came running in from the front door, and called for captain Fries in German, telling him there was his sword; (offering it) I think he called three different times, on which I observed the prisoner wave his hand and tell him to wait, it was not quite time yet; shortly after the prisoners were given up. I was not by to be able to hear the conversation between the marshal and the prisoner.

Did Fries appear to take the command of the men?

I saw Fries going backward and forward among them as though he had; and I saw him marching into the town in front of the foot men.

Did you see him acting, or busying himself?

Yes, I saw him at different times passing to and fro.

Did any officer stay with the men that were drawn up in array before the house?

I noticed captain Staeler particularly, giving orders to his troop, and with his sword drawn.

Did you see any communication between Fries and Staeler?

Not that I recollect.

After the prisoners were delivered up, the principal part of the men marched off: I particularly heard captain Jarrett call to his men: I do not recollect hearing Fries.

Did they take the prisoners with them?

No. I heard two or three men in the back room say that they must see the prisoners, and insisted they should be let go before they would leave, and particularly they enquired for the minister, one Jacob Ireman, he was a prisoner, and at that time actually in custody.

What were these prisoners in custody for?

They were arrested for combinations and misdemeanours.

There was, among the company in the lower room, a man who declar­ed himself very violently; he said if the damned stamplers^* had only fired a shot, we would have shewed what we could do. He was one of Staeler's company. He really expressed a wish that it had been done. The words were spoken in German.

Were many, or any of these people in a military dress as well as arms?

There was twelve or fourteen of the horse: I believe there were none of the foot, except that about ten or twelve had cockades of blue and white, blue and red, &c.

Had they cartouch boxes, or any other means of carrying am­munition?

They had shot pouches, particularly the rifle company, and I believe all who had guns. Keefer, who was first disarmed had a powder horn in his pocket: his piece was a common fowling piece, the others were mostly rifles, as far as I could perceive from the window.

How many armed men were there?

I did not count them, but there appeared about an hundred, or rather above that number. The whole croud assembled I think could not have been less than 400.

What number of persons had the marshal with him for his posse com­mitatus to arrest these people?

I think fourteen or fifteen.

How many prisoners do you think there were?

I believe eighteen or nineteen.

Did you ever gather more than you have now dated, of the intention of these people in assembling there?

I have frequently heard that they meant to oppose the laws.

What was the object declared by the people themselves at that time?

I understood that releasing the prisoners was the object they had in view, both from themselves and from several persons with whom they had conversed on the subject.

Was there a process against these persons who arrived, and were de­tained by the marshal?

No.

Did you suppose, from the conversation you heard, that it was these two prisoners who were intended to be released, or the prisoners held in custody by the marshal against whom process was issued?

I supposed those prisoners who were taken by warrant by the marshal. I suspected that the two persons who first came, came with improper views, and as such ought to be confined, and wished them to be kept till we law those persons who were coming with arms.

What did the deputation from those armed men demand?

They demanded the release of those two men, and they were released previous to the coming up of the armed men.

At the time that Fries was conversing, with the marshal, although you had not an opportunity of hearing what passed, was there any violence in his manner, or any appearance of rage in him?

As to his own particular conduct, I cannot say, for it was but a few moments that I had time to notice hi: I saw no particular violence in his manner.

Did you hear Fries communicate to the croud the question he proposed to the marshal, and the marshal answer respecting these prisoners?

No I did not; this I heard in the general conversation.

You never saw Mr. Fries but at the time he was conversing with the marshal, and at that time not with any violent appearance.

I saw him both before and after, passing to and fro, but did not know the man's name, but seeing a feather in his hat, I supposed him to be a man of consequence.

At the time this sword was offered to Fries, he did not take, nor did appear to have any arms about him?

No.

Was there any thing said, during this transaction about bailing these prisoners?

There was a demand made by Shankwyler, in the room of the lower part of the house, a short time previous to the actual release, but the marshal told Shankwyler that his command was to take him before the judge, and he could not admit him to bail.

Was there, or not, a general overture made to bail these prisoners?

Not that I recollect: there was much conversation on this subject in different parts of the house, but not as coming from the party; but I believe it was observed that if they could be bailed, it was probable the party might be influenced to withdraw, but this did not come from the party themselves.

You mention that there were upwards of an hundred men in arms, and that the aggregate present was about 400, do you consider every indivi­dual who was there as partaking of this riot?

No. Though there were many of them that appeared there unarmed, were very violent in their expressions, and generally they were in opposi­tion to the government.

During this period, were there any commissioners, or assessors there?

There was Mr. Eyerly, commissioner for that district, Mr. Balliott, and the principal assessor, and I believe two other assessors, if not more.

Were any acts of violence offered to these officers during that time?

Not that I saw.

Did These officers remain in the house, or go down among the people?

They remained in the house I believe: they arrived there on Wednes­day, the evening preceding.

Did they hear that there was a probability of the prisoners being res­cued?

Yes.

Did those people declare that they would not leave the place till they had seen the prisoners at liberty?

Yes.

What became of the prisoners?

I believe the most part of them left the house in a short time after. I understood they were, generally, not desirous of being rescued. They expressed themselves so in my presence, and when they were delivered up, they entered into some kind of obligation to deliver themselves up in Philadelphia.

Did These prisoners or the greatest part of them appear any way desirous of being released?

No, they did not: on the reverse, they were very apprehensive of the consequences of getting into the mob.

These prisoners were many of them from your county, and you were pretty generally acquainted with them, did it appear that the prisoners were acquainted with those who came to rescue them?

The greater part of them were not, especially those who came from Lehi township. Twelve or thirteen of them I knew.

HOW far did the parson live from Bucks county?

Forty miles, I suppose.

Did those persons who came armed, profess to be particular friends to any of them?

Not that I heard or knew of.

WILLIAM BARNETT, sworn.

Were you at Bethlehem on the 7th of March, and if you were, relate the circumstance that transpired.

I was summoned to attend the marshal on the seventh of March at Bethlehem, as one of his posse. I came there about 11 o'clock in the forenoon: I was there but a very little time, when I understood there were some men coming with arms: the marshal then appointed four of us to go out to meet them, in order to prevail upon them not to come into the town. We went on about a mile from Bethlehem, and crossed the Lehi, and there we met a party of horsemen first: they were armed. I did not know any of them, but understood they were from Northampton county, near about Millar's town. When we came up to them, we asked [Page 29] them for their commanding officer. They made answer that they had no officers; they were all commanders. We then told them what our errand was—to try to prevail upon them not to go on any farther, but they did not seem to mind it much. We were with them but a very little time, before there was a company of rifle men came up, they were armed as well as the others. We told them our errand, but they did not seem to mind us. We then returned, and came on with them to the bridge of the Lehi, where we halted. There we talked with them a great while, but still they wanted to go on. We told them we came from the marshal, and asked them what they wanted by going into Bethlehem with their arms. They said the marshal had two of their men that had come to Bethlehem under arms, and had put them under guard, and they wanted them, and they would have them two men set at liberty, and one of the name of Shankwyler. As I found that they were determined to go, I asked if they would not allow that if any one had done wrong, they ought to suffer for it: They agreed that they ought, but they should not be taken to Philadelphia, but have been tried in Northampton county. When we found that they were determined to go on, we agreed that they had better send two or three men over to the marshal, and not to go bodily. Which they agreed to, and appointed three men to go, and they sent them over.

Was there not some stipulation that you should return the men safe.

Yes there was; they were afraid these three men would be confined also; but we promised them that we would see them safely returned. We then all went over together to the tavern at Bethlehem, where the marshal was. They spoke to him, told him what their business was, and he gave the two men up to them. When they were given up, we went back, with them, in order to go to where we had left the remainder of the men. Going down through Bethlehem, we met a party of horsemen, and we stopped them: they were armed; part of them were light horse­men; and part were other horsemen: they all had swords or some arms or other. The light horse had their swords drawn. We told them that they had better go back, and not go up into the town, but they seemed very anxious to go up. One of them made answer something like this: "This is the third day that I was out, I had a fight yesterday, and I mean to have another to-day if they do not let the prisoners clear.

What prisoners did you understand him to mean, the two men?

He did not say any more than the prisoners.

Who, was the man that said so?

To the best of my knowledge the prisoner was the man: I never saw the man before, but I took notice of him then.

Had he any arms?

He had a sword. This was a distinct body from those we had left at the bridge; these were others who had come up during the time we were gone.

John Fries had not come up when you left them, had he?

I do not know that he was there at that time; the first time I saw him, was as I came back.

Had the two men whom the marshal gave up proceeded down the street, towards the party, and met with them at that time?

I did not take notice where they went to after they were released; they went on up town.—When I saw the riflemen coming forward, I stopped till they came up, and then spoke to them: they seemed that they would go on, but they promised that they would do nothing.

Did you let them know that the two persons whom they had demanded were liberated?

Yes, I did, and the three men who went with us told them also.—The horsemen did not wait one moment, but hurried on: they all then march­ed up town, and formed right in front of the tavern: I returned with them. After they were formed there, I was among them, and talked with them a great deal, but could not do any thing with them:; If there was ten or twelve that agreed to be moderate the others would all insist upon it, that they would have the prisoners, all of them. We [...] there for nearly or quite two hours. This man, whom they called captain Fries, came out and mentioned to his men that he would now have the prisoners, if any of them would go into the house with him: he had been in backward and forward several times. He said he should go foremost. He told them that he would ask the favour of them, that they were, none of them to fire first, if they went in. He mentioned to them likewise, that there were some armed men on the stairs belonging to the marshal. I did not expect he would go in: I was talking to some men there, when I looked round and saw some of the men at the door: he said he would go foremast: he signified, talking in German, that he should get a blow or a stroke: the nearest translation was, " I shall get it."—I looking round, saw the men going in at the door, and I followed them in: they were armed men. I did not see the prisoner after he had mentioned them words. I got in, between the men and the stairs at the foot of the stairs: they halted there, I got in there, in order to keep them back from going up stairs; I was there but a few minutes, when I saw the prisoners coming down stairs.

Did you notice any particular circumstances that took place at this time?

They were determined to go on; a little fellow among them, I do not know who he was, seemed to be very angry.

Were they at that moment asking for the prisoners?

Yes, they said they would have the prisoners.

What was the conduct or expressions of the marshal at that time?

I do not know, I was not so near as to hear any thing: after the pri­soners were set at liberty, they were all gone in a few minutes; they seemed to be much pleased that they had them.

Repeat particularly what captain Fries said, when he told the men to come forward.

He said if he did get it, they should not be scared, they then must do as well as they could: he said he expected to get some stroke; he told them they must take care of themselves: I do not recollect that he said they should shoot, yet I recollect something he said; I think it was "slay strike or do as well as you can." The prisoner at the bar went before, and he rather wished the men to follow him.

[Page 31] On being questioned again as to the words used by the prisoner: the witness repeated it in German, which was translated in the court to mean that he expected to get it, and if he did, they must strike, and stab, and do as well as they could. Seblaget, steehet and macht so gut as ibr konnet.

I understand you to state, that when you went out at the request of the marshal, it was to speak to these people, and that they told you their object was to obtain the liberation of the two men belonging to their party.

Yes.

Do you not recollect any thing said about giving bail for the appear­ance of these prisoners?

No, I do not.

As soon as these prisoners were released did the croud begin or disperse?

Yes, immediately.

Then they did not attempt to attack, or use with violence any person with a view to liberate these prisoners?

No, not that I saw.

They did not seem to have any other object in view than to get the pri­soners at liberty?

No, getting the prisoners at liberty was all.

Did none of them say any thing about the tax law?

I did not hear them say any thing.

What became of the prisoners after they were liberated?

I believe they all went to their homes.

Did you observe no violence whatever?

No, I did not either by violence or by words hear the prisoner, nor any other person attempt at any thing, more than what I have said.

JOHN BARNETT, sworn.

Relate to the court what occurred on the 7th of March at Bethlehem.

On the 7th of March in the morning early, just as I got up, the deputy marshal handed me a summons, at which I was a little fluttered till I read it over. The summons was, that I should be at Beth­lehem at 10 o'clock, to aid and assist the marshal in executing the laws of the United States. He also sent me some blank summons, desiring me to summon as many more as I pleased. I put Christian Winters, and John Mohollan's names down; we could not find any more good persons for that business. About 10 o'clock I arrived at Bethlehem. I was there but a very short time, when somebody came in, and said he had met 20 men at one place, 10 at another, &c. walking towards a tavern, on the road, about 3 or 4 miles from Bethlehem; I cannot recollect its name. The marshal, Mr. Irely, Mr. Henry, Mr. Balliott and others agreed that they thought it would be best to send three or four men to meet them, and to stop them on the road: it was then to be decided who should go. I mentioned that I thought John Mohollan and William Barnett could do more with them, than any body else. They were agreed upon as was Christian Roth (or Rote) and another, but Isaac Hatsel went in his place. This was, conformable to agreement, two federalists and two anti-fede­ralists. They went and met them, I remained at the house. They were [Page 32] not gone very long, indeed I think it was just as they were getting upon their horses, there was two men, arrayed, and with arms; one had a rifle, and the other a smooth bore piece. When they were come into the yard, the marshal went down into the yard to them, and talked to them; what he talked to them, I did not hear. However he took their arms away from them, and carried them up stairs, and put them by themselves. Directly after that, there was five or six horsemen came, I was informed that there was one man of them named Shankwyler. The marshal and judge Henry went down to meet them, they asked them what they come there for: they said, they only came there to be Shankwyler's bail: and judge Henry then asked them what they did with their arms? They said they did not mean any harm with them. They then got off their horses, and went into a room with the judge and the marshal: what they said there, I do not know, for I did not hear them. Presently after there came up a troop of horse, and behind them there was two companies of riflemen. They marched up right into the yard and formed before the door of the tavern.

How many riflemen do you suppose there was?

About 50.

Had the light horse their swords drawn?

Yes.

How many do you suppose there were in the whole?

On a rough calculation I suppose 130 or 140 armed men.

How many was there of the marshal's posse?

About 16 or 17.

After they had formed a line in the yard, about 15 or 20 minutes Captain Jarret arrived, when they gave three huzzas. He then went in­to the house and talked with the Marshal: the Marshal requested him to get the men to withdraw. He professed he would. He had arrived from Philadelphia, whither he had been to give bail. After this, Jarrett staid at the tavern about two hours. The men kept regular order, and never separated. The Marshal appointed four of us, me and three others to keep the guard of the stairs, armed with pistols, two at the bottom, and two at the head. I served my time, and the second time I was ordered on guard by Capt. Henry Snyder, I staid on the platform at the turn of the stairs, when Fries, the prisoner, came up to me, and wanted to go up stairs. I told him that he could not be permitted to go up stairs with­out the Marshal's leave. I then asked him what he wanted? He answer­ed that he wanted to see the Marshal. I told him that I expected he could see him, and told some men at the head of the stairs to call the Marshal out of the room. He came out, and I then told him these two gentlemen wanted to talk to him. He said I should let them pass. As Fries was the first man, I let him pass on between me and the other guard. The other man wanted to go up, but I told him that one at a time was enough, and that when the other had done, he would be permitted to talk to him too. Fries then went up and told the Marshal what he came for: he replied that he was come for the release of the prisoners. I stood close by them when they were talking. The Marshal made answer that he could not give them up to him; he then told the Marshal that he would [Page 33] have them. Well then, said the Marshal, you must get them as well as you can; for he said it was out of his power to deliver them up; he dared not to do it. Fries then told the Marshal that he had a skirmish yester­day, and he expected to have another one to day; he then said to the Marshal, "As for you Marshal, I will vouch that none of my men will hurt you, but as for the other company I will not vouch for.

Do you know what he meant by the other company?

No.

Where was Mr. Balliott and Mr. Irely at this time?

They were in the room where they commonly were, up stairs.

What answer did the Marshal make to that?

I do not know.

With that both of them marched off. I remained on guard. A little while after this, I saw the men coming in at the door, and they got into the entry, with arms. I did not know one of those who came in except Fries: he returned with those armed men. He had a sword in his band, but I think it was in its scabbard. When they got into the entry, they were pressed upon by the posse, who soon got them clean out of the door. I then got off guard. The language of the men was, that they would have the prisoners. I could not hear many of their expres­sions, because I was chiefly up stairs, but I heard them say they would not leave the ground till they had the prisoners. The marshal at this time had gone back into the room. Before the prisoners were released I was relieved. When they made the second attempt, I was up stairs, looking out of the window. I believe Christian Winters took my post. These prisoners were at this time up stairs in a room by themselves.

How many prisoners were there?

About sixteen or eighteen.

Where was Shankwyler at this time?

He was down stairs in the back room, he was not taken up stairs at all.

Do you know any of the other prisoners?

No.

Did there appear to be any kind of acquaintance, or friendship between Fries and any of the prisoners?

No, I believe there was not.

Did they appear to wish to be rescued?

No, the prisoners said they did not wish to be rescued by those people, they said that they knew none of those people that were before the door. If they had done any thing wrong, they said they were willing to go any where to take their trials. The minister, and the Lehi people were all there.

Was there any violence offered?

I saw them point their guns toward the window often enough.

Was any violence offered to any person, besides what was offered to the marshal?

No.

Did you hear these men say that they came there for any other purpose than to rescue the prisoners?

No, I did not, and I believe that was all.

NO violence of manner or expression was used while Fries was talking to the marshal, was there?

NO, he had his sword in his hand, and in its scabbard at that time, and the other man had his sword, and a regimental coat on.

During the time that you were there, did any person offer Fries his sword?

Not that I know, I did not hear any person.

You did not hear any one cry out, here Mr. Fries, here is your sword?

No, I do not recollect it.

CHRISTIAN WINTERS, sworn.

I was summoned on the 7th of March to go up to Bethlehem, and I went accordingly: when I came there, which was about 11 or 12 o'clock—about the middle of the day, the first man that I say come there armed was one Keifer: another, I think his name was Paul, came with him to the tavern: the marshal went out, and brought them into the house, and took them up stairs: I was on guard at that time, and with another, I was set to stand guard by them. As we were in the room together, I asked them one thing or another, and amongst the rest, what they came there for. Keifer told me that he heard they had to meet there to-day, and that they had to decide about the laws; or to see how it was made out about the laws; I then asked him what made him carry a gun with him; why, he told me, ever since he had been a little boy, he was fond of shooting, and therefore, whenever he went out on a frolic, he liked to take his gun along, for he liked to hear it crack once in a while. I told him that he really put himself in a great deal of trouble, he told me that he meant no harm by it; that he thought he could carry his gun when he pleased. After I was relieved from my post, I went to the back door, and saw several people who said that they would not wish to be taken to Phi­ladelphia, they would be tried in their own county: they were not in arms. I then went up stairs where the prisoners were; I went into the front room where Mr. Eyerly, Mr. Henry and more were; I was then put to the top of the stairs, and got orders that I should not let any body up or down without their orders. I had a pistol with me. Nothing happened while I staid there, but after I was relieved, I saw Mr. Fries standing on the platform of the stairs, talking to the marshal. I could not then hear all that passed, but what I heard him say was " I have been out, either two or three days on this business, and I had a skirmish yesterday, and I expect I will have another to-day." He said that if the marshal did not give up the prisoners he would have one to-day. This was something like his words, though I stood at a little distance. I heard the marshal say he could not give them up. This was his meaning, but there were so many words I could not make out.

Had Fries a sword with him?

I did not take notice. There was nobody that I could see with the marshal but Fries. Afterwards he went down the stairs, and I then went down stairs, and went out of the front door. After that I saw a com­pany come in with arms; I did not see Fries come in with them. I ask­ed what they were after; I could not make out who it was, but some­body said, we will obey our captain's orders. I then went back, and went to the platform of the stairs, one of the guard asked what was the matter? I told him there was danger coming on. He then handed me his pistol, and another man handed me another pistol, and I staid on the platform in the front. At this time there was judge Mohollan, and I [Page 35] think major Barnett, and some others. At the same time there were several under the stairs. I told them to stand back, they were doing wrong if they did not I must do a thing I should be sorry for. I kept my thumb to the pistol all the time: they then stepped back, and had some talk, but I could not make out their expressions. They then went out of the door again, and the prisoners came down. The marshal came on to the platform, and I left my place. The marshal sent me down to learn the name of a person.

Had you any conversation with the people out of doors?

I had a good deal, and told the consequences of their con­duct. They said that they were all against the prisoners coming down to this place, they should be tried in their own county. I did not hear any thing about the laws, they merely complained about the prisoners being taken down to Philadelphia, and nothing about the laws at all.

Had you not a dispute with one of them?

Yes, I was sent down by the marshal to enquire a man's name; he wanted to know what I asked him for; he seemed to be scared: he said he did not mean to do any harm to any one. I do not know his name. When I spoke to this young man, one came up and said don't tell this damned Stampler. The meaning of this word I think is about this stamp act; they called these people Stamplers that told them the conse­quences of this conduct. It is thought a term of reproach. The man who called me stampler struck at me, but did not hit me; they told me his name was Henney.

The people daparted as soon as the prisoners were released, did they not?

Yes.

Did you use no ill language to the man who struck at you?

I called him a rascal, or something that way.

CHRISTIAN ROTHS, sworn.

On the 7th of March, I was summoned to go to Bethlehem, but did not know what it was for. About 11 o'clock I got to Bethlehem, when I came, Mr. Eyerly came to me, and told me some men were coming there to rescue the prisoners, I thought it not possible, but he told me it was certain. When we had been there about three hours, there came two men on horseback, and had their arms, whereupon Mr. Marshal, myself and Mr. Philip Sheltz went down and asked them what they were about. They told us they were informed that there were a number of men met there to-day, so they said they came there to see how they came on: they did not say what they heard they were to meet for. We took them and put them into the house under guard, and took their arms from them. I then thought there was something in what Mr. Eyerly had mentioned to me. I then made an observation to Mr. Eyerly if he did not think it proper that one or two men should go and prevent these people coming. Mr. Eyerly told the marshal of it, and he thought it would be proper, there should be some men go. I agreed that if no one else would go, I would go by myself. I do not know who spoke to the others; but I, judge Mohollan, major Barnett, and—, went out. We met them within a mile of Bethlehem. I did not know a single man of them, but judge Mohollan and major Barnett spoke to them first, but I did not understand what they said. I went farther back, to the rear: I said to [Page 36] them what in the world are you about men; you will bring yourselves in­to great trouble. One of them mentioned, we don't know you: I men­tioned if you know me or not, you will thank me for it. I said, if you do not do as I advise you, you will be sorry for twenty years after this; so there was one of them that levelled his gun at me: said I, little man, consider what you are about; don't be too much in a hurry: then some of his comrades pushed him back. Then that man hallowed out, march on, don't mind this people: I do not know his name. They then marched on to the bridge, and there we stopped them again. They then agreed amongst themselves that they would send three men with us to the marshal, to see if they could get the two prisoners we took at first, liberated, and gave their honour that none of them should come over the bridge with arms. We then went with these three men to the tavern, at Bethlehem. They then went to the marshal and agreed with him, and the two pri­soners were discharged, but he sat down their names. I do not recollect their names. When these two men were discharged, we went to go back with them again, but when we came to the lower end of Bethlehem, there was that company and another coming on, and there was no stop­ping them again.

Did they know these men were discharged before they passed the bridge?

I do not know.

How far is the bridge from Bethlehem?

About half a mile.

Do you know which way these two men went?

They went with us I think, but I am not sure. I endeavoured to stop them to reason with them, but they would not, and I then told them if they were determined not to hear, they might do as they pleased.

Did you see the prisoners, in this company?

No, I did not see this man at all to my knowledge.

As I came back to Bethlehem, I went up stairs to Mr. Eyerly and the marshal. The men paraded before the tavern, and there I think they were for two hours.

How many do you suppose there were in arms.

I suppose 120 men or upwards, were drawn up.

Did you see those two men that were first kept prisoners?

Yes, I saw them mix along with these people.

Were the light horse armed?

Yes, some of them, and with there uniforms.

Had they their swords drawn?

No, not till they came near to the tavern, then they drew their swords, a great number of them. Before we started from the bridge, we asked them again what they were about? they told us that they were inform­ed that they had taken a number of prisoners, and that they would take them to Philadelphia, and put them in gaol there, and no bail would be taken for them: we asked them what prisoners it was they meant? they mentioned one name only that I recollect, which was one Shankwyler. They mentioned that they would not suffer Shankwyler to be put to gaol in Philadelphia: they mentioned that they would give bail ten double for him, or that they might put him in gaol in our own county, and try him in our own county. I saw one Schwartz come up into the room where the marshal was.

Was not you among them after they came to Bethlehem?

No, I was not. Old Schwartz said he had two sons in the company, and they were two of the prettiest boys in the company.

Did you see any of the people in the yard levelling their guns at the window?

No.

Was there any other of this company besides Schwartz that came up into the room?

No.

Did any one abuse, threaten or insult Mr. Eyerly.

Not that I know of. I heard no threats against any one.

COLONEL NICHOLS, the Marshal, sworn.

Mr. Nichols, please to relate the transactions which led to the subject of the indictment against the prisoner, and the affair at Bethlehem.

Some time between the 20th and 26th of February the warrants I now hold in my hand were given to me by the attorney of the district, with orders for me to go to Northampton county to execute them. I sat out on the 26th and after serving some subpoeneas on the road, in order to get some evidence about some matters that were wanted to be in possession, I got to Nazareth en the first of March, next morning, Mr. Eyerman and myself went into Lehi township to serve some warrants upon some persons who had given their opposition to the house tax law. I think we got twelve of them that day, the others were not to be found. I think there were five of them, however they came in afterwards. We then returned to Bethlehem, and there met with Col. Balliott. We went then to Macungy township, and there we met with no difficulty till we went to the house of George Syder; I had a subpoene on him: he and his wife insulted us very much; his wife began abusing us first, and he came out with a club, and would by no means be pursuaded to receive it I suppose not understanding it: I gave it to a Mr. Schwartz, a neigh­bour, who undertook to deliver it to him. We then proceeded to Mil­lar's town, a few miles farther: on the way we stopped at the house of the Rev. Mr. Buskirk, where we left our horses, and walked into the town, to the house of George Shaeffer, to serve a warrant on him; but were informed that he was not in town. We returned to the tavern, about the centre of the town, and there we saw a considerable number of people assembled. Mr. Eyerly and myself walked over to Shankwyler. As we walked out, many people ran after us, and many ran past us, and getting into the house, filled the long room. There appeared to be about fifty men. Near the house in which Shankwyler lived, we concluded it was bad policy to ask for him, for by that means it was not likely we should find him. And therefore as colonel Balliott knew him, I got him to point him out to me; but upon observing me, he withdrew into the croud, I followed him, and laid hold on him, and told him he was my prisoner in the name of the United States. I told him I was the marshal of the United States for the Pennsylvania district. He retreated towards his barn. He afterwards called out that he would not hurt the marshal, but Eyerly and Balliott were damned rascals: after this the people called out to each other Schlaget, Schlaget: (strike, strike) This seemed to be the general voice of the people. There was one of the Shaeffer's seemed to be a prominent character; it was David.

[Page 38] I told them the consequence of their attempting to strike: I had a pair of pistols, and finding the danger we were in, I pulled open the buttons of my great coat, that I might, if necessary, get a ready gripe at them: whether they saw them or not, I cannot say, but when they found that I was determined not to suffer these people to be abused, they were then a little quiet: they, however, pulled the cockade out of Mr. Bullion's hat, and I believe would have done more violence to him, had they dared. I called on Shankwryler to go with me to Bethlehem, and thence to Phila­delphia, but he swore he would not: I told him the consequence of resist­ing the authority of the United States, that it would be ruin to him; he declared and swore he would resist he would not submit, be the conse­quence what it might. I told him it would ruin his interest and family; he said he would do it, if it was to the destruction of his property, and children. However, he finally agreed to meet me at Bethlehem, but never promised to submit, or surrender himself at prisoner. He spoke a good deal about the stamp act, and the house tax; that seemed to be the bone of contention, and he said he had fought against it, and would not submit to it now; I told him he appeared to be too young to have fought on either side during the war: he then said, his father had, he then added that there were none in favour of those laws but tories, and officers of government. I told him that, as to tory, that could not apply to me, that I had had a share in the revolution, and that I was as fond of liberty as any of them. We came away, and as we came out, Mr. Ey­erly and Mr. Balliott came out of the door, they huzzaed for liberty: I told them that I should join them in that, if they would huzza for liberty of the right kind; but this was licentious liberty. We then went with a constable to arrest Adam Stepham, Herman Hartman, and Daniel Everly. When I returned, I was informed that the rescue of the prisoners at Beth­lehem was intended. This was on the sixth of March. I could scarcely conceive it possible; I thought it was somebody for their own diversion had raised it merely to alarm us, until we got to Bethlehem, where we got that night. There we were informed that the report was serious, and that it would be attempted by a body of armed men. On which I consulted with judge Henry, Mr. Balliott, Mr. Eyerly, Mr. Horsefield, and general Brown. I had taken a bond of the Lehi people, with sureties for their appearance. I sent Mr. Weed over the mountain to arrest Ire­man, the minister, and John Fox, which he did. Seeing this matter very serious and important, I requested general Brown to remain at Bethlehem, as he had very great influence in that county: he said he was so near home, that he should go home, as he had been so long from his family. I then asked him to return in the morning, but he seemed to think there was no necessity for it, and did not. I then consulted what steps it would be necessary to take; I had seen an attorney, and told him I was ordered to call a posse commitatus in case of necessity, and also that I was ordered that they should not be an armed force; I then spoke to judge Henry, expecting that he could call out armed men, but he told me he could not, for he had received similar instructions. We then concluded to call about 20 men. He called this posse from the neighbourhood of Bethlehem and Easton, about 18 of them came in. About 10 or 11 o'clock two men riding into the yard, dismounted, and placed themselves opposite the door, by the side of each other; one of them had a long smooth bore gun, and [Page 39] the other a rifle. Some people in the house went out to speak to them, and asked them what brought them there: they seemed to be at a loss for an answer; I think one of them said they came out on a shooting fro­lic: I then asked them what they meant to shoot: they did not know, nor could they explain the object of their coming. I asked them what they meant to do: one of them said they meant to do what was best for the country. I then supposed that they would all come in by straggling parties, and therefore thought it was the best way of making the business easy, was to lead them into the house, which I did, and put their arms into the garrett. Shortly after, three horsemen, armed, and, I think, in uniform came into the yard with Shankwyler: I went and spoke to them, and some went with me. I asked Shankwyler if he was come to deliver himself up; he answered no. I asked him what he came for, if he did not come to surrender himself, he answered that he came to see his part­ner: on farther enquiry I found he meant his accuser. By this time the people were collecting very fast, and same persons mentioned that there was an armed force down by the bridge. On consulting with the gen­tlemen who were with me, it was agreed that a few men should be sent to speak to them, and warn them of the danger they were in if they per­sisted in the measure which we supposed they intended. It was accord­ingly agreed that four gentlemen should go, which they did, and in a little time returned with three of their force, as a deputation from them to speak to me. I asked them what was meant by this armed force, and and what they intended by it: they answered me that they wanted to pre­vent my taking the prisoners to Philadelphia. I told them that could not be, nor must be; nor must it be attempted, they had much better go back, and tell the people to go to their respective homes. I think they asked me, particularly for the two men who had first been made prisoners; I for­get whether I gave them up then, or some short time after; however, they were given up, and their guns were given up to them: they were both loaded, and one of them was putting a new flint into his gun, in the yard, before I went out to speak to them. The same gentlemen who went down to speak to them at the bridge, went down to them again, and, a short time afterward, we observed that they were coming up in force, up the street, Mr. Muhollan riding with the foremost of them, and speaking to them: the horsemen, such as had swords, had them drawn: the infan­try marched with trailed arms. The prisoner at the bar was at the head of the infantry, with his sword drawn: the horse marched into the yard, and formed in front of the house, the infantry marched round the house, and the captain, with the leading file, came in at the upper gate. I had a great deal of conversation with different persons among them, who seem­ed to take a lead. They were all strangers to me, I told them the conse­quences of their attempting to rescue the prisoners; I told them they might rest assured that things of this kind would be severely punished by the government; that it would be considered an high offence, and that every insult offered to me, would be an insult to the United States. I had a good deal of conversation with the prisoner at the bar, without knowing that he was captain Fries, till he made himself known to me. I remonstrated strongly against the measures, and told them the consequence, but they seemed regardless of it, and seemed determined that I should give them up.

Did they speak of any prisoners in particular?

NO, they speak generally of the prisoners.

Did the prisoners speak of them as particular friends neighbours, or acquaintances?

No, the measure was his object. During this conversation, he was without his sword. The substance of the conversation was, he demanded of me the prisoners; I refused to give them up, and told him the conse­quences of his demands. On his still insisting, I told him that he and those about him would be severely punished for this conduct, that he would surely be hanged. He said they could not be punished: he said something to the effect that the government were not strong enough to hang him, for that if the troops were brought out, they would join him.

Did he give any reason for wishing to rescue those prison­ers?

His reason was, that he was opposed to those laws: the Alien law, the stamp act, and the house tax law, and said they were unconstitutional. He also spoke of bringing people charged with crimes to Philadelphia to be tried as an oppressive thing: they had no objection, he said, to be tried in their own courts, and by their own people. We parted, and met in the croud two or three times, for the house was much crouded: he still demanded of me the prisoners, I told him I could not give them up: I told him I was commanded to bring them to Philadelphia: he insisted upon having them, and I that he should not. He then went and talked to his people, and came to me again. He told me that if I did not give them up, he would not answer for the consequences: he told me that he would not hurt me: he was the oldest captain in the rank, but he would not answer for them that were with me: that he took command of the whole by rank. By this time captain Jarrett came in, and by this time there was much noise and huzzaing. I was told that this noise was on ac­count of the arrival of captain Jarrett: I wished him pointed out to me in confidence, that, as he had come to submit to the laws, he would be able to persuade others to do the same. He was to me; he had a pair of pistols in his hand. He shewed me that he had entered into re­cognizance for his appearance. I then begged him to use his influence in persuading the people to disperse, and go to their respective homes, and told him what would be the consequence if they did not. His answer was, that he had no influence; that he could do nothing. After this, I consulted with judge Henry and others, what was best to be done; it seemed to be their opinion that I had better submit, and give up the pri­soners: I told them I would not do it, I would immediately march the prisoners to Philadelphia, and if the armed mob thought proper to take them from me, they might, it would then be their act, and not mine: I went to them, and told them to prepare for march immediately, for that we would set off to Philadelphia. The Lehi prisoners said they would not do so, they would not expose themselves to so much danger, but if I would suffer them to go to their homes, they would meet me in Philadelphia on the Monday or Tuesday following. I met Mr. Fries about the foot of the stairs, and he still persisted in his demand of the prisoners, that I must give them up.

Had he a sword with him?

I do not think he had a sword at that moment. I refused, and went into the back room, and a person whom I did not know, told me, that if I did not give them up 1 should not be hurt, but the life of Balliott, Eyerly and Henry were in danger. This was not an armed man. I did not like to expose the lives of those men, so I rescued them. Fries came in directly, and said I had not given up Ireman, the minister. I told him I had; he then went out, and came in again, and said he was without. He then mounted and went off.

Did you really apprehend any danger to the gentlemen who were with you?

I did apprehend that the lives of those gentlemen would be in danger if I refused the prisoners.

Who had you then in possession as prisoners?

We had Fox, Ireman and some others who had not surrendered them­selves, besides the Lehi people.

PHILIP SCHLAUGH,

When I was at Bethlehem, which I expect was the 7th of March, the first I saw was that the company was ordered in rank, and when that was done, this Fries was in the entry of the house, where he was speaking loud. I enquired who that was, they said it was captain Fries; He said them who was the greatest tories in the last war, them was the head leaders now; then I went out of the house, and he went up to the marshal, and when he came out again; he went up to his company, and told them " Well brothers, I went up to the marshal, and asked him about the pri­soners, and told him I would have the prisoners, but the marshal told me he dare not give them up willingly; I tell you, brothers, we have to pass four or five centries, but I beg you not to fire first on them, till they first fire upon us: I shall be the foremast man; I shall go on before you, and I expect I shall get the first blow." Then he turned himself round. Mr. Mulhollan, and others begged him that he would not go on in this matter, they would rather go and speak to the marshal that he should deliver up the prisoners willingly, if they would absolutely have them.

Did the men rush on when he told them this?

Yes, they followed him. He then said to them, you must not fire first, but if they do fire upon you, then I will order you to fire too, and help yourselves as well as you can. I did not wait till the prisoners were re­leased, for when I heard this, I thought there was going to be warm work, so I got upon my horse, and rode off to Easton as fast as I could.

Thursday May 2. JOSEPH HORSEFIELD, esquire, qualified:

Please to relate the particulars of the affair at Bethlehem as far as came to your knowledge.

I live in Bethlehem; am a justice of the peace there, and was there on the 7th of March.—Shortly before the last general election, the spirit of discontent and opposition was sensibly felt in the county of Northampton; there were different meetings called in different parts of the county, among others, I was informed there was one at which the militia officers were particularly to attend, which I understood was intended to prepare a ticket for the election. At that meeting, sundry resolutions were passed, which appeared in public prints, among others, one was that petitions should be formed to obtain a repeal of the alien [Page 42] and sedition laws, and the land tax act. I was informed that the cap­tains of the militia companies were to be served with a copy of each of these petitions: I was likewise informed that this was done, and a five penny bit each paid freely for a copy, though the Germans love their money so well. I think the people were told that the petitions merely contained a request for the repeal of the house and land tax law. I have seen none of them. On the election day, the people pretty generally collected and, at least in the district where I had a right to vote, the spirit of opposition against the measures of government were so universal, that a friend of government, by saying one word in favour of it, was ready to be abused and I understood it was so in every election district in the county, and the county in general gloried that they had gained the day. Nothing mate­rial occurred, to my knowledge, from that time till the marshal arrived there.

Did the assessments go on regularly before that time?

No.

What do you know of that fact?

I never was present at any opposition myself, for I mostly stay at home.

Did not the spirit of opposition which had begun before the election, increase before the marshal arrived?

It daily increased.

In the beginning of March, the marshal of the United States arrived at Bethlehem, I think about the 3d. I having some personal acquaintance with that gentleman, waited on him, when he told me he was sent to the county on business for the United States, and desired me to inform him where several certain persons resided, against whom he had precepts from the district judge. I acquainted him with the courses and distances. He then went to Nazareth, and returned again about the fifth, telling me he had summoned a number of persons in Lehi township, and that they were to be at Bethlehem on the 7th. On the 6th in the evening, I was in­formed he had returned from Millar's town, and on the 7th in the morn­ing I went up to town, when he told me that he expected there would be some disturbance that day, and also told me that he had issued summons's for the posse commitatus. Between 10 and 11 o'clock the posse came, I think they were about 14 in number. A considerable number of people from the neighbourhoood of Bethlehem, had collected, unarmed. Mr. Dixon arrived from Emaus about 11 o'clock, and informed the marshal that on his way he met with a number of people collected at a tavern called Reiter's, in arms, both horsemen and footmen, about 6 miles from Bethlehem, and that he met a number on the road, partly armed, partly unarmed. About half past eleven, two men arrived at Bethlehem armed, from that quarter: they were disarmed and sent up stairs into a room; about the same time a number of persons arrived from Lehi township, who were also sent up stairs by the marshal in a room by themselves: they were about eleven in number. I was present when Mr. Eyerly spoke to these prisoners, telling them that an armed force was formed with intention to rescue them; the prisoners answered that they by no means wished it: that they would submit to go with the marshal rather than be rescued. In about an hour, I was looking out of the window up stairs, and saw riding into the yard a number of horsemen, besides some footmen; 1 said to the marshal, I thought it was best for us now to go down and [Page 43] see these people. I went down and asked one of them what was his name, he answered Daniel Shaeffer. He had a sword at his side, and two pistols: next to him, on horseback, was Henry Shankwyler, next to him was another horseman accoutred in the same manner; his name was Phi­lip Daesch; there were also John Dillinger and Jacob Kline, not in uni­form but with swords in the scabbard. I asked them what they wanted: we are all civil people and have no arms, was my observation to them. Dillinger who seemed to speak for them, said that yesterday the marshal had taken Shankwyler and some other of their neighbours prisoners, that they were come to see Shankwyler's partner (accuser.) The marshal told them that the United States was the accuser of Mr. Shankwyler. Dillin­ger said he thought it was not right that he should be taken to Philadel­phia. The marshal said that the judge had ordered it so. I told him that I thought they were unacquainted with the government of the Uni­ted States, and 1 thought they were in a very critical and dangerous situ­ation; that the United States in less than 20 days could muster 10,000 men, which power I thought they could not with stand, and that it was best for them to surrender the prisoners to the marshal, and go home. They said that Shankwyler and the others were their neighbours, and that they would wait and see what should become of them. They did not mention the others names. I asked whether any more armed men would be there; Jacob Kline answered, 50 more. With that we went into the house. After dinner the people collected very fast, and Dillinger began again to speak in behalf of Shankwyler. The marshal told him it could not be otherwise, go he must: Shankwyler answered that he had a family to take care of, and that he would not go. With this, the mar­shal and myself walked up stairs, and there saw a great number of armed people round the house, 1 think 120 or 130, and about 250 unarmed. I suggested to the marshal that my suspicions were very gloomy; that I doubted whether he would succeed in taking off the prisoners, for I had quietly heard among the people that were in the house, and out of doors, that nothing should satisfy them but the delivery of the prisoners in front of the house was drawn up a number of men armed. I went up stairs and there I perceived several times, guns pointed up to the window of the second story at which I began to feel very disagreeable. Mr. Ey­erly, Mr. Balliott, Mr. Henry, and the others were occasionly at the windows, though I do not recollect Eyerly being at the window, but the others were: I walked down stairs, and there saw men armed close before the door, pressing in: I pressed through them, and heard two men say if Henry, and that damned Eyerly, and that damned pot gutted Balliott were there, they would tear them to pieces; this man did not attempt to come into the house. I thought this was bad news, and I walked back again, and proceeded my way up stairs, and desired Mr. Levering (the tavern keeper to close the bar) thinking there was madness enough with­out stimulating it, which was immediately done. I desired the marshal not to protract the delivery of the prisoners to the law. Mr. Mohollan and several others there pushed them back, but just then I heard some of the officers say, "boys, in the ranks, in the ranks."

Were those two men whom you heard use the words just now related, passing in at the door.

NO, they staid in the yard.—I looked out of the window again up stairs, and there I saw a second pressure, to come in at the door some of the men who were in the ranks thumped their guns upon the ground, and jumped, pronouncing some unintelligible shrieks, savage like shrieks. I begged the marshal, for God's sake to deliver up those men up stairs, for the rescue was perfect in my opinion: the closing of the men would be only butchering, and I had no doubt the government of the United States would not let its dignity be trampled upon in this way. The marshal still continued to hessitate. By this time a number of per­sons had got into the house, adorned with large three coloured French cockades. The posse staid up stairs at this time: I then worked my way down stairs again, in order to be ready for a jump. By this time I un­derstood that the prisoners were delivered. After the prisoners were gone about ten minutes, there was not a single armed man in, or about the house: some of the neighbours who had collected were still there, some of whom were approving, and others disapproving of the conduct of the insurgents, but in my opinion, the majority were approving.

Have you any knowledge of the conduct of the prisoner at the bar, at Bethelethem?

No, I never saw him till I came down to this place, but I frequently heard the name of captain Fries called.

Did you see Mr. Henry or Mr. Balliott in the room, looking out of the window?

Mr. Balliott looked out of the window but stepped back again pretty quick, afraid of the muzzles of the guns.

At the time that judge Peters issued warrants for the appre­hension of those people, do you think any magistrate in the county could have issued them, and made them returnable to himself?

I look upon it that the state justices were a nullity. Many people came to me, asked me if the saw was dead: I told them No, they should first hear of me being dead.

Was there any applications made to any of the justices of the peace?

Not to my knowledge, but I think the justices of the peace could do nothing with it.

JOHN MOHOLLAN, Esq sworn.

Was you at Bethlehem on the 7th of March?

Yes.

Please to inform the court and jury what took place there.

The reason that I was there was from a summons I had received to attend the marshal that morning. Agreeable to that sum­mons I went there about 11 o'clock, and we went at the direction of the marshal to meet the force over the bridge. Christian Roths, William Barnett, and J. Hartsell went with me.

He then related the occurrence of the meeting the companies, and the delegation of three men from them, which was much similar to the testi­mony of William Barnett, and Christian Roths.

At what time did you first hear that the marshal had these two men in custody?

The first time I heard of it was by the men over the bridge.

What became of those two men?

I cannot tell; the marshal told me they were discharged, but I do not recollect seeing them.

Did you see the prisoner among this party?

No, not to my knowledge, if I had I should not have known him, for I never heard of him before. Having met with those horse men before we came back to the bridge, we returned with them, and all made an halt in the yard. I spoke all I could to dissuade them from the purpose about which they came, but all to no purpose. I had no answer that I could understand, for they generally spoke in German or broken English, which I could not understand. I always understood, generally, that they wanted the prisoners, and that they wished to give in security, and let them be tried in the county: that if they had done any thing that was wrong, it was right they should suffer, but that it was not right to take them to Philadelphia. I heard major Barnett say this who interpreted what they said in German. After being a considerable time engaged with people as actively as I could, but it appeared to be but to little purpose, I then went up stairs with a view to take something; as I was returning the stairs were so crouded I could not easily get down. Coming down I saw a per­son whom I understood to be captain Fries, and the marshal standing talk­ing to him. I believe it was the prisoner at the bar. I heard them talk a few words: the marshal said that they were not doing right, and they must suffer: but I cannot recollect any thing particularly that was said, but I observed that he often made a demand of the prisoners, but that he should not be hurt; that he would be answerable for himself and the company, that none of his men should hurt him that day, but that he would not be answerable for any others that did not belong to his com­pany. I think he repeated this twice. I was there but a few minutes. I made some observations to the men advising them to consider what they were about, for I considered it dangerous, and very wrong to proceed in this way. At this time there was a noise in the entry: I was afraid something had happened, so I went down, but I do not recollect seeing Fries, the whole day afterwards. There was a great deal said, but none of them spoke to me in English.

JACOB EYERLY, qualified.

We wish you to relate what you took notice of at Beth­lehem.

AS to what happened on the seventh of March, I am not able to say much. I was out with the marshal the day before, when he served the process. As we heard that the rescue was intended. It was agreed by the marshal to send express to Easton, in order to obtain the posse to aid him in the execution of his duty: they accordingly arrived between 10 and 11 o'clock, to the number of 15 or 16. Mr. Dixon of Emaus told us that he had seen about 20 armed men at Reiter's tavern, and some at another tavern, besides some on the road, and that he understood from them that they were coming to rescue the prisoners. It was then agreed to take these prisoners, who had surrendered, up stairs. There were a number of people now collected now from the neighbourhood, and then it was agreed to send the deputation to meet the armed men. About that time I went down stairs into the back room, and there I saw those two men whose arms had been taken from them; I did not see them come in. [Page 46] I then went up stairs again, this was the last time I went down stairs, till after the prisoners were released. I then saw those three men come with Shankwyler. I did not hear what passed, but saw Mr. Horsefield and judge Henry go to them. Sometime afterwards, I saw an armed force coming in, a great many on horseback, and many footmen with muskets on their shoulders: the horsemen had their swords drawn. The greatest part of those on horseback came from Bucks county. Afterwards, the marshal came up stairs and said that they were determined to have the prisoners, and he believed that Mr. Balliott and myself would be in danger of our lives if we went out of the house, and then desired me to undertake to guard the stairs, and told me to give orders that if any body would come up with force, they should shoot them. I placed the guard on the stairs, at first there was but two. Some of the posse were at this time below talking to the people. After some time the guard told me that they got so violent, and threatened to come up stairs with violence, and requested of me that I might double the guard, which I did. As I was in the room. I looked out of the window and saw a company of rifle men, all with three coloured cockades, marching Indian file round the house: I counted them, there were 42 in that company: another person besides myself was counting them, but I do not recollect who it was, though I rather think it was Mr. Balliott: they marched twice round the house. Another time when I was walking about the room a person who was along with me, I do not recollect who, told me that they were pointing their guns up to the window, and that he was sure it was dangerous for me to show myself at the window.

Objection was here made by the council for the prisoner, against any hearsay evidence.

Had you not reason to believe that your life was in dan­ger?

There is not the least doubt upon my mind, from what I heard, and from what I say, and from the marshal's testimony, but if I had gone to any place where they could have done it, but they would shoot me, because the people in general appeared to be in such a rage that there was no reason in them.

Some farther objections was made by the council as to his ideas of the state of things, but the court declared it right to shew the general im­pressions he felt.

Did you, or not, abstain from shewing yourself at the window, or amongst the people.

Yes, as much as possible. There was nothing particular that I saw, except at one time when I was in the room, I heard a terrible huzza: this was in the afternoon. On this I went to the window to see what produced this noise, and I saw that captain Jarrett had arrived: the had just dismounted his horse, and had his pistols, in his hand, and was walking up toward the stairs. I did not remain long at the window, but just looked out, and saw him come in, and shortly after he came up into the room where I was; he had not his pistols with him then: I had that moment received a letter from Mr. Rawle, attorney of the district, that Mr. Jarrett had surrendered himself and given bail, and that he declared he was a strong friend to government. I then said to him, if you are a friend to government, as you profess to be, you ought to go down and tell [Page 47] your people to desist: to which he made no reply at all. He walked about in the room for some time, and then wept down stairs. I did not see any thing more till the prisoners were released. The only time I saw Mr. Fries, the prisoner, was a few minutes before the prisoners were delivered up. I walked our of the room and saw Mr. Fries upon the head of the stairs, speaking with the marshal: shortly after, the prisoners were request­ed to go down, but the minister staying a little while up in the room, there was a call made for him particularly, and therefore I went and re­quested him to go down. Shortly after, the armed men went off. I look­ed out of the window and saw Mr. Jarrett parading his light horse in rank before the door. He then gave orders to march, and they went off.

Did you perceive any thing of the prisoner after this?

No, that was the only time I saw him during the day.

You were one of the commissioners appointed to carry into execution two acts of Congress; one for assessing houses, and the other for laying a direct tax?

Yes.

Was there not, before this time, a general opposition to the execution of this law throughout the county of Northampton?

After I had received my commission, which was sometime in August 1798, I had received a letter from the secretary of the treasury, requesting me to take some pains to find out suitable characters to serve at assessors. I did, in consequence of that, write some letters to some of my friends, in the counties of Northampton, Luzerne and Wayne, which constituted my division: in Wayne and Luzerne, I found no difficulties whatever, but received a number of applications sufficient, and accompanied with recom­mendations. In Northampton county I was not so successful; I had but two recommendations from that county; it was therefore necessary for me, from the best information which I could obtain, to endeavour to find men of suitable characters in each township; and likewise to get a num­ber of blank commissions, in case some of those appointed should refuse to accept of the office. I received information at Reading, at the time the board of commissioners met, from the commissioner in Bucks, that he had received information from a gentlemen in Philadelphia (Mr. Chapman) that he had travelled through a great part of Northampton county, and that in every tavern where he stopped, this tax law was the general topic of conversation, and that great pains was taken to find out who the per­sons were that were friends of the government so much as to be assessors, in order to persuade them not to accept of the appointment. Although I could not believe it was the case at that time, yet I found it was the case afterwards.

Do you know this traveller?

No.

Agreeable to my duty, I gave notice to the assessors to meet me at a certain place. I should have first said that I appointed the assessors agree­able to the best information I could collect, I took one man from each township, such as was thought qualified for the business. I sent them their commissions, and with them notices to meet me at a time and place appointed in order to receive from me their instructions.

He then mentioned the names of the assessors, and the townships to which they were appointed.

I appointed a meeting of the assessors of the third district at Nazareth, on the 3d Thursday in November, two of them did not attend, and some of the others who did attend begged to be excused from serving. I asked their reason, and told them I could not very well excuse them, they told me that the people in their different townships were very much opposed to the law; that they thought it was dangerous for them to accept of it. I found that they, as well as the people, had a wrong idea about the law; and I was so happy that day as to prevail upon all those that wished to be excused accepting the appointment, upon explaining the law to them, to accept it. The next day I met the assessors of the second district at Al­lentown, where all attended but one. I had the same difficulty there as at the other place, and it was not without much difficulty that those who did appear, that they did accept of the appointment. I then left the blank commissions with Mr. Balliot, and requested him to appoint some persons in the room of Mr. Home, who had refused. The Monday fol­lowing met the assessors of the other district at Chesnut Hill township. Previous to that I had seen Mr. Kearne, who was the assessor, appointed at Easton; when I mentioned to him that he was appointed an assessor, he told me that it would not suit him to accept of it. I requested of him that he might name some suitable person, and qualified for it, and I would be willing to accept him. He mentioned Jacob Snyder, and told me he would notice Mr. Snyder to meet me with the rest. When I came there two of the assessors did not appear, and one from Hamilton did not appear willing to accept of it, but after a great deal of explaining and persuading, it was prevailed upon. Just as we were going, Synder came, he told me that be had received his notice, and that he was not willing to accept it; that the people were very much opposed to the law, and he did not very well understand it himself, but he thought he would endeavour to get some information, and that when he came there, the information he received was such, that he was determined to go after me, and accept of the ap­pointment, if he were to ride 50 miles in order to accept of it, for that he had been wrong informed about the law. I then went up to Wayne county where I had no difficulty, except that one assessor told me that he was persuaded with difficulty to accept of the appointment. As I was going to Luzerne county, the assessor from Hamilton township, (Nicholas Michael) came after me, and told me that he had been obliged to fly from his house in the night to save his life, and begged of me to accept of his resignation; I told him I could not accept of it, but that I would see per­fect justice done. At any request he went with mo to Easton, where we went to see for Mr. Sitgreaves, attorney of the district, but not finding him at home, we went to Judge Trail, in order to take his deposition. He begged that I would grant the favour for him to consider of it till the next morning; I did, and next morning he came to me and begged me " Mr. Eyerly, for God's sake put me to jail, so that I may be secure of my life, for if I inform against these people, I and my family shall be ruined. I told him that I would do no such thing, for that I had too much friendship for him; that I would give a few lines to the constable to request him to call a township meeting, and I would meet him in the town­ship. I requested Mr. Henry to go there with me: I had reason to be­lieve that this opposition arose from misrepresentation, which I supposed was given to the people by a few gentlemen, who had travelled through [Page 49] the county a few days since. When we came to Hamilton township, there were about 60 or 70 persons assembled, three or four of them in uniforms, their arms was behind the door at the house of Mr. Hellers. I then told them that I was come as their friend, and without any design of taking the least advantage of their conduct in opposing the assessors: that I had come to read the law to them, and explain it. I did so, and pointed out the impositions practised on them. Mr. Henry assisted me as much as he could, but all to very little purpose. The assessor after this again begged me, for God's sake, to accept of his resignation. AS there was a number of them that complained against the assessors. I proposed to them that though I had no authority to it, yet if I thought it would be a favour to grant them that indulgence to elect their own assessor themselves, I would grant him the appointment. They told me they would do no such thing, for said they " if we do this, we at once acknowledge that we will submit to the laws, and that is what we wont do. I then enquired for a suitable man, and John Huston was mentioned, who was likewise elected assessor under the county rates. I called him into a room, and requested him to accept the appointment, he told me it was im­possible at the present time, but he should, whenever things appeared more favourable, so that he could go through, be willing to do it.

I hear that the business is now done.

Please to relate who were the persons that travelled through that county, and encouraged the opposition.

The last week in December, or the first of January I re­ceived a letter from Mr. Heckavelter, the assessor of upper Milford: by which, he informed me that he was stopped, by a regular deputation from the township meeting, consisting of 3 men. I sent a line to Mr. Heck­avelter, and wished him to give notice to Mr. Schymer, Mr. Moretz, and some of the leading men in the township, that I would meet them at such a time, and explain the business to them. When I came, in conse­quence, within 4 miles of the place, I was requested by a friend, not to go, for that the people, were so violent, that if I did go I should certainly be killed: I replied to them that I would go, I was not afraid of any of them. I took Mr. Henry along with me; when we came there, I found about 60 or 70 persons collected at the house of John Schymer. I suppose a­bout 20 of them had French cockades in their hats, red, blue and white. Mr. Schymer then took me into his own room; there were about eight or ten in the room. Mr. Schymer asked me if I had seen the petitions, he gave one of them to me, and requested that I would read it, which I did in the presence of another person; there were but two in the company that understood English. While I was reading, these two men began to shake their heads, they said it was not such a petition as they had been told. I then asked them whether the general opposition was not on account of the stamp tax, and the house tax; they said yes. I then told them there was not a word in this petition against the stamp act; they seemed to be al­together satisfied, and said that they had been made to believe it was. I then went into the next room, where the people collected: some of them appeared to be extremely violent and very abusive. I told them I had not came there to be abused by any body; that I had come there as a friend, to inform them of the law which it was important should be understood. There was a report among them that it was no law; I read the law to them, and explained it in the German language, and told them it was their [Page 50] duty to submit to it. One of them of the name of George Shaeffer jumped up before me, and said, Mr. Eyerly, it is no law; I told them that if they did not believe me, they might enquire of Squire Schymer whether it was or not. Mr. Schymer told them it was a law; upon which Shaef­fer replied, " admitting it is a law, we will not submit to it". He then farther said, here I am, take me to gaol, but you shall see how far you will bring me. Upon which a great many of them jumped up and said, yes by God, if they shall only attempt to take any one to jail, we would soon have him out again. Some of them made use of very abusive language against the assessor, calling him a tory rascal and the like; and as the ass­essor had requested me to accept of his resignation because it was not in his power to go through with it, I proposed to them, that if they had any objections against the assessor, that they should elect one, and I would give him his appointment; to which some of the most sensible and most mode­rate replied, no, if it must be done Mr. Heckavelter shall do it, and some of the others said, we will do no such things if we do, we at once acknow­ledge that we submit to the law, and that is what we will not. I then went over to the tavern close by, with Mr. Schymer, when Mr. Hecka­velter came to me, and told me that he was in danger; that there was three of the Shaeffers were going to give him a licking: I requested him to stand by me, and I would see him safe. We then went off.

Did they come up to beat him?

Yes they did, all three of them. Mr. Heckavelter told them he would not have any thing to do with them, and they charged him something respecting a liberty pole at Millars town.

Did they threaten to beat him on account of his going on with the laws as assessor?

No.

But it was no private quarrel was it?

No, Mr. Heckavelter told me it was not.

When was the liberty pole erected?

Two weeks before that, but after the dissentions arose.

Were those poles erected any where, but where this opposition prevailed?

With a few exceptions: there was one place where the law was fully executed, and some others that followed the example, where the law was executed:

Was the law executed at Millars town?

It was not executed there, nor at upper Milford till about two or three weeks ago at farthest. I then agreed to go to Millars town, where one of the Shaeffer's lived. Mentioning this to an assessor, (John Roming) he requested I would not do it; he told me that the people were so violent that he would not go upon his duties if any body would give him £.500 to do it, if he did, he must run the risk of losing his life. I then desisted.

The laws were not excuted till after the army came up, and not before were they?

The witness was going on to say what be had been told, but hearsay evidence was inadmissible.

—I then went to Mr. Trexlers where I saw Mr. Bobst, who gave me information of Heidelberg, Wiessenberg, Lynn, and Low Hill: he told me that at a meeting at one of those places the people had drawn up a paper not to submit to the laws: he then told the people that they were [Page 51] certainly doing wrong, and that they would bring themselves into trouble if they went on that way: upon which they (the people themselves) destroyed the paper. He said the same of Heidelberg. He likewise informed me that in the township where he lives it was impossible to execute the laws.

At what time were the laws executed in those four townships?

Since the troops have been there. He went so far as to say that all in the township opposed the execution of the law, except three or four.

Hearsay evidence stopped again by the council, because the constitution provides that the accused shall be confronted with his accusers.

Mr. Rawle contended, that, as he wished to shew the court and jury the general state of that country, the hearsay evidence of Mr. Eyerly in his official capacity as commissioner, to whom reports of the assessments were made, was admissible.

So far as explained the general temper was allowed.

—In Penn township the assessor did not meet us, he refused to accept the appointment, well aware of the difficulties that would occur, and a general rule was admitted to meet those difficulties. I received information from Mr. Balliott that he had found a man in that township who was willing to execute the office. At my request, he sent him a commission, but the man was obliged, before he took the oaths, to return it again, declaring it was impossible to do it. This was sometime in Ja­nuary. Sometime afterwards he wrote to me of another man who would accept. I requested him to sign his commission. I received information while the marshal, Mr. Balliott and myself were about the county, that as soon as the people, in the township knew that he had received his com­mission they raised a mob.

When was Penn township assessed?

About ten days ago.

Had you not reason to believe that, owing to the opposition in that township the law could not be executed?

It could not.

Was there similar opposition in any other township?

In Moore township there was some opposition, but when the assessor was opposed he called a town meeting. That township has been assessed about two months.

Mr. Lewis insisted that if such evidence were allowed, it would be ne­cessary to produce the commissions of these officers, and he could see no reason why themselves could not have been present as evidences on the prosecution, instead of that testimony coming through Mr. Eyerly.

Mr. Rawle contended that if it was necessary to prove commissions, there would be no end to the enquiry.

Were you present at any other meetings?

No.—On the first or second of March last, when the mar­shal came to Nazareth, and told me that he had process against a num­ber of persons in Northampton, county, he requested me to go with him: I went with him, first to Lehi township, where the marshal served process upon those people for opposing the assessments, without any difficulty: we then came to Bethlehem, and then to Emaus: the first house the marshal had to serve in was a subpoena upon George Syder, where, after being Abused by the house, we were sworn at and abused by him: he had a large club in his hand.

Did he abuse you before you spoke to him?

Yes.—He called us rascals, highway robbers and the like: the marshal told him he only had a subpoena to appear at Philadelphia to give testimony; to which he answered, in German, he would be damned if he would go. The marshal finding he could do nothing with him, re­quested Daniel Schwartz sen. to read and explain it to him, and we left it with him to serve. We then went to Millars town to serve a warrant on George Schaeffer, but we were told he was gone to Philadelphia: we went to Seward's tavern. The marshal and myself then went to Shank­wyler's where there was at least 50 assembled in the room. Not knowing Shankwyler, Mr. Balliott pointed him out, and the marshal took him: while the marshal was talking with Shankwyler, the croud inclosed upon us, and abused us very much, and in a very menacing manner, accompa­nied with an almost universal cry of strike, strike, strike, so that for some time we did nor know what would be the consequence. The marshal this time was persuading Shankwyler to submit, telling him the conse­quence of opposition: he at first declared he would not, but at length he said he would do as Jarret did. Some of the people then said, that if Shank­wyler was to be taken out of his house, they would fight as long as they had of drop of blood in their bodies. The marshal then turned round to the croud, when they were so violent, and told them that Mr. Balliott and myself were under his protection. I forgot to mention that while the marshal was talking to Shankwyler in the bar, one of the persons pre­sent tore the cockade from Mr. Balliott's hat, while he was turning round to speak to the marshal: Mr. Balliott did not for the present know but it was a blow some one had given him. They then made back a little. Having found it impossible to do any thing farther, Shankwyler promised to meet the marshal at Bethlehem. We then went out of the room, but before we came out of the house there was a terrible huzza in the room. I then sent for a constable at the request of the marshal, to go with him and show him the persons and places of those against whom he had pro­cess. I remained while he served the process' at Mr. Irexler's, and it was there we first received information that an attempt would be made the next day to rescue the prisoners. We arrived at Bethlehem that evening the 6th of March, and then the occurrences happened of which I have given testimony as far as I know.

Some conversation here occurred respecting the testimony of Mr. Eyer­ly where he said he had appointed assessors: Mr. Eyerly corrected him­self, that he meant he had recommended them to the board. But Mr. Lewis said he should expect the records to be produced to the court, that the manner and legality of the appointments might be seen.

SAMUEL TOON, sworn.

Testimony translated by Mr. Erdman.

Where do you live when at home?

At upper Milford in Northampton county.

Do you belong to any company of light horse?

Yes, to captain Jarrett's.

What is your station?

A trumpeter.

Were you requested by any body to go with a party to Bethlehem; by whom, and at what time?

On the 7th of March, about 8 o'clock I went to the house of Daniel Schwartz.

Did you go, or were you sent to Schwartz?

I went of my own accord, because I heard that the light horse were to meet there, when I came, there was one of the light horse there, named Samuel, the son of Daniel Schwartz. I asked him who ordered the com­pany together, and what they were about to do? he said that John Fogle the lieutenant had directed them to meet at Guise's tavern, about 3 miles from Bethlehem, on this side: he then asked me if I would go along. I answered, no. Daniel Schwartz had another son named Daniel, who wanted to go along, but the old man would not allow it, because he had no regimentals or uniform.

What is meant by uniform?

The cap and coat.—Old Schwartz then told his son that he should go to a neighbour, and should borrow his coat and my cap. I would not lend my cap, because I told him I might want it myself, if I could get an horse, as I told him I had it in my heart to go.

Do you know what they were going for, or was it mentioned at all?

I did not know that morning what they were going for—If that is all your excuse for not going, old Schwartz said he would lend me his horse, and give me a dollar in the bargain. His son, young. Daniel he would not allow to go along, but he begging very hard, he would allow him to go as hostler, to take care of the horses. They went, some of them as far as Guise's tavern, some of them were in regimentals, and some not. I and Schwartz's two sons went, and when we came to Guise's there was no officers.

How many went from Schwartz's house?

Six: Henry Staeler, myself, Adam Stahlnaker, and Schwartz's three sons.—When we came within half a mile of Guise's, we overtook, a com­pany of riflemen of about 30 strong. They had no officer with them. Stahlnaker was one of the lieutenants, but did not meddle with the com­pany, nor was he in regimentals, nor in arms. They waited about two hours for Fogle, the first lieutenant, but he did not come. Captain Jar­rett was down at Philadelphia. When I found there was no one to take the command, I determined to go no farther: then there began a quarrel among them, some of them were willing to go, and some of them were not. Stahlnaker and myself then proposed to go to Bethlehem, and we would bring them advice what was doing there, if they would wait an hour, and then they would know what was best to do. I then took off my regimentals, and put others on, belonging to my brother-in-law, the tavern-keeper. Some were willing to do this, some were not. They then went after me, and told me that I must put on my regimentals, and take my trumpet. I refused this, and told them, I would not go a step farther unless there was some officer who would' take the command and answer for it. They then agreed to it, and chose Andrew Sochiffert: He then said he would accept of it, if they would follow him, obey his or­ders, or his advice. They then went on to Bethlehem.

Did the number increase?

The rifle passed by, but the number of horsemen did not increase.

How many horsemen were there?

There were only about eight or nine at Guise's, but there were a great [Page 54] number of our people on horseback, here and there one of them with a gun. When we were about half a mile on this side the bridge, we were met by four persons from Bethlehem.

Had you settled what you were going for?

I had no intercourse with any one of them on the subject, because I was always a good way before the troop.

Did you not hear at the tavern?

No, I did not hear any particular reason for going to Bethlehem.

Why did you go with them?

Because I was afraid of getting into trouble, and yet I was afraid if I went there.

Why afraid?

Because I supposed they would take the prisoners.

Why did you suppose so?

Because I heard here and there one or two say that they would not suffer the prisoners to go to Philadelphia with the marshal.

Did you blow the trumpet as you rode a head?

Yes.

What passed when you met with these four gentlemen?

These four men persuaded us to go back again, and there was here and there one that was willing to go back, among whom was Schiffart the captain: as they would not follow him; he laid down his commission again. They then went all in confusion, till we came to the bridge: all mixed one with another.

What did those people do who refused to go back?

There came one to them and told them that the two rifle men were prisoners, which irritated them very much, and they said they would go and get them; they would have them.

Was this before or after the gentlemen arrived from Bethlehem?

It was after they arrived, that they heard those two men were impri­soned?

What was the conversation between those deputies and the people?

I do not recollect much of their discourse, but I heard a good deal of altercation between them: they were determined that the prisoners should not go to Philadelphia, and that they would go to Bethlehem.

What prisoners did they say?

I do not know: they only said the prisoners. However these deputies brought them so far that they agreed not to go to Beth­lehem.

Upon what terms?

The gentlemen told them they would bring themselves into great trou­ble, for an army would be marched against them. There was no condi­tions or terms made besides this. They then proceeded and chose some people to go with them to the marshal, to see whether he would give up these two men, and then they would return to their homes. They then requested me to go over as one of the deputies with two others: one of them was Yiesly, a rifle man. I agreed to go, provided they would re­main there till we returned. We then went, but without any arms, but we were scarce over the bridge before a great part of the light horse fol­lowed us, and arrived at the tavern before we could come there.

What light horse was that?

I did not observe them all, for they rode very fast, but it was the com­pany I belonged to.

Had any of the Bucks county people come up at that time?

Not any that I know of.—When I came to the tavern I did not want to go in, but Mr. Mohollan and the others took us into the marshal; but the greatest part of our company had come in, and therefore I could not tell what to say for them in their behalf. When I came to the mar­shal, he asked what was their design: I answered that I did not know; but Yiesly demanded of him the two riflemen who were made prisoners, but I cannot say for certain whether he demanded any more prisoners of him. The marshal then read the orders which he had from judge Peters: We then went out of doors.

Did not the marshal deliver up these two men.

Not at that time.

Did you all go back to join your companies?

I cannot say whether the two others did or not. I remained where I was.—About half an hour after the rifle company arrived; marched round the house, and formed in ran [...] before the house.

Was this before the two prisoners were given up.

I am not sure whether it was or not, because I do not know the time they were given up, for I went up in the room with Mr. Balliott and Mr. Eyerly.

Did any horsemen come with the riflemen?

There came now and then some horseman, some armed, and some un­armed, and they hurried into the yard.—When I saw them standing in a rank I went down stairs, and asked captain Staeler how he came over when he promised not to came over. His answer was, that the Bucks county people had come, and they all come over together. They first staid behind the house: the house was all in confusion.

What did they ask for, or demand?

I heard some of them say that they wanted the prisoners out, and that they would force themselves into the house. I came out of the house several times to pacify them, and so did Shankwyler come out twice to speak to them.

Did you see the prisoner at the bar?

Yes, I saw him once speaking with the marshal about half way up the stair case.

Did you see him come down and speak to the people who were in the yard?

As they wanted to go in by force, he told them they should wait a little, for that he would speak to the people inside a little more first.

Did you hear what he said to them afterwards?

No, he then went away, and they forced themselves in at the door. I with some others tried to keep them back all we could.

Did you succeed in keeping them out of the house at that time?

I succeeded in keeping them off, but one of them was very anxious to get in, and told the people that they should pull off their gloves, in order to feel the trigger, and cock the better.

Who was this?

It was Jacob Ingleman.—Staeler then formed his, company in a rank. One Henry Hoover, who was standing in the entry after they had formed. [Page 56] seemed to think the time too long, and said if they would only send eight men to him, he would soon have the prisoners. The people then got in, one after another, and the entry became almost full. I believe at that time the prisoner at the bar came and told them not to be afraid, but that they might now march on.

At the time Fries said that, were the men in or not?

They were in the entry, and a great many people were there: I was in the back of the house, they then marched towards the stairs where the guards had left. The marshal was then quite alone, and he told them he would deliver up the prisoners. The prisoners then, came down stairs I believe, for I did not know them: I had not the least personal acquaintance with one of them.

Was Fries any way distinguished by his dress, or sword, or cockade?

I never was acquainted with Fries before: he had on then a great coat, a cocked hat, and a black feather: I did not see him with a sword.

Did you hear what passed between Fries and the marshal on the stairs?

No, I was standing below; I only saw him there.

Did Fries speak English or Dutch?

Sometimes he spoke English sometimes German.

Friday, May 3. ANDREW SHIFFERT, sworn.

Testimony translated.

Was you one of the armed party that went to Bethlehem on the se­venth of March?

Yes.

To what company did you belong?

To Jarrett's company.

Inform the court and jury how you came to go, what your motive, and what the object of the expedition.

I was informed by John Hoover that all the light horse were to meet at Martin Ritter's at ten in the morning: I was not at home when he came but I was informed of it. I then went over to Ritter's the next morning, (on the seventh of March) and when I came there, I asked what was to be done. Their answer was, that they were going to Bethlehem to release the prisoners.

What prisoners?

The prisoners from the marshal.

To what township do you belong?

To Salisbury. I told them that if they were to do this, they would find what would be the consequences. The others said that if they got the prisoners clear that day, there would be nothing done, it would be all over: that if they came with arms against them it would be all at an end.

If who went with arms?

If the soldiers went with arms.

Did not you enquire who had appointed them to meet?

No.

Did you not ask when you were at Ritters?

No. At Ritter's I wanted to go home, but they would not let me, telling me that Fogle would be at Guise's tavern, whereupon I agreed to go so for with them. Coming there, Fogle was not there, and I and Sa­muel [Page 57] Toon wanted to go home, for there was no officers there. They then agreed to choose an officer, when the choice fell upon me; I told them I would not go with them without they would obey my orders, and not say any more about taking the prisoners from the marshal. They professed to do so, whereupon we proceeded to within half a mile of the bridge, and there we were met by four gentlemen from Bethlehem, and as they repeated again that they would have the prisoners, I said I would have no more to do with them. They then went into Bethlehem, but I did not go with them, but in about two hours I went in to see what they were about: I staid this side of the bridge 'till then. When I got to Bethlehem I was informed that they had got the prisoners out. I remain­ed there about half an hour and then rode home, so that I know not what happened.

Did you hear that the marshal had taken two men prisoners, at what time and where?

I heard that two men were disarmed: I heard it on this side the bridge.

Did you hear it while the rifle company, and the others were there to­gether?

It was a person who came from Bethlehem that told of it, but I cannot tell who.

Was it before the deputation arrived?

I cannot tell, but I did not hear it before.

Had the Backs county people come up before you left that place where you staid on this side of the bridge?

Yes, I saw them ride up at about two o'clock.

Was Jarrett's and Staeler's companies gone over the bridge when the Bucks county people went over?

The light horse were, but I am not fare of Staeler's.

Did you enter into conversation with the Bucks county people?

No, not any.

The evidence here was closed so far as related to the affair at Bethle­hem: Mr. attorney then introduced the following, preceding and succeed­ing events to show the state of the country, and the prisoner's intention.

JOHN DILLINGHER, sworn.

Testimony translated.

Where is your home?

In upper Milford, Northampton county, about six miles from Millars town.

Do you know of any rumour or report in your neighbourhood that the marshal was coming up to arrest some persons, before he came?

It was talked of, as suspected that some persons would be arrested.

On what account?

I can give no account of that. The report was that they would be arrested to be taken to Philadelphia.

Was it reported, or any proposition made among the people that if any body should be brought to Philadelphia, that it should not be suffered?

It was said, that if any person was to be arrested innocently, it would be very hard for such a man, and he ought not to be suffered to suffer. And further it was said that somebody had sworn against Shankwyler that he had two pistols and a sword on his table, and that he had sworn that if the assessors should come, he would shoot them. I and my neighbours [Page 58] said that Shankwyler never owned a pair of pistols, nor did they believe any were ever there except a traveller brought them there. [He kept a tavern] I then heard that the marshal had arrested some persons at Mil­lars town. The following day (6th of March) captain Staeler came to my house, and I asked him whether he had been in Millars town. He answered yes. I asked him whether it was true that Shankwyler had been arrested by the sheriff. (Because at that time the term marshal was not known to them.) Staeler answered, yes, and that he was to be the fol­lowing day at Bethlehem, and asked me whether I would go to Bethlehem likewise, and told me that more people were going up to see, I said I should also like to go and see, provided the people would save themselves from getting into trouble. I then dressed myself to go away: Staeler asked me if I would not take my rifle with me.

Were you one of captain Staeler's rifle company?

No.

What company did you belong to?

To no one particularly; only the militia—I then answered no, for what? He then informed me that there were a number of people to meet at Ritter's tavern, whence he heard they were to proceed to Bethlehem, and they would go there pretty early, to exercise a little, and that I should go in the ranks to make a show, because his company was not compleat.

Was it muster day?

No, but they had frequent meetings in order to exercise themselves. I then agreed that I would take my rifle so far as that. As I was dres­sing when he came, he asked me what I was dressing for: I told him that I was going to my mother in law, to fetch her some flax to spin; she lives in Bucks county, about a mile on this side of Conrad Marks's house. Whereupon, he (Staeler) desired me to tell young Marks that the light horse were going to Bethlehem, and that he should go likewise if he pleased. Before I came to Marks's, I saw a light horseman crossing the road into another road: when I came to Marks's I saw only his wife and children and a strange man thee: I asked Marks's wife what light horse man that was; she answered it was her son; I asked where he was go­ing: she said he was going over yonder where they were assessing houses, to go against the assessors. I then left the message Staeler directed me.

Did you go farther into Bucks than where your mother-in-law lives?

No. I entered into no other house than Marks's and my mother's.

What time of the day were you at Marks's?

About one o'clock.

Did you not mention to John Schymer, Esq that the people would not stand by him, and that he would not be supported, when it was reported that a warrant was [...]ued against him, but that if he remained firm, he would?

I do not reccollect any such thing.

WILLIAM THOMAS, sworn.

DO you live in Bucks county?

Yes.

Did you go to Bethlehem on the seventh of March?

Yes.—On the fifth of March we heard that the assessors were going round to assess the houses in Bucks county: they had assessed a few of the houses about already: my brother was at Jacob Hoover's, and I was [Page 59] there when he told me to tell two of our neighbours to let the assessors go round.

Were you not on the 6th of March desired to join the party going to Bethlehem?

On the 6th in the morning I was at Jacob Hoover's and he told me to go to Adam Broutler and Peter Coome to tell them to come to his house. On the road I met captain Kouder: he told me I must come along back again down to the mill, for his company was coming together there that day: when we came there, several were met, and they were beating the drum: part of them were armed. There were about 15 there in the whole. We then went to Jacob Fries's tavern; then the people said they went to see the assessors, but I dont know what for.

Where there any more at Fries's than those who came from the mill?

Yes there were a great many more, I think about thirty. John Fries and Kouder then sent some (two) horsemen named John Gett­man and Conrad Marks, the former had a gun, to see if they could find the assessors.

What were they to do?

Why, their directions was, that if they could find them they should bring them to Quaker town, or to Jacob Fries's tavern. Af­ter the horsemen were gone, then the order was for the company to go to Quaker town.

Were the party pretty generally armed?

A great many were not, and many who were not had clubs. I cannot tell how many were armed, but the greatest part had either arms or clubs.

Was there a drum and fife?

There was when we were at Quaker town.—We all stood in a rank, and fired off, and hallowed huzza. One party went to Enoch Roberts's tavern, and the other to David Zeller's, and soon after we were there, the assessors came along. They were esquire Foulke, John Rodrick, and Cephas Childs. I was at Zeller's when they came along, and they all began to run out of the tavern. When I came out they had Foulke by his horse's bridle, and him by one leg, and they told him to get off. It was captain Kouder that had hold of him; then John Fries came up and told him to get off. Jacob Hoover came up, I think before Fries, and tol Kouder to go away and not abuse the man, and he took hold of the bridle and spoke to him. Fries told Foulke to get off, he wanted to speak to him. Then George Mumbower came up, and stood at the back of the others, giving one of them a knock with the butt of his gun, and told them to pull him of; Jacob and John Hoover told them they should not abuse the man, for he would get off without. With that the esquire rode up with them to the shed, and got off. They then went into the tavern together. Then John Fries told him that he had forewarned them yes­terday not to assess the houses, and yet they had come to day again; he then told him that he should show his writings, what he had done in the township. Which he did, and John Fries read them, and gave them to him back again. I then went into another room, and when I came out again, Childs, the other assessor, was sitting on the table, with five or six about him. When I came up to him, I told him that they should not abuse him, for I used to know him: at this time they were abusing him?

How were they abusing him?

By speaking to him; I do not recollect what they said, but they told him he should not have gone about when they had forwarned him the day before, and they made him promise that he would not come again till farther orders—till they knew how the law was. They told him they thought they had as fit men in their township as what he was, and they wished to choose a man in the same township if they must have it done. As to Rodrick, I did not see him.

Did you hear any cry of "fire" after Rodrick?

No.

Did you see any gun snapped after him?

No.

Did you see any thing relating to a travelling man named captain Sea­born?

Yes, he was there, he was drunk, and some of them asked him whether he was for liberty or government, he said government: Peter Gobble said if he said that again he should be whipped. They were all pretty well drunk, but I was not drunk.

Was Fries drunk?

I do not recollect ever seeing him drunk: Kouder was, and so might Fries for what I know, but I had known him some time, and knew he was a sober man.

Did you hear any talk about tories there?

Yes, they talked of tories and stamplers: Foulke was one they called a tory, and so were several others.—A young fellow then went in to strike Seaborn, but I told him he should not strike a man that was drunk: I knew him when he lived at the river. He struck him once or twice, but I told him if he struck him again, I would strike him. Then we went down to Jacob Fries's, and there captain Kouder told me that I should be at Marks' the next day, to go along with them to Millar's town. It was now dark, and I had not seen John Fries come then. He told the same to the rest of the company. I then went home and went to bed. After I was home about a quarter of an hour, John Gettman and John Fries's [...] came to our house, but I was in bed. Gettman had a gun at my house, (he was a gunsmith.)

What age was young Fries?

About fifteen or sixteen—I went next morning to Marks' tavern in consequence of a massage they had left for me that night before with my mother. By ten o'clock we were all there.

Was John Fries there?

Yes.

He named 13 more who were there.

Young Marks went off soon after sun rise to Millar's town to tell them we were coming. John Fries's son went with us, but his father's horse got lame, and he was obliged to go back with it.

Were all these people armed?

Yes, all but Marks and old Kline.—The prisoner had his sword with him.

Had any one the command of the men?

Yes. John Fries had the command but he did not command till he got to Bethlehem, he gave no orders on the road.

What was the substance of the conversation before you went from the tavern?

Why, that they were going to Millar's town: I did not know that they were going to Bethlehem.

Did you hear any conversation about the intention of the march?

Yes. That we were going to Millar's town, for should there be pri­soners there, Marks said that he wanted us to show ourselves.

What were you to show yourselves for?

I do not know what for.

Were you to assist to bring the prisoners down to Philadelphia?

I do not know.

What was the intention of the Northampton people?

Why, they had a mind to take the prisoners again: I understood that the night before at Fries's and along the road before we got there. About three or four miles from old Marks', we met young Marks; he said it was not worth while to go to Millar's town, that the prisoners were up at Bethlehem, and that they had all gone there.

Who had gone there?

The Northampton people—the light horse. Some was then for going back again: some, as they had come so far, was for going up to Bethle­hem, to see what was going on there, so we went on.

Who told you to go on?

Old Marks and John Fries said that as they were come so far on the road, they would go up and see what was doing there. Then we went on about a mile, and stopped at Ritters where they fed their horses: there was a liberty pole there. Then we went on to Bethlehem. When we came to the bridge, there the people had stopped, there was some riflemen and some light horse. Some asked the reason why they stopped there: they said they could not get over, the bridge was shut: then John Fries rode un, and asked whether they required toll or not; they said, yes. Then he told them to count his men, and told us to follow him.

Did he speak generally?

Yes.—The words he used was, now boys, follow me. I do not know whether he counted all or only his own men.

Did you hear any thing at that time of those men whom you found there having sent three men to Bethlehem?

I heard of their having taken two or three men under guard.

Who paid the toll?

I do not know, we did not, we were all mixed together.

Did you not hear of three men being sent forward?

No, I did not.—I heard of their having taken some prisoners.

Had you heard before you come to the bridge of these two prisoners?

No.

Did the whole party follow Fries over the bridge, or only the Bucks county people?

I believe only the Bucks county people, without it was some few.

What became of Staeler's Riflemen?

Why they came pretty soon after over the bridge.

You were all on horseback?

Yes.

Did not the others come over the bridge at the same time it was open­ed for you?

I did not look back; all that I can say, wh [...]: we got up to the tavern, they were pretty close after us.

What distance is it from Marks' to Bethlehem?

About twenty miles.

When we got over the bridge, there were two men met us, and said we should not hurt them; Fries told them that he should hurt nobody without they hurt him first. Then Judge Mohollan came and spoke with him afterwards, but I do not know what either he, or Fries said. When we got up to the tavern at Bethlehem, the whole of Staeler's rifle-company were there. They marched round the house twice; we did not stand in ranks, we were separate. They wanted one to go up and talk with the marshal, and they from Bucks and Northampton said John Fries was more fit to go up than e'er a man that was there. Then John Fries and one Hoover went up stairs. After a while Hoover came down, Fries staid up when he came down, he kept dashing and swearing, and said force should do: give him nine or ten of the best riflemen in the company, and he would storm the house; a great many of them told him he should not do it, he said he would, Jacob Hoover, George Mitchel and Mr. Mohollan endeavoured to keep him off.

Did this Hoover belong to Staeler's company?

I think he did.—Then Fries, when he came down stairs, he fetched some writing down with him, that he got from the marshal, which he read to the company. He said the marshal dared not give up the prison­ers, and therefore that they would take them by force of arms. At this time the Bucks county people were separate from the others.

Who did Fries speak to?

He spoke to the whole of them.—Then he asked, what shall we do now—take them by force of arms or how? Several of them said, since they come so far now they would have them. Frederick Henry said since they were come so far, it was a damned shame not to have them. Then Fries went up stairs again, and said he would go and talk to them once more. When he came down again, he said that the marshal dared not give them up, without they took them by force of arms. They then told him that he should go and do something pretty soon, for it was getting late. Some of them said it was better to let Fries have the whole command of all the men. Then it was concluded to go into the house, and he spoke five or six times.

Was it agreed that Fries should have the whole under his command? I do not know. I only heard what that one man said, and he thought him the fittest person.

Did Fries hear this? where was he?

He was in the yard before the door, and near enough to hear it.

You did not hear him object to taking the command?

I do not know whether he heard what that man said.—Then Fries, when it was concluded to go into the house said, For God's sake don't fire boys, till I am fired upon first: he said this three or four times over. Then we moved on to go in, he was before us.

HOW many followed him?

I do not know, but a good many at last. I could not see who they were, the house was so full. Then Fries went up and talked to the marshal about half way up stairs. Henry told me that Fries was telling the marshal that if he did not give up the prisoners, they would fire on them, so that they should not see each other for smoke. After that, the door was opened, and I saw some of them come down.—Some came down while Fries was talking to the marshal.

Then they were not all down?

There was some not down; they called for them, and they came down.—Fries said he was glad Hoover did not go in along with him, because he was too much of a fool; he thought this would not have done so well as it did: he did not want him there.

Did you retire from Bethlehem altogether when you had got the prisoners?

Did Jarret's troop go with you?

I saw some light horse before us.

Did you see Fries go to the minister after he was released?

Yes, he went to him in another room: he pulled off his hat to the mi­nister, and told him he must thank him that he had got out, he said he was out, but he could thank him for all.

The marshal was again called to reconcile some seeming difference in the relation of the last conversation Fries held with the marshal, and of the prisoners coming down at twice.

The marshal said that the last conversation he held with the prisoners was at the foot of the stairs.—Mr. Fries declared that he would force his way up stairs, if I would not give them up; I told him that this would be punished with the utmost severity, but that if he was determined to rescue the prisoners, he should not go up stairs, but that I would go up, and order them down. Finding myself not in a situation to resist his force, I went up and ordered them down.

Had any prisoners left the room before you went up stairs?

No.

Had you any Conversation with him afterwards?

Yes, he returned and said that we had not given up Ireman, that I must deliver him up with the rest: I told him they were all gone: he then went out and returning again said he was there; and went off. At that time all the prisoners went out.

Have you any recollection of what Thomas swears that Henry told him, respecting firing so that you should not see each other for smoke?

No. I cannot be particular in that; I cannot recollect it so as to give evidence upon it. There were many very serious threats, else I should not have given up the prisoners.

At any time when you were in conversation with Fries, did any of the prisoners come down stairs?

No, not the Lehi prisoners: there might be others that would not sub­mit, but none from the room in actual custody, not to my knowlege: if they did, it must have been while I was speaking to them in the croud, it was possible for them to do it at that time.

Were they not guarded?

They were in the room, and that guard remained there till I went up; it was placed there to prevent any person going up or down.

After this conversation with Fries, you went up stairs to order the prisoners down. Were they all there in the room at that time?

I believe so, but I did not count them.

Well, upon your order did they come down; and did you come down with them.

Yes, I came down with them.

When the prisoners came down stairs and you with them, do you recollect having a short conversation with Fries at the side of the stairs?

Yes, but there was but a very short one.

Did you lead, or follow the prisoners in coming down stairs?

I am not certain, but I believe I followed them.

GEORGE MITCHEL sworn.

Where do you live?

I keep tavern in lower Milford township, Bucks county.

Inform the court whether there was any opposition to the house tax law in your township.

There was great disturbance and discontents respecting this house law; it happened that there was a meeting advertised for the 8th of February, at the house of John Kline, to consult about the house tax law.

Were any names signed to the advertisement.

None that I recollect.—A number of the inhabitants met, it was pretty late in the day: they all seemed discontented, but they were in doubt whether it had passed into a law or not. There was something in the news paper of an amendment, which made them doubt whether it was in force. They formed an instrument of writing, but I cannot recollect the particulars of it. It was drawn up by John Fries; I assisted him. We passed home after that. I had no particular conversation with any body after the paper was signed: it was signed by about 50 or 52 of the inhabitants.

Do you recollect whether captain Kuyder was directed to give any no­tice by that meeting?

I do recollect something; I think it was that captain Kuyder should give notice to the assessors not to come forward till they had informed themselves farther, whether it was a law or not.

Who put up the notice of this meeting?

I am not sure: perhaps it was myself. John Hoover, and several, had talked about it, and we thought we would call a meeting. Was Fries present when you agreed to call this meeting? No.—This was on Friday: on the Monday following James Chapman came to my house, and told me I should tell Jacob Hoover that he should give notice over the creek (I live nearly at the end of the township) that if they would choose an assessor of their own, they should be welcome; and any man that was capable of the business would be admited into the office. There was one Valentine Hoover came to my house that same day, he lives over the other side, and I told him what Mr. Chapman had [Page 65] told me, likewise, I informed Jacob Hoover that day myself. Who op­posed it I dont know, but it was reported that it was not adopted. Squire Foulke sent me word to advertise a meeting. Israel Roberts and Samuel Clark called on me and told me. They informed me that Mr. Foulke was of opinion that the people were ignorant of the law, and he would read it for them, and explain it to them: this was the purpose of the meeting. So we advertised the meeting to be held at my house.

What time was this?

Sometime in February toward the latter end. It was on a Saturday, and there were a great many of the inhabitants at the meeting, squire Foulke and Mr. Chapman attended it. The people behaved very disor­derly; but I cannot recollect any of the conversation that passed. Jacob Kline came in and asked me what the meeting was intended for. I told him that I understood by squire Foulke, that the Germans were very igno­rant of the law, and that he called them together, to read, and explain it to them; I desired him to try to pacify the people, and I believe he did his endeavour, but it proved in vain: at least they did not read the law. I did not understand. that any body offered to read it, he thought it was in vain, there was such a clamour.

Did they say any thing to you?

After Mr. Chapman was gone, Marks asked me how I came to meddle with the advertisement.

Was John Fries at the meeting?

No.—I don't recollect any thing afterwards till the assessors came, which was the 5th of March. They took the rates of my house and my neighbours.

Who were the assessors?

Mr. Childs, Mr. Foulke, and Mr. Rodrick.—I went from home the rest of the day, and the next morning when I returned (sixth of March) I heard there had been an uproar about driving away the assessors. It was talked of that they were going to Millars town the next day. Hear­ing of such an uproar, I thought I had business at Millars town. so I con­cluded to go and hear what was going on: they talked they were going to meet the Northampions who were going for the relief of the Prisoners.

Did you know the names of any of the prisoners?

No.—So we came at Marks's; (7th of March) when we came there, there was a talk at Marks's house about going to the tavern above Emaus: Marks said his son would bring word. We went on then till we me [...] young Marks, and he beckoned that we should halt, or go back, so we did; he said he had been up at Ritter's tavern, and they bad started before he came there.

Who went with you?

He mentioned eighteen names.

Who were the commanders?

I do not know of any in particular who took the command.—Some wished to go to see Bethlehem, some to see the bridge, so they concluded to go on.

Did you hear John Fries say any think about going on?

I cannot say who were for going on, and who were not. We were overtaken by several people going to Bethlehem on the road.

Were they armed or not?

None that I can recollect.—When we got to the bridge at Bethlehem, there were a great many armed men, and light horse, and two rode over the bridge towards us, from the other side. I did not hear the conversa­tion that passed at the bridge; but after a while we went over to Bethle­hem.

After you got to Bethlehem, what did you observe, respecting Fries?

There was a great many of the company that was formed before the house, who seem to speak out that they would have the prisoners. Fries went in, I saw him start to go in, but I did not hear who ordered him, or who desired him. A short time after, in the course of five or ten minutes, Henry Hoover came out to us, and said he was sergeant of their company, and he was chosen to demand the prisoners. He said he went up stairs, and somebody gave him a push, and had like to have tumbled him down stairs, and he came out in a great passion. He went on in a great rage, and I catched hold of him: he said if they would only give him ten men, he would storm the house. A short time after that, I observed Fries come out, and he said "silence" to the people there. He seemed to be as much among Staeler's company as among ours. He then afterwards said, "Gentlemen, an officer of the United States says he cannot deliver up the prisoners, unless they are rescued by force of arms: so, he said, if you are willing, we will, I will go foremast, but if we do, I beg of you, none of you fire till they fire on us first, till I give the word, and if I drop, then you must take your own command." He repeated these words, at least, once more. I heard nothing afterwards of the proceedings in, no [...] out of the house, that I recollect.

Was there some time after this, a meeting held at Marks's?

Yes.

After the proclamation?

A meeting was held on the 18th of March.

What was the object of the meeting?

To choose a committee of the three counties of Northampton, Bucks and Montgomery.

Why these three counties?

Because there were none else in the proclamation.

What was the meeting held for?

To consult what was best to be done, and it was determined to leave it to the committee.

Was John Fries there?

Yes.

Did you put any question to him relative to the affair at Bethlehem?

No. After the meeting I had some conversation with him: while the committee was sitting I said to him: John Fries, you never intended to resist the law, did you? He made me answer, yes, I did.

What laws were you talking about?

We did not in particular mention any laws.

Was there a meeting after this at your house, and what time was that?

It was on Easter Monday, March 25.

What was the object of that meeting?

That was to appoint an assessor. The one that was appointed was to do the business, if he pleased, if not, the person they chose was to do it, or both together.

Was John Fries at that meeting?

At the beginning of it he was, but I do not recollect that he was a [...] the time they gave in their votes.

Did he unite in the choice of the assessor?

Several did not wait because there was no opposition, and they thought there was no occasion.

Did he, or did he not express himself as much against the law as ever?

He said it would not suit him to vote now, as he had been against the law throughout.

Did not many of those who had been opposed to the law before, vote for the assessor now?

Yes.

At the meeting at Marks's, was it not generally agreed that there should be a submission to the laws?

Yes.—After the business was over, they made mention of it, but I do not know that they made any report of it.

Did not Fries, with all the rest, agree to the submission?

I cannot say.

Was there any agreement to do it?

Why, I believe the people never knew to the contrary but there would be a return made.

Was it not recommended to submit?

Yes.

And was it not agreeable to the meeting?

Yes, I believe it was; I heard no opposition to it?

Was not the return made in writing?

Yes.

Did not 'squire Richards propose that there should be a submission sign­ed there?

No, I do not recollect any such thing.

Was it a general design of the meeting to conform and submit to the laws?

On the 15th of March we received the proclamation, and that evening I took it down to Frederick Henny's; William Thomas went with me: I read the proclamation to Frederick Henny, and he was agreed to sub­mit; he made no opposition.

When Fries said it would not suit him to vote for the assessor, did he say he continued in opposition to the law at that time?

I don't know that he did, but he seemed rather opposed, at that time, to the laws or the appointment of an assessor.

Was this proclamation communicated to the meet­ing on the 18th of March?

Yes it was; after I had read it to Henny, I told him to take it to others. I thought it was proper to get a petition sent to the President.

JAMES CHAPMAN.

You are a principal assessor under the act for laying a di­rect tax are you not?

Yes, for twelve townships, (which he named).

How did the assessments go forward under your care?

I believe in all but lower Milford the assessments were carried into ef­fect without opposition, or in a majority of the townships, except some [Page 68] little threatenings. The assessor of lower Milford was taken sick soon after he got his instructions, and so did not proceed. His name was Sa­muel Clark: I called upon him afterwards, to know whether he was able to proceed or not: he thought he should be able in a few days: I had occasion to go to Newtown, and was several days from home, but found there was nothing done respecting it; I found the people had had a meet­ing, and there appeared to be great opposition to the rates being taken. The day after I returned from Newtown, Clark called upon me, and told me he thought it was not safe to go about, from the disposition of the people at that time. I told him that I would meet him the next day at George Mitchel's tavern in Milford, and meet the people to know what their complaints were. I met Clark at a house just by, and he told me he would be in at Mitchell in a few minutes. I examined Mitchel, to know what was their complaints: Mitchel signified that the people were dissa­tisfied that the assessor was appointed without their having a choice: for they wished to choose for themselves. I told Mitchel if they would choose, a man of character, I would use my influence with the commissioner to have him appointed, and I desired him to give notice of it to Jacob Hoo­ver. I wrote to the commissioner stating the situation we were in, and told him what I had done, but he seemed not to be willing to indulge them with it.

Who was the commissioner?

Seth Chapman was commissioner for that district.—I told him it would ease the minds of the people if it were done. At length he consented, but seemingly with reluctance. However they never chose one.

Was it made known to the people?

I do not recollect that it was.—I met him at a meeting of the assessors which was held at the house of John Rodruck. On my return home I was told, I think by 'squire Foulke, that the township was advertised to meet at Mitchel's. He said if I would attend there he would meet me. I got there between one and two clock, Just as I got to the house, be­fore I went in, I saw ten or twelve people coming from towards Hoover's mill, about half of them were armed, and the others with sticks. I went into the house, and twenty or thirty were there. I sat talking with some of my acquaintance that were well disposed to the law. Conrad Marks talked a great deal in German, how oppressive it was, and much in op­position to it, seeming to be much enraged. His son, and those who came with him seemed to be very noisy and rude; they talked all in German, which as I did not know sufficiently, I paid but little attention to them. They were making a great noise; huzzaing for liberty, and democracy, damning the tories, and the like. I let them go on, as I saw no disposition in the people to do any thing toward forwarding the busi­ness. Between four and five I got up to go out; as I passed through the croud towards the bar, they pushed one another against me.

Was there any offer made to explain the law to them?

No, none while I staid; they did not seem disposed to hear it.

You did not say a word to them about it?

No, I did not. They did not mention my name the whole time of my being there, but they abused Eyerly and Balliott, and said how they had cheated the public, and what villains they were. I understood it was respecting collecting the revenue, but I did not understand near [Page 69] all they said. I recollect Conrad Marks said that Congress had no right to make such a law, and that he never would submit to have his house taxed.

Fries was not there, was he?

No.—They seemed to think that the collectors were all such fellows; the insinuation was that they cheated the public, and made them pay, but never paid into the treasury.—After getting through the croud to the bar, I suppose I was fifteen minutes in conversation with Mitchel: he said per­haps they were wrong, but the people were very much exasperated. No­thing very material happened, and I asked Mr. Foulke if it was not time to be going. So I got into the Sleigh and went off; soon after they set up a dreadful huzza and shout. I stopped at Jacob Fries's tavern, and waited for Mr. Foulke, who soon came: Clark, the assessor was likewise there. After talking a little more on the subject, Clark still persisted in not having any thing to do with it, for he thought it was not safe for him. We thought it was best to give the other assessors notice, as their assessments were nearly finished, to meet us at a certain day to take the rates in that township. I then wrote to the other assessors, re­questing them to meet at Quaker town, on the 4th of March, Rodrick, Childs and Foulke met me there: we waited till evening, but no others came; [...]o we agreed to meet at my house next morning at 9 o'clock. We met, and I went with them to Milford, to Samuel Clark's, but he was not at home. It was thought best for me to go to see for Clark, as he was engaged in a moving. I went to Jacob Fries's tavern to wait for him; they went to Mitchel's to take the rates, Clark soon came: he told me he could not undertake to take the rates, for that he might as well pay his fine if it cost him all he had, for they were so opposed to it at any rate, that he could not think himself safe, for at least he should receive some private injury. Finding he would not do it I said no more. John Fries was coming up just then: he told me he was very glad to see me: he told me that he understood I had been insulted in their township at one of their meetings: he was very sorry for it: he mentioned 'Squire Foulke as well a [...] myself: had he been there, he said, it should not have been done: I turned it off by this: that there was not a person among them that spoke a word to me. I told him I thought they were very wrong in opposing the law as they did: he signified that he thought they were not, and that the rates should not be taken by the assessors. I told him that the rates certainly would be taken, and that the assessors were then in the township taking the rates. I repeated it to him, and he answered "my God!" if I was only to send that man (pointing to one standing by) to my house to let them know they were taking the rates, there would be 500 or 700 men under arms here to-morrow morning by sun rise. He told me he would not submit to the law. I told him I thought the people had more sense than to rise in arms to oppose the law in that manner: if they did, go­vernment must certainly take notice of it, and send an armed force to en­force the laws. His answer was that "if they do, we will soon try who is strongest." I told him they certainly would find themselves mistaken respecting their force, he signified he thought not: he mentioned to me the troop of horse in Montgomery county, and the people at upper and lower Milford, and something about infantry, who were ready to join. He said he was very sorry for the occasion, for if they were to rise, God [Page 70] knew where it would end: the consequences would be dreadful; I told him they would be obliged to comply: he then said huzza, it shall be as it is in France, or will be as it is in France, or something to that effect. He then left me and went off.

Did Fries appear to be intoxicated?

No, not that I know. I scarce ever saw him intoxicated.—A short time after he was gone, on the same day, the assessors came to Jacob Fries's tavern. We then ordered our dinners there, and I believe it was Childs undertook to take the rates of Jacob Fries's house. We had not gone out of the room after dinner, till John Fries came in, he addressed himself to 'Squire Foulke, telling him he was very sorry to see him there; he was a man that he had a great regard for, but that be was opposed to the law himself. "I now wa [...] you, said he" not to go to another house to take the rates, if you do, you will be hurt." He did not Wait for any reply, but turned himself about, and went off out of the room; I do not recollect any thing farther was said to him. He seemed much irritated. The assessors concluded to proceed upon their business.

Rodruck and Foulke agreed to go together, and Childs went by him­self: this was an agreement between themselves.

Had Mr. Clark's appointment been vacated?

There had been no meeting of the assessors since Mr. Clark had re­fused, complaining that he found it inconvenient to proceed with the assess­ment.

Was this new arrangement communicated to the board of assessors at all.

No.

The council for the prisoners doubted the legality of the appointment of Mr. Foulke, since the law had provided that an assessor must be appoint­ed by the board of commissioners, and not otherwise.

Mr. Chapman said it was established at the meeting at Rodricks, which was called in order to see what business had been done, and then an arrangement was made that in case of the inability or unwillingness of Clark to do the business in lower Milford, it should be done by the whole, and therefore it was done, without the place of Clarke being vacated.

Were there any minutes of the assessors kept?

There was no more than a memorandum.

When you had this conversation with John Fries, was it in any respect founded on the alteration of the assessors, or was it a general declamation against the law?

He did not mention any thing of that at all.

Saturday May 4th.

Mr. Dallas gave notice that he should expect the gentlemen engaged in the prosecution to produce the records of the assessors.

JOHN RODHICK sworn.

Were you one of the assessors under the direct tax law, appointed for lower Milford?

Yes.

Have you your warrant?

—Produced it. Dated November 5, 1798.

I suppose you took the oaths the law directed?

Yes.

Did you act as assessor in any other part of your district previous to go.

Yes.—There were twelve townships in our district, and there were six assessors to serve them.—He named them.—We were all six sworn at a meeting held at my house, by the commissioner, Seth Chapman: 'squire Foulke got his warrant afterwards; he was appointed, I think, in addition to Samuel Clark.—We met the commissioner on the 16th of February, when it appeared all the other townships were nearly done, except lower Milford; at that meeting all attended but Clark.—The principal assessor [...] James Chapman was likewise there. We were informed that lower Mil­ford was not done, for Clark was afraid to go about. The commissioner told the principal assessor that he must inform the other assessors, that if any thing could be done in it, we must try to do it. We all agreed that we would.

Was Mr. Foulk appointed before this meeting?

Yes, and he was present at it.—Not long after this, we got orders from the principal assessor to meet him at Quaker town on the 4th of March, and to go the next day to get the rates at Milford. There were only three of us attended. We agreed to meet at the principal assessor's house the next morning, which we did, and thence we went to Clark's to have him to go with us: he was not at home, however we proceeded on, taking the rates, Mr. Childs, Mr. Foulke and myself. We had taken between 50 and 60 assessments when we came to the house of Jacob Fries.

Were the people at home when you took the rates?

All were at home, I think, except one, and there we left a notice. When we came to Jacob Fries's we met the principal assessor. After din­ner, while we were sitting at the fire, John Fries came into the room: we had a room by ourselves. He said he heard we were come to take the rates of the township; we told him yes. He said he would warn us not to proceed, else we should be hurt. He said he was sorry for 'squire Foulke, and I believe Mr. Chapman he mentioned, for he always respected them very much. He said he was opposed to the law, and he would not submit to it. He then left the room. He seemed to be a little in a passion. We got on our horses, and proceeded at taking the rates: I and Foulke went together, and Childs by himself to some who we thought were quiet people. We proceeded on till about sunset, when we were going to the house of one Singmaster, and as we turned down a lane, out from the road, we heard somebody hallow to us: we stopped, and few it was John Fries and five men more. We stopped, and they came walking towards us. John Fries was in the front. Fries said that he had warned us not to proceed, and we would not hear, and now they were come to take us prisoners. I believe I asked by what authority: with that he made a grapple at the bridle of my horse; I wheeled ray creature round, and he just catched hold of my great coat, but he could not hold. I rode off then: after I had got a­bout two rod, I turned my creature round again; and he was a little way from the rest. I told him I was surprised at his conduct, that he had be­haved so. He began to damn and curse, and walked back towards the other men: he mentioned that if he had a horse, he would soon catch me.

Was he near his own house then?

He was about two or three miles from it.

I rode up nearer to those other men: they had stopped esquire Foulke: as Fries returned back to his men, he said, men, let Foulke go as we can­not get Rodrick; to morrow morning we will have him, I will have [Page 72] 700 men together to morrow, and I will come to your house, and will let you know that we are opposed to the law. We then went and took the assessment of Singmaster's house. We had agreed before we left Jacob Fries's, that we would meet the principal assessor the next morning, to see what course we should take.

Was Singmaster at home?

Yes.—So we met: we said then that it was not worth while to at­tempt any thing more, we could not proceed on. James Chapman then wrote a letter to the commissioner to state matters. We then agreed to quit taking the rate at lower Milford at that time, as we thought we should not be able to do any thing. When we were going home through Quaker town (on the 6th of March) Cephas Childs rode before us. I and 'squire Foulke rode together. When we came to Quaker town, Childs turned into 'squire Griffith's: we found a great many people armed with guns, and with uniforms, so I said to Foulke, here is Fries, and his com­pany. I said, we wont stop if we can help it: I rode through them, but when I had got half through them, they hallowed to me to stop; a great many hallowed, and came running on both sides the road, some with their clubs and muskets to strike me.

Did they strike you?

No, they did not, I rode quickly through them.

Did they strike at you?

I saw them running to come to strike.—I had passed Roberts's tavern, and when I come to Zeller's tavern, there was John Fries at the porch; he hallowed to me to stop, for I was going to pass by, and not to stop and give myself up: there was another man with me. They followed me to stop me: I stopped and wheeled my creature round, and asked Fries what he wanted. They damned me, and told me I should deliver myself up; I told him as long as he used such language, I would not. There was or­der then given to fire at me.

Who gave the order?

That I cannot tell, but there was two men standing close together at Zeller's door, they pointed their guns: as I saw that, I rode off.

Then, as you were so near, you can tell whether it was Fries or not who ordered them to fire.

I did not hear him.

How far were you from the porch?

Five or six rod.

Were Fries and you face to face?

The other company were still coming up at this time: they hallowed them to stop me. The last I heard was, they hallowed out to get horses to pursue me, but they did not pursue me.

Had Fries, or the other people the gun at this time that the order was given to fire?

I cannot say that Fries had any thing in his hand at that time, but the others had clubs.

How far was Fries from you at that time?

I do not know: perhaps five or six rods. There was an old man stand­ing with him.

Have you seen that old man since?

Why, I thought I saw him, or some one like him the other day in the city. I believe I have seen him in the court since the court began.

Before you met with Fries, did you meet with any opposition that day in taking the rates for lower Milford?

Why they talked of giving us some, but still they gave it in: Nobody prevented us.

Who made out the lists for the rates taken by you?

'Squire Foulke:—there were a great many Germans, so I enquired, and Foulke put it down.

When did you first know that the rates were not taken in lower Mil­ford?

On the 16th of February.

Did you know of their being an intention of appointing Mr. Foulke before he was appointed?

I do not know.

Was Foulke appointed on account of Clark's absence, or merely to go into that township?

I understood he was appointed to assist Mr. Clarke: he was appointed by the commissioner.

CEPHAS CHILD, qualified.

Were you one one of the assessors under the act for the valuation of houses?

Yes.

In what county?

In Bucks.

—He here shewed his warrant, and proved his qualification, dated November 5, 1798.

At the meeting at Roderick's when we were qualified, we had our instructions given us by the commissioner: he informed us that there were six assessors to twelve townships, which we were all equally concerned in assessing, and it would be proper for us to point out which townships we would severally take. I think this meeting was about the latter end of December. I made some objections, because I could not talk the German language: they said that could make no difference, because we were at liberty to call the others to assist us. To that I assented, and we all agreed as to our districts: Milford and Richland were assigned to Clark. I took Hill-town and New-Britain. I agreed reciprocally with Clark to assist him, and he me, as he could talk German, and in Hill-town there were many Germans. This was agreed in the presence of the whole, and likewise Rodrick I made the same agreement with. I believe that this kind of arrangement was generally made by the whole, to assist each other. Accordingly Clark and myself fixed upon a day when I should come and assist him for two days, and another time was appointed for him to assist me. I had made some beginning in my own district before that day came. Before we separated, the assessor pitched upon an early day to make our return of what we had done, in order to examine whether we had proceeded right or not. I went up to Clark's agreeable to appoint­ment, and found he was not able to go on: I therefore attended to my own district.

Why was he not able to go on?

He was sick and unable.—We met to make our returns at Rodrick's Everhard Foulke, I think, met with us, I know nothing of his appoint­ment. This was on the 5th day of the Bucks court (6th of February.) Not having gone through our business, we were to meet on the 16th [Page 74] again. Foulke, I understood at the former meeting, had been appointed. When we met, enquiry being made what we had done: Foulke told James Chapman that he dared not go into the township, for he understood that some threats were thrown out against him, and he rather wished that the people would appoint some other person, themselves, to do it. The commissioner did not seem to agree with it, but at last consented that if such could be done, he should not materially object: finally, he consented so far as to intimate to James Chapman, that if they should make such an offer, and appoint one, he would recommend him, if not, he said we must go and assist in that township. There were some proposals made who of us should go, excuses were made, and then the commissioner informed us that we were all enjoined as much to assess that township as our own. Upon which he told the principal assessor that if it did not go on, he was to write to us, and we were to attend to the call. I received a letter about the first of March, or the last of February from the principal assessor, that he had been to Milford, and it did not seem likely the assessments could go on, and I was ordered to meet the rest in Quaker town on the 4th of March. Accordingly, Foulke the principal assessor and myself met there. We had word from two others that they were not able to come. We concluded to call upon Clark to go with us, and divide the township so as to compleat it in a short time. The next morning we met to begin the business, we went to Clark's but he was not at home. It was agreed then that we should go on with the rates, and James Chapman was to go to Jacob Fries's to wait for Clark. The first house we went into was Daniel Wiedner's, I went in first, and told him I was come to take down the rates, under the revenue act of the United States: he appeared to be very angry; I reasoned with him, telling him, if he wished to read the law he might: I told him the consequences of opposition, but he might have ten days to consider of it, and give in his account if he chose to take that time. He seeing me thus said, "take it now since it must be done," he gave me his account accordingly, and appeared contented. He said farther, "we have concluded not to take it, as we expect the act will be repealed." He meant they had concluded not to take till they knew what Congress would do with the law. I made reply to him that I be­lieved that was already done, for I had seen a report of a committee of Congress, that it was inexpedient to repeal it, and it was not done.

Did he offer to read the law?

No. He made some remarks, but I told him it was very wrong. I cannot tell what he said in particular. One thing I think was, that the assessors were to have very extravagent wages. "It does not matter," he said, "you may as well give in my return." I did not get on my horse till I got up to Mitchell's where the other two assessors were. Wide­ner went out a little before me, and he was there when I came, walking about, seemingly very angry; I again reasoned with him. Another ob­jection he made was, that the houses of high value was to pay nothing, while smaller ones, and of small value was to pay high. I forgot to say that after the rates of Wiedner's land was taken he returned and said he had forgot, there was another piece of land: he then sat down with an heavy sigh and said. "They will play the devil with me; what shall we do." I asked him what he meant, he made no answer. I told him I hop­ed every one would be as well convinced as he was. I took several houses [Page 75] in my way, and went to Jacob Fries's. As I was going in at the door, I met John Fries, who shook hand with me, told me he was glad to see we, and asked me to take a drink. He came in again after we had done dinner and said "I forbid you going to any other houses in the township: he then mentioned that Foulke and Chapman, or Rodrick were men he much esteemed. He said if we did go to any other houses, we should be, or would be, hurt. We then proceeded to assess. Where English people lived there appeared no objection, except at one place. The people there said, that if they did give in the account, there were some ordinary people in the neighbourhood, and they would be set on by them to do them an injury. That afternoon I went to David Roberts's: his wife seemed very anxious, and wished her husband had been there, for she said I should not go home alive. I went afterwards when he was at home, and he said he had no objection, only for his neighbours. After some conversation he said the people there had agreed not to let the rates be taken yet: he said they had already chosen an assessor in their own township: I told him I wandered they did not let him go on: he signified that he was a person of an obnoxious character, and therefore they did not wish to ac­cept of him. In our return home, I called at 'Squire Griffith's: as I got oft my horse, his wife told me that they were come there to take us, and that there were 40 or 50 men there, and she did not know what they were about. A little girl just after came in and said that they had hold of 'Squire Foulke's horse by the bridle, going to take him: I went to the window, and saw them all round him. I did purpose to go out, but at their persuasion I staid. The little girl came in again, and said they had taken Mr. Foulke into Enoch Roberts's tavern. After a short time Fries came over into the house where I was sitting: he took me by the band, and I rose up; he said, Mr. Childs, you must go with me to my men, as we walked along he said "I told you yesterday that you should not go to another house, and if you did you would be hurt, and we are now come to take you prisoner, if we find that you will go on with the assessments." My answer was, we are obliged to fulfil our office, and we cannot do otherwise, unless we are prevented. I was endeavouring to inform him of the manner in which I had obtained the warrant, in hopes that I should prevail upon him to go on with the business, as Roberts had proposed, but he would not hear me. When we went into the house. he addressed him­self to his men and me: "here are my men"—"here is one of them."

By this it appeared that he had the direction. Did he seem angry?

He appeared to be angry, but he did not appear to show any revenge to me, or to talk angry.—I do not recollect that I knew any one in the house, except the tavern keeper. Some of them soon began to use rough language. A person then came behind me, and caught me by the collar over the shoulder, and said, "damn you Rodrick, we have got you now, "damn you, you shall go to the liberty pole and dance round it;" the house was then crouded as full as it could croud, and they pushed me up so close, that I could not turn round sometimes for a considerable time: the person who caught me, seemed to wish to keep behind me, but he still kept hold of me: during this time I had several thumps, which seemed, more with the knee than the fist. After some time he got to see my face: he damned me that I was not Rodrick, but that I was the other damned [Page 76] son of a bitch that he saw sitting at Rock hill, he had mistaken me. A short time after this, a person came up to me and said "keep a good heart, and you will not be hurt." I turned, or endeavoured to turn to them and said, "I am not Rodrick, nor did I ever assess in Rock hill:" he said "you are a damned liar." With that there were still more of them came up, and pressed about me more, and more took hold of me. There was a good deal of talk, some in German, and some in English. I then told them that my name was Cephas Childs; that I was not a man known in the county, but I had no doubt many of them, though they did not know my face, knew my name: by that there was some who knew me there as Coroner of the county; that man then said "if he is Childs, he is no better than the other." He asked me where I assessed: I told him: a number of them asked how they liked it where I had been. I told them some of them had appeared dissatisfied in the first instance, but as I believed, every man almost in the townships where I assessed were satisfied, they again said I was a damned liar, for the people had told them that they would join them in the suppression of it, and my own neighbours would fight against me. I told them I thought I knew better than they; that if I was well informed they would not do so. then they began again at me. Then they asked me if I had taken the oath of allegiance to the United States of America: I told them I had: they asked me when: I told them I could not recollect the time, but I knew it was as soon as the law required it of me: they asked me if I was a friend to the government of the United States; I told them I was: they then began to damn the government, and the governor, and shoved me about, many of them taking their Maker's name in vain: there then was a person who spoke very good English: they damned the house tax and the stamp act, and called me a stampler repeatedly: they damned the alien law and sedition law, and finally all the laws: the government and all the laws the present Congress had made. They damned the Constitution also.

What Constitution?

They did not mention what Constitution, whether of this state or of the United States. They damned the Congress, and damned the presi­dent and all the friends to government, because they were all tories, for that none were friends to the present government except tories. They asked me if I had been out in the last war: first I told them the law did not require me to go, and then I said I was under the tuition of my parents: they said they had fought for liberty, and would fight for it again. They said they would not have the government, nor the President, and they would not live under such a damned government: "we will have Washington;" others said "No, we will have Jefferson, he is a better man than Adams: huzza for Jefferson."

Who said so?

All of them.—They then insisted on my taking an oath of allegiance to them, alledging that if I did so, I should not be hurt. They insisted on it several times, till at length I had no way to wave it, and then I ask­ed them what their government was. One answered Washington: I said I had taken an oath of allegiance to Washington's government al­ready. They then said Jefferson; we will have none of the damned [...]amplers, nor the house tax. So they went on. They said they embo­died [Page 77] themselves to oppose the government; they meant to do it, and that was their design in coming there.

Who said so, and what were the precise words?

I do not know who said it, but the words were these "We are deter­mined to oppose the laws, and we have met to do it; the government is laying one thing after another, and if we do not oppose it, they will bring us into bondage and slavery, or make slaves of us: we will have li­berty." And then they mentioned the number of men that had joined them, or sent them word that they would join them. They mentioned, some an hundred, some more, some less, that they had there would do it, besides, they had all Northampton county to a man would join them, ex­cept some tories as they called them. Between Quaker town and Dela­ware river, I recollect they said they could raise 10,000 men if they should be wanted to oppose the sedition and alien laws. I cannot be certain, but I think he said (as he spoke in German) and fifty other damned laws. However I am not certain as to the number. They likewise said that General Washington had sent them account that he had 20, 000 men all ready to assist them in this undertaking to oppose the laws. I begged them not to believe it, for it could not be, and somebody was endeavour­ing greatly to impose upon them: I thought I knew the situation of things better, and as for General Washington, I was sure he never would undertake such conduct as that.

Did they speak in the German language at that time, or English?

A great many of them spoke in German, but one or two of them spoke very good English, but they were altogether Germans. This passed while I was in custody.

What do you mean?

Why Fries took me in there and left me in custody and went away.

Did he order them to keep you in custody?

Not that I know of.—They said Gen. Washington had certainly wrote to them so and so. One of them said he would be damned if it was not so, for he had seen the letter from Washington; or something to that effect. During this time they were constantly pushing me; one would come to my back and get his knee up: they would endeavour to push me on the stove, one or two had hold of my hips and endeavoured to throw me down, others seemed ready to lick me, and particularly after this conver­sation about Washington. About that time Captain Fries came toward me and seemed very much surprised: He said, Mr. Child, I understand some of my men have abused and insulted you. He really did appear to be very serious; he said he would not allow me to be abused; he appear­ed to be really distressed for the usage I had received, and if I would tell him who it was, he said he would make him behave himself. He then told me to come into the room. He said he respected me, and did not wish me to be abused. I told him I thought it hard that he should leave me amongst a parcel of intoxicated people. I do not particularly recollect what I said, but he told me he hoped I would not impute that conduct to him: I told him I was not much injured, and therefore hoped he would not think about it. He said his men were civil men, and seemed to wonder such a thing had happened. I think he then gave me some­thing to drink. He took me into a room, the farthest side of which [Page 78] seemed to be empty. When I got in there, he demanded my papers while I had been an assessor. While he was with me no person insulted me, indeed some of them, when he came forward into the room where I was pushed off, out of the way. I then told him all that I had done, and reasoned with him, but notwithstanding that, he insisted on my papers; I then told him I had no papers about me relative to the assessment.

Who were in the room at the time the request was made for the papers?

I do not recollect any body particularly, but there were a great many crowded into the room after me.—He insisted that I had the papers, I told him I had not got the papers, he said I had, and he would have them. I told him I had no papers about me, but what related to my onice of Coroner. I was going to deliver up to him my county tax papers, but he said I had other papers, I said I had not. He then looked on those I had given him, and saw Hilltown at the top, then he said Hoho! my boys, we have got what we wanted, and then turned about and went away. He left the pocket book, taking the papers with him. There was a consi­derable huzza made, and they most of them followed him out of the room. They were gone but a few minutes till they rushed in again as hard as they could rush, without Fries, and some got hold of me. They brought Daniel Weidner along with them: some had pistols, guns, clubs, Sec. and some swords. They seemed very angry, and were pushing upon me while some endeavoured to put them off. Wiedner came up to me, and insisted on the return of the rate I took of him yesterday, he said he would have it. I desired him just to acknowledge to the truth, Did not he give it me freely yesterday: this while a person had hold of me, some of them stepped up and said it was fair. I then asked him, did I not say I would not take the measure of your house by force, but you gave me the rates with a free will? Yes, he said, but I was not forced, and therefore I want it again. Some of them then went out, and directly others came in and shook me very hard: one came in and threatened me, and said I should be shot; some brought in their guns and shewed them to me, and told me if I should be seen in Milford township on the business, I should be shot.

Weider went off. This person with the sword threatened a good deal.

Who was he?

He was called Marks, the elder. I believe him to be the same man I have seen here.—While I was in this conversation, William Thomas came forward and said he knew me, and that they should not abuse me. That gave me an opportunity of talking farther, and then I reasoned with them of the bad tendency of such conduct, and told them that I re­ally thought if I had the law with me, I should persuade them to allow of it. One of them who had abused me before, came to me and acknow­ledged he had abused me, and was sorry for it, and wished me to forgive him. I think his name was Smith, but I am not sure. After passing some time in conversation, Fries came back again with the transcript, and delivered it me, and told me as near as I can recollect in these words; I must go home, and must never come back again to assess, or I should be shot, and insisted on my promising I would not do it. My reply was, that from the pains I had taken, I had left the township with a view of not re­turning to it, unless compelled by authority, and from their present treat­ment, if they ever catched me going back without that authority, I would [Page 79] give them leave to shoot me. He then told me, Foulke and you may in­form the government what has been done as soon as you please, we can raise 1000 men in one day, and we will not submit to it.

Did they say they were opposed to all the laws?

They said there were a number of laws they were opposed to, and one of those laws was now putting in execution, and they appeared to think if that was stopped, the others would be. This was how I understood it. The words were that they were determined to oppose the laws, and not let them be put into execution; there were so many laws coming on it was time to stop them, and if they were known to oppose them, they ex­pected the others would not be brought forwards.

Was Fries present when these words were used?

No.

Monday, May 6.

JUDGE PETERS (one of the Bench) sworn.

Will your honour please to give the Jury an account of the circumstances of your issuing warrants in Northampton county, and of circumstances within your knowledge previous to the examination of John Fries on the 6th of April.

The first time I heard officially of this uneasiness in the counties of Bucks, Northampton and Montgomery, was sometime in Fe­bruary, I cannot precisely recollect what time. I had heard of it before as a piece of news, but this was the first time I heard it officially: it was by depositions being sent to me by the attorney of the district (Mr. Sit­greaves) relative to a number of persons. After that I examined some witnesses relative to it, and upon the whole I concluded to issue my war­rants against the parties charged. Being much engaged in the district court, the attorney of the district drew up the form of the warrants for my signature and approbation. We had concluded, by way of case to the people, that these warrants should be drawn up in a form of order for the defendant to appear before some justice of the peace, or judge of the coun­ty in order to give bail for their appearance at the circuit court of the United States. Neither of us then knew of those insurgents, as it turned out afterwards to have got to such a head. But I doubted myself of the propriety of the form and substance of the warrants, because I thought that the justice, or judge before whom bail was taken, ought to be ac­quainted with the whole case, and ought to have the proof of the fact before him, on which the proof of the warrant was found. I had some doubt too, whether it was legally right for persons taken by my warrants to go before an inferior magistrate. For though a justice of the peace of any state has a right by the laws of the United States to take cognizance in the first instance of crimes against the United States, and bind over the offenders to the proper court, yet I did not think that, as such justice had not had the original cognizance of the matter, there would be a propriety in my ordering him to take secondary notice of it. While I was hesitating on this point, I received informati­on of the length to which, at that time, this opposition to the law had ar­rived. I doubted very much, and this thought was afterwards clearly confirmed to me, whether the magistrates of those counties, and particu­larly Northampton, would choose to take cognizance of such offences, or would chose to do any business concerning them. There were two of [Page 80] the magistrates, one of them a justice of the peace, the other a state judge, who had done themselves much honour in persevering so far as they did in endeavouring to bring those criminals to justice. But finally it turned out that they were obliged to abandon even every endeavour towards ex­ecuting this business. So that the law, and the public authority, so far failed as it respected that county, that the judicial authority of the Unit­ed States became entirely prostrate. I found that tome of the very per­sons who were charged before me were magistrates, and I wish I could [...] that they were the only magistrates who were engaged in this business. [...] were the reasons that induced me to alter the form of my warrants. I found that too many magistrates were concerned in flattering the pre­judices of the people, and engaging in seditions practices, and encouraging the people in their mistakes for me to trust them, and I finally found that there were but two magistrates that could be depended upon, and they told me that they were insulted in the performance of their duty for the United States: of this I had good evidence. And farther: it arrived to such a pitch that I could not get one of these gentlemen even to issue a subpoena to examine witnesses, and save them the great trouble and ex­pence of coming before me. This was the opinion of those two gentle­men; one of them wrote me, and the other informed me, that they were afraid to perform such an act. They could not only not get persons to serve the process, but they could not get the witnesses to appear before them. This I do not bring as a charge against any particular person, but as a reason why the warrants were thus issued. Another reason was that those people had taken up the fallacious notion that they would not appear before me, and therefore I thought it best, though this should not have been my leading motive, to convince them that every person in this dis­trict ought to obey a warrant issued by me, and appear at such time and place as I directed; the whole district being to be considered the same as a county in respect to a state.

The witness then produced the warrants, dated February 20, 1799. One of which was read.

The marshal wrote to me official statements at sundry times of the diffi­culties he met with, and at one time informed me that the prisoners had been rescued, by force of arms, from his possession. The account he gave me it is unnecessary to state, being much similar to what has been given in evidence: He took some engagement from those prisoners, particularly those of Lehi township, that they would appear before me, which, the pri­soners themselves told me, was chearfully given. I understood from them, and other channels, that they several times attempted to come down before me and deliver themselves up, but they were prevented by persons who interrupted them, and would not let them come.

Was John Fries brought before you after you got up there?

Yes: I had previously issued my warrant against him.

Was this the examination he signed in your presence?

[Showing the witness Fries's confession] which was as follows:

It is my constant practice to tell [...] prisoner that he is not bound to be evidence against himself: I did not make any promise or threats to extort it from him, but he chose to make a voluntary confes­sion, which if they do not choose to do, I commit t [...]m without it. I am particularly delicate on this subject of confession, and I do not like to encourage it.

The gentlemen of the jury will observe that the law requires a judge to examine a prisoner, and it is left quite at the option of the man to confess or not.

The council for the prisoner hoped, as it was a case of treason, upon which the law and constitution was extremely cautious how evidence was admitted, the jury would consider that proof of the overt act must be given by two witnesses independent of any confession the prisoner might make.

The prisoner appeared to me to be not at all disinclined: his manner was that of a man not having done any thing wrong, but perfectly collected, and possessed of his faculties. It was read to him af­terwards, to which he accorded, and, thinking a part not fully enough ex­plained, added the latter part.—I have now brought it to my recollection that there were three magistrates in that county, instead of two, to whom we were peculiarly indebted for assistance.

Were any others applied to besides those three?

Some were, but we found much disinclination to do the business, and herefore thought it quite unnecessary to apply farther.

JUDGE HENRY, again called.

He was asked his situation, and the particulars of the opposition being such as either to disable, or affright the magistrate from their duty.

He deposed that he was an associate judge of the common pleas for the state. He issued a number of subpoeneas about the 15th of January to make some enquiries respecting the opposition to the tax law; these were issued at the instance of Mr. Eyerly, one of the commission [...] and others could not proceed in the execution of their duty and particu­larly in Lehi township. The witnesses generally appeared much afraid at opening themselves: and he could say that among the people, there were many much opposed to the law. I agreed to meet a number of per­sons at Trexler's, commonly known as Trexler's town: there captain Jar­rett appeared with a part of his company of light horse. Shortly after the arrival of Mr. Eyerly, Mr. Balliott and myself, the people seemed to be walking about, and looking in at the [...]indow, and seemed to make game at us, and mouths: I observed Hen [...] Shiffert in particular;—they were mostly in uniform.

Was it muster day?

No: I understood it was the several conversation there that Jarrett meant to display his consequence, [...] to intimidate.

Who did [...] hear this from, was it from the light horse?

No: I believe, it was from Mr. Trexler.

Did the witnesses be afraid?

Yes, one man in particular appeared to be in great terror: when he was called up to give his testimony, he cried like a child, and begged for God's sake that we would not ask him, for that the people would ruin him when he returned home. Indeed all the witnesses were much agi­tated.

Did you or did you not discover a general opposition to the execution of this law?

Yes, I did.

Was you not apprehensive of danger?

Yes I was [...] the threats which were given.

Do you imagine there were any magistrates in the county that went so far as you?

Yes, several of them.

How many witnesses did you take the examination of, at Trexler's?

I think eight or nine.

Did they do any thing to injure you except make mouths at you?

No, I sent for the captain, and requested him to keep his men in order, for all I wanted was to examine witnesses. There was no farther than, insult offered to us.—The captain assured me, he would do all that lay in his power.

How far is Trexler's from lower Milford in Bucks?

Ten or twelve miles.—From Lehi to lower Milford? Thirty.—From Hamilton to lower Milford? Thirty one.—From Bethlehem to lower Milford Sixteen. Upper Milford in Northampton, and lower Milford in Bucks join each other.

JACOB STERNHER, sworn.

Testimony translated.

Where do you live?

In Macungy.

Do you recollect any talk in your township of the assessors coming there to measure houses?

Yes, it was said that they were to measure them.

How long ago?

They talked in the winter about it.

What was the talk in your neighbourhood respecting the conduct of Millar's town, when the assessors came there to measure the houses?

I was told that one man (inadmissible)

What was the general talk?

I never went into company, and therefore I cannot say what it was.

When were the houses measured in Macungy?

About three weeks ago they begun to measure.

Do you know if any houses were measured before the army went up into that country?

Not that I know of in that township.

Was you at Trexler's before judge Henry?

Yes.

Did you hear any threats against judge Henry, Mr. Eyerly and Mr. Balliott by the people there?

No, I did not.

Were there any there, who said they would come to harm, if they con­tinued measuring the houses?

No, I did not hear any.

Did you hear any of the people say, while those gentlemen were there, that the assessors should not come to measure their houses?

Yes, I heard some people say that they were not willing to have their houses measured yet, and they wished it to be told to those gentlemen.

Was you not desired by the people in Millar's town to inform the as­sessors that they should not come into that township to make the assess­ment, or he would be hurt, or meet with an accident?

Yes, a man told me to tell the assessor so.

Did the person say any thing about pistols and a sword?

Yes, he desired me to tell the assessor that there was a man there who had pistols and a sword.

Who did he say the man was?

He did not mention who.

Mr. CHAPMAN and Mr. CHILDS were called again at the sugges­tion of Mr. Dallas to be asked how the measurement of a house was taken?

It was always in every instance given by the owner, we never measur­ed any houses. Size, length and breadth was told us, or the proprietor had ten days to send it in: we left a note for those people that were not at home.

Did the people who were at home in Milford mention the dimensions of their houses?

Yes.

Mr. Chapman proved the letter which was mentioned in his evidence to have been written by him to the commissioner.

Mr. Sitgreaves produced and read the warrants under which those per­sons at Bethlehem were held: also the commission from the President of the United States, appointing one of the commissioners under that act.

Mr. EYERLY again called.

How far did Fox live from lower Milford?

In lower Sochon township; about ten miles.

How were the principal and assistant assessors appointed?

At the time I received the notice from the first commissioner that was appointed in the commission, the commissioners were to meet at Reading on the 22d of October. After a board were met, every commissioner was desired to make a plan of his division, and to divide it into such a suitable number of assessment districts, as to have the law executed in a reasonable time: at the same time each commissioner was requested to make out lists of persons qualified for the office of assessors in each division. As soon as this was done, as the law gives a power to the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce the number of assessors if too large, the clerk made cut a list, and sent it to the Secretary of the Treasury; a list was also en­tered in the Commissioners book. Some few alterations were made in some districts afterwards, but at the time the board was sitting. After this was done, the form of the warrant was agreed upon by the Com­missioners, and ordered to be printed. They were then filled up, and every warrant signed by all the Commissioners. A rule was then adopt­ed to call all the assessors together in each district, and the Commissioners was to meet and qualify them and give them instructions.

I presume a record was kept, where is it.

I do not know; it was left in possession of the clerk, he lives at Reading.

After the proclamation was issued by the President, was there not a meeting of the Commissioners with the assessors in some townships?

I do not know.

Has there, to your knowledge, been any resistance to the operation of the law since the issuing of the proclamation?

I do not know of any—I was in Philadelphia.

Was the country in a pacific state, except where the army matched.

No.—After the President had issued his proclamation I wrote up to the principal assessor in Northampton county, and to Mr. Balliot, to request [Page 85] them to go on, and have their returns made in a certain time, and to give notice to all the other assessors so to do. I received answer an from Mr. Balliott that he had received information that it was impossible to do the business in the execution of the law.

Did you endeavour to get the business executed?

Yes.

Did you succeed?

No.

Did you attribute it to the neglect of the assessors?

No.

To JUDGE PETERS.

Did you not discover manifest signs of terror coming from the districts where the army had not marched?

Yes, in many instances, some very strong, it was even at­tempted to raise troops to oppose the army if they went up. There were one or two instances of testimony given to me that troops were endea­voured to be raised, and nothing, I believe, but the rapidity of the pro­gress of the troops prevented its execution. I did believe that unless the army had gone through the whole country, there would have been the most atrocious instances of violence.

Did not some of the witnesses give their testimony under great reluct­ance, owing to fear?

Yes, I had, in some instances, to state the protection of the United States, and their determination to lay hold of persons who should threaten, in order to stimulate them: some said, after they had given their testi­mony, that they were afraid to go home. I can really say, that, in ge­neral, they were the most unwilling witnesses I had ever examined. I got evidence that some of them were forming associations for actually opposing the troops. One man was even afraid because I was in his house, asking for some refreshment, as, he said, he should be suspected for harbouring me; however, after I had expressed my own security, he seemed satisfied.

Mr. Dallas gave notice that, though they wished to give as little trou­ble on the part of the defendant as possible, yet he should produce two or three witnesses in order to shew that this indisposition, which was mani­fested to permit the assessment, was owing to the uncertainty those people were in, of the real existence of the law, and that the prisoner himself had declared that it was no law, and that they had no idea of opposing Con­gress by force of arms, but that they wished for time, in order to ascer­tain its real existence, and if the law was actually in force, that they wish­ed, agreeable to their former custom, to appoint assessors from their own respective townships: also we mean to show that Fries was perfectly ac­quiescent after the proclamation, and that Mitchel was entirely mistaken as to the expressions said to be used by Fries at the meeting at Conrad Marks's. However, as we wish to have time previously to examine the witnesses we mean to bring, we shall not be able to produce them at this stage of the trial.

Mr. RAWLE, then opened the constitutional definition of treason, as consisting of only two parts: "levying war against the United States, and aiding the enemies of the United States." As it is only the first of these species of treason the prisoner is charged with, it is only necessary to as­certain [Page 86] what is meant by levying war against the United States. Mr. Sitgreaves has stated that, levying war against the United States consisted, not only in a broad sense of rebellion openly manifested, with an avowed intention of subverting the government and constitution of the country, but also with force of arms, or by numbers sufficient for that purpose, to cause an impression of terror: these, either one, or all together, used to prevent the execution of the laws, or of any particular law of the United States from motives, not of a special but of a general nature—is treason. This position I believe is perfectly correct, and has already received the sanction of a court of the United States, respecting the insurrection in the western parts of Pennsylvania. See a Dallas 348. Mitchel's case—This doctrine is laid down in terms short and concise and is such as is founded on the particular authority of all the writers on English law.

Page 355. Bradford—attorney. The design of the meeting was avow­edly to oppose the execution of the excise law; to overawe the govern­ment; to involve others in the guilt of the insurrection; to prevent the punishment of the delinquents, &c.

Patterson (Justice)—The first question to be considered is, what was the general object of the insurrection? If its object was to suppress the ex­cise offices, and to prevent the execution of an act of Congress, by force and intimidation, the offence, in legal estimation, is high treason; it is an usurpation of the authority of the government; it is high treason by levy­ing war. Taking the testimony in a rational and connected point of view, this was the object. It was of a general nature, and of a national concern.

Let us attend, for a moment, to the evidence. With what view was the attack made on General Neville's house? Was it to gratify a spirit of revenge against him as a private citizen, as an individual? No:—as a private citizen he had been highly esteemed and beloved; it was only by becoming a public officer, that he became obnoxious, and it was on ac­count of his holding the excise office alone, that his house had been assail­ed, and his person endangered.—They were arrayed in a military manner; they affected the military forms of negociation by a flag; they pretended no personal hostility on General Neville; but they insisted on the surren­der of his commission. Can there be a doubt, then, that the object of the insurrection was of a general and public nature.

Page 340. Patterson (Justice) in the charge against Rigol.

With respect to the intention, there is not, unhappily, the slightest pos­sibility of doubt: To suppress the office of excise, in the fourth Survey of this state; and particularly, in the present instance, to compel the resigna­tion of Wells the excise officer, so as to render null and void, in effect, an act of Congress, constituted the apparent, the avowed object of the insur­rection. Combining these facts and this design, the crime is high treason.

This you will perceive, gentlemen of the Jury, is not preventing the execution of all the laws, or all the authority of the government, but of "an act of Congress." It is an usurpation of the authority of the go­vernment, and thus it is levying war, and is high treason. Taking it in this point of view, this was the very object of the insurgents at Northampton, and was of a public, of a general, and not of a private or special nature. In the case I referred to, the prisoner acted different from the prisoner at the Bar; he acted in a subordinate station; he does not appear to be a first character in that treasonable enterprize.

[Page 87] Gentlemen, the law thus laid down by the court upon that occasion was derived from the English authorities to which I shall now refer you. 4. Blackstone, p. 81. defines that branch of treason of which we are now treating—"Levying war against the King (substitute here the U. States for King) is, pulling down all enclosures, meeting houses, prisons or brothels"—Although bawdy houses are illegal, yet by any individuals not authorised, taking the authority which alone is vested in the government, it is an usurpation of the authority, and the act being of a general, and not of a special nature, is treason. Lord Chief Justice Hale, whose name will ever be endeared by the piety, the humanity, and the found legal learning which characterised him, has a chapter upon this subject of le­vying war against the King. 1. Hales pleas page 105. He says to march with colours flying, drums beating, &c. if on a matter of a pub­lic or general nature, is high treason, but if on a private quarrel or for a private purpose, it is not treason. Treason in levying war, by this defi­nition, consists of two sorts. First, marching expressly, or directly against the King's forces: secondly, interpretatively, or obstructively; doing a thing of a general nature. Page 133. If to pull down a particular inclosure, it is only a riot, but if to pull down all inclosures, it is levy­ing war against the King, because it is generally against the King's laws.

Foster, p. 211. Insurrections in order to throw down all inclosures, to alter the established law or change religion, to inhance the price of all labour or to open all prisons—all ris [...]ngs in order to effect these inno­vations of a public and general concern by an armed force, are, in construc­tion of law, high treason, within the clause of levying war. Insurrections, likewise, for the reformation of real or imaginary evils of a public nature, and in which the insurgents have no special interest,—risings to effect these ends by force and numbers, are, by construction of law, within the clause of levying war.

1. Hawkins, Chap. xvii. Sect. xxiii. p. 37. is much to the same effect. Douglass, 570. in the case of Lord G. Gordon. The case there on the part of the prosecution was an attempt to force the repeal of an act of Parliament, and this was called high treason, although the defendant was not convicted. Keyling p. 70. on the case of Messenger, Appletree and others, and 75, ibid.

It will probably be said by the defendant's Council that this should be simply considered as a rescuing prisoners from the custody of the Marshal, and that is not treason, and that a number of crimes of a less degree must be committed in order to make it treason, as Arson, Burglary, and Murder. But I would observe, that when these crimes are committed, one or more of them, they are not component parts of treason, but they lose their qualities and their name in the absorbing crime—treason. So when general Nevil's house was burnt, it was said only to amount to Arson: to that it was answered by Judge Patterson, were it not for the treasonable purpose with which this was done, it would be so, but the guilt rose to treason in the intention. Admitting it is a crime, and wor­thy of a punishment, the question is, whether, or not, it must be consi­dered as one of the means made use of to obtain the end in view. 1. Hale 133. If a man break open prison, except where a person is convict­ed for treason, it was ruled to be only a great riot: if several were res­cued thereby, it was a riot and [...], except those persons rescued were [Page 88] convicted for treason, and where it was without any particular view to the persons themselves, and where the prisoners were unknown, then the rescue becomes a part of the treasonable act, and that, with other facts constitutes [...]e person guilty of treason. In 4 Blackstone you will find an answer to what Mr. Dallas said this morning ought to be in favour of the prisoner: to wit, an ignorance of the existence of the law.

Suppose every man who would profess himself ignorant of the existence of a law was exculpated from the observance of it, or from the conse­quences of breaking it, to what would that doctrine lead! It would be for the interest of every man who wished to oppose a law, to keep himself under the shelter of this want of knowledge, in order that he might sin with impunity—without knowing it. This is a mistaken fact, and an er­ror in point of law. I make these observations, not because I suppose that the defence will be seriously set up, or that, did it exist, you would be in the least guided by it, but under the impression that when you come to examine all the facts, you will discover that it was not so.

Unless these points which I have laid down are controverted, I shall not trouble you with more points of law, and shall leave the observations I am farther to make, to a later period of the case.

MR. DALLAS.

IT has become so uncommon in the state of Pennsylvania to be employ­ed in a cause, upon the issue of which the life of a fellow creature depends that, I am confident, the court and jury, as well as the council on both sides, are prepared to give a solemn, candid and patient attention to the present investigation. It is, gentlemen, a question of Life or Death; and if what we have heard is true, that the prisoner is a husband, and a father, it is a question whose importance extends beyond his own life, to the ex­istence and well-being of a miserable family. If I should manifest there­fore, an extraordinary solicitude to secure the attention of the jury, as long as the occasion shall require, these considerations would, I think, fur­nish a sufficient excuse: yet, permit me to add to my justification ano­ther remark. It is not only the life of John Fries, and the well-being of his family, that are at stake on this trial, but, we all know, that the im­pressions made on your minds, and communicated to the public by your verdict, may reach the lives and families of many more unhappy men now under indictments for a similar crime. I must confess, that I feel agitated by the prospect: for, if it appears so awful, so interesting, as it evidently does, to the court and audience, how must it affect us who are the council for the prisoner, charged with the developement of every principle and of every fact, that can tend to an acquital? As it relates to the Council for the prosecution, the difficulties are comparatively small. They have had an opportunity amply to explore all the facts; to calcu­late the effects to be produced, and to point their testimony precisely to the object of the charge. We, who are council for the prisoner, are ig­norant [Page 89] of the man and of his connections. Till you were impannelled, we knew nothing of the evidence to support the prosecution; and could; therefore, be little prepared to encounter and repel it, Besides, in all our enquiries for the means of defence, as well as in our examination of the witnesses, we have been embarrassed by the foreign language in which the parties have spoken. That some of you, however, as well as the op­posite council understand the German, has been a source of consolation to us; for, it is your province to decide on the facts.

But these are not the only obstacles which we have to encounter. I am sure I shall not be misunderstood when I say, that the prosecution appears to be strongly marked with the authority and influence of government.

It is, I grant, incumbent upon the government to exercise its powers [...]or the punishment of crimes; but it is essential to a fair discussion of every accusation, that the acts of the government should not be estimated as proofs of the prisoner's guilt. Thus, though you find by the proclama­tion of the President (which, doubtless, he thought, with a wife and up­right intention, was required by the extraordinary circumstances of the times) that the disturbances in Northampton were deemed overt acts of treason by his advisers; and though this denunciation was followed by the march of a considerable army for the express purpose of subduing and apprehending the traitors; you will recollect, that you are to decide whether treason has been committed, from the evidence of the witnesses, and not from the opinions of the government. Again: great inconveni­encies have been experienced by many meritorious citizens, who relin­quished the pursuits of business, and the pleasures of domestic life, to assist in the suppression of the insurgents; but you will not allow the irri­tation and resentment proceeding from this source, to transfer from your judgments to your passions, the determination of the cause. Far be it from me to contend that outrages have not been committed, which are disreputable to the state or society at large, and to the character of Penn­sylvania in particular; or to endeavour to shelter from the punishment of the law, the instigators and perpetrators of such offences. Every citizen is interested, and is bound to assist in detecting, prosecuting, and punish­ing the offenders; but every citizen, let it be remembered, is still more interested, that even the greatest criminals should only be punished in the manner and to the degree which the law prescribes. However we may differ on speculative points of politics abroad, however we may be disposed to approve, or to disapprove, the measures of administration, and however we may controvert or assist, the constitutionality, or the expedi­ency, of particular laws, all party spirit, all personal animosity, must be abandoned when we are called upon to act as ministers of justice; or we shall, in the indulgence of a moment's vengeance, overthrow those barriers which are our own security, and the pledge of safety to posterity.

Whatever you may have thought, whatever you may have said, what­ever you may have heard, in other scenes, must now be obliterated from your minds. The character of private citizens, with all the privileges of private opinion and feeling, is here exchanged for the character of pub­lic functionaries, with all the restraints of law and justice. Your opini­ons as private men, will only be regarded according to their intrinsic me­rit; but your verdict as a jury will be forever obligatory, bearing all the authority of a precedent.

[Page 90] Though, then, a proclamation has issued, an army has marched, and po­pular resentment has been excited, we claim an unbiassed attention; and circumscribing your view of the subject to the evidence, we confidently ex­pect a fortunate result. What has happened in England upon a similar occasion, we think will happen here. The British Privy Council an­nounced a traitorous conspiracy to the British Parliament. The British Parliament declared that the party recognized and confirmed the charge of high treason and thus the whole weight of public authority in that coun­try, legislative and executive, instituted a prosecution, which was, after­wards, conducted with the greatest zeal and talents—with such zeal and talents as the present prosecution has displayed. What was the event? A jury (that inestimable palladium) without fear, and without favour, ex­amined and pronounced that no treason had been committed. I allude to the recent cases of Horne Tooke and Hardy.

I shall, I presume, be excused, if I intimate to you some other disad­vantages under which the prisoner's case labours; for, it is not merely necessary to produce evidence, to explain, extenuate, or refute the charge; we must guard your minds against any previous bias, any latent pre-de­termination to convict. The accused gentleman, and his companions, you will recollect, are not upon their trial among persons, with whom they have been accustomed to live. This is a disadvantage, which every candid man will acknowledge. They are to be tried, likewise, by a jury, select­ed and returned by the marshal, the very officer who has been personally insulted, and whose appointment depends on the will and pleasure of the executive magistrate—that magistrate by whom the offenders have already been described as traitors. I mean not to cast the least reflection upon the laws of Congress, nor upon the officers of the government; but to make a general remark on the defective state of our judicial institutions. The conduct of the marshal has, indeed, been highly exemplary through­out the transaction; and when with such powers he returned such a jury as I have the honor to address, he manifests an impartiality and independ­ence of character, that entitles him to the respect and plaudits of his country. Nor is it here that the prisoner's disadvantages terminate: but I hope, I believe, that never 'till this day was the Press employed in a base and sanguinary attempt to intimidate the jury and council from a faithful execution of their duty in a capital case! Since, however, the jury have been summoned; nay, since the court have been sitting upon this very trial, there have been the grossest, the most insidious practices in a public newspaper, to warp your sentiments, and to deprive the unfortu­nate prisoner of the benefit of the best talents, which the bar of Pennsyl­vania can afford. On the other hand, a gentleman, whose abilities we all respect, and whose long residence in the offending counties must great­ly facilitate the progress of the prosecution, is associated, without censure, and certainly without being answerable, in the duties of the attorney of the district. While our ignorance of characters, and circumstances per­plexes the defence; his accurate information and experience enable him to probe every witness to the quick, and forcibly to combine and inter­weave all the incidents of the transaction. But his motives are pure [...] for, if he does arraign; if he does convict; if he does punish; it is be­ [...]ause his patriotism and public spirit enable him to soar far beyond the [...] affections of a neighbourhood.

[Page 91] Gentlemen, in this situation we appear before you as advocates for the prisoner. I declare that as far as my mind is capable of being im­pressed by a sense of duty, I feel a terror lest any thing should be left undone, or unsaid, which is essential to the cause: and, therefore, compli­cated as the discussion must necessarily be, accept, I pray you, my senti­ments under the following heads.

First, I will endeavour to establish such points of law, as seem to me to be applicable to the facts which have been given in evidence.

Secondly, I will consider the general state of the discontents, and how far the rescue at Bethlehem was connected with the previous disturbances.

Thirdly, I will take a review of the conduct of the prisoner in particu­lar.

I. With respect to the crime of treason, I hold the constitutional act in my hand by which it is defined. The gentleman who opened this pro­secution, has very justly said, that the words of the definition were bor­rowed from a statute very much admired in the English code; but I do not think that he has very justly added, that, because the United States have borrowed the language of the statute, they have, also, adopted all the inferences and expositions of the British courts. It appears, indeed, that Lord Hale (I. Vol. p. 132) thought, that even the English courts had carried their decisions on the statute too far, and emphatically warns the judges from proceeding further in the dangerous doctrine of "construc­tive treasons." Speaking of past cases, he says ‘those resolutions being made and settled, we must acquiesce in them, but, in my opinion, if new cases happen for the future, that have not an express resolution in point, nor are expressly within the words of 23 Ed. 3. though they may seem to have a parity of reason, it is the safest way, and most agreeable to the wisdom of the great act of 23 Ed. 3. first to consult the parliament and have their declaration, and to be very wary in multiplying constructive and interpretative treason, for we know not where it will end.’ It should be premised, that in that celebrated statute of 25 Ed. 3. on which is founded our definition of treason, there was a provision made, that if the overt act charged, or the crime supposed to be committed, did not come, specifically, within the words of the statute, the judges should not pronounce it high treason, but must refer it to the parliament. Hale, the great and good, applauds the provision; and when he says, that the courts have gone far enough, does not the strength of his expression imply, that they had gone too far?—"Be very wary in multiplying constructive trea­sons, for we know not where it will end." Now, it is said, that because we have brought the words "levying war" from the English statute, we, therefore, adopt all the interpretations of the English courts; but I deny the proposition, because I think it is dangerous as well to the policy of our constitution as to rights of individuals. In the same statute of the 25 Ed. 3. there is another crime, called compassing the king's death; and levying war has been construed to be an overt act of that species of trea­son. Hence the gentleman will find that there is some confusion in the English books on the doctrine of levying war, considering it sometimes as a substantive and independent of treason, and at other times considering it merely as evidence of a traitorous design against the life of the monarch. It is impossible to conceive, indeed, any thing more absurd than construc­tive treason, as it has been applied to compassing the death of the king. [Page 92] Any man who should use a single expression, a loose word, among friends, or enemies, that could be tortured, by the most circuitous process, into any thing like a wish for the king's death, was termed a traitor. In Black­stone's Commentaries, it is mentioned, that an innkeeper, ludicrously de­clared that his son was heir to the crown; meaning that he was heir to the tavern, which had the sign of a crown; yet, the expression was construed into treason, and the man suffered as a traitor. In another instance, the king killed a deer belonging to one of his poor subjects, who upon the first impulse of his resentment, wished the deer, horns and all, in the king's belly; and the man was also hanged as a traitor. So far will constructi­on go, and, in such a manner may a man's life be endangered! If construc­tive treasons are admitted in this country, no man will be safe: It may destroy my life; it may destroy your's.

In England this species of treason is considered in two lights; levying war against the person of the monarch, and levying war against his autho­rity. I wish you to know precisely upon what footing this distinction prevails in England, because I shall ask you presently, what species of treason ought to be considered as adopted by the principles, as well as the terms of our constitution. Levying war against the person of the mo­narch consists in any attempt to dethrone him; either with a view to change the government, or merely to supplant the person who administers it. The act is unequivocal, and meets the common sense of every man. But levying war against his authority, is so indefinite, that any thing and every thing may be made treason; the intemperance of a mob, as well as the hostility of an army. Independent of all technical reasoning, then, let me ask you, upon the suggestions of common sense, whether you per­ceive more in the recent occurrences than a great riot; a lawless disturb­ance of the public peace, a daring rescue? Was there in the mind of any man, till the denunciation contained in the proclamation of the President, and the march of the army, an idea that treason had been committed? Till then, the guilt in obstructing the execution of the laws was not deno­minated treason, nor was the punishment expected, death!

In order, however, to examine this point of law more minutely, and to apply it to the facts, let me observe that from the English books (whose authority, however, is not implicitly admitted) two general propositions are to be collected:

First, The intention must be to levy war.

Secon [...] War must be actually levyed against the government.

When I say, emphatically, that the intention must be to levy war, I mean that the intention, free of all constructive matter, must be to com­mit that description of crime, which the gentleman concerned for the pro­secution calls "levying war." Without that precise intention, however criminal the intention may be in other respects, the offender cannot be guilty of treason. A man, or a mob, may intend to commit a crime; a man may be armed, or a mob may be arrayed, for the purpose; and the utmost force may be used to accomplish it; but it is no treason, unless the intention was treasonably to levy war: though it may be arson; or it may be riot, &c. If the avowed object is to subvert the government; to drive Congress from its legislative function; to seize the President, &c. and instead of the established order of things to introduce anarchy, or mo­narchy, the act would be plainly and unequivocally within the meaning of levying war.

[Page 93] It is true, that the English books go further; and consider an attempt by force to obstruct the execution of all laws, or to compel the repeal of a particular law, as a constructive treason within the description of le­vying war. But the obstruction of all laws is, in fact, an attempt to subvert the government, and to compel the repeal of a law, is a very dif­ferent thing from a temporary interference with its execution. Conceding therefore, as far as the English authorities go, and as far surely, as the in­terests of our government can require, there is no precedent of a construc­tive treason to warrant a conviction in the present case; the opposition was not directed against all laws; nor was there any force employed to com­pel a repeal of the obnoxious Act. In Foster 211, as read by Mr. Rawle, you will find the reference is particularly made to the case of forcing the repeal of a law, or laws, &c. and not a word about opposition to the execution of a particular law. What, then were the origin and cha­racter of the late rising of the people? Was it not an opposition given to certain officers merely from a doubt of the existence of the law; or till the people had ascertained whether other counties conformed to the assess­ments, or till the inhabitants of townships were indulged in appointing their own assessors? Let me ask you, whether these characteristics are within the scope of the law of levying war? Remember what Hale says, "Do not let a parity of reasoning allure you; be very wary that you do not add to the catalogue of constructive treasons. Judge Blackstone too, has been quoted by Mr. Rawle (Vol. 4. p. 81) where he speaks of treason as an "attempt to reform religion, or the laws;" but I intreat your attention to the distinction which the passage itself is calculated to establish. Eve­ry one knows that the term reform the laws, means repeal the laws. The current of Legislative power is uniform. Those who made, can alone an­null a law, and if a reformation is produced, it must be by applying to the legislature. If the application is made with force, or menaces, the English writers declare, and we may safely allow that it would be an act of levy­ing war. But where is the analogy between that case, and the case of resisting a subordinate officer, while executing his part of a particular law?

Now gentlemen, I challenge the prosecuting council to say, in what part of the evidence it has appeared, that these insurgents went further than to declare that the law did not please them; that though they did not mean to compel Congress to repeal it, they had some doubts, and wished to ascertain whether it existed or not; to know whether the country in general had submitted to it; to know whether General Washington was not dissatisfied with it, and to see whether they could not get the assessor appointed by themselves. Under these impressions many irregularities oc­curred, but I ask the adverse council to point out if they have discovered through the whole course of the business, any insurrection existing, any traitorous design, till the meeting at Bethlehem; or whether till that moment the people of Northampton could be said to have been guilty of any crime?

We are told that the case of the western insurgents in 1794, is in point; and that the decisions upon the trials that then took place, are precedents on the present occasion; but, with great deference, I declare that it seems impossible to bring cases more dissimilar into view, where violence has been committed in both. At this stage of the argument however, I [Page 94] shall only remark, that whatever may have been the language of the judge, who then presided, I am sure the attorney of the district will be good enough to recollect, and candid enough to state, that the opposition, though in its origin, excited against the excise law, was conducted with the avow­ed purpose of suppressing all the excite offices, and compelling Congress to repeal the act, See 2 Dallas Rep. 346.

Let us for a moment, gentlemen, trace the motives of the people, by looking at their conduct not at large, but in the lawless scene at Bethle­hem. What did they do? why they rescued the marshal's prisoners; but the moment they had effected the rescue, did they not disperse? Their whole object then was consummated; for, I must presume that they contempla­ted nothing farther, as I see them attempt nothing more; and yet the time was very favourable to accomplish a more extensive design, if it had ever been meditated. Men intending to compel, by every hostile means, the repeal of a law, when they had in their hands the obnoxious agents of that law (Mr. Balliott, Mr. Eyerly, the marshal and others) would hardly have let the moment pass without some effort to triumph in their advan­tage. It was, indeed rumoured to be their intention to dispatch Mr. Ey­erly; but where does it appear? Was he not compleatly in their power? Was he not constantly in their view, though he incorrectly says that he was constantly out of their view? No: I repeat that the rioters having accomplished the rescue, dispersed; and will you, under such circumstances, in a case of life and death, determine that they came to commit treason? rejecting the plain fact, and adopting a constructive inference? But if they proceeded no farther than I have stated, let us again look to the law of England, to define their crime, as distinguished from treason? and you will not cease to bear in mind that you must establish the distinction. Hales pleas vol. 1 p. 133—4. Bacon's abridgment vol. 6. p. 513—4—5.

Foster Sect. 2. 210 "risings to maintain a private claim of right, or to destroy particular inclosures, or to break prisons, in order to release par­ticular persons have not been holden to amount to levying war within the statute.

Upon this principle a rising of the weavers in London, to destroy all en­gine-looms, machines, &c. did not amount to levying of war—for the judg­es considered it merely as a matter of private quarrel between men of the same trade, about a particular engine, which those concerned in the riot thought detrimental to them."

Now, if we should be fortunate enough in the course of this business to show that, however criminal these people may be, yet, that taking it alto­gether, their intention was only to acquire information, to see what really was the state of the country, and to procure township officers of their own appointment: if so, though they achieved the rescue, we have done with the indictment for treason; the verdict must conform to the evidence, and the judgment to the verdict. That the offence is an aggravated misde­meanour, I will not deny; but it ought to be distinguished from Treason; and, I think, I shall soon evince that it never was within the view of our legislature to consider it as the treason contemplated by the constitution. Give me leave, then, to ask (and I beg, gentlemen, as this is a matter of construction, that you, who are to fix the intention, will give candid at­tention) whether the facts prove more than the breaking open a particular prison, in order to rescue particular prisoners? Was not the matter of a [Page 95] partial, local nature, to make a particular, and not a general rescue, for which a particular prison (if it may be so described) was violated? And as to the previous opposition what was it more than a partial obstruction of particular officers, to prevent in a particular township, the execution of a particular law. At Kline's the people said to the ex-assessors, "we will not let you come into our township 'till we know whether it is a law or not; and if we must be assessed, it shall be by assessors of our own township." A gentleman in behalf of the prosecution has told us, that we are to re­ceive as authority all the adjudications given to the them "levying war" in England: But if I can produce an authority higher than the English parliaments, or the English courts to prove that the present case ought not to be included in the description of treason, I presume he will not reject it because it is American: I mean the authority of our own legislature. Before, however, I turn to the act of Congress, I will attract your atten­tion, gentlemen, by one proposition. If the legislature has explicitly classed an offence under a particular head in the penal code, it is incon­sistent and absurd to search for it, and punish it under another head. For instance, if the legislature has declared that rescuing prisoners, not under sentence of death, should be punishable only with fine and imprisonment, it would be inconsistent, by arguing, in a circle, that a rescue with force and numbers, is a combination for the purpose of preventing the execution of a law, and that such a combination is treason, by levying war. 1 Hales pleas 151. Keyling 75. Foster p. 200. Sect. 7.

If the offence to which I refer had been treason, it would not have consisted with the wisdom of the legislature to make it a misdemeanour: and on this ground it is, that I now ask you to reflect, which species of levying war, the direct or the constructive, was within the view of the framers of our constitution? Did they not intend to exclude every de­scription of constructive treason? But to proceed; if I can demonstrate, that every thing which has occurred of a criminal nature, from the com­mencement of the business, to its consummation, and regarding every pre­vious discontent as tending to the particular rescue at Bethlehem (which is the utmost the opposite council will pretend) has been considered by the legislature of the United States, (whose acts I repeat, are entitled to more respect than all the British authorities, parliamentary or judicial) as high misdemeanours, and not as treason; then I am entitled to insist, that the con­stitutional provision does not embrace the case; or if it does embrace the case that Congress, possessing the power to declare the punishment of trea­son, has limited the punishment of one species of the offence at least, to fine and imprisonment. Listen to the act, "If any person or persons shall knowingly and wilfully obstruct, resist or oppose any officer of the United States in serving, or attempting to serve or execute any mesne, process, or warrant, or any rule or order of any of the courts of the United States, or any other legal or judicial writ [...] process whatsoever, or shall assault, beat or wound any officer, or other person duly authorized in serving or executing any writ, rule, order, process or warrant aforesaid, every person so knowingly and wilfully offending in the premises, shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned not exceeding twelve months, and fined not exceed­ing three hundred dollars," Shall it be contended then, that obstructing the marshal, who was employed in serving process, constitutes the crime of treason! If it did so, there was no kind of necessity for this law.

[Page 96] Is there an ingredient in the whole of the conduct, while obstructing the marshal in the service of his process, that is not embraced in this le­gislative description? But let us take another step: the process is exe­cuted, the prisoners are apprehended, and actually in the custody of the marshal; and if it is treason, under the Constitution, to take them out of his custody, would Congress be justifiable in treating the offence simply as a misdemeanour? And yet such absurdity is imputed to the national le­gislature, since in the 23d section of the same law, it is enacted, that "if any person, or persons shall by force set at liberty, or rescue any person, who shall be found guilty of treason, murder, or any other capital crime, or rescue any person convicted of any of the said crimes, going to execu­tion, or during execution, every person so offending, and being convicted thereof, shall suffer death: and if any person shall, by force, set at liberty, or rescue any person who before conviction shall stand committed for any of the capital offences aforesaid; or if any person or persons shall by force set at liberty, or rescue any person committed for, or convicted of any other offence against the United States, every person so offending shall, on con­viction, be fined, not exceeding 500 dollars, and imprisoned not exceeding one year," Thus, if a malefactor was actually under the gallows when rescued, the rescue would have been but a capital offence; and the same consequence is now attempted, where the persons rescued had been admitted to their parole, and were in custody of the officer, merely upon mesne pro­cess. It was a matter of honour that made them resign themselves to his custody, and it was, in effect, a matter of form that he kept them in cus­tody: for, we find, that as he took their parole to meet him at Bethle­hem, so at the moment of the rescue, he took their parole to meet him in Philadelphia, which they have all punctually done.

Here then you find, gentlemen, that we have two of the prominent fea­tures of this case reduced to the form of positive law: to wit, the ob­struction of the marshal in the service of his process, and the rescue of prisoners from his custody. But there is another circumstance to which I would wish, likewise, to lead your attention. You find there was an in­disposition to allow a particular class of officers to make the assessments; and the people urged, that if it was to be done, it should be done by their own assessors. In this important point, therefore, the particular officers, and not the law, form the object of resentment and opposition. On this distinction, I have the respected authority of Mr. Bradford, the late attor­ney general of the United States, for asserting that the offence was riot, not treason. In his argument in the United States v. Mitchel (2 Dallas Rep. 354.) he states that ‘an opposition was lately made to the appointment of a particular judge, in Mifflin county, and he was forcibly driven from the bench. But the offence was prosecuted merely as a riot, upon this principle of descrimination, that the design was not to prevent the go­vernor from appointing any judge, but only to displace an unpopular individual.’ So even if the unpopular assessors, instead of being fore­warned not to enter the township, had been forcibly expelled from it, the offence would not have been treason, but not.

I am arrived, however, to the last and conclusive evidence of the sense of Congress upon this subject: from which it will be proved that the same cautious, and in respect to punishment, the same benevolent, legislature, had considered all that the ingenuity of any gentleman can suggest as [Page 97] criminal in the lawless career of the rioters, and defining the offence to be a misdemeanor, excludes the idea of its being a treason. Let us turn to the act commonly called the sedition act. Congress have there declared, that fine and imprisonment should be the only punishments for the offence which appears on the evidence to have been committed by the prisoner. I ask you, gentlemen, to reflect one moment upon the testimony that you have heard upon this trial, while I analyse the first section of the law. Has John Fries been guilty of a combination and conspiracy to obstruct the execution of the laws? In this act, his punishment is prescribed. Im­prisonment and fine. Did he intimidate a public officer? Here is the punishment. Is there in the whole transaction any councilling, or advis­ing, or any efforts towards producing an insurrection, it is punishable by this law. The law contains these descriptions of offence: First, combina­tion with intent to oppose any measures of government, or to impede the operation of the laws of the United States. This offence, notwithstanding its generality, is only punishable with fine and imprisonment. Secondly, an intimidation of persons, who are applied to for the purpose of execut­ing a law, so as to prevent their accepting the office, or having accepted it, to deter them from discharging the duties annexed to it. This is the offence that will be urged upon you: all the disturbances of Northampton county; all the tittle tattle and alarms of commissioners and assessors, will be arrayed against the unfortunate prisoner to affect his life: and the ag­gregate will be swelled into the size, and depicted in all the malignity of treason, though the law says it is nothing more than a misdemeanour. "Yes," you will hear it exclaimed, "Fries is the leader; he is the very life of the mob: it was he who advised, he who addressed, he who alarm­ed, he who intimidated, he who rescued!" Did he so? Then this law will punish him for a high misdemeanour; but I can discover no law to punish him for treason. I am sensible that if I err in my opinion, those who pro­secute will be able to discriminate, between the case proved by the evi­dence, and the case defined in the sedition law. I have not the ingenuity to perceive it; and I hope you will only give that weight to the respec­tive arguments which they respectively merit. Nay, I am persuaded, that the humanity of the prosecuting council, will induce them to abstain from any harsh exposition of the principle, as well as from any strained applica­tion of the evidence, involved in the controversy. The law provides for combinations formed for all these purposes, whether they have been carri­ed into effect or not, the simple punishments of fine and imprisonment. Simple do I call it! respecting this man, do we not know how exemplary it may be rendered. Suppose the judge was to impose a fine of 5000 dollars, can 5000 dollars come from the purse of John Fries? And if it cannot come from his purse, then the power of remission is in the chief magistrate alone; and unless he thinks that the public will sustain no in­jury from the convict's liberation, his sentence of five years may be pro­tracted to an imprisonment for life, and the total deprivation of the means by which his family can be rescued from wretchedness and ruin. It is not therefore, a simple punishment. But, permit me to repeat, that every description that can be given of the disturbances in the northern counties, is to be found in the law I have referred to; and if the legislature, which must be supposed to be as wife, as guarded, and as well-informed, as courts, or juries, in regulating the interests of the community, has thought proper [Page 98] thus to describe the crime, and prescribe the punishment, shall we pre­sume to be more wise, and assume a power to be more penal? If the le­gislature was contented to class these actions with misdemeanours, shall the designation be expunged by this court, or arbitrarily transferred to the catalogue of constructive treasons? Shall a jury sitting here;—shall a judge sitting there;—declare that though the offence is unequivocally pointed out by law, yet in their ideas of distributive justice, the penalty ought to be enhanced, and the man ought to be hanged! In every autho­ritative book, in regard to criminal cases, the most liberal interpretations are given to laws which mitigate punishments. Then let us suppose that the legislature when the sedition law was passed, contemplated the crime of treason without a view to the distinction of direct and constructive treason. The crime is defined by the constitution, but the punishment is not; and, therefore, an early act of Congress, agreeably to the power vest­ed in that body, affixed the punishment of death: but, it will not be de­nied, that Congress might at that time have inflicted only the punishment of fine and imprisonment, as is the case in the penal code of Pennsylvania. If, therefore, Congress has the power to modify the punishment and if we discover in the Sedition act a full description of treason, whether direct or constructive, ought we not to consider it, upon the liberal principle of expounding penal statutes, as an intended mitigation of the punishment, and a virtual repeal of the pre-existing sanctions? If there is any incon­sistency in the two laws, so that they cannot stand together, the former must be presumed to be annulled by the latter, and the greater punishment is superseded by the less, because enacted subsequent to it. The word in­timidate, used in the Sedition act, is of extensive meaning; it is not a mere feeling which would arise from saying you will suffer among your fellow citizens; it is a feeling which operates upon the mind from an ap­prehension of personal danger, and may be the effect of every species of force or menace. 1 Hale's pleas 3 and 6 Bacon 513. These authorities show what arraying in arms is, with a view to commit a crime; but prove that if the intention is not treasonable, it is not treason, however violent the act might be, and whatever may be the military array of the actors; and the intimidation to which the law applies, embraces every description of force that can possibly be contemplated, in order to accomplish the me­ditated purpose;—the obstruction of process,—the rescue of prisoners, the surrender of office;—or the resistance of a law. Foster 219 Sect. 10. "Attacking the king's forces in opposition to his authority upon a march, or at quarters, is levying war against the king. But if upon a sudden quarrel, from some affront given or taken, the neighbourhood rise and drive the forces out of their quarters, that would be a great misdemeanour, and if death should ensue, it may be felony in the assailants, but it will not be treason, because there was no intention against the King's person or go­vernment."

1 Hale's pleas 146. "If any of the King's troops be killed, it is felo­ny." An open resistance to the justices of Oyer and Terminer in the county of Surry was felony. Here a sudden attack upon the King's troops on their march, though this must be considered as a direct attack upon the government, yet, if any quarrel arise between them and the people, it is no treason. So, in the present instance, all the object of these people was to obtain a little time to procure information. To that we attribute their [Page 99] conduct toward Rodrick Childs and other officers: it arose from the im­pulse of the moment, and though directed against public officers, ought not to be denominated levying war against the government. The whole purpose and extent of every violent word or gesture, terminated in the intimidation of those officers. Do we hear a variety of men whispering to Eyerly he was in danger of his life? Look at the fact: he goes the rounds with the marshal, to serve the process against the very men, who are alleged to have pronounced the threat, yet no danger attends him: he appears repeatedly at the windows at Bethlehem amidst the tumult, yet no outrage is offered: the active leaders of the mob level guns at him, yet not a trigger is drawn! It was in short, a mere system of inti­midation, without a design to use force, much less to commit treason. Nay, I will pledge myself in saying that there was great art used on the part of the prisoner to accommodate the matter with the officers in every stage of the transaction, and to prevent personal injury or any kind of vi­olence. The case of the judges of Oyer and Terminer, referred to in Hale, is surely as strong as the present. Those judges were as much au­thorised then, as the assessors are now; and the non-reception, or acknow­ledgment of both, as public functionaries was the offence.

The acts committed during this scene of tumult, ought to be punished, and I hope will be punished; but as acts of riot and sedition, not as acts of treason.

I am sensible that it is possible to draw distinctions, to refine upon the meaning, and pervert the language of the act: but on principles of hu­manity, I am confident the gentlemen opposed to us will abstain from a mere exercise of ingenuity and eloquence, while we, who contend in favor of life, have a claim to every indulgence; a right to the benefit of every shade of discrimination.

It has been laid down by the opposite council, that there must be gene­rality of object, in order to constitute the crime of treason. If an insur­rection takes place, by which it is designed to oppose all the laws, it needs no reasoning to convince any man that a subversion of the government is intended, and that this is treason: But this I contend, is the only species of treason which ought to be recognized under a republican form of govern­ment, and to which alone the language of our constitution can be fairly applied. I am justified in the position, because the legislature has asserted it. If the constitutional language may be satisfied in that manner, the diversity introduced by the legislature ought at least to be judicially res­pected; so that when the legislature having provided the punishment of death for levying war, provides a different punishment for offences, which according to the English books would be construed into that very species of treason, we are bound to say that the English constructions are falla­cious and that taking advantage of Lord Hale's advice, the framers of our constitution have not only rejected the past decision (by which they were never bound as the English judges are) but have guarded against the accumulation of interpretative treason. When, therefore, I say that to oppose all laws, and to resist all the authority of the government, is a palpable levying of war, which requires no technical aid to define or ex­plain, I go as far as the terms of the constitution necessarily demand; and I think we are not authorised to go farther. I think I am right, al­so, when I say, that the legislature has distinguished the offence committed by the prisoner, from treason, and provided a different punishment for it.

[Page 100] Recurring to the western trials, let me repeat that the direct, the avow­ed object of the insurrection of 1794, was to suppress all excise offices, and to compel a repeal of the excise law; but can it be pretended that on that occasion, or on any occasion, a verbal menace to an officer, the rescue of a prisoner, or a temporary resistance to the execution of a law, arising from a doubt of its existence, was declared to be treason? Where shall we stop gentlemen, if such constructive treasons are allowed? It is im­possible for human genius, or human study to provide a barrier against the consequences. The framers of our constitution, the legislature of the union, one would imagine had taken every practicable precaution against the admission of constructive treasons; but if we are to adopt the expo­sitions, and the principles of exposition, of the English courts, the wisdom of our own country has been exercised in vain. If a forcible opposition to the partial execution of a single law, by a particular set of officers, is treason as the gentlemen allege, with a parity of reason, it may be pro­nounced, that a non-compliance with any lawful requisition of an author­ised officer, constitutes the same crime. Open that door, and the mischief will be carried much farther, will become more dangerous to civil liberty, and personal safety, than any thing which, the metaphysical disquisitions on the crime of compassing the King's death, have generated in En­gland. If any act that will interfere with carrying the laws and measures of government into effect, is treason, what a privileged order our public officers instantaneously become, what an enviable security they attain! Upon the whole discussion of this point of law, then, I conclude, that on the legitimate definition of levying war as applied to our form of govern­ment; and on the authority of the American legislature, no treason has been committed. There was no force employed against the government; no general object to overthrow the constitution and laws; no direct at­tempt, by arms or intimidation, to compel Congress to repeal the obnoxi­ous act: but the whole was a great and unjustifiable riot—seditious in its origin; daring in its progress; and iniquitous in its effects.

I proceed to the consideration of another point of law, and enquire that supposing this case to be treason, how is it to be proved? The first clear rule is, that the overt act must be proved in the county in which it is said to have been committed, as on the present indictment in the county of Northampton. 4 Hawkins ch. 46. sect. 184, 5, 6. p. 454. It was mentioned by Mr. Sitgreaves, that the specific overt act, with which Fries is charged, was rescuing the prisoners at Bethlehem; but this does not ap­pear on the face of the indictment. If, however, that act was treason, then not only the act, but the traitorous intention, must be proved in the proper county, as the intention and the act, are both essential to the crime. Now, for a moment, overlook the general narrative of discontents and disturbances, dismiss from your minds all the previous, and all the subsequent transactions, and confining your ideas precisely to the affair at Bethlehem, pronounce whether there appeared at that time and place any thing more than a design to rescue the prisoners? It is, I assert, my right to call for full proof of guilt, where the indictment states that the guilt was incurred. At Bethlehem, then, from the commencement to the close of the tumult, who can trace an act of levying war against the United States? The truth is, that before John Fries came on the borders of Northampton county, the military array, of which you will hear a great [Page 101] deal by and by, had taken place; and the people had got to the bridge of Bethlehem. But there is no evidence that any of the active men in op­posing the assessors, were present at the bridge, at the time the rescue was contemplated; and from the first convening at Schwartz's 'till the mo­ment of their taking the prisoners, what were the views of the party, as declared to Messrs. Henry, Balliott, and Eyerly? Why, that they came there simply to rescue the prisoners. The sincerity of the declaration is corroborated by the powerful consideration, that if there was a design to annihilate the laws, or to persecute and injure the officers, the opportunity as I before observed, could never be more favourable to ensure success. Such facts speak stronger than the strongest language: And is it not con­clusive, that a rescue only was in view, when we hear, that in less than ten minutes after the surrender of the prisoners, the whole multitude dis­persed, leaving the commissioners, assessors, justices and marshal uninjured and unannoyed upon the spot? There is one incident, however, which, perhaps you may notice: one of the two persons who were detained at Bethlehem in the morning, on being asked how he came there, said that he understood there was to be a meeting about those laws, and that he came to see what would be done about them; but with this single excep­tion, it is observable that not a word was said at Bethlehem respecting the existence, execution, obstruction or repeal of any unpopular act; not a word escaped but in relation to the rescue of the prisoners. In that rescue, the prosecuting council say they discover the generality of object, which even the English doctrine calls for in the definition of treason by a constructive levying war; and insist that the particularity of object, which would extenuate and reduce the crime, is not to be found. Is it so contended, because the demand of surrender, was not founded on a tie of consanguinity? because an uncle, a brother, a father, a son, were not imprisoned? This, surely, is not a legal idea of particularity. But all the law regards is to be found in the present case. The party assembled with a view to release a particular set of prisoners, and not prisoners generally. Shankweiler was one who was there; three or four came with him to see that he should not be used ill, and to offer bail for him. What was their language at the bridge? "They have taken our neighbours; but if they have done wrong, they ought to be tried in their own county." That they should be transported to Philadelphia was the great objection—was the motive to the rescue: that they have been transported to Philadelphia, is a great inconvenience, is the principal difficulty in the defence.

Thus, then, in point of proof the prosecution is defective: it is not merely an act of violence, but a traitorous intention that must be shown at the place where the violence was committed. No such intention has appeared in evidence; while on the contrary we have pointed you to the parts of the evidence which prove that the people did every thing that they intended to do, and the moment they obtained their object, dispersed. With this view of the subject, why does the government prosecute for a capital offence? If this prisoner is acquitted on the present indictment, there is no probability of his escaping with impunity: though his life may be spared; there is no doubt but the attorney of the district, will present a bill against him under the act to which I have so repeatedly referred.

On the principle of the law that I have stated, 'till the overt act is compleatly proved in Northampton, the intention as well as the deed, I [Page 102] take it you cannot go to another county for evidence, by proving there an independant and substantive act of treason. It is immaterial to Fries, as it respects this charge, what he did in the county of Bucks. He met at Kline's: and though I will deny the impropriety of his conduct at that meeting, no lawyer will assert that it amounted to treason. He did not meet at Mitchel's; but wherever he did attend, we cannot perceive any thing in his conduct, but a vague dislike of the land tax, and a steady re­gard for the safety of the assessors. It is immaterial what he did, and what he said, in the county of Bucks: the offence must be proved in all its parts in the county of Northampton.

And here, gentlemen, I am naturally led to guard you against another instrument in the system of state prosecutions, called accumulative treason, as dangerous and as unjust an instrument as constructive treason, of which I have already spoken. Accumulative treason, is, the artful combination of a number of circumstances, which in their original, unconnected situa­tion were unimportant, but being thus combined become gigantic, and frightful to the eye. Mere indiscretions committed at different times, in different places, and under various impulses, collected into a mass, and ex­hibited at a moment, may be made to assume the complexion of the most odious crimes. None of the acts committed out of Northampton ought to be brought into the account against the prisoner, till, at least, the act of treason has been proved, legally proved, to have been committed there. For those extraneous acts, if they do not amount to substantive acts of treason, indictable where they were committed, he may be rendered res­ponsible under the sedition law, or under the general law against rioters. If his actions in another county ought not to be taken into view, the reason is stronger for excluding his words. Words spoken may be an high misdemeanour, but can never amount to treason. 4 Black Com. 259. and yet it is attempted to prove the present charge by the aid of loose, equi­vocal, and ambiguous conversations. With respect to such evidence, arising under circumstances that are not clearly stated, communicated with­out regard to the order and connection of facts, and depending on the memory of persons agitated by terror, or by resentment, can it be neces­sary to caution an upright and enlightened jury? Take them, if you will, the language of the law declares that they cannot constitute treason; but the language of humanity instructs you totally to disregard them.

Let me advert to another circumstance with respect to the evidence. It is not necessary laboriously to distinguish what is hearsay evidence and what is not: and I admit that the testimony, which applies to a descrip­tion of the general state of the country, is not to be disregarded, because it is of the nature of hearsay. Upon the detail, however, of specific facts, the rule is strict and beneficial. Whatever was heard from a second per­son, when that person might himself have been brought as a witness; or whatever has passed in relation to the prisoner, at a time when he was ab­sent; the law will not allow to be the foundation of a verdict upon the present trial. Included in this description is every piece of information, all the tittle tattle, that passed between the subordinate and principal asses­sors or commissioners. Again: the assessors told the commissioners that the law could not be executed; but this is matter of opinion, which must be founded on facts; and you must take the facts, not the opinion, as your guide. Nor can a correspondence official or unofficial, between pub­lic [Page 103] officers, be estimated as evidence on the trial of a third person. If it can be estimated as evidence, then it will be always in the power of the officers of government, to fabricate and produce evidence that will inevi­tably convict an obnoxious individual. God forbid that ever this should be the case here; but the temptations to an abuse of power are not want­ing. Without meaning a reflection upon Mr. Eyerly, it cannot be over­looked, that he, who was the commissioner for executing the unpopular law, had been recently an unsuccessful candidate for Congress; and if a base motive could actuate him, do we not perceive his opportunity, to avenge the defeat upon the active opponents of his election? Official re­ports are necessary to maintain the connection between officers of different grades;—the facts stated in them are binding upon the reporters, and the reports are themselves sufficient evidence to be acted upon by the officers to whom they are made: but was it ever tolerated, was it ever conceived, that an official statement of facts should be conclusive in any case, even in a case of property, affecting the rights of a private citizen, in a court of justice. The facts depend upon books and vouchers, constituting an of­ficial record, and the books and vouchers, or authenticated copies, or ex­emplifications, can alone be admitted as legal evidence upon a trial at law.

There remains another point of law, to be introduced to the notice of the court and jury. I take it for granted, that no man can be said to oppose a law, unless the law exists; no man can oppose a measure of government, unless his acquiescence is lawfully required. The judges will not view my position in the mistaken light which Mr. Attor­ney did, that the commission of every officer from the assessor to the President must be produced, before any act in execution of the land tax law could be performed: No, Sir; I contend not for so extravagant a, doctrine: but I assert, that every man who resists a public officer de facto, and in consequence of the resistance is indicted, has a legal, settled right to demand upon his trial, proof of the authority of the officer. In the first instance, the party who resists, does it at his peril;—but if the person claiming to act as an officer, had no warrant, or commission, the resistance was justifiable, and the defendant must be acquitted. Let us apply this principle. The law being enacted by congress, it is an incontestable, though sometimes harsh rule, that ignorance, shall be no excuse for disobeying it: but suppose that a man, calling himself an assessor should come into my house, and insist on going from room to room to take the rates, without shewing me his warrant; and that in consequence of his refusal I should turn him out, and he should prosecute me;—what is the result? If he was de jure an officer, I am liable to the penalty of the act; but if he was not, then I am not only innocent, but entitled to an action of trespass against him for his intrusion.

We have, with this view of the case, repeatedly called for proof of the appointments of the assessors, in conformity to the act of Congress. Such ap­pointments could only be legally made by a majority of the board of com­missioners for the division, at a regular meeting. Now, as the evidence proves, that one of the assessors was not so appointed; and that bundles of blank warrants were left in the hands of each commissioner, to be filled up with any names he pleased; which task in one instance a commissioner assigned to an assessor; sufficient is shewn to justify our exacting on a [...]pital trial, the best evidence of regular appointments, that the case will [Page 104] admit: the bést, the only evidence, is the record of the commissioners, which the law directs to be kept by the clerk of the board. There can indeed, be no room to justify the transfer of the discretion and authority vested in the commissioners by Congress: it is not like the common case of blank certificates, to authenticate, ministerially, the signature of a magis­trate, notary, &c. which, I as a public officer have often filled up on be­half of the Governor: but it is the case of a discretion, arising from the judgment, information, and integrity of the party, who is confidentially appointed to exercise it;—such a discretion as is vested in the Governor to appoint Judges, of which he could not have transferred to me, in the shape of blank commissions, without, I believe, exposing both of us to the jeopardy of impeachment.

2. Having thus delivered my sentiments upon the points of law, that arise on the evidence, I shall now enter upon the consideration of the se­cond proposition,—‘the general state of the discontents in the northern counties; and how far the rescue at Bethlehem was connected with the previous disturbances.’

And here I find, gentlemen, that the source, from which proceeds much if not all, of our political good, discharges, likewise, much, if not all of our political evil: I mean the business of elections. You will recollect the testimony of Mr. Horsefield.

That gentleman, when he wished to give you a description of the ori­gin of all the mischief that we deprecate, pointed his finger emphatically, at the election of 1798. Now, I pray that I may not be misunderstood in the progress I shall make through the scene which is thus disclosed; let it not be supposed, that I am depraved enough to justify the misconduct that has been exhibited; because I am firm enough to contend, that it did not proceed from motives directed to Treason, nor lead to consequences that amount to Treason. At the eve of our election, it is natural for the citizens of a free country, to canvass what has been done by the public agents; to applaud the good, and reprobate the bad: and in doing this they exercise a right; nay, they perform a duty. No intelligible and candid man will say that the constitution of a representative republic can be preserved in a vigorous and healthy state, unless the people, from whom it denies its vital principle, are vigilant and virtuous in the exercise of the elective franchise. For this purpose they retain the right of opinion; and though they may use it upon mistaken, or erroneous grounds, if they use it fairly and peaceably, there is no power to controul or obstruct them.

I ask, then, what were the ostensible causes of discontent? They will be delineated by the opposite council as spectres of the most visionary, yet most horrible aspect; but notwithstanding any sincere abhorrence of the manner in which the discontent has been manifested, I cannot admit that the causes did not afford a legal ground for exercising the right of opini­on. For instance, the alien and Sedition laws. They are a novelty in this country, and their novelty might alone attract the popular attention and displeasure. But were the inhabitants of the northern counties of Pennsylvania the only dissatisfied citizens? Peruse the debates, examine the files of Congress, and you will find the most pointed declarations of the public opinion, the most unequivocal marks of dissatisfaction, through­out the United States. Exercising the right of opinion, the people dis­approved the laws, and the law makers. Exercising the right of Elec­tion [Page 105] they endeavoured to promote the success of those candidates, who would regularly procure a repeal of the laws. Again: the stamp act was strongly objected to, and produced the nick name of "Stamplers," which was applied generally to the friends of government. Now, in my opinion, there cannot be a more convenient mode of taxation than an imposition on stamps; but that was not the opinion of the people of Northampton and Bucks. They had imbibed a prejudice against a stamp act in the year 1775, and not considering properly the ground of American oppositi­on to the tyranny of taxation without representation, they confounded the name with the principle of the law. I repeat that I do not agree with them, but I contend that they had a right to speak freely on the subject.

Again. The house tax was objected to; not from the real, but from the imaginary burdens which it imposed; for if it had been intended to devise a tax for the relief of the poor, at the cost of the rich, for the be­nefit of the country at the expence of the city, there could not, I think, be a more ingenious plan than the present law exhibits. The opposition must evidently, therefore, have arisen from misconception, or misinforma­tion. But if their opinion of the law was sincere, however erroneous, it is entitled to indulgence. The fallibility of the human understanding, and the frailty of our passions, must be respected in every wise and bene­volent system of politics, or law. A man who honestly acts under a false impression of facts, may be pitied as a weak man, but he ought not to be punished as a wicked one. Then, the rioters were under an evident delusion, as to the principle of the land tax, the purity of the government, and the compensation of public officers. They had not the ordinary ac­cess to information, since our laws are published in English, and most of them only understood German: and this being a question of property, they acted upon the first blind impulse of their avarice, proving the truth of Mr. Horsefield's observation, "that the Germans are fond of their money, and do not like to part with it." But still there is a criterion which in applying a rule of law ought always to be regarded:—I mean the moral character, and mental attainments, of the men who are ar­raigned. If a discontent exists, we cannot fairly expect the same mode of expressing it, from illiterate, uncultivated men, the scattered inhabi­tants of a remote district, that we may reasonably exact from men of edu­cation and manners, formed by the luxury and refinements of a metropo­lis: These will take care, if they do express their discontents, to avoid personal indignity, and legal embarrassments; while those, without skill to ascertain the limits of the law, as without delicacy to respect the invi­olability of the person, rarely act without being riotous, or complain with­out being abusive. Plain men, then, have but plain ways to manifest what they feel; and they ought not to be tried and condemned by a more perfect, and generally, a more artificial standard. A disturbance similar to the one under consideration is not uncommon in England; but the go­vernment, instead of entering prosecutions against the discontented, for treason, has sometimes thought it proper to acquiesce in the wishes of the people. We all remember the popular influence in depriving Lord North of the reins of government. The attempt of a minister (Mr. Pitt) to involve that nation in a war with Russia, was a very unpopular mea­sure; murmurs and complaints reverberated through the kingdom, and, finally, he was obliged to abandon his project The shop tax was [Page 106] sanctioned by all the branches of the Parliament; but it generated cla­mours so loud and so acrimonious, riots so numerous and so outrageous, resistance to lawful authority so daring and so injurious, that the govern­ment itself might justly be said to be assailed; and the act of parliament to be repealed by force and intimidation; yet, not a single indictment for high treason was projected. Hence it is that I think risings of the peo­ple, like the present should be viewed with the determination to punish, [...] account of delinquency, but, also, with the disposition to mitigate on account of prejudice, or ignorance. In a country where party spirit beats high, there should be peculiar caution on the subject: For, even in the present case, has not the joy testified by the triumphant majority at the late election, been classed with the symptoms of popular discontent and hostility to the government? Nor will it be denied that there actually did arise in the minds of the people a serious doubt, whether the law was in existence or not; and although, I repeat, that ignorance is not a legal ex­cuse, yet you must take into view the state of information, before you can ascertain the degree of guilt. Under this ignorance, in this state of doubt, can the refusal to permit the assessors to enter a particular town­ship, be construed into a fixed and deliberate intention of levying war a­gainst the government? Though the law had been enacted, we find that the subject of the law had been brought anew before Congress, and peti­tions were sent in abundance praying for a repeal. These discontented people might have supposed that a repeal was effected, or intended; though we, who were at the seat of government, knew the object of the revision was merely to amend, and not to rescind the law. At the meeting at Kline's (acting, probably, under the mistake that I have suggested) there was an express declaration, that the people did not think the law was in force at that time: And here let me remark, that the prisoner, who is called the great parent of the discontents, was not present at Kline's, which appears to have been the first step in the opposition to the land tax. Such was the state of information at that period. Mr. Horsefield has said that there were general discontents prevailing throughout the country: but his allegation is too vague, too comprehensive, to be understood or acted upon. The citizens of a free government have a right, if they ap­prehend that a violation of their constitution is intended, or if they think that any encroachment is made on the bulwarks of liberty, or property, to express their opinion; but is it practicable so to express that opinion as not to encounter from their political opponents the charge of discontent and sedition? How, in the present instance, was the popular discontent expressed? At first petitions to the government were proposed, framed and subscribed. This was the result of Kline's meeting; and in this, I pre­sume, no hostility, no levying war, can be discovered. At every subse­quent meeting, whether convened by the assessors, or by the people them­selves, the reliance on legislative redress was never abandoned; though, it is true there was great intemperance of manner and of language. The assessors were sometimes interrupted in their journies, and sometimes jost­led in the croud; and the unmeaning epithets of Stamplers and Tories, were rudely applied to the friends of government. But however censura­ble, where is the treason in such proceedings? A rioter and a traitor are not synonimous characters; and let us say what we please about nick-names and slander, the society that patiently submits to the scurrility of the Phi­ladelphia [Page 107] newspapers, will never be disgusted or enraged at the indecorum or vulgarity of the northern insurgents. But the insurgents went further; they intimidated the assessors: and is that treason? No; it is the very gist of the offence for which the sedition act explicitly provides. Is it not the very phrase of that aft, that if any persons shall combine to intimidate an officer from the performance of his duty, he shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanour, and be punished with fine and imprisonment? Now let us go step by step through the evidence, and I defy the most inquisiti­onal ingenuity to discover any thing beyond the design, and the effect, of a system of intimidation. Is there any actual force resorted to? No! I find the bridle of one assessor seized, and his leg laid hold of; but the man is not pulled of his horse, nor is he the least injured in his person. I find that a witness thinks that he heard the word " fire" given, and that he saw two men from a neighbouring porch, present their rifles at another assessor: well, did the riflemen fire? No. They had guns; their guns were probably, loaded; and if any thing more than intimidation was me­ditated, how shall we account for their not firing? But we hear a great deal of the personal jeopardy of the commissioners and assessors; and yet who of them sustained an injury? Mr. Chapman, Mr. Foulke, and Mr. Childs are, generally speaking, treated as men of merit and consideration; and, in particular wherever the prisoner met them, they were respected and protected; as at Jacob Fries's and Robert's taverns. To repel the plea for favour founded on such correct department towards the officers, we shall be told, that the prisoner was an artful man, that he was the leader; and it will be strongly urged against him, that he called on the officers to sur­render the public papers. Of his conduct as a leader, I shall speak here­after; and of his demand of the papers, it is surely sufficient to observe, that in opposition to the sense of the rioters, and at the risque of his life, he returned the papers, privately, in the same state in which he had receiv­ed them.

Having spoken of the Assessors, I would wish, likewise, to review the evidence with respect to Mr. Eyrely, the commissioner, and Col. Nichols, the marshal.

[Here Mr. Dallas entered into an investigation of the evidence, to shew, that although the people acted violently at the several meetings which Mr. Eyerly had called to explain the law to them: that although Mr. Eyerly accompanied the marshal in his whole progress for serving process, and that although he was conspicuously present at Bethlehem, no personal violence was ever offered to him, or to the marshal; and all the ill-treatment they encountered, amounted to no more than an attempt to intimidate them, but which they both declared was without effect. Mr. Dallas then continued as follows.]

And are we to be to told, Sir, that these acts without force, without any apparent object but to intimidate the assessors of a particular district; that district acts of inconsiderate riot and folly shall, when connected and com­bined, constitute a deliberate treason, by levying war against the United States If no treason was actually perpetrated, if none was intended, when the trans­actions occurred I insist, that nothing previous to them, nothing ex post facto, can make the prisoner a traitor; the intention at the time must have been treasonable; or the act can never be punished as treason.

Let us now, however, proceed to enquire into the circumstances of the [Page 108] rescue at Bethlehem, and its connection with the previous disturbances. I think the evidence is strong in support of the assertion, that the sole, in­dependent, consummate object of the assembling of the people at that place, was to rescue these prisoners. Is there any satisfactory proof of a combination between the people of Northampton and of Bucks? I know that an expression is said to have escaped the Prisoner, that, in this gene­ral discontent with respect to the land tax, certain persons of a part of Northampton would join the inhabitants of Lower Milford: but let the foundation of his opinions be tested by the facts, and it evidently a­rose, not from negociation, conspiracy and compact, (as the prosecution supposes) but from a general knowledge, which he possessed in common with thousands, that the land tax was unpopular throughout the adjacent country. It is enough, however, for the defence, that no combination, or correspondence, is proved; since the rule declares, that in legal con­templation, what does not appear, and what does not exist, are the same. You do not find the people of Bucks attending any meetings but in their own county; nor entering into the county of Northampton at all previ­ously to their appearance at Bethlehem.

Gentlemen, it might surely be expected, that a concerted insurrection for treasonable purposes, prevailing throughout the three counties of Bucks Northampton and Montgomery, and cemented by common interests and passions, would have been inspired and conducted by one common council: but is there the slighted proof of such a co-operation? I am aware of the communication made by Captain Staeler to the son of Conrad Marks; but the communication itself was merely accidental; and amounts to no­thing more than the request of one individual of Northampton to an individual of Bucks. I am aware, likewise, that a message was received at Quaker town (as one of the witnesses says) mentioning the arrest of the Northampton prisoners, and inviting the people of Bucks to assist in rescu­ing them. Who brought this message, and to whom it was delivered, I don't recollect; but it seems, that a compliance was resolved on; and a paper expressing the resolution, was prepared and signed by Fries, with a number of other persons. But was the object of the invitation, or of the resolution to comply with it, treason, or rescue;—to commit a riot, or to levy war against the United States? I repeat, that the sole, indepen­dant, and exclusive purpose was to rescue a particular set of Prisoners.

Now, if in the previous part of this transaction, nothing has struck your minds as traitorous in the acts, or the intention of the people, I beg you to follow me, gentlemen, with strict attention to a consideration of the object that was actually effected, and the means of effecting it. The object was to obtain a rescue; a rescue was effected, but it was effected with circumstances of military array: will this alter the original charac­ter of the riot? No, sir:—If the people did not repair to Bethlehem with a traitorous intention, their arms and military equipments will not convert them into traitors. As on the one hand, I grant, that the circum­stance of military array is not necessary to an act of treason, if the, intenti­on is traitorous, so I insist, on the other hand, that the circumstance of military array will not constitute treason, without such intention.

[Here Mr. Dallas entered into an investigation of the evidence in re­lation to the assembling of the people, their march to Bethlehem, an their conduct there. In the course of the detail he endeavoured to estab­lish, [Page 109] that the sole object of the rioters was to rescue the prisoner; that no injury was offered, or intended against the marshal, the commissioners, the assessors, or the posse comitatis; and that although the prisoner was forced into a conspicuous station among the rioters, his conduct had been marked with civility towards the public officers, and a solicitude to avoid the effusion of blood. On the last of these points, Mr. Dallas concluded as follows:

And here permit me to remark, that if the conduct of John Fries was such as to justify his being selected as a subject for capital punishment, I cannot see the policy or justice of the selection; nor forbear from depre­cating the consequences of the precedent. A good man may sometimes affect to join a mob, with a view to acquire and to exercise an influence in suppressing it: or an intelligent and temperate man may, for a while, be associated for an illicit purpose, with a furious and ignorant rabble, who ill naturally look up to him as a leader: but in either case, the power and the disposition to avert, or to limit outrage, will be dangerous to the prominent individual who displays them; and his only safety is in mingling with the crowd, whatever may be the direction or the devastation of the storm!

Gentlemen of the jury, I have now gone through two of the general propositions, into which I divided the consideration of the defence; and, in the course of my observations, I have anticipated much that related to the third proporsition—the particular conduct of the prisoner. I should here, therefore, break off, as I feel that my strength, and I fear that your patience are exhausted: but that the proclamation of the President de­mands a moment's further attention. By the laws of the United States it is provided, that, under certain circumstances, the President may call out the militia to suppress an insurrection, having previously published a pro­clamation, requiring the insurgents to disperse. This proclamation is ob­viously in the nature of an admonition; and if the admonition produces the effect, I ask, whether in the present, as in every other case, it ought not to produce impunity? Then I argue, on general principles, that if the rioters did peaceably retire to their homes upon this authoritative warn­ing, they ought to be sheltered from punishment for any offence previously committed. Nor is the argument without a sanction from the positive authorities of the law. 1 Hale 138: And the court will recollect, that the principle is incorporated into the statute, which is usually called in England, the riot act. There must surely, be some object in requiring the President to issue his proclamation; and the one which I suggest is equally benevolent and politic. On the present occasion it produced an immediate and decisive obedience to the laws. Besides when we recollect, that the President has the power to pardon offences, to discontinue prose­cutions, and to grant a general amnesty, as in the case of the western insur­rection; why may we not consider the proclamation as emanating from that attribute of mercy, since no specific formula is prescribed, by which its exercise shall be expressed, or announced?^*

[Page 110] Mr. Dallas then proceeded to point out the differences in the nature, progress and turpitude of the Northampton insurrection, and of the western insurrection: 2 Dallas'a reports 349, and analysing again the case of lord George Gordon, he contended that upon that authority alone, the prisoner ought to be acquitted. In the case of lord Gordon, the direct, the avow­ed object, was to obtain the repeal of a law; and as petitions and remon­strances were unavailing, a body of 40,000 men were convened and mar­shalled to surround, intimidate, and coerce the Parliament. Riot, arson, murder, and every species of the most daring outrage and devastation, en­sued; and yet, the only prosecution for high treason was instituted against the leader of the association; and that prosecution terminated in an ac­quittal. View, then, the riots of lord George Gordon in their origin; estimate their guilt by the avowed object; aggravate the scene with the cotemporaneous insults and violence offered to the persons of peers and commoners; and close the retrospect with the horrors which the British metropolis endured for more than eight days; and then say, (exclaimed Mr. Dallas) what was the guilt of John Fries compared with the guilt of lord George Gordon;—what is there in the English doctrine of treason that has justified an acquittal of the latter;—what is there in the Ameri­can doctrine of treason, that will justify a conviction of the former?

Gentlemen: I can proceed no longer. The life of the prisoner is left, with great confidence, in your hands. There are attempts to make him responsible under the notion of a general conspiracy, for all the actions and all the words of meetings, which he never attended, and of per­sons whom he never saw. But this is too, too harsh, in a case of blood; It is inconsistent with the humanity, the tenderness of life, which are cha­racteristics of the American people, and especially of the people of Penn­sylvania. Nor is it called for by the policy, or practice, of those who administer our government. I believe that to the chief magistrate, to every public officer, to every candid citizen, it will be matter of a gratifi­cation, if after so fair, so full a scrutiny, you should be of opinion, that treason has not been committed. Such an event will by no means ensure impunity to the delinquent; for, though he has not committed treason, though the punishment of death is not to be inflicted; the violation of the laws may be amply avenged upon an indictment of a different nature. The only question, however, now to be decided is, whether the offence proved, is like the offence charged, treason against the United States. The affirmation must be incontestably established, as to the fact and the inten­tion, by the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act: but remem­ber, I pray you, what the venerable lord Mansfield stated to the jury on lord Gordon's trial,—remember, that it is enough for us, in defence of the prisoner, to raise a doubt; for, if you doubt (it is the principle of law, as well as of humanity) you must acquit.

The council for the prisoner then called the following witnesses.

JOHN JAMIESON.

We wish you to inform the court and jury, what you know, of the conduct of John Fries.

Sometime after last February court, John Fries came to my house; I had heard, on my way coming to Newtown, that there was to be a meeting at Kline's. I asked him whether there was many people there, and what they had done. He told me there was, and they had agreed not to allow the assessments to be made in the township as yet; he said the reason was, because they did not know whether there was a law passed on it or not; I told him I really believed there was, for though I had not seen it myself, I had heard of it. He likewise told me that Mitchel had undertaken to draw up an instrument of writing, but he could not go through with it, and that he called upon him to assist him to do it, which he did.—On the 6th of March, I had occasion to go to the town­ship meeting on account of a pauper which was likely to become charge­able, calling at Jacob Fries's, I had been there but a short time, before a parcel of men came there, some with arms, and some without. They called for liquor, freely. They then proceeded to make enquiry whether any body knew whether the assessors were going about the township or not: I do not know whether they got any information or no, but they agreed to go up to Quaker town; after they were gone a little while, Jacob Fries and I concluded that we would ride up after them: we went to the house of Enoch Roberts. We went into a room, but nothing oc­curred there, and I then asked Jacob Fries if he would ride down to Da­niel Penrose's: after we had been there some short time, one of the fami­ly told us that our horses were getting loose, so we went out, and there we saw Mr. Rodrick, who halted; he appeared to be much frightened; so I asked him what was the matter, he told me they had catched Foulke and Childs, and that he was afraid they would kill them, and insisted on my going back to try to prevent them being hurt: I told him I would not, except he would too; he said he would if I would engage they should not hurt him; I told him I would not do that, for I did not know what they had against him. However, at his desire I went to town, and when I got there, I think I was told they had Foulke in the stable; so I rode up, and called him by name, and I think he answered me. At my desire, he came into the house: while we were walking along, I told him it was a pity he should assess the township till they were more reconciled: I told him I thought the best way to quiet the people, was to shew them the small as­sessments he had made, and promise not to go about again till they were satisfied. He said he was willing to do that. We then walked into the room, and soon after we were there, Conrad Marks walked towards us with a kind of sword in his hand, though I believe sheathed, and said to Foulke " What, I hear you are going about this business again; did not I tell you not to do this business, but I cannot tell you in English like as I could in Dutch; but it is for the sake of those few dollars that you go about this business." Foulke answered him that he did not do it for the sake of the money. Marks answered, " did I not tell you that it you could not do without, come to my house and I would keep you four or five days; but if you had to do this for half a crown a day, the devil would not send you about the township. I then told Marks what I had advised Foulke: he said if he would do that, he would use him like a gentleman. Then the affair of Captain Seaborne^* took place, which seem­ed [Page 112] to draw the attention from Mr. Foulke. I saw John Fries looking over some papers, but I did not know what they were, I went away.—

A day or two after the affair at Bethlehem, John Fries came to me and told me the circumstances, much the same as was related by the mar­shal to the best of my knowledge: he then said he did not know what to do with these Germans, for that they had got it grafted in them that general Washington was opposed to this law, and that, so poor a man as he was, he would not grudge half the expence of a man to go and get his opinion on purpose to satisfy the Germans. The next knowledge I got about it, was from two gentlemen who came from Philadelphia in order to carry the proclamation about, and they gave me some proclamations, desiring me to do all I could to get submission to the laws. I spoke to many of them, and there was a meeting called at Marks's on the Monday following. There were 150 people or more there from the three counties. It was agreed by several people that it would be best to have men chosen to form a committee, from the three counties, to consult what to do for the best. This was agreed to, and four men were chosen from each coun­ty. I was one of four chosen from Bucks, with George Kline, David Ro­berts, and Conrad Marks. Dr. Baker, 'squire Davis, and I think 'squire Jarrett were some. We unanimously agreed to recommend to the people, as near as I can recollect, to desist from opposing any public officer in the execution of his office, and enjoined upon the citizens to use their influ­ence, to prevent any opposition, and to give due submission to the laws of the United States, dated 18th of March.

Was there any opposition at all when this was reported?

I did not hear any body but did consent to what was done by the committee. The people of lower Milford thought it would be necessary to have the assessments taken. David Roberts said that he believed Mr. Chapman would agree for them to appoint an assessor in their own town­ship. It was then agreed that we should ride to him to know; which we did next day: he said he had once made the offer, but it was now out of his power. He then said Mr. Clark had been first appointed, and that he had not yet given up his commission, and he did not know how another could be appointed now; that if Mr. Clark would go about it, it would answer the end. On returning home, I called at Frederick Henny's, and desired him to draw out some German advertisements, and send them over towards Marks's, to desire the people to meet, and consent to let Clark go about. I believe he did it. At the time of appointment, the people met at Mitchel's, perhaps there were about 40 there. John Fries, and Fre­deric Henny were there. The people in general agreed to let Clark go about, I believe Fries and Henny did not vote. I went to Fries and ask­ed the reason: he said he had no objection to the people voting for him, and he wished it was done; but as he was first opposed to Clark going about the township, he thought it would not be right in him to vote. I believe Henny said about the same.—I saw Fries again a few days before he was taken: he told me he had heard a report which troubled him more than any thing in his life: I asked him what it was: he said that a report was in circulation that he was collecting up men to assist the French: he said, "da [...] the French, if they were now to come to invade this country, so old a man as I am, I would venture my life against them; but I want no­thing [...]o do with them.

Did Fries make any opposition at Marks's?

No, I heard of no opposition.

Has his house been assessed?

I do not know.

Was there any proposition made there about signing a submission paper?

I do not recollect any.—I recollect Fries said that if he was called up­on, or summoned, he would come forward and deliver himself up.—This he said at Marks's.

JACOB HUBER.

Was you at the meeting at Conrad Marks's?

Yes.

What happened there?

It was after the proclamation, and we were choosing the men to meet in the committee, Fries and I got a talking together. He says, now Jacob, you see the error we got into by going to Bethlehem. I answer­ed to him, that the assessors would have to go about and assess the houses; he said they should not assess his before he gave them a dinner, then they might take the assessment of his house; and if I am not at home, said he, my son will give them a dinner.

After this meeting, what was the general situation of the township?

Quiet. John Fries was peaceable and quiet as any man could be; I never afterwards heard of the least opposition.

Did you see George Mitchel at Marks's?

Yes.

Was you much with him?

No, no conversation with him; he was clerk of the meeting.

ISRAEL ROBERTS.

Please to relate to the court and jury what you know of this affair.

After the proclamation arrived in our neighbourhood, there was a statement in the next weeks' newspaper, stating the conduct of John Fries, which I procured, and took to John Fries. After looking over the paper, he seemed pretty submissive, but said nothing: he appeared, I thought much distressed in his mind. I told him that I wanted to have some conversation with him, relative to it. I then asked him whether he had rightly considered this matter? whether he had not run himself into danger inconsiderately, and told him the consequences as I thought might attend it. He said he never had considered it so much as he had within a few days before. He said he had not slept half an hour for three or four nights, and that he would give all he was worth in the world if the matter was all settled, and he clear of it: he likewise faid, if the government would send for him, he would go with him, even if a little child was sent.

What was the general state of the township of Milford after the pro­clamation was read?

I do not know, I believe there was some little opposition to the law.

Was any opposition made by the prisoner?

I do not know that there was.—I recollect that John Fries farther ex­pressed himself to me at that time, that he was charged with taking part with the French, which he took very hard, and signified his determina­tion [Page 114] to defend the country against any invasion, if any army should in­vade our land, he would, at any time lay all this aside, and turn out against them, and particularly France.^*

There was a meeting at Mitchel's after that, to choose an assessor; Fries was there; he was asked to vote, but he said he would have nothing to do with it.

Did you hear him express any doubts of the existence of the law?

Yes, more than once, I heard him say that he did not believe it was and established law, and therefore he was determined to oppose it.

What time did he say so?

I think it was the 5th of March.

Where was he then?

Not far from Jacob Fries's tavern, on the road. He said he would oppose it, till he had known other counties had agreed to it, then, said he, we must submit; but he would choose lower Milford should be the last.

At the last meeting at Mitchel's, did there or did there not appear a disposition to wait till they should have assistance from any other place.

Yes, it was said that a letter had arrived to George Mitchel from Virginia, stating that there were a number of men, I think 10,000 on their way to join them: that letter was traced from one to another, through six or eight persons, till at last it came from one who was not there!

Were not some of the company at that time in arms and uniform?

Yes.

Do you recollect what was said when the letter was mentioned.

I do no recollect, but they appeared to be more opposed to the law than they were before.

Was there any declaration, from any person there, that they had their own laws, and would submit to no other?

Not that I recollect.—At the meeting at George Mitchel's at which Mr. Foulke and Mr. Chapman was present, which was held for the pur­pose of explaining the law, there were a number (about 12) came up in uniform, and armed with a flag and liberty on it. They came into the house, and appeared to be very much opposed to the law, and in a very bad humour. I proposed to read the law to them; they asked me how I came to advertise the meeting: I told him I did it with the consent of a few others: he asked me what business I had to do it: I told him we did it to explain the law. He looked me in the face and said, " We don't want any of your damned laws, we have laws of our own," and shook the muzzle of his musquet in my face, saying, " This is our law, and we will let you know it."—There were four or five who wished to hear it, but others forbid it, and said it should not be read, and it was not done.

Did you see Fries on the evening of the 5th of March?

Yes I did.—He asked me if they had assessed my house? I told him they had: he then asked me if I had told any body of it; I said I had not: he then added that he had forbade them to come into the township, as he did not believe it was an established law, and others should be gone through with first. I think he then added that they could not get hold of Rodrick: they had got Foulke, but let him go, and added if they had got Rodrick they would have put him under guard for that night.

Did he appear in a good temper?

No, he did not, and he seemed very much opposed to the law.

Was Fries' objection to the tax law, or to what particu­lar law?

He did not express his opposition to any one that I heard, but to the law for assessing houses, that night: in a conversation I had with him be­fore, he appeared to be opposed to the alien and sedition law also.

Did he seem to talk about its being unconstitutional?

I do not recollect—I know that he expressed himself a number of times, that he did not believe it was an established law.

Did he mean by that, that the law had ever passed, or that it might be amended?

I took it that he did not believe the law had ever passed; he seemed to doubt of its being established.

EVERHARD EQULKE.

What was the conduct of John Fries at Quaker town on the 6th of March.

AS I was coming from the house of James Chapman with the other assessors (John Rodrick and Cephas Childs) when I came nearly opposite Enoch Roberts's, I saw the prisoner at the Bar, and a number of others with their arms, (though I don't know that he had any, but the others had.) Some of them held them nearly as high as my horse's side, on a level, with their arms hanging down. I spoke to them as I passed and rode on till I got nearly to the other tavern, David Zellers's. When I got there, a number run out and cried "stop." Some of them address­ing me by name, desired me to stop; which I did in a pleasant manner. Before any of them got to me, I think John Fries came over from Ro­berts's; when he was about a rod from me, he called me by my name, and told me he had told me yesterday that he would take me to day, and he was now come to do it, or it should now be done, I don't know which he said. Captain Kuyder then ran up, and seized my horse by the bridle, and a number of others came round me; the prisoner did not come him­self. Some of the people there (Jacob and John Huber) came and took Kuyder off, and be then seized me by the foot, and endeavoured to dis­mount me, but he failed. He then again took hold of the bridle, but Habers released me again. Fries came up and said, "Foulke, you shall be taken, if you will get off, there shall no man hurt you." He took hold of the bridle, and ordered Kuyder to hold it; I rode up to the stable, got off, and went into the house. When in the room, which was very thick of people, the prisoner came and demanded my assessment papers. I told him that I did not like to give them up; he told me not to hesi­tate, but to do it. In that situation I gave them to him, and told him [Page 116] I was in hopes he would not take them away without giving them to me again when he had looked at them.—I then went into another room with some of them, who exclaimed much against the law. Huber said they were not willing to submit to it yet. Fries then gave me the assessment papers again unhurt, and told me that he had used me better than I de­served, and that if I had a mind I might return him to court, which I had before threatened. He then went with me to the bar, and took me to my horse through the mob, and held the bridle while I got on, and I rode off.

Then you received no injury?

No.

Did, or did not the prisoner at the bar in the course of conversation at Quaker town express any consciousness that he had been engaged in a dangerous enterprize?

Yet, he said he knew, or thought he had transgressed the law in such a manner as to endanger his life, and that I might return him if I would.

Did he speak of any force that was expected to assist him?

He did not that, he did the day before, when he attacked Roderick and me in the road. He said there would be 700 men there to morrow morn­ing, pointing to Jacob Fries's house.

Are not you an assessor for lower Milford?

I was appointed assessor for the whole district.

What time were you appointed?

I do not know.

Have you your warrant?

Not with me.

Was your appointment so ear [...] [...] November?

I believe not.

Was it early in February?

I believe it was.—It was on the last day of the court. (January 28.)

Was it the same kind of warrant as other assessors had?

Yes.

Who delivered the warrant to you?

James Chapman brought it to me at my house.

When you were at Quaker town there was a cry for the papers from you, were these papers respecting the rating of houses under the land tax?

Yes.

When were you first applied to, to become an assessor for that district?

Perhaps about two weeks before.

Who by?

By James Chapman, and several other neighbours.

Do you know whether there was a meeting of the board of commission­ers for the purpose of appointing you?

I cannot say.

THURSDAY, April 24.

Before the jurors were sworn in, they were individually asked (upon oath) these questions: "Are you any way related to the prisoner?" [Page 178] They all answered, "No." ‘Have you ever formed or delivered an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, or that he ought to be punished?’ The answer generally was, ‘Not to my know­ledge.’ Some of the jurors said, they had given their sentiments generally, disapprobatory of the transaction, but not as to the prisoner particularly. These were admitted.

One of the jurors (Mr. Taggert) after he was sworn, expressed himself to the court to be very uneasy under his oath: he then meant that he never had made up his mind that the prisoner should be hung, but very often had spoken his opinion, that he was very culpable; he did not, when he took the oath, conceive it so strict, and therefore wished, if possible, to be excused.—The court informed the juror, it was impossible to excuse him, now he was sworn.

The court informed the prisoner, that he had a right to challenge 35 without showing cause, and as many more as he could show cause for. Thirty-four were challenged, and the following admitted and sworn on the jury:

Samuel Wheeler, Foreman; Henry Pepper; John Taggert; Cor­nelius Comegys; Ephraim Clark; Thomas Bailey; Lawrence Cauff­man; John Edge; Charles Deshler; Henry Dubois; Isaac Dehaven; John Balliot.

Counsel for the Prosecution, MR. RAWLE, MR. INGERSOL.

MR. RAWLE

Then opened the charge exhibited in the indictment—He observed, that the jury must be aware of the very unpleasant duty he had to perform: he felt an extreme difficulty of situation—called forth by his duty to exhibit a charge against the prisoner at the bar of the highest magnitude, who now stood to answer, unattended by any legal advice; he felt impressed with the necessity of sticking more than usually close to the line of his duty, which he should endeavor to dis­charge as faithfully as possible. And he trusted that, while the jury felt their relation to their unfortunate fellow-citizen at the bar, they would, at the same time, make all suitable allowance for any errors which might appear on his (Mr. Rawle's) part, though it was sincere­ly his desire to avoid any, either in laying down the facts or the law, which he should do under the direction of the court; and, he hoped, that the jury would carefully sift and examine the law and testimony which his duty called upon him to advance, in order to substantiate the charge.

MR. RAWLE then proceeded to open the charge—he said, he should be able to prove, that John Fries, the prisoner at the bar, did oppose the execution of two laws of the United States; to effectuate which [Page 179] he was provided with men, who, as well as himself, were armed, with guns, swords, and other warlike weapons, which, by their numbers and military appearance, were sufficient to accomplish their purpose, which was, not only to intimidate the officers of the government appointed to execute the above laws themselves; but to release from the custody of the marshal of Pennsylvania a number of persons who were held in prison by the said marshal, and to prevent him executing process upon others. All this was done, as stated in the indictment by a combina­tion and conspiracy to oppose those laws, by a large body of armed men, of whom the prisoner at the bar was the chief, and commander.

MR. RAWLE then proceeded, under the direction of the court, to state the law.—The treason whereof the prisoner was charged was, "Levying war against the United States." U. S. Const. Art. 3. Sect. 3.

What he asked, was levying war against the United States?

He conceived himself authorized, upon good authority to say, levy­ing war did not only consist in open, manifest, and avowed rebellion against the government, with a design of overthrowing the constitution: but it may consist in assembling together, in numbers and by actual force, or by terror opposing any particular law or laws. Again, there can be no distinction as to the kind or nature of the law, or the par­ticular object for which the law was passed, since all are alike the acts of the legislature, who are sent by the people at large to express their will. Force need not be used to manifest this spirit of rebellion, nor is it necessary that the attempts should have been successful, to con­stitute the crime. The endeavor, by intimidation to do the act, whe­ther it be accomplished or not, amounts to treason, provided the object of those concerned in the transaction is of a general nature, and not applied to a special or private purpose.

In order to effect the object of those embarked in crimes of this high nature, it is well known that various means are necessarily employed; various acts may be perpetrated to accomplish the main end: they may proceed, by the execution of some enormous crimes, as burglary, arson, robbery, or murder, either, or all of them; but even if one or all of these crimes were committed, except the purpose should be of a general nature, they may form distinct and heinous offences; but the perpetra­tors may not be guilty of treason. If a particular friend of the party had been in the custody of the marshal; if even a number sufficient for the purpose should step forward and rescue such a person, if it was not with a view to rescue prisoners generally, it would amount to no more than a rescue; but, if general, it is treason. It is the views of the party that fixes the crime, and therefore only the design is necessa­ry to be known.

To prove that this doctrine was well established in the United States, Mr. Rawle turned to 2 Dallas, 346 and 355, stating the opinions of the court in the cases of Vigal and Mitchel, charged with, and con­victed for treason. The attack on Gen. Nevill's house was of this general nature, because he was an officer appointed to execute the obnoxious law; and being to the officer and not to the man that they objected, it was thought to be treason, and that decision was well grounded.

[Page 180] He observed, that the clause in our constitution was founded on a statute which was passed in England, to prevent the ever increasing and ever varying number of treasons, upon the general and undefined opposition to royal prerogative: the situation of things was such, previous to that period, as to call forth from the stateman, from the philosopher, and from the divine, even in those dark ages, the most ve­hement complaints: in attendance to these reasonable and just mur­murs, the statute was passed.

Mr. Rawle was then producing an authority, when Judge Chase said, the court would admit, as a general rule, of quotations which referred to what constituted actual or constructive levying war against the king of Great Britain, in his regal capacity; or, in other words, of levying war against his government, but not against his person, be­cause it was of the same nature as levying war against the United States would be applied here: so was that part called adhering to the king's enemies:—they may, any of them, be read to the jury, and the deci­sions thereupon,—not as authorities whereby we are bound, but as the opinions and decisions of men of great legal learning and ability. But even then, the court would attend carefully to the time of the decisions, and in no case must it be binding upon our juries.

Mr. Rawle quoted Hawkins, B. 1. chap. 17. sect. 23. as an autho­rity of authenticity to prove, that not only those who rebelled against the king, by taking up arms with the avowed design of dethroning him; but those who withstood his lawful authority, and who endea­vored to oppose his government; who withstood the king's forces, or attacked any of hiss fortresses—those, in fine, whose avowed object was of a public and general and not of a private and personal nature, were guilty of high treason. He also read Sir John Friend's case from Holt, 681. and Damarree and Pinchases' case, 8 State Trials, 289.

JUDGE CHACE begged the attorney to read only those parts of the cases which referred to what could be treason in the United States, and nothing which related to compassing the king's death.—It would be found, he observed, by an attention to the last case, that because the intention, was a rising to demolish ALL meeting-houses, generally, it was considered to be an insurrection against the toleration act, by numbers and open force, setting the law at defiance. This would be found to be the opinion in Foster 213.

Mr. RAWLE said, thus he conceived it—even if the matter made a grievance of was illegal, the demolition of it in this way was, ne­vertheless, high treason, because of the people so assembled taking the law into their own hands; thus in Foster it would be seen that demolishing all baudy-houses, as such was high treason, as much as demolishing all meeting-houses, being equally an usurped authority. He also read Douglas 570, Lord George Gordon's case, when it was Lord Mansfield's opinion that any attempt, by violence, to force the repeal of a law, or to prevent its execution, is levying war, and treason.

He considered, from those few authorities, that he was justifiable in saying that a rising, with intent by force to prevent the execution [Page 181] of a law as well as laws in general, preventing the marshal executing his warrants, and preventing the other officers charged with the ex­ecution of the laws in question, amounted to levying war, agreeable to the constitution of the United States.

Mr. RAWLE then proceeded to state the most prominent facts which could be produced in the course of the evidence, in which it would fully appear, he presumed, that John Fries, the prisoner, was the most active in his opposition to those laws and to every attempt to car­ry them into effect; that he in every instance showed his aversion of, and opposition to the assessors, and determination by threats and me­naces to prevent them doing their duty, and that whenever any force was used, or terrific appearances held up, he was the commander and gave the orders to his men who, at times in great numbers joined him; and that finally by threats and intimidation, equally the same in the eyes of the law as force, he, the prisoner, did attain his object [...] to wit, the release of a number of prisoners who were confined for op­posing the execution of the law, and were actually in custody of the marshal in a house at Bethlehem, which by reason of his having pri­soners there, and his having an armed posse to protect his lawful au­thority, was to all intents a fortress of the United States—and further that he did, compleatly for a time, prevent the execution of the laws intended, in those parts, and thus did bid defiance to all lawful autho­rity.

John Fries, you will attend to all the evidence that will be brought against you; will attend to their examination, and ask any questions you please of the several witnesses, or of the court, but be careful to ask no questions wherein you may possibly criminate yourself, for re­member, whatever you say to your own crimination, is evidence with the jury, but if you say any thing to your justification, it is not evi­dence, the court will be watchful of you, they will check any thing that may injure yourself: they will be your counsel, and give you eve­ry assistance and indulgence in their power.

WILLIAM HENRY, ESQ called.

See his former testimony page 24, and page 82.

Mr. Henry related the first information he received of this oppositi­on to the laws in question, and their unwillingness to suffer the as­sessments. That on application by Mr. Eyerly (the commissioner) he issued a number of subpoeneas to bring before him sundry persons to examine these facts, which he found ineffectual from the intimidations of a number of people who were met where the examinations were to be held. The witness, understanding that the marshal was to meet a number of persons upon whom he had executed process, thought it proper to go to Bethlehem on that day, in order to prevent any extre­mities that might be attempted. He related the arrival of Keefer and Paulus and others, and afterwards of about 70 or 80 foot, generally armed with guns, having shot pouches and powder horns, and also of about 50 light horsemen with swords and pistols, that of these men [Page 182] Fries, appeared to be the leader; that he was the person engaged in negotiation with the marshal for the prisoners, whom the witness un­derstood he said he would have. That there were frequent cries out of, "we will have the prisoners," and frequent threats thrown out, particularly against Mr. Eyerly, Mr. Balliot, and himself (the wit­ness,) sometimes pointing their guns to the windows.

Was the prisoner present at these threats?

I cannot recollect, as I was about in different parts of the house—one person I saw cock his piece several times to those standing on the stairs. One of the riflemen came into the back room and swore, that if these damned stamplers had given them an oppor­tunity, they would have shown them how they could have fought, and they would show them yet.

How long has the word stampler been in use in those parts?

Only since about the fall of '98.—The witness farther deposed, that Fries was distinguished from the rest by a black feather in his hat—that the persons who were in custody of the marshal resided from 30 to 40 miles from most of those who came to rescue them, and near 40 miles from where Fries lived.

WILLIAM BARNETT (see page 28.)

Being one of the posse, was appointed by the marshal to meet and endeavor to prevail on the armed party not to come into Bethlehem; he deposed that he mentioned to them the western insurrection, and told them of the consequences of resistance, but to no effect: Fries, the prisoner, said, he had had a fight yesterday, and would have an­other to-day; the witness expected he had been in a frolic. That the captain of the riflemen seemed determined to release the prisoners, and indeed that was their common cry. The witness asked them if they would not allow that if the prisoners had done wrong, they should suffer for it: they answered they had no objections to that, but they should not be dragged to Philadelphia, they should be tried at Easton, their own county town. They appeared to be in liquor a little.

The witness was asked if he had any recollection about who would get the first blow, or who were expected to fire on them (Fries and his followers.) The witness had not a perfect recollection of it.

Do you not recollect any person saying "you must stay, strike, and make as good as you can, if I fall or get the first blow," or something like that, in the German language.

I do not recollect any such words.

JOHN BARNET (see page 31.)

Deposed that he was one of the posse at Bethlehem; that he saw the armed men come into the town, the horse with their swords drawn, as usual, when they went to war. When the witness stood guard on the stairs, Fries and another wanted to go up; Fries had his sword, and the other a pistol: upon their asking for the marshal, [Page 183] he was called, and Fries was let up to him, but the other was not suffered to go up: one at a time the witness thought was enough. The witness heard some of the prisoners at Bethlehem say, that they did not know the men who rescued them, nor did they know of their coming, or wish to be rescued.

CHRISTIAN WINTERS (see page 34.)

Was one of the marshal's posse—he related some conversation be­tween the marshal and the prisoner on the stairs: after he was relieved from that station, he went down, when he asked the people out of doors what they were doing: they said they would obey their cap­tain's orders; the witness did not know what captain they meant; they were all strangers to him.

Did any man strike at you!

No, but after the affray was over, there was one of them walked under the stairs with his sword, of whom the marshal sent me to inquire his name: he answered he did not mean to do any harm. Another said he did not mind these damned st [...]mplers.

PHILIP SCHLAUH (see page 41.)

Deposed that he was at Bethlehem on the 7th, of March where he saw the prisoner at the bar, who said to his company that he had been up with the marshal, and that the prisoners were refused by the mar­shall, who said if they were taken it must be by force—"Now boys," said he, "I give you my orders; we don't mean to hurt any body; we have to pass between 4 or 5 centries, I expect I shall get the first blow, and when I get the first blow yo [...] [...] do as well as you can; will you agree to it boys?" "Yes" they [...]

—Do you recollect the very [...] Fries mentioned?

The very words were, striking his breast "I shall be the foremast man, I expect I shall get the first blow, then do at well as you can."

Did he say any thing about firing?

No.

Do you remember any words he used?

No.

Christian Winters returned—Having forgot to mentioned that when the demand was made of the marshal, he told the prisoner he could not deliver up the prisoners: Fries said "you are not to be blam­ed; you do your duty, and I give you my word you shall not be hurt by my men, as for the rest I cannot answer."

SAMUEL TOON (see page 51.)

Related Something of the company proceeding to the bridge, the conversation and occurrences there, and the mission to Bethlehem, in which he, and two others were sent for the release of Kiefer and Paulus—That when Stahler's company were drawn up before the [Page 184] house, one of them, named Henry Hoover, said if he only had eight men, he would go up and rescue the prisoners, when the witness heard Fries answer that he should not behave himself so, for that was not the way to go on. After a little time Fries said to his company "come on boys, dont be afraid." This was after he had been up with the mar­shal. They then wanted to press up stairs, and then the prisoners were delivered up. The witness heard no other expressions from Fries.

ANDREW SHIFFERT (see page 56)

On the company meeting at Ritter's tavern the witness asked them what they were going to Bethlehem for? They said "to release the prisoners." Then said the witness, you must either fight or hide your­selves in the Buck wheat straw. Ritter answered there was no danger of that, for when they come to see so many in arms they would soon draw back, and would let the prisoners free.

Was there any thing said about whether to go with arms or without arms?

There was nothing said against it, that I know of. I told them I would rather go home.

WILLIAM NICHOLS (marshal) (see page 37.)

Related the receipt of the warrants, which he produced, and the first part of his progress; also the circumstance that occurred with Shankweiler, and of the commencement and progress of the affair at Bethlehem. Reasoning with the prisoner at the bar, and his still persist­ing in his demand of the prisoners, the witness said that it was a cow­ardly thing to oppose an individual thus placed, but that if he had 20 armed men, the prisoners should not be rescued. The prisoner laugh­ed at that: on telling him that an armed force would be sent up, he answered that they were able to come against any force.

Did he show any particular regard for these prisoners, or what was his assigned reason for demanding them?

No he did not, he said the law was a bad one, and ought not to be executed.

^*—When the conversation passed between you and I, did I not ask you if these prisoners could not be admitted to bail?—I said I would come forward and risk my life, that you should not be hurt—Was it so or was it not?

Very possibly, but I do not recollect i [...].

Had I any arms when I came up to you.

Not at that time.

The court then adjourned to dinner, first having placed the jury un­der two sworn bailiffs, and qualified each juror not to speak to any one nor suffer any one to speak to them, touching the matter relative to the trial of this issue.

[Page 185] JOHN DILLINGER (see page 57.)

Deposed his having left a message at Young Marks's house for him to meet the next day to go to Bethlehem, and that Stahler who sent him, said it was very hard to let these men (the prisoners) suffer by going down to Philadelphia. Being at Bethlehem the next day, the witness saw the prisoner at the bar there: hearing an uproar, the wit­ness went into the house, where he heard the prisoner (Fries) say, "draw near boys, don't be afraid."—I pushed the people back, as did several others there.

Was it a common muster day?

No, I believe not.

CHRISTIAN HECKAVELTER qualified.

The witness resided in upper Milford township—Soon after I re­ceived my warrant as assessor of the township and was proceeding on the business, I was told by my neighbors that the people of the town­ship would not allow me to do it. After I had been to a few houses, I was told if I went on, it should be at my peril—this was the latter end of November I believe. I then returned home, and informed Mr. Balliot and Mr. Elliot, in order to consult them, what should be done. They agreed to call a township meeting to collect the minds of the people. After it was held, I received from a deputation of three men appointed for that purpose, information that I must desist, for there was no such law in existence. After that Mr. Eyerly in­formed me he had called a meeting of the people at squire Schymer's, he took me with him. A number of people assembled there, some armed and some without arms. Mr. Eyerly told them he was come to ex­plain the law to them. There was a question among them whether it was a law or not; some said it was not in existence, and that it was a law of his own making, for that he was able enough to make such a law himself; I believe it was agreed among them that they would not have their houses measured.

Was there not frequent threats thrown out?

Yes there was; they also gave it as their positive de­claration that they would not submit to the law; this was their com­mon opinion.

Do you know any thing of papers being pasted up with swords, pistols, or threats, being painted or drawn on them?

No.

JOHN ROMICK,

Deposed that he was an assessor, in Macungy township

—Not long after I received my commission, a women came to me, and said I should not go on with that business, before I was prepared with an iron cap: another old women soon after told [...] I should not venture to that business of measuring houses: I would come in bad condition with it. I told her I did not think it, because they were all Christians there [Page 186] about, and I believed christians would not hurt me. The talk was, that in some houses they kept hot water against the assessor came round to do his duty. After that I heard there, that there had been several meetings like complots, or conspiracies to obstruct the assessors, on that account I was frightened to make a beginning. I heard that Mr. Heckavelter was stopped. Hearing that there was to be a meet­ing at squire Schymer's I went there, where Mr. Eyerly explained the law.

After that, did the people let you go on?

No.

Was there any sedition papers put up near you?

Yes, about three miles off—near Millar's town, but I cannot tell what they were; I never read them.

JACOB OSWALD

Deposed, That he was appointed assessor for Lynn township: That about December, 1798, he came to about the ninth plantation, when he was stopped by the people.—I heard that there was to be a town­ship meeting held, so I went, and took two constitutions with me, and the proclamation of General Washington to the Western insurgents in 1794. I also showed them my orders, and the act of Congress. They thought Congress had no right to tax them: I showed them that Congress had a right. They said, I should stop till the lower townships began to measure, as Philadelphia and Germantown; so I was forced to stop. The township was not assessed till after the light horse went up there, and then the liberty poles were cut down.

ISAAC SCHYMER, ESQ

Was an assessor for the township of Williams and Lower Sauchon; he deposed, That he was proceeding on his business; and, on account of the talk of opposition, wrote to a neighboring assessor to go about with him, but that he refused on that very account: he then went by himself; at one place he was stopped, when the man said to the wit­ness, he would abuse him if he pretended to measure his house. The witness said, he did not mean to quarrel with him; he must make his returns to him in ten days. The man also said, there would be danger in his going to take the rates.

In Lower Sauchon the witness also met with opposition: the men had gone from their homes; but a quantity of women were gathered there, and compelled him to desist.

JAMES WILLIAMSON, ESQ

Deposed, That he was an assessor in Northampton county: That soon after he had received the appointment, several of his near neigh­bors came and warned him not to go about the township: That he attempted many houses, but they would give him no information; whereupon he told them to bring their rates in ten days, according to [Page 187] law: they answered, they would not bring them, they would make no returns: every one said, he should offend his neighbors if he did. I then thought it best to put up advertisements for them to meet toge­ther, on a certain day, to consult what it was best to do: a very large party of them met. After a little time, three or four seem to wish to disturb the meeting. One of them asked for my authority: I showed them my appointment: they seemed to be much opposed to what was done: I reasoned with them, but to no purpose; many of them said, it was no law. I read the law to them: they were pretty well satisfied while I was reading, till I came to where the valuation was mentioned, then one of them cried out, it was a damned law, and they never would submit to any such law. I told them it was a law, and as long as it was a law, we must support it; they said they never would, and signified they would [...]ather fight against it. I told them that fighting was attended with dangerous consequences, for that men lost their lives in it; but they said they would rather die than submit to it, or live under it; they had fought against such laws, and they would again. They told me, that I should not go about to collect the returns, they never would suffer it to be done; I should let the business alone, and if any damage occurred to me by being fined, the township should reimburse me. The whole body seemed to rise and give their assent to this.

JAMES CHAPMAN, ESQ

Related nothing in his testimony different from his deposition in the former trial, page 67.

JOHN RODRICK (see page 72.)

Did not vary from his former testimony, but shortened it, in the less important parts.

WILLIAM THOMAS (page 58.)

Depose, That Fries and Kuder sent Marks and Gettman to bunt (he before said find) the assessors: That upon their entering Quaker town, on the 6th of March, the people fired all their pieces. He related their conduct to Mr. Foulke and Mr. Childs there, and the meeting next morning to go to Millar's town, and thence the circumstance till the arrival at their bridge; that they had a drum and fife which was played, and that they were commanded by John Fries and Kuder.—He deposed, That Fries said to his men, ‘For God's sake don't fire except we are fired on first; after I am killed, then help yourselves as well as you can.’—That about 30 followed Fries into the house, of which he was one; some had arms, and some had not. Fries had his sword.

What did you go in the house for?

Why, Henry called me, and said I must come along.

Did you know any of the prisoners?

No; none of them.

What did you go up to Bethlehem for?

Why, old Marks said, it was to show ourselves; but I cannot tell what for.

Was it to take the prisoners?

I do not know myself. The people of Northampton were go­ing up to take the prisoners, and we went to show ourselves.

Were you armed?

Yes.

How did the people go away after they got the prisoners?

Why, they got away as fast as they could: those that were on horseback rode away as fast as they could, and those on foot ran away.

When I came out to you and told you that the marshal had showed me his order, had I any arms, or a sword?

No. The last time, when you told the men they must rescue the prisoners by force, you had a sword.

Did you hear the people cry out, they would have the prisoners?

Yes; one Hoover, particularly.

Did you ever see me at any of the township meetings, except at Kline's?

I never saw the prisoner at any meeting at all, as I was not at the meeting at Kline's: I was only at the meeting at Mitchel's.

After we had come from Bethlehem three or four days, I told the prisoner that I heard the light horse was coming up: the prisoner said no, it was all settled and quiet: if they sent a child of ten years old, he (the prisoner) would help the marshal to take them.

EVERHARD FOULKE, ESQ (page 115.)

Deposed, That he was an assessor in Lower Milford: That he pro­ceeded on in the assessment until he met the other assessors, and the principal assessor, James Chapman, at Jacob Fries's tavern, where they dined together; and after dinner the prisoner came into the room, and said, he was sorry to see them there upon that business: he warned them not to proceed any farther; if they did they should be hurt; and then he immediately left the room, without even an answer. He then mentioned the circumstance near Singmaster's, as related by Mr. Rodrick (p. 71.) the prisoner seized the deponent's horse, but let him go again, saying, he would take him the next day: That they had 5 or 700 men in arms, and would come to his house and take him. He heard the firing at Quaker's town; the circumstances which occurred there he related. Having taken the assessment papers, the prisoner returned them, saying it was more than the witness deserved.

Did they say any thing about getting the law repealed?

I am not certain.—The other people said they would submit; but not till after the other states did: Fries said, they would never submit.

YOU are a magistrate, are you not, sir?

Yes.

Did Fries know it?

Yes; he had many times known me in that capacity.

—When I took you from the people to the back kitch­en, and away out of the house backward, and helped you on your horse, Did I or not desire you to go out of the way, so that the peo­ple should not see you?

Yes, you did take me out the back way, and said, Captain Kuder was then commanding the people in the front of the house: you did desire me to keep out of their way.

CEPHAS CHILDS (see page 73.)

Related some of the prominant transactions at Quaker town, where he was much abused, though not by the prisoner; but his papers, as coroner, were taken away by the prisoner, and returned to him; when, having been warned not to proceed, the witness told the prisoner he would not return to it in that capacity, unless forced to it by law, as he had left it. One person who abused the witness said, he had fought for liberty, and would fight for it again; but he afterwards returned, seemed sorry for it, and several times afterwards, acknow­ledged his crime, and hoped forgiveness. The general language of the people was abuse to the "damned laws," as they called them.

ISRAEL ROBERTS (page 113.)

In several conversations with the prisoner, he heard him express his dislike of the law. Having procured the law, and heard the prisoner say that he had never read it, he desired him to examine it, which the prisoner said he would do, and asked leave to take it home.—The wit­ness afterwards asked his (Fries's) son, what his father thought of the law? he answered, not much, he believed. At a meeting held (per­haps at Mitchel's, p. 65 and 68.) an attempt was made to read the law, but they would not suffer it: one man said, he knew the law; another said, they wanted to hear none of our damned laws, nor would hear it, and, stamping his musket on the floor, said, ‘This is our law; we have made a law of our own, and we are determined to support it.’—On the 5th of March I met John Fries, when he appeared to be very ill humoured: I asked him what was the matter? he said, the assessors had been about, and they should not do it. He asked me, if they had taken the dimensions of my house? I said they had. He asked me, if I had told any body of it? I said not. He seemed very much opposed to the law, and said, his township should not be assessed till other parts were gone through.

Did you ever hear him say any thing about war?

I have heard him say many times if there was a war he would be in it: if the French, or whoever invaded the country, he would oppose them. I mentioned to him that government would send up an army. He said if they did, they would turn about and join them, he was of opinion.

Did you ever recollect hearing him say, that if a be­ginning was made it would go on well?

I do not.

FRIDAY, April 25. DANIEL WIEDNER.

Did you, on the 6th of March, see a party of men marching down the road from Jacob Fries's?

Yes; I saw a body of men march to Fries's, and then to Quaker town; some were armed, and some unarmed. I went after them as far as Fries's.

Had they a drum and fife?

Yes; they had when they came by my house, and by Jacob Fries's too.

Did you see the prisoners with them?

Yes.

Who appeared to have the command?

The prisoner and capt. Kuder.—They wanted somebody to go after the assessors: so Gettman, Marks, and two more went.

Who wanted them to go?

The prisoner at the bar.

What were they to do with them when they got them?

Why they were to bring them to Quaker town.

Were any of these four men who went after the assessors armed?

Yes.

How many of them were armed?

I think Marks and Gettman were, or all of them; I am not sure. I think one of the four was the prisoner's son: I do not know whether he was armed.

Did you not meet at Marks's the next morning to go to Beth­lehem?

Yes. When we left Marks's, we went on towards Ritter's ta­vern, and before we got there, Marks's son was coming back, and held up his sword for us to stop: he said that he thought it was all over before now; they were gone from Ritter's tavern. Some agreed to go back, some said since they were gone so far they would go through.

Of which was the prisoner at the bar?

I think he was for going on.

Was William Thomas among you?

Yes.

Was he for going on, or not?

I cannot recollect.—We then went on to Bethlehem.

Did the prisoner go into the house at Bethlehem, and what hap­pened there?

Why, he went into the house, and when he came out, he said, the marshal would not give up the prisoners without we should take them by force, and if they had a mind to take them, he would go foremost. Fries and the rest then went in, but I don't recollect whe­ther he had a sword at that time: he had one when we were going to Bethlehem.

GEORGE MITCHEL (page 64.)

Related the ground of going to Bethlehem, and their arrival there.

Did you see any of the people before the house point their guns?

No, not to my knowledge.

Did you hear any threats used to Judge Henry or any other?

Not that I know.

At Marks's, the time I said I meant to oppose the law, the room was pretty full of people; in what part of the room was it?

It was on the right hand side of the room, on the bench.

Was there any people by?

Not that I recollect.

Be cautious what you say, John Fries.

Do you not remember that I said (after the committee was agreed to) I would come forward to the government, if they would send the order by a child of ten years old, if I was sent for?

Not that I recollect.

The counsel for the prisoner here rested their evidence. The prisoner was asked if he had any witnesses to produce: he answered, None.

MR. RAWLE

Said he felt himself so very peculiarly situated in this case, that he would wish the opinion of the Court. The unfortunate prisoner at the bar appeared to answer to a charge, the greatest that could be brought against him, without the assistance of counsel, or any friend to advise with.—To me, said Mr. R. the evidence against the pri­soner is extremely strong. It will be recollected, that in opening the evidence, I informed the jury what points I should prove: I opened my ideas of constructive law, and produced a few authorities in sup­port of my opinions. I believe it will be found, that in no material point have I failed to substantiate what I first gave notice that I could prove. I therefore conceive the charges are fully confirmed.

[Page 192] But although, if this trial was conducted in the usual way, and counsel were ready to advocate the cause of the prisoner, it would now be proper on my part to sum up the evidence as produced to the jury, and apply it to the law, in order to see whether the crime was fixed or not—under the present circumstances, I feel very great re­luctance to fulfill, what would in other circumstances be my bounden duty, lest it should appear to be going farther than the rigid requisiti­on of my office compels me to. I therefore shall rest the evidence and the law here, except the court think that my office as public prosecu­tor demands of me to do it, or that I should not fulfil my duty without doing it.

—It is not unfrequent for a prisoner to appear in a court of justice without counsel, but it is uncommon for a prisoner not to accept of legal assistance. It is the peculiar lenity of our laws that makes it the duty of a court to assign counsel to the person ac­cused. With respect to your situation, sir, it is a matter entirely dis­cretionary with you whether you will state the evidence and apply it to the law or not. There is great justice due to a prisoner arraigned on a charge so important as the present: there is great justice also due to the government. On the one hand an innocent person shall not be made to suffer for want of legal assistance; on the other a guilty person shall not escape through an undue indulgence, or the failure of the accuser in a duty his office may require of him. If you do not please to proceed, I shall consider it my duty to apply the law to the facts, the prisoner may therefore offer what he pleases to the jury.

I submit to the court to do me that justice which is right.

That I will, by the blessing of God, do you eve­ry justice.

Mr. Attorney, while you are justifiable in con­sidering the situation of the prisoner, that he might not suffer by any partial impressions you may make on the jury, there is another consi­deration deserving attention—there is justice due to the United States. Though I see no difficulty in resting it here, yet, possibly persons who may have come into court since the trial commenced may expect something of a narrative of the transactions, and such a narrative may be of great help to the jury. I wish it to be done for the due execu­tion of public justice, and, God knows, I do it not with a desire to injure the prisoner, for I wish not the conviction of any man. It is a painful task, but we must do our duty. Still I think you are at li­berty to fulfil your own pleasure.

MR. RAWLE would, then, under a solemn impression that it was his duty, take up some part of the time of the court and jury in rela­tion to the prisoner at the bar, a task rendered far more painful on his part, from the circumstance of the prisoner's appearing there (unex­pectedly) without counsel to plead his cause. In as few words as pos­sible he would endeavor to collect the most prominent features of the testimony which had been produced, and to apply it to the law.

[Page 193] As he stated before, Mr. Rawle said, levying war in the United States against the United States, was a crime defined by the constituti­on; in relation to the republican form of government existing among us it could only consist in an opposition to the will of the society, of which we all are members, declared and established by a majority; in short, an opposition to the acts of Congress, in whole or in part, so as to prevent their execution, either by collecting numbers, by a dis­play of force, or by exhibiting that degree of intimidation which should operate, in either way, upon those charged with the execution of the law, either throughout the United States or in any part thereof, to procure a repeal, or a suspension of the law by rendering it impractica­ble to carry such law or laws into effect in the place so opposing, or in any other part. This offence he considered to be strictly treason against the United States.

The question then is, how far the case of the prisoner and his con­duct merits this definition? In order to be informed of that it was necessary to call to recollection the evidence, so collected, as to display the train and progress which marked its footsteps from its first dawning, till its arrival at the fatal deed denominated treason.

It will first be observed by the testimony of several respectable wit­nesses (Messrs. Heckavelter, Ramich, Schymer, Ormond, and Wil­liamson) that attempts were made and executed, by a combination, in which, unfortunately for him, the prisoner at the bar was very ac­tive, to prevent the assessors from doing the duty required of them when they accepted their office, and that this combination existed both in Northampton and Bucks counties, and to such a degree that it was impossible to carry the law into effect. In lower Milford more parti­cularly we have the evidence of four respectable gentlemen (Mr. Chap­man, a principal assessor, and Mr. Rodrick, Mr. Foulke, and Mr. Childs, three assessors) who were employed in the execution of those laws. These gentlemen say that they met with such opposition at an early period of the insurrection, as deterred Samuel Clark from under­taking the business at all, although he had taken upon him the office. From this difficulty, Messrs. Foulke, Rodrick and Childs determined that they would proceed to assess lower Milford township together, which they attempted, and did not desist until compelled by the extreme opposition which their respective testimony relates to have happened on the 5th and 6th of March, in their progress to, and at Quaker's town, which ill usage is all corroborated by other witnesses. This spirit of opposition to the laws, as exhibited generally, is also related by Mr. Henry and Col. Nichols, the marshal, wherein it appears that process could not be served, and that witnesses could not be subpoenead, being deterred from the threats made to them by this extensive com­bination; and that in the serving of process personal abuse was given, as well as to the assessors who attempted to execute the law. In short the law was prostrate at the feet of a powerful combination.

Mr. RAWLE here called to view the occurrences in Bucks county, as deposed by Messrs. Foulke, Rodrick, Chapman, Thomas, Mitchel, and Wiedner, exhibiting a disposition to insurrection by a great num­ber of persons, and who engaged in its acts; he referred to the meeting [Page 194] at Jacob Fries's, where John Fries, the prisoner at the bar, expressed himself as determining to oppose and continue hostile to the laws. The circumstance afterwards near Singmaster's, where Mr. Rodrick made his escape, and where, as well as at other times, the prisoner forbade those officers to proceed, under threats of personal danger. It ap­peared Mr. Rodrick had given offence, not by his conduct, but be­cause he came from a distance of ten or twelve miles into that town­ship to prosecute his duty. However the assessors met the next day, but were stopt at Quaker town, where they were extremely abused.—To be sure, while the prisoner at the bar was in the room, and when­ever he was present, their abuse was suspended, when he absented himself, it was renewed. The papers were taken from Mr. Childs, and also from Mr. Foulke, but returned, because they were not the identi­cal papers. Here it must be observed in justice to the prisoner that one more of his few good actions appeared, which Mr. Rawle wished in his heart had been more numerous.—Fries assisted Mr. Foulke to get out of the house the back way, and advised him to keep out of the way of the men.

On the evening of that day they went up to Miller's town: here Mr. Rawle called to mind the message delivered by John Dillinger for convening the meeting the next day; this message was the fruits of a consultation held at the house of Jacob Fries, after they left Quaker town, when they determined to proceed to Millar's town the next morning. The next morning they met and went on as far as Ritters, where it appeared they were stopped for a short period by young Marks, who had been sent forward, with information that the prisoners were gone on to Bethlehem: a doubt being started whether they would not be too late, it was debated, and at last determined to go forward: of this latter opinion was the prisoner at the bar. It was in evidence that none of those people knew the prisoners whom they were going to release: this Mitchell and others swore.

Here Mr. Rawle thought commenced the overt act in the indict­ment; hitherto only the general opposition to the law, and the inten­tion with which the after conduct was perpetrated, appeared.—They proceeded to Bethlehem, and here the officer of militia, the man who derived his power from the people, the prisoner, Captain John Fries, whose duty, it was to support the law and constitution of the United States, made a most distinguished figure. At Bethlehem it appeared that the prisoner was to step forward to effect the surrender of the pri­soners, and of course to lay prostrate the legal arm of the United States. These prisoners were in the lawful custody of the marshal, he had lawful process against them from the district judge; they were in the house appointed for their safe keeping until they should be remo­ved; he kept guard over them, and in order to execute his office he had provided, by virtue of the powers given to the sheriff in the seve­ral counties agreeable to law, an armed force called a posse committatus, or the power of the county. This force (about 16 or 17) he suppo­sed sufficiently great to prevent the prisoners in his charge being libe­rated, it appeared, however in the sequel that they were not sufficient for that purpose.—The prisoner with an armed force arrived at Beth­lehem, [Page 195] and proceeded on his mission to the marshal: he had a sword when he marched his men into the town; but it appeared that he left it when he entered on his other business, to wit, demanding the surrender of the prisoners; the marshal answered, that he could not deliver them up. John Fries then returned to his men; and from the testimony of Mitchel, Barnet, and Schlaugh, (this was an import­ant part of his conduct) he said, ‘They must be taken by force; the marshal says he cannot deliver them up; if you are willing, we will take them by force: I will go foremost; if I drop, then take your own command.’ Words were followed by actions; they went into the house, and the prisoners were given up.

This, Mr. Rawle thought, was an unquestionable, full and complete proof of the commission of the overt act, and that overt act is high treason, as laid in the third and fourth counts of the indictment, to wit, that they did, by force prevent the marshal from executing law­ful process, to him directed; and, secondly, that they did deliver, and take from him certain persons, whom he had in lawful custody; and, further, this was done by force and arms, of men arrayed in a warlike manner, and by a number exceeding one hundred persons. This the indictment justly calls levying war, and treason.

To him Mr. Rawle said, there was no doubt but the act of levy­ing war was completed in the county of Bucks, independently of all those actions at Bethlehem; for there the prisoner and others were armed, and arrayed with all the appearances of war: with drums and fifes, and at times firing their pieces; and this to oppose the laws and prevent their execution, and there, by this force, they executed one, and the main part of their plan; they there did set the law at de­fiance: that was part of their grand object, and was done with a ge­neral, and not with a particular view, an essential ingredient in treason. Whether these actions were to be considered as a separate act of treason, or whether they were to evince the intentions of the party, it certainly must be considered as testimony, and such as must have an important weight towards the verdict.

Gentlemen, said Mr. Attorney, you will consider how far the indi­vidual witnesses are deserving your credit; if you consider them worthy of being believed, and if the facts related apply to the law which I submitted to your consideration, and which, from the silence of the court, I think you must consider as accurate, if not I shall stand corrected by the court,—there can be but little doubt upon your minds, that the prisoner is guilty: if it be not so, in your opi­nion, you must find him otherwise.

I have endeavoured to do my duty with integrity. I have advanced nothing but what appears to me to be clearly substantiated; but with you, gentlemen, and with the court, I leave the truth of the opinion.

John Fries, you are at liberty to say any thing you please to the jury.

It was mentioned, that I collected a parcel of people to follow up the assessors, but I did not collect them; they came and fetched me out from my house to go with them.

I have nothing to say, but leave it to the court.

JUDGE CHASE Then addressed the JURY as follows:

JOHN FRIES, the prisoner at the bar, stands indicted for the crime of treason, of levying war against the United States, contrary to the constitution.

By the Constitution of the United States, art. 3. sect. 3. it is de­clared, ‘That treason, against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them; or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.’

By the same section it is further declared, ‘That no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act; or on confession in open court;’ and that ‘the Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason.’

Too much praise cannot be given to this constitutional definition of treason, and the requiring such full proof for conviction; and declar­ing, that no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.

This constitutional definition of treason is a question of law. Every proposition in any statute (whether more or less distinct, whether easy or difficult to comprehend) is always a question of law. What is the true meaning and true import of any statute, and whither the case stated comes within it, is a question of law, and not of fact.—The question is an indictment for levying war against (or adhering to the enemies of) the United States, is—‘Whether the facts stated do, or do not amount to levying war,’—within the contemplation and construction of the constitution?

It is the duty of the court in this case, and in all criminal cases, to state to the jury their opinion of the law arising on the facts; but the jury are to decide on the present, and in all criminal cases, both the law and the facts, on their consideration of the whole case.

It is the opinion of the court, that any insurrection, or rising of any body of people, within the United States, to attain or effect, by force, or violence, any object of a great public nature, or of public and general (or national) concern, is a levying of war against the United States, within the contemplation and construction of the constitution.

On this general position the court are of opinion, that any such in­surrection, or rising to resist, or to prevent, by force or violence, th [...] execution of any statute of the United States, for levying or collecting taxes, duties, imposts, or excises; or for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, or for any other object of a general nature or national concern, under any pretence, as that the statute was unjust, burthensome, oppressive, or unconstitutional, is a levying war against the United States, within the contemplation and construction of the constitution.—The reason for this opinion is, that an insurrec­tion [Page 197] to resist or prevent, by force, the execution of any statute of the United States, has a direct tendency to dissolve all the bonds of society, to destroy all order, and all laws; and also, all security for the lives, liberties, and property of the citizens of the United States.

The court are of opinion, that military weapons (as guns and swords, mentioned in the indictment) are not necessary to make such insurrection or rising amount to levying war; because numbers may supply the want of military weapons; and other instruments may effect the intended mischief: The legal guilt of levying war may be incurred without the use of military weapons, or military array.

The court are of opinion, that the assembling bodies of men, armed and arrayed in a [...]warlike manner, for purposes only of a PRIVATE nature, is NOT TREASON; although the judges, or other peace officers should be insulted, or resisted; or even great outrages committed to the persons, or property of our citizens.

The true criterion to determine whether acts committed are treason, or a less offence, (as a riot) is the quo animo or the intention with which the people did assemble. When the intention is universal, or general as to effect some object of a general public nature, it will be treason; and cannot be considered, construed, or reduced to a riot. The commission of any number of felonies, riots, or other misdemean­ors cannot alter their nature, so as to make them amount to treason; and, on the other hand, if the intention and acts combined amount to treason, they cannot be sunk down to a felony, or riot. The intention with which any acts (as felonies, the destruction of property, or the like) are done, will show to what class of crimes, the case belongs.

The court are of opinion, that if a body of people conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, that they are only guilty of a high mis­demeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution, BY FORCE,—that they are guilty of the treason of levying war; and the quantum of the force employed neither lessens, nor increases the crime; whether by one hundred, or one thousand persons, is wholly immaterial.

The court are of opinion, that a combination, or conspiracy to levy war against the United States is not treason, unless combined with an attempt to carry such combination, or conspiracy, into execution; some actual force, or violence, must be used, in pursuance of such de­sign to levy war; but that it is altogether immaterial, whether the force used is sufficient to effectuate the object; any force connected with the intention, will constitute the crime of levying war.

This opinion of the court is founded on the same principles, and is, in substance, the same, as the opinion of the circuit court, for this district, on the trials (in April 1795) of Vigol and Mitchell, who were both found guilty by the jury, and afterwards pardoned by the late President.

At the circuit court for the district (April term 1799) on the trial of the prisoner at the bar, Judge Iredell delivered the same opinion, and Fries was convicted by the jury.

[Page 198] To support the present indictment against the prisoner at the bar, two facts must be proved to your satisfaction:

First. That some time before the finding of the indictment, there was an insurrection (or rising) of a body of people in the county of Northampton, in this State, with intent to oppose and prevent, by means of intimidation and violence, the execution of a law of the United States, intituled "An Act to provide for the valuation of lands and dwelling-houses, the enumeration of slaves within the United States;" OR, of another law of the United States, intituled "An Act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States:" and that some acts of violence were committed by some of the people so assembled, with intent to oppose and prevent, by means of intimi­dation, and violence, the execution of both, or of one of the said laws of congress.

In the consideration of this fact, you are to consider and determine with what intent the people assembled at Bethlehem, whether to effect, by force, a public or a private measure.

The intent with which the people assembled at Bethlehem, in Northampton, is a necessary ingredient t [...] the fact of assembling, and to be proved like any other fact, by the declarations of those who assembled; or by acts done by them. When the question is, "What is a man's intent?"—It may be proved by a number of connected cir­cumstances; or by a single fact.

If from a careful examination of the evidence, you shall be con­vinced, that the real object and intent of the people assembled at Bethlehem was of a public nature, (which it certainly was, if they assembled with intent to prevent the execution of both of the above-mentioned laws of congress, or either of them) it must then be proved to your satisfaction, that the prisoner at the bar, incited, encouraged, promoted, or assisted in the insurrection, or rising of the people, at Bethlehem, and the terror they carried with them, with intent to op­pose and prevent, by means of intimidation and violence, the execution of both the above-mentioned laws of congress, or either of them; and that some force was used by some of the people assembled at Bethlehem.

In the consideration of this fact, the court think proper to assist your inquiry by giving you their opinion.

In treason, all the participes criminis are principals; there are no accessaries to this crime. Every act, which in the case of felony, would render a man an accessary, will, in the case of treason, make him a principal. To render any person an accomplice and principal in felony, he must be aiding and abetting at the fact; or ready to afford assistance, if necessary. If a person be present at a felony, aid­ing and a assisting, he is a principal. It is always material to consider whether the persons charged are of the same party; upon the same pursuit; and under the expectation of mutual defence and support.—All persons present, aiding, assisting, or abetting any treasonable act, are principals. All persons, who are present and countenancing, and are ready to afford assistance, if necessary, to those who actually [Page 199] commit any treasonable act, are also principals. If a number of per­sons assemble and set out upon a common design, as to resist and pre­vent, by force, the execution of any law, and some of them commit acts of force and violence, with intent to oppose the execution of any law, and others are present to aid and assist, if necessary, they are all principals. If any man joins and acts with an assembly of people, his intent is always to be considered and adjudged to be the same as theirs; and the law, in this case, judgeth of the intent by the FACT. If a number of persons combine or conspire to effect a certain pur­pose, as to oppose, by force, the execution of a law, any act of vio­lence done by any one of them, in pursuance of such combination, and with intent to effect such object, is, in consideration of law, the act of all who are present when such act of violence is committed. If per­sons collect together to act for one and the same common end, any act done by any one of them, with intent to effectuate such common end, is a fact that may be given in evidence against all of them; the act of each is evidence against ALL concerned.

I shall not detain you at this late hour to recapitulate the facts;—you have taken notes, and they have been stated with accuracy, and great candor, by Mr. Attorney.

I will only remark, that all the evidence relative to transactions be­fore the assembling of the armed force at Bethlehem, are only to sa­tisfy you of the intent with which the body of the people assembled there. If either of the three overt acts (or open deeds) stated in the indictment, are proved to your satisfaction, the court are of opinion, that it is sufficient to maintain the indictment; for the court are of opinion that every overt act is treasonable.

As to accomplices—they are legal witnesses, and entitled to credit, unless destroyed by testimony in court.

If, upon consideration of the whole matter (law as well as fact) you are not fully satisfied, without any doubt, that the prisoner is guilty of the treason charged in the indictment, you will find him not guilty; but if, upon consideration of the whole matter, (law as well as fact) you are convinced that the prisoner is guilty of the treason charged in the indictment, you will find him guilty.

The jury retired, for the space of two hours, and brought in their verdict, GUILTY.

After the verdict was given, Judge Chase, with great feeling and sensibility, addressed the prisoner, observing that as he had no counsel on the trial, if he, or any person for him, could point out any flaw in the indictment, or legal ground for arrest of judgment, ample time would be allowed for that purpose.

FRIDAY, May 2.

The Court this morning called before them Charles Deshler, a ju­ror on the above trial of John Fries, who, on the first evening of the said trial, on the adjournment of the court, separated from the jury and retired to his lodgings. Mr. Hopkinson, in behalf of Mr. Desh­ler, produced his own affidavit, and that of two others, which proved, [Page 200] that on the said evening, Charles Deshler was inadvertently separated from his brethren by the crowd, in going out of the jury box; that he did not know to what place the jury had adjourned; that he then proceeded to his lodgings, where he cautiously avoided all conversation respecting the trial depending.—The court, satisfied by this represent­ation, of the innocence of Mr. Deshler, ordered that he be discharged, and that the before-mentioned affidavit be entered on the record of the court.

JUDGMENT. Judge Chase's Address.

The prisoner being set at the bar, Judge Chase, after observing to Hainey and Gettman that what he had to say to Fries would apply generally to them, the judge proceeded—

JOHN FRIES—You have been already informed, that you stood convicted of the treason, charged upon you by the indictment on which you have been arraigned, of levying war against the United States.—You have had a LEGAL, FAIR and IMPARTIAL trial, with every indulgence that the law would permit. Of the whole pannel, you PEREMPTORILY challenged thirty-four, and, with truth I may say, that the jury who tried you, were of your own selection and choice. Not one of them before had ever formed and delivered any opinion respecting your guilt or innocence. The verdict of the jury against you was founded on the testimony of many creditable and unexception­able witnesses. It was apparent from the conduct of the jury, when they delivered their verdict, that if innocent they would have acquitted you with pleasure; and that they pronounced their verdict against you with great concern and reluctance, from a sense of duty to their coun­try, and a full conviction of your guilt.

The crime of which you have been sound guilty is treason; a crime considered, in the most civilized and the most free countries in the world, as the greatest that any man can commit. It is a crime of so deep a dye, and attended with such a train of fatal consequences, that it can receive no aggravation; yet the duty of my station requires, that I should explain to you the nature of the crime of which you are convicted; to show the necessity of that justice, which is this day to be administered; and to awaken your mind to proper reflections and a due sense of your own condition, which I imagine you must have reflected upon during your long confinement.

You are a native of this country—You live under a constitution (or form of government) framed by the people themselves; and under laws made by your representatives, faithfully executed by independent and impartial judges. Your government secures to every member of the community equal liberty and equal rights; by which equality of liberty and rights I mean, that every person, without any regard to [Page 201] wealth, rank or station, may enjoy an equal share of civil liberty, an equal protection of law, and an equal security for his person and pro­perty.—You enjoyed, in common with your fellow-citizens, all those rights.

If experience should prove, that the constitution is defective, it pro­vides a mode to change or amend it, without any danger to public or­der, or any injury to social rights.

If Congress, from inattention, error in judgment, or want of in­formation, should pass any law in violation of the constitution; or burthensome, or oppressive to the people, a peaceable, safe and ample remedy is provided by the constitution. The people themselves have established the mode by which such grievances are to be redressed; and no other mode can be adopted, without a violation of the constitution and of the laws.—If Congress should pass a law contrary to the con­stitution, such law would be void, and the courts of the United States possess complete authority, and are the only tribunal to decide, whe­ther any law is contrary to the constitution.—If Congress should pass burthensome or oppressive laws, the remedy is with their constituents, from whom they derive their existence and authority. If any law is made, repugnant to the voice of a majority of their constituents, it is in their power to make choice of persons to repeal it; but until it is repealed, it is the duty of every citizen to submit to it, and to give up his private sentiments to the public will. If a law burthensome, or even oppressive in its nature or execution is to be opposed by force, and obedience cannot be compelled, there must soon be an end to all government in this country.—It cannot be credited by dispassionate men, of any information, that Congress will intentionally make laws in violation of the constitution, contrary to their sacred trust, and so­lemn obligation to support it. None can believe, that Congress will wilfully, or intentionally, impose unreasonable and unjust burthens on their constituents, in which they must participate. The most igno­rant man must know, that Congress can make no law that will not af­fect them equally, in every respect, with their constituents. Every law that is detrimental to their constituents, must prove hurtful to themselves. From these considerations, every one may see, that Con­gress can have no interest in oppressing their fellow-citizens.

It is almost incredible, that a people living under the best and mild­est government in the whole world, should not only be dissatisfied and discontented, but should break out into open resistance and opposition to its laws.

The insurrection in 1794, in the four western counties of this state (particularly in Washington) to oppose the execution of the laws of the United States, which laid duties on stills, and spirits distilled, within the United States, is still fresh in memory: it originated from prejudices and misrepresentations industriously disseminated and dif­fused against those laws. Either persons disaffected to our govern­ment, or wishing to aggrandise themselves, deceived and misled the ignorant and uninformed class of the people. The opposition com­menced in meetings of the people, with threats against the officers, which rip [...]ned into acts of outrage against them, and were extended [Page 202] to private citizens. Committees were formed to systamatize and in­flame the spirit of opposition. Violence succeeded to violence, and the collector of Fayette county was compelled to surrender his com­mission and official books; the dwelling house of the inspector (in the vicinity of Pittsburgh) was attacked and burnt; and the marshal was seized, and obtained his liberty on a promise to serve no other process on the west side of the Alleghany mountain. To compel sub­mission to the laws, the government were obliged to march an army against the insurgents, and the expense was above one million one hun­dred thousand dollars. Of the whole number of insurgents (many hundreds) only a few were brought to trial; and of them only two were sentenced to die (Vigol and Mitchell) and they were pardoned by the late President. Although the insurgents made no resistance to the army sent against them; yet not a few of our troops lost their lives, in consequence of their great fatigue, and exposure to the severity of the season.

This great and remarkable clemency of the government had no ef­fect upon you and the deluded people in your neighborhood. The rise, progress, and termination of the late insurrection, bear a strong and striking analogy to the former: and it may be remembered, that it has cost the United States 80,000 dollars. It cannot escape observa­tion, that the ignorant, and uninformed are taught to complain of taxes, which are necessary for the support of government, and yet they permit themselves to be seduced into insurrections which have so enor­mously increased the public burthens, of which their contribution can scarcely be calculated.

When citizens combine and assemble with intent to prevent by threats, intimidation, and violence, the execution of the laws, and they actually carry such traitorous designs into execution, they reduce the government to the alternative of prostrating the laws before the insurgents, or of taking necessary measures to compel submission. No government can hesitate. The expence, and all the consequences therefore, are not imputable to the government, but to the insurgents.—The mildness and lenity of our government are as striking on the late as on the former insurrection; Of nearly 130 persons who might have been put on their trial for treason, only five have been prosecuted and tried for that crime.

In the late insurrection, you, John Fries, bore a conspicuous and leading part. If you had reflected, you would have seen, that your attempt was as weak, as it was wicked. It was the height of folly in you to suppose that the great body of our citizens, blest in the enjoy­ment of a free republican government of their own choice, and of all rights civil and religious,—secure in their persons and property, and conscious that the laws are the only security for their preservation from violence, would not rise up as one man to oppose and crush so ill-founded, so unprovoked an attempt to disturb the public peace and tranquillity. If you could see in a proper light your own folly and wickedness, you ought now to bless God, that your insurrection was so happily and speedily quelled by the vigilance and energy of our govern­ment, aided by the patriotism and activity of your fellow-citizens, who [Page 203] left their homes and business and embodied themselves in the support of its laws.

The annual, necessary expenditures for the support of any extensive go­vernment, like ours must be great; and the sum required, can only be obtained by taxes, or loans.—In all countries the levying taxes is un­popular, and a subject of complaint. It appears to me, that there was not the least pretence of complaint against, much less of opposition and violence to, the law for levying taxes on dwelling-houses; and it becomes you to reflect that the time you chose to rise up in arms to oppose the laws of your country, was when it stood in a very critical situation with regard to France, and on the eve of a rupture with that country.

I cannot omit to remind you of another matter, worthy of your consideration.—If the marshal or any of the possee, or any of the four friends of government, who were with him, had been killed by you, or any of your deluded followers, the crime of murder would have been added to the crime of treason.

In your serious hours of reflection, you ought to consider the conse­quences that would have flowed from the insurrection, which you in­cited, encouraged, and promoted, in the character of a captain of mili­tia, whose incumbent duty it is to stand ready (whenever required) to assist and defend the government and its laws, if it had not been im­mediately quelled. Violence, oppression and rapine; destruction, waste, and murder, always attend the progress of insurrection and rebellion; the arm of the father would have been raised against the son; that of the son against the father; a brother's hand would have been stained with brother's blood; the sacred bands of friendship would have been broken, and all the ties of natural affection would have been dissolved.

The end of all punishment is example; and the enormity of your crime requires that a severe example should be made to deter others from the commission of like crimes in future. You have forfeited your life to justice—let me therefore earnestly recommend to you, most seriously to consider your situation—to take a review of your past life, and to employ the very little time you are to continue in this world, in endeavors to make your peace with that God, whose MERCY is equal to his JUSTICE. I expect that you are a Christian; and as such I address you. Be assured my guilty and unhappy fellow-citizen, that without serious repentance of all your sins, you cannot expect happiness in the world to come; and to your repentance you must add faith and hope in the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ. These are the only terms on which pardon and forgiveness are promised to those, who profess the Christian religion. Let me therefore again entreat you to apply every moment you have left, in contrition, sorrow, and repen­tance. Your day of life is almost spent, and the night of death fast approaches. Look up to the Father of Mercies, and God of Comfort. You have a great and an immense work to perform, and but little time in which you must finish it. There is no repentance in the grave; for after death comes judgment; and as you die, so you must be judged. By repentance and faith, you are the object of God's mercy; but if you will not repent, and have faith and dependance upon the merits [Page 204] of the death of Christ, but die a hardened and impenitent sinner, you will be the object of God's justice and vengeance. If you will sincere­ly repent and believe, God hath pronounced his forgiveness; and there is no crime too great for his mercy and pardon.

Although you must be strictly confined for the very short remainder of your life, yet the mild government and laws which you have en­deavored to destroy, permit you (if you please) to converse and com­mune with ministers of the gospel; to whose pious care and consolation in fervent prayers and devotion, I most cordially recommend you.

What remains for me is a very painful, but a very necessary part of my duty. It is to pronounce that judgment, which the law has appointed for crimes of this magnitude. The judgment of the law is, and this Court doth award "that you be hanged, by the neck, until dead:" And I pray GOD ALMIGHTY to be merciful to your soul!

The following Charge, by Judge Peters, was delivered to the Jury before the Charge of Judge Iredell, in the first Trial, and ought to precede it in Page 164, but was unavoidably omitted in its proper place.

AS this case is important, both in its principles and consequences, I think it my duty to give my opinion, formed with as much deliberation as the intervals of this lengthy trial would permit, on the most prominent points of law which have been made in this cause. I have condensed my sentiments into as short a compass as possible. I shall leave remarks on the evidence, and more enlarged observations on the law, to the presiding judge, who will deliver to you the charge of the court. At his request I state my individual opinion, though I do not always deem it necessary, when there is an unanimity of senti­ment in the court.

1. It is treason "in levying war against the United States" for per­sons who have none but a common interest with their fellow-citizens, to oppose or prevent, by force, numbers or intimidation, a public and general law of the United States, with intent to prevent its operation, or compel its repeal. Force is necessary, to complete the crime; but the quantum of force is immaterial. This point was determined by this court on a former occasion, which was, though not in all cir­cumstances, yet in principle and object, very analogous to the subject of our present inquiries. I hold myself bound by that decision, which on due consideration, I think legal and sound. I do not conceive it to be overshadowed, or rendered null, by any legislative construction contained in any subsequent act of congress. The law, though esta­blished by legislative acts, or settled by judicial decisions, may be al­tered by congress, by express words, in laws consistent with the con­stitution. [Page 205] But a mere legislative construction, drawn from any act by intendment, ought not to repeal positive laws, or annul judicial decisions. The judiciary have the duty assigned to them of inter­preting declaring and explaining,—the Legislature that of making, altering, or repealing laws. But the decision of a question on the constitutionality of a law is vested in the judiciary department. I consider the decisions in the cases of Vigol and Mitchell, in full force, and founded on true principles of law. The authorities from British precedents and adjudications are used as guides in our decisions. I will not enter into a discussion whether we are bound to follow them; because they are precedents,—or because we think them reasonable and just.

If numbers and force can render one law ineffectual, which is tan­tamount to its repeal, the whole system of laws may be destroyed in detail. All laws will at last yield to the violence of the seditious and discontented. Although but one law be immediately assailed, yet the treasonable design is completed, and the generality of intent desig­nated, by a part assuming the government of the whole. And thus, by trampling on the legal powers of the constituted authorities, the rights of all are invaded by the force and violence of a few. In this case, too, there is a direct outrage on the judiciary act, with intent to defeat, by force and intimidation, the execution of a revenue law, enacted under clear and express constitutional authority. A deadly blow is aimed at the government, when its fiscal arrangements are for­cibly destroyed, distracted and impeded; for on its revenues its very existence depends.

2. Though punishments are designated, by particular laws, for cer­tain inferior crimes, which, if prosecuted as substantive offences, and the sole object of the prosecution, are exclusively liable to the penal­ties directed by those laws, yet, when committed with treasonable ingredients, these crimes become only circumstances or overt acts. The intent is the gist of the inquiry in a charge of treason; and is the great and leading object in trials for this crime.

The description of crimes, contained in the act, commonly called the Sedition Act, lose their character, and become but component parts of the greater crime, or evidences of treason, when the trea­sonable intent and overt act are proved. So it is with rescue of pri­soners; which, in the present case, was not an independent offence, but an overt act of the treason. These were crimes—misdemeanors—at common law; and might have been punished by fine and im­prisonment when substantive independent offences. But, when com­mitted with treasonable intent, are merged in the treason, of which sedition, conspiracy and combination are always the harbingers. I do not think that the acts relating either to sedition or rescue have al­tered the principle, though they have defined and bounded the punish­ments. The law, as to treason, is the same now, as if those offences were still punishable at common law. The Sedition Act cannot con­stitutionally alter the description o [...] the crime of treason, to which the combination and conspiracy to perpetrate this offence, with force and numbers, are essential attributes. Numbers must combine and conspire [Page 206] to levy war. But if these indispensible qualities of the crime are, by the Legislature, declared only misdemeanors, and separated from the treasonable act, the Legislature nullify the description of treason con­tained in the constitution; and so indirectly alter and destroy, or make inefficient, this part of that instrument. The congress neither possess, nor did they intend to exercise, any such power. They could not (nor did they so intend) place the crime declared in the constitution to be treason, among the inferior class of offences, by describing some of its essential qualities in the Sedition Act, and prescribing punish­ments, when they solely constitute substantive and independent offen­ces. Congress can only (as they have done) prescribe the punishment for treason, regulate the trial, and direct the mode in which that pu­nishment is to be executed.

3. However indisputably requisite it may be to prove, by two wit­nesses, the overt act for which the prisoner at the bar stands indicted, yet evidence may be given of other circumstances, or even of other overt acts, connected with that on which the indictment is grounded, and occurring or committed in any other part of the district, than the place mentioned. Although the prisoner be not on his trial, nor is he now punishable, for any other than the overt act laid, other overt acts and other circumstances, parts of the general design, may never­theless be proved, to shew the quo animo—the intent—with which the act laid was committed. Indeed the treason would be complete, by the conspiracy, in any part of the district, to commit the trea­sonable act at Bethlehem, if any had, in consequence of the conspira­cy, marched or committed any overt act for the purpose, though the actual rescue had not taken place. So we thought in the cases of the western insurgents, that the treason, concocted at Couche's fort, would have been complete, if any had only marched to commit the crime; though the design had not arrived to the disgraceful catastrophe it finally attained. Indisputable authorities might be produced to sup­port this position.

4. The confession of the prisoner may be given in evidence as cor­roboratory proof of the intent, or quo animo. But, although proved by two witnesses, being made out of court, it is not of itself sufficient to convict. Two witnesses are necessary to prove the overt act. But the intent may be proved by one witness, collected from circumstances, or even by a single fact.

5. The doctrine of constructive treason has produced much real mis­chief in another country; and it has been, for an age, the subject of discussions, among lawyers, other public speakers and political writers. The greater part of the objections to it are totally irrelevant here.—The subject of them is unknown, and may it ever remain so, in this country. I mean the compassing the death of the king. It will be found that the British judges, since the days of political darkness and bigotry have passed away, are to be found among the most able and decided opposers of the abuses of this doctrine. They do not follow decisions and precedents rooted in bad times, because they find them in their law books. On the contrary, on a fair investigation it will be proved, that those contrary to justice, reason and law are reject­ed [Page 207] It is not fair and sound reasoning to argue against the necessary and indispensable use of construction, from the abuses it has produced. What is there among the best of human (and I wish I could not add divine) systems which has not been perverted and abused? That there must be some defined sense and interpretative exposition made of the terms "levying war," and when, and in what circumstances, it is le­vied "against the United States," cannot be denied. The able coun­sel, in this case, who has said the most on this subject, and travelled the farthest into the gloomy, dark and tyrannical periods of the British history and jurisprudence, for melancholy and disgusting proofs of atro­ [...]ious abuses, and even crimes, committed under color of law, has, unavoidably, himself furnished also proofs of the necessity we are under of some constructive or interpretative expositions. He, at first, confined these expositions to three cases. Now if there is a necessity of one, it shews that without supplementary interpretation, the law would be a mere dead letter. Aware of the dangerous lengths to which the abuses of construction have been carried, courts and juries should be cautious in their decisions; but not so much alarmed about abuses, as to refrain from the proper and necessary use of interpretation. I do not then hesitate to say, that the position we have found established, to wit, that opposition, by force and numbers, or intimidation with intent to de­feat, delay or prevent the execution of a general law of the United States, or to procure, or with a hope of procuring, by force and num­bers, or intimidation, its repeal or new execution, is treason by levy­ing war against the United States. And it does not appear to me to be what is commonly called constructive, but open and direct treason, in levying war against the United States, within the plain and evident meaning and intent of the constitution.

6. As to the objections, founded on want of proof of regular ap­pointments under, and of the proper execution of the law called the house tax law, I do not see that they apply. If the prosecution was definitely for opposing one or more officer or officers of this tax law, the proof might be more [...]igidly required. But as all the necessary use made of these collateral and subordinate circumstances, relative to the tax law officers, is for the purpose of showing the quo animo or intent with which the treason alledged was committed, I consider them as not relevant in this cause. It is even enough in criminal prosecu­tions, more directly aimed at the specific offence of opposing au offi­cer, that he was an officer de facto.

7. As to the disarming and confining the two Videlles, or advance, of the armed insurgents, by the marshal at Bethlehem, I think him legally as well as prudentially justified in his conduct. Even a consta­ble has a right to restrain and confine, under strong circumstances of suspicion, persons whose conduct or appearance evidence an intention to commit illegal and violent acts. Much more so was the marshal (having notice of an intended rescue of his prisoners) justifiable in seizing and disarming two of the armed body, against whom existing circum­stances raised strong and evident suspicion. But I think this has been made more important than it really is. Because the release of these men was not the object of, or even know to the prisoner at the bar [Page 208] and his party, when they commenced their treasonable march, for the release of the prisoners in the marshal's custody, at Bethlehem.

8. The President's proclamation should have been pleaded as a par­don, if it was intended to be relied on as such. This not having been done, it is not legally before us. But since it has been mentioned, I think it necessary to declare it as my opinion, that it does not ope­rate as a pardon to precedent offences. It is directed by law as a step, preparatory to applying an armed force, against those supposed to have committed crimes and embodied for unlawful purposes. It is a hu­mane warning, calculated to prevent the effusion of blood? Its allega­tions of facts, or its injunctions, have no operation in the trial of the prisoner at the bar.

Whether the prisoner is or is not guilty of the treason laid in the indictment, in the manner and form therein set forth, it is your pro­vince to determine. It is the duty of the court to declare the law; though both facts and law, which I fear are too plain to admit a rea­sonable doubt, are subjects for your consideration. We must all obey our public duty, whatever may be our private feelings. Mercy is not deposited in our hands. It is entirely within the constitutional autho­rity of another department.

The following opinion of Judge Peters on the motion for a new trial was put into our hands after the sheet was printed were it should have come in, which is page 45 of the appendix.

ALTHOUGH I am not perfectly satisfied with the testimony, which is contradicted by the juror on his oath; I will allow it to be taken for granted; and meet the question on principle. I am in sentiment against granting the motion for a new trial. Because—1. The juror said no more than all friends to the laws and the govern­ment were warranted in thinking and saying, as the facts appeared then to the public. Fries being generally alledged to be the most prominent character, it was on this account, and not with special or particular malice, that Rhoad's declaration was made.

2. If a juror was rejected on account of such declarations, trials, where the community at large are intimately affected by crimes of such general importance and public notoriety, must be had, in all pro­bability, by those who only openly or secretly approved of the con­duct of criminals. This would be unjust and improper, as it affects the government in its public prosecutions. Little success could be expected from proceedings against the most atrocious offenders, if great multitudes were implicated in their delusions, or guilt.

3. It is natural for all good citizens when atrocious crimes, of a public nature, are known to have been committed, to express their abhorrence and disapprobation, both of the offences and the perpetra­tors. It is their duty so to express themselves. This is not like the [Page 209] case of murder, or any offence against as individual; or where seve­ral are charged and none remarkably prominent. In this latter case selecting one out of the mass might evince particular malice.

4. I have no doubt that declarations of an opposite complexion could be proved; and yet the jurors were unanimous in their verdict. The defendant has had a fair, and I think an impartial trial.

But as a division in the court, might lessen the weight of the judg­ment if finally pronounced, and the great end of the law in punish­ments being example, I, with some reluctance, yield to the opinion of judge Iredell. Although justice may be delayed, yet it will not fail, ei­ther as it respects the United States, or the prisoner.

SATURDAY, April 26, 1800. CONRAD MARKS

Was arraigned on an indictment for treason^*. He pleaded, Not Guilty.

• Richard Downing,
• Thomas Morris,
• Jacob Grim,
• Eli Canby,
• Richard Roberts,
• Francis Gardner,
• John Jacobs,
• Benjamin Morris,
• Anthony Oberly,
• John Longstreith,
• William Davis,
• Llwellin Davis.

The cause was opened by the attorney of the district, (Mr. Rawle) who stated the nature of the offence of which the prisoner stood in­dicted, and adduced a number of witnesses on the part of the prosecu­tion. Several witnesses were also produced on the part of the prisoner. Mr. Ross and Mr. Hopkinson, who were the counsel assigned by the court for the prisoner, very ably and ingeniously defended his cause, at some length; and were fully answered by Mr. Ingersol on the part of the prosecution. Judge Chase, in an elegant, learned and feeling charge, addressed the jury, informing them of the law, and reciting the facts as they appeared in evidence. The jury retired about twenty minutes past 11 o'clock at night. Judge Chase informed the jury, pre­vious to their retiring, that the court would wait till twelve o'clock, to see if they could agree on their verdict; and that they must return to court and inform whether they could agree or not. At that hour the jury returned and informed the court, that they could not agree. The judges ordered that the jury be kept together in some conve­nient [Page 210] place till Monday morning at ten o'clock, to which time the court adjourned.

On Monday morning the jury returned a verdict, NOT GUILTY.

An indictment was afterwards filed against the defendant for con­spiracy, obstruction of process, rescue and unlawful combination, on which he submitted to the discretion of the court.

Without any farther examination, the court being fully apprised of his conduct, Judge Chase passed the following sentence:

That he be imprisoned two years, and fined 800 dollars, at the ex­piration of which, to give security for his good behavior, himself in 2000 dollars, and two sureties in 1000 dollars each, and to stand com­mitted till the sentence is complied with.

Before the sentence, Mr. Ross addressed a few words to the court in his behalf: he observed, that though his client had offended against the laws of his country, yet he had been deceived into his opposition: it had been said, from what he thought undoubted authority, that no such law was in existence. As this was the case, and as his circum­stances were low, he hoped the court would consider his situation.

JUDGE CHASE said, he was a most atrocious offender; he had not the least doubt but he was guilty of treason in a high degree, and that the verdict ought so to have been found, and be have been made an example of. There must have been some mistake as to evidence, or the jury could not have returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

MONDAY, April 28. GEORGE GETTMAN & FREDERICK HAINEY

Were arraigned on an indictment for treason, to which they plead­ed, Not Guilty.

The Counsel for the Prisoners were Mr. EDWARD TILGHMAN and Mr. MOSES LEVY.

• Francis Gardner,
• Samuel Evans,
• William Preston,
• Richard Roberts,
• William Lane,
• Godfrey Baker,
• Samuel Clarkson,
• Peter Shyner,
• Samuel Allen,
• John Stroud,
• Philip Arndt,
• William Davis.

The trial took up two days; and on Wednesday morning the jury returned with a verdict of GUILTY.

WEDNESDAY, April 30. ANTHONY STAHLER

Was arraigned on an indictment for treason, to which he pleaded, Not Guilty.

The Counsel for the Prisoner were, MR. HOPKINSON and MR. ROSS.

• Richard Robinson,
• Charles Deshler,
• George Illig,
• John Scarbord,
• John Jones,
• John Edge,
• Jacob Grim,
• David Jones,
• William Preston,
• Thomas Morris,
• Peter Eler,
• Abraham Heed.

The jury, on Thursday morning, returned with a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

The attorney lodged a detainer on a charge of conspiracy, &c. and on Friday morning the grand jury returned against him a true Bill. Indictments for treason had been found against Philip De [...]ch and Jacob Klein; but Mr. Attorney entered a nolle proseque thereupon, and prosecuted for conspiracy, rescue, &c. upon which the grand jury returned true Bills.

They submitted to the court; and after examining a few witnesses, and ascertaining their circumstances as near as possible, the court sen­tenced each of them to be imprisoned eight months, to be fined 150 dollars, and to enter into recognizance for their good behavior for one year, themselves in 400 dollars each, with two sufficient sureties.