IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, SITTING AS A HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT, ON THE. Fourth Day of February, A. D. 1805. THE UNITED STATES, v5. SAMUEL CHASE. THE anfwer and pleas of SAMUEL CHASE, one of the Affociate Juftices of the Supreme Court of the United States, to the Articles of Impeachment exhibited against him in the faid Court, by the Honourable the House of Reprefentatives of the United States, in fupport of their impeachment against him, for high crimes and misdemeanors, fuppofed to have been by him committed. THIS refpondent, în his proper perfon, comes into the faid court, and protefting that there is no high crime or misdemeanor particularly alledged in the faid articles of impeachment, to which he is or can be bound by law to make answer; and faving to himself now, and at all times hereafter, all benefit of exception to the infuffi ciency of the faid articles, and each of them, and to the defects therein appearing in point of law, or otherwife; and protesting alfo, that he ought not to be injured in any manner, by any words, or by any want of form inthis his anfwer; he fubmits the following facts and obfervations by way of anfwer to the faid articles. The first article relates to his fuppofed mifconduc in the trial of John Fries, for treafon, before the circuit court of the United States, at Philadelphia, in April and May, 1800; and alledges that he prefided at that trial, and that, “unmindful of the folemn duties of his office, and contrary to the facred obligation by which he stood bound bound to discharge them, faithfully and impartially, and without refpect to perfons," he did then, in his judi. cial capacity, conduct himself in a manner highly arbitrary, oppreffive, and unjust." This general accufation, too vague in itself for reply, is fupported by three specific charges of mifconduct: Ift. "In delivering an opinion, in writing, on the question of law, on the conftruction of which the defence of the accufed materially depended:" which opin ion, it is alledged, tended "to prejudice the minds of the jury against the cafe of the faid John Fries, the prifoner, before counsel had been heard in his favor." 2d. "In restricting the counfel for the faid John Fries, from recurring to fuch English authorities, as they believed appofite; or from citing certain ftatutes of the United States, which they deemed illuftrative of the pofitions, upon which they intended to rest the defence of their client." 3d. "In debarring the prifoner from his conftitutional privilege of addreffing the jury (through his counfel) on the law, as well as on the fact, which was to determine his guilt, or innocence, and at the fame time endeavouring to wreft from the jury their indifputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the queftion of law, as well as the queftion of fact, involved in the verdict which they were required to give." This firft article then concludes, that in confequence of this irregular conduct of this refpondent," the faid John Fries was deprived of the right fecured to him by the eighth article, amendatory of the conftitution: and was condemned to death, without having been heard, by counfel, in his defence." By the eighth article amendatory to the conftitu tion, this refpondent fuppofes, is meant the fixth amend ment to the conftitution of the United States; whic fecures to the accufed, in all criminal profecutions, th right to have the affiftance of counfel for his defence. In answer to thefe three charges, the refpondent ad mits that the circuit court of the United States, for th district of Pennfylvania, was held at Philadelphia, in th diftrid diftrict, in the months of April and May, in the year of our Lord, 1800; at which court John Fries, the perfon named in the faid first article, was brought to trial, on an indictment for treason against the United States; and that this refpondent then held a commiffion, as one of the affociate juftices of the fupreme court of the United States; by virtue of which office, he did, pursuant to the laws of the United States, prefide at the above mentioned trial, and was affifted therein by Richard Peters, Efq. then, and ftill, diftrict judge of the United States, for the diftrict of Pennfylvania; who, as directed by the laws of the United States, fat as affiftant judge at the faid trial. With refpect to the opinion, which is alledged to have been delivered by this refpondent, at the abovementioned trial, he begs leave to lay before this honorable court the true ftate of that tranfaction, and to call its attention to fome facts, and confiderations, by which his conduct on that fubject will, he prefumes, be fully juftified. The conftitution of the United States, in the third fection of the third article, declares that "treafon against the United States, fhall confift only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, By two acts of Congrefs, the firft paffed on the third day of March, 1791, and the second on the eighth day of May, 1792, a duty was imposed on spirits diftilled within the United States, and on ftills; and various provifions were made for its collection. In the year 1794, an infurrection took place in four of the western counties of Pennfylvania, with a view of refifting and preventing by force the execution of these two ftatutes; and at a circuit court of the United States, held at Philadelphia, for the diftrict of Pennfylvania, in the month of April, in the year 1795, by William Patterfon, Efq. then one of the affociate juftices of the fupreme court of the United States, and the above mentioned Richard Peters, then diftrict judge of the United States, for the diftrict of Pennsylvania, two perfons, who had been concerned in the above named infurrection, namely, namely, Philip Vigol and John Mitchel, were indicted for treafon, of levying war against the United States, by refifting and preventing by force the execution of the two laft mentioned acts of Congrefs; and were, after a full and very folemn trial, convicted on the indictments, and fentenced to death. They were afterwards pardoned by George Washington, then Prefident of the United States. In the first of these trials, that of Vigol, the defence of the prifoner was conducted by very able counsel, one of whom, William Lewis, Efq. is the fame person who ap peared as counsel for John Fries, in the trial now under confideration. Neither that learned gentleman, nor his able colleague, then thought proper to raife the question of law, "whether refifting and preventing by armed force, the execution of a particular law of the United States, be a "levying of war against the United States," according to the true meaning of the conftitution? although a decifion of this queftion in the negative, must have acquitted the prifoner. But in the next trial, that of Mitchel, this queftion was raised on the part of the prifoner, and was very fully and ably difcuffed by his. counfel; and it was folemnly determined by the court, both the judges concurring, "that to refift or prevent by armed force, the execution of a particular law of the United States, is a levying of war againft the United States, and confequently is treafon, within the true meaning of the conftitution." The decifion, according to the best established principles of our jurifprudence, became a precedent for all courts of equal or inferior jurif diction; a precedent which, although not abfolutely obligatory, ought to be viewed with very great respect, efpecially by the court in which it was made, and ought never to be departed from, but on the fulleft and cleareft conviction of its incorrectnefs. On the 9th of July, 1798, an act of Congress was paffed, providing for a valuation of lands and dwellinghoufes, and an enumeration of flaves throughout the United States; and directing the appointment of commiffioners and affeffors for carrying it into execution: And on the 4th day of July, in the fame year, a direct tax A |