Federal Gazette & Baltimore Daily Advertiser 1807/07-1807/12 msa_sc3722_2_6_2-0236    Enlarge and print image (5M)

Jump to page

<< PREVIOUS   NEXT >>

Federal Gazette & Baltimore Daily Advertiser 1807/07-1807/12 msa_sc3722_2_6_2-0236    Enlarge and print image (5M)

Jump to page

<< PREVIOUS   NEXT >>

Baltimore Price Current. CORRECT ET> WEEKLY. bbl. lb. Articles. Bread, ship, navy, pilot, JSEEr, northern mess, cargo, No. 1, -------, No. 2, Bacos, Butter,for exportation, — Cotfee, Batavia, — W,. India best g*.— do, com. — Cotton, W. India island, — Louisiana, —- Georgia.upland, — Sea-Inland, -' Cordage, American, — W.uss'1.1, — GltOCOT.ATB, Candw.(, mould dipt, — spermaceti, — Cheese, Ametjcwi, [ish, best, Duck, Russia, Holl thd, Ravens^ Russia Sheeting, Prices. ».' 112: ple-.tv do. AVERAGE PRICE OF STOCKS. 8 per cents, 101 6 do. 96 3 do. 60 a 62 Louisiana, do. U. S.Banlv Stock, Maryland Bank stock, Baltimore do. Union Bank of Maryland do. Mechanics' Bank, Alexandria Bank do. Farmers Bank do. Columbia do. Potomac do Baltimore Insurance Shares, Maryland do. - vlarine do. •. Chesapeake do. Onion do Water Stock, - bit. piece qut. bbl 4 10 9 55 1 1 _ 65 — 1 ---- M 37 ton- lb. lb. ton. 305 510 9 12 15 dull do. 45 115 115 173 220 140 80 48 110 225 150 90 18 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 6 4 40 30 15 10 18 40 4 2 3 2 2 12 25 50 50 '25 50 50 50 I1) is 50 50 8 5 45 20 85 25 V.5 25 35 30 30 bbl. 2t — 18 — 17 — 20 — 17 — 15 ton-^ 7 50 30 50 Fish, c< d, Ivy, salmon, hi ringg, (new) — mackerel, — sliad (,ew> — FLAXSEED, rough, bush. clew sed, tsk. •Flour, superfine,, bbl. fii e, — middlings, — rye, — Gtrapowup.u, Engl. 25 lb. Do Baltimore nr.mufac, — Grain, Indian corn, bush. iv mil, Virginia, — do. Maryland, — K-.e, Barley, Clover seed, Oats, Hemp, Russia, Country, Hops, (fresh) Hog's Lard, I*on, p'g, Country bar, — Russia, — Swedes, best, — Hoop, — Sheet, — Kail rods, — Castings, — Lf.atttgr, sole, lb SLUM HER, per 100 ft. oak, titrb. & scant — boards, all sizes, >r— pine scantling, do, — boards, 4-4 — do. 5-4 — white do. corn. 4-4 -— do. clear, 4-4 — shingles, cyp. 18inch M. juniper, 24 do. — uo. coin. do. — staves, w. o. pipe — do. hhd. — do. bbl. — red oak, bbl. — do hhd. — hhd.heading,— Me At., corn, kiln-dried, bbl. Nankins, short, pc Nav?l Stokes, tar, bbl. pitch, — turpentine, — losin, '— spirit turparttine, gal. varnish, bright, — Mack, Pork, oorthern mess, Prune Cargo Baltimore navy ------—.'Prime, Southern, 2d, Pl.AISTER Pa'US, Fl\ i»onTEB, London, doz. A.merica», — Kic.e, (rum) per 100 lb. Soap, American, white, lb. do. brown, — Castile, —- Saltpetre, rough, Am. — re iined, — Sassatras, ton Spirits,t'.randy,F.4thp gal. Cognkic, 4th p. — Barcelona, 1st p. — do. 4th p. — Gin, Hol'd, 1st p. — do. American, — Rum, Jain. 4th p. — St. Croix, 3 & 4 — Antigua, 3 & 4 — I 2d — .3d — j 4th — American, — Whiskey, — jytrGARS, Havana, white, cmt. do. brown, — clayed, white, — do. brown, — mustfov. lstqual. — Louisiana — India, lstqual. — loat, lb. lump, — |Sa1.t, St Ubes, bush. Lisbon, — Cadiz, — Liverpool, blown, — ground, — Turks-Island, — Isle of May, — Shot, of all sizes, co* Tobacco, Maryland, 100 lb. Upper Patuxent, 1st — Lower Patnxent, 1st — Potomac, 1st, — Easi. shore, 1st — Virginia, tat, — du middling, — Rappahannock, — 4 5 Georgia, — none Tallow, American, lb. 14 Wax, bees, — 40 Wines, Madeira, L.P. gal. 2 50 do. I.. M. — I 15 do. K.Y.M — 1 12 Lisbon, — Sben-y, ¦— Corsica, — Teneriffe, — Glaret, doz. do. new, est. Mafaga, gal. Port, — 1 30 1 35 • Store orices. S B< ard -measurement. | Cargo prices. \ HeconU ^uulities of Patuxent. are 2 dollars imsi i Potoac c?" M.astern-siwre 1 dollar lets. 12 1 50 25 75 10 8 17 18 25 98 IS 85 90 3 Windward Island 76 62 67 75 46 48 13 9 50 12 50 11 50 9 8 10 50 20 18 55 60 45 45 6J 65 60 12 50 2 50 3 50 2 50 2 51 37 dull do do. do- do. do. du'!. 12 9 18 14 1 2'J 62 9.5 none 78 47 11 13 12 60 50 50 70 65 1.5 7 6 o 50 10 20 64 80 5 33 1 1 1 1 1 10 40 42 65 5u 1;, 25 68 none 114 350 350 56 a 56 1-;' 13 1-2 190 a 195 par par 90 36 ' 400 36 140 131) ir0 a 105 95 30 Till L OF AARON BURR, (Continued by adjournment, and held at the capitol, in tin- bill in the house of de- legates) for High Treason against the U nited States. OPINION Of the court on a motion to arrest the evi- dence -delivered on Monday. August 3i. The question now to be decided has been argued in a manner worthy of its import- ance, and with an earnestness evincing a strong conviction felt by the counsel on each side that the law is with thorn. A degree of eloquence seldom displayed on any occasion has embellished a solidity of argument and depth of research by which the court had been greatly aided in forming the opinion it is about to deliver. The testimony adduced on the part of the United States, to prove the overt act laid in the indictment, havng shown, and the at- torney for the United States having admit- ted, that the prisoner was not present when that act whatever may be its character, was committed, and there being no reason to doubt but that he was at a great distance and in a different state, it is objected to the testimony offered on the part of the United States, to connect him with those who com mitted the overt act, that such testimony is totally irrevalent and must therefore be rejected The arguments in support of this motion respect in part the merits of the case as it may be supposed to stand independent of the pleadings, and in part as exhibited by the pleadings. On the first division of the subject two points are made. 1st. That conformably to the constitu- tion of the United States, no man can be convicted of treason, who was not present when the war was levied. 2nd. That if this construction be errone ous, no testimony can be received to charge one man with the overt acts of others, un- til those overt acts as laid in the indictment be proved to the satisfaction of the court. The queestion which arises on the con- struction of the constitution, in every point of view in which it can be contem- plated, is of infinite moment to the people if this country and to their government, and requires the most temperate and deliber- ate consideration. " Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them." What is the natural import of the words " levying of war ? And who may be said to levy it ?" Had their first applica- tion to treason been made by our constituti- on, they would certainly have admitted of some latitude of construction. Taken most literally, they are parhaps of the same import with the words raising or creating war, but as those who join atter the com. mencement are equally the objects of punish- ment, there would propably be a general ad mission, that the term also comprehended making war, or carrying on war. In the construction which courts would be required to give these words, it is not improbable that those who should raise, create, make or carry on war might be comprehended. The various acts which would be considered as coming within the term, would be settled by a course of decisions, and it would be af- firming boldly to say, that those only who actually constituted a portion of the military force appearing in arms could be considered as levying war. There is no difficulty in affirming that there must be a war or the crime of levying it cannot exist, but there would often Be considerable difficulty in af- firming that a particular act did or did not involve the person o mmitting it in the guilt and in the fact of levying war. If for example, an army should be actually raised for the avowed purpose of carrying on open waragatust the United States and subverting their government, the point must be weigh ed very deliberately, before a judge would venture to decide that an oven act of levy- ing war had not been committed by a com- missary of purchases, wb.0 never saw the army, but who, knowing its object and Iea- gueing himself with the rebels, supplied that army with provisions, or by recruiting offi- cer holding a commission in the rebel service' who, though never in camp, executed the particular duty assigned to him. But the term is not for the first time ap- plitd to treason by the constitution of the United States. It is a technical term. It is i*yed in a very old statute of that country, whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term w;>.s not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it. So far as the meaning of any terms, particularly terms of art, is completely ascertained, those by whom they are employed must be considered as employing them in that ascertained mean- ing, unless the contrary be proved by the context. It is therefore reasonable to sup- pose, unless it be incompatible with other expressions of th* Constitutions that the tens " levying war" is used in that instrument in the same sense in which it was under- stood in England and in this country, to have been used in the statute of the 25th of Edward 31, from which it was borrowed. It is said that this meaning is to be col lected only from adjuiged cases. But this position cannot be conceded to the extent in which it is laid down. The superior au- thority of adjudged cases will never be con- troverted. But those celebrated elementary writers, who have stated the principles of the law, whose statements have received the common approbation of legal men, are not to be disregarded. Principles laid down by such writers as Coke, Ii,de, Foster and Blnckstone, are not lightly to be rejected. These books are in the hands of every stu- dent. Legal opinions are form, d upon them, and those opinions are afterwards carried to the bar, the bench & the legislature. In the exposition of terms, therefore, used in instruments of the present day, the defini- tions and the dicta of those authors, if not contradicted by adjudications, and if com- patible with the words of the statute, are entitled to respect. It is to be regretted that they do not shed as much light on this part of the subject as is to be wished. Coke does not give a complete definition of the term, but puts cases which amount to levying war. " An actual rebellion or in- surrection, he says, is a levying of war." In whom ? Coke does not say whethe in those only who appear in arms, or in all of those who take part in the rebellion or insurrection by real open deed. Hale, in treating on the same subject, puts many cases which shall constitute a levying of war, without which lv0 act can amount to treason ; but he does not particularize the parts to be performed by the different persons concerned in that war, which shall be suffi- cient to fix on each the guilt of levying it. Foster says, " the joining with rebels in an act of rebellion, or with enemies in acts of hostility, will make a man a traitor."— " Furnishing rebels or enemies witli money, arms, ammunition or other necessaries will firima facie make a man a traitor." Foster does not say that he w mid be a traitor under the words of the statute inde- pendent of the legal rule which attaches the guilt of the principal to an accessary, noi that his treason is occasioned by that rn'e.< In England this discrimination need nit he made except for the purpose of framing the indictment, and therefore in the English books we do not perceive any effort to make it. Thus surrendering a castle to rebels, being in confederacy with them is sjid by Hale and Foster to be treason under the clause of levying »ar, but whether it be levying war in fact, or aiding those whj levy it is not said. Upon this point Black stone is not more satisfactory. Although we may find among the commentators upon treason enough to satisfy the inquiry, what is a state of internal war ? Yet no precise informal! n can be acquired from them which would enable us to decide with clear- ness whether prrsons not in arms but taking part in a rebellion, could be said to levy war independent of that doctrine which at- taches to the accessary the guilt of his prin- cipal. If in adjudged cases this question has been taken up and directly decided, this court has not seen those cases- The argu- ments which may be drawnfrom the form of the indictmen, though strong, is not conclusive. In the precedent found in Tre- maine, Mary Speakc, who was indicted for furnishing provisions to the party ol the duke of Monmouth, is indicted for furnish- ing provisions to those who were levying war, not for levying war heiself. It may correctly he argued that had this act a- mounted to levying war, she would have been indicted for levying war, and the fur- nishing provisions would have been laid as the overt act. The court felt this when the precedent was pr duced. But the argument though strong is not conclusive, because in England the inquiry whether she had be- come a trator by levying « ar, or by giving aid and cemfort to th sc who were levying war, was unimportant, and because too it does not appear from the indictment that she was actually concerned in the rebellion, that she belonged to the rebel party, or was guilty of any thing further than a criminal speculation in selling them provisions. It is not deemed necessary to trace the doctrine that in treason all are principals to its source. Its origin is most probably stat- ed correctly by judge Tucker, in a woik the merit of which is with pleasure acknowledged. But if a spurious doctrine has been intr duced into the common law, and has for centuries been admitted as ge- nuine:, it would require great hardihood in a judge to reject it. Accordingly we find those of the English jurists who seem to disapprove the principle declaring that it is no.v too firmly settled to be shaken. It is unnecessary to trace this doctrine to its s. urce for another reason. The terms of the constitution comprise no question respecting principal and accessary, so far as either may be truly and in fact said to levy war : Whether in England a person would be indicted in express terms for levjing war, or for.assisting others in levying war, yet if in correct and legal language he can be said t i have levied war, and if it has never been decided that the act would not amount to levying war, his case may without violent construction be brought within the letter and the plain meaning; of the constitution. In examining these words, the argument which may be drawn from felonies, as for example from murder, is not more conclu- sive. Murder is the single act of killing with malice aforethought. But war is a complex operation composed of many parts,- co-operating with each other. No one man or body of men can perform them all, if the war be of any continuance. Although then, in correct and in law language, he al ne is said to have murdered another who has perpetrated the fact of killing, or has been present aiding that fact, it does not follow that he alone can have levied war who has borne arms. All those who per- form the various and essential military parts of prosecuting the war, which must he as- signed to different persons, may with cor- rectness and acsuracy be said to levy war. Taking this vic.v of the subject, it ap- pear* to the court that tho treasonable assemblage had taken place, the comt might have dis- pensed with proceeding further in the doc- trines of treason. But it is to be remem- bered, that the judges might act separately, and perhaps at the same time, on the vari- ous prosecutions that might be instituted, and that no appeal lay from their decisions. Opposite judf merits on the point would have presented a state of things infinitely to be deplored by all. Ii was not surpris- ing then that they should have made some attempt to settle principles which would probably occur, and which were in some degree connected with the points beloie them- The court had employed some rraso:!;rg to shew that without the actoaJ emjjOcTying of men war c nild not be levied. It migiht have been inferred from this, that those on- ly who were so embodied could be guily of treason. Not only to exclude this infer- rence, but also t. affirm the contrary, the court proceeded to observe. " It is not the intention of the court to say that no indivi- dual can be gu'lty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against his country. On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the ptlrpose of effecting by force a trea- sonable object, all those v. ho perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are ac- tually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors." This court is told that if this opinion be incorrect it ought not to be obeyed, be- cause it was extra judicial. For myself, I can say that I could not lightly be prevailed upon todisobeyfit, were I even convinced it was erroneous, but 1 would certainly use any means which the la* placed in my pow- er to carry the question again before the su- preme court, for re-consideration, in a case in which it would directly occur and be ful- ly argued. The court which gave this opinion was composed of four judges. At the time I thought them unanimous, but I have sfnee had reason so suppose that one of them, whnse opinion is entitled to great respect, and whose indisposition prevented his enter- ing into the discussions on some of those points which were not essential to the deci- sion of the very case under consideration, did not concur in this particular point with his brethren. Had the opinion been una- nimous, it would have been given by a majo- ty of the judges. But should thethrce who were absent concur with that judge who was present, and who perhaps dissents from what was then the opinion of the court, a majority of the judges might overrule this decision. I should therefore feel no objec- tion, although I then thought, and still think the opinion perfectly correct, to carry the point if possible again before the su- preme court, if the case should depend up- on it. In saying that I still think the opinion perfectly correct, I do not consider myself as going further than the preceding reason- ing goes. Some gentlemen have argued as if the supreme court had adopted the whole doctrine of the English books on the sub- ject of accessaries to treason. But certainly such is not tile fact. Those only who per- form a part, and who are leagued in the conspiracy, are declared to be traitors- To complete the definition, both circumstances must concur. They must " perform a part," which will furnish the overt act, and they must be " leagued in the conspiracy." The person who Comes within this description, in the opinion of the. court levies v ar. The present motion, ho ever, does not rest up- on this point; for, if under this indictment the United States might be let in to prove the part performed by the prisoner, if he did perform any part, the court could not stop the testiunny in its present si age. ' 2d. The second point involves the cha- racter of the overt act which has been given in evidence, and calls upon the court to de- clare, - hether that act can amount to levy- ing war. All hough the court ought now to avoid any analysis of the testimony which has been offered in this case, provided the decision of the motion should not test upon it, yet many reasons concur in giving a j c- culiar propriety to a delivery, in the course of these trials, of a detailed opinion on the question, what is levying > ar ? As this question has been argued at great length, it may probably save much tu i.ble to the counsel, row [u i ive that opinion. Ill opening ti>c ca;e it v . '¦ d by the atiorney for the United States, and fea* since been maintained on the part of the proseciiticn, tliat neither arms noi tl re- plication ol force or vlpleiice av pen- si sy necessary to c nstitute th of ' - vying war. To illustrate tl • t, several cases have been stated ¦ y of wheh would clearly amount to (reason. In all I them; except that nediich was pro* biblv m'enrieJ to be this case anl on winch BO oh eivation will be made, the object of the assemblage was clsariy treasonable ; its character was unequivocal, and vias demon- strated byevirtence iurnisned'-fay the assem- blage ii^ei! ; tl ere was no necessity to rely upon information drawn from extrinsic sour- ces or ill order to understand the fact, to pursue a course of intricate reasoning and lo-conjecture motives. A lorce is supposed to be collected for an avowed iir.asunable object, in acondiiion to attempt that object, and to have commenced the attempt by moving towards it. I state these particu- lars, because although the cases put may es- tablish the doctrine they are intended to support, may prove that the absence of arms or the failure to apply force to sensible ob- jects by the actual commission of violence on tho.-e objects may be supplied by other circumstances, yet they also serve to show that the mind requires those circumstances, to he satisfied that a wans levied. Their construction ot the opinion of the supreme court, is, I think, thus far corr ct. It is certainty the opinion which was at the lime entertained by myself, and v Inch is still entertained. If a rebel army, avowing its hostility,to the sovereign po\»er, should front that of the government sh"u!d march and countermarch i< ¦ fhould manoeu- vre in its face, ard should tl di p rse from arry cause Whatever", without firirig a gun, ' withont sorrie su 1 that this would not amount to an at, war. A case equally str>, ng may be put u,.h re- spect to the absence ,of military weapons. [1 he parly he in a condition to execute the Withcut the usual imple- ments o( war, I can see no teas u far re- quiring those implen-----s . - t, n- stuute the crime. It is argued that no adjudged case can be produced from the English boolM, wle.re actual violence has not been committed.— Suppose this were true. No adjudged case has, or it is believed, can be produced from those bocks in which it has been laid du\vn> that war cannot be levied v. ith .iu the actual application of violence to external objects* The silence of the reporters on this'* point may be readily accoir-ited for. In cases of' actual rebellion against the government, the most active and influential leaders are gene-. rally most actively engaged in the war, a,id as the object can never be to extend pun.Va - ment to extermination, a sufficient number are found among those who have committed actual hostilities, to satisfy the avenging arm of justice. In cases of constructive treason, .such as pulling down meeting houses, where the direct and avowed object is not the des- truction of the sovereign power, some act of violence might be generally required to give to the crime a sufficient degree of ma- lignity to convert it into treason, to feflde* the guilt of any individual unequivocal. But Vaughan's case is a case where there was no real application of violence, and where the act was adjudged to be treason. Gentlemen argue that Vaughan was only guilty of adhering to the king's enemies, but they have not the authority of the court for so saying. The judges unquestionably treat the cruizing of Vaughan as an overt act of levying war. The opinions of the best elementary wri- ters concur in declaring, that where a body of men are assembled for the purpose of ma- king war against the government, and are in a condition to make that war, the assem- blage is an act of levying war. These o- pinions are contradicted by no adjudged ca:e, and are supported by Vaughau's case. This court is not inclined to controvert them. But although in this respect the opinion of the supreme court has not been misunder- stood en the part of the prosecution, that opinion seems not to have been fully ad- verted to in a very essential point, in which it is said to have been misconceived by others.