The answer 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 said court, by the honorable the House of Representatives of the United States; in support of their impeachment against bim for high crimes and misdemeanors, suppofed to have been by him committed.

[Given in the 4th inftant:]

This refpondent, in his proper perfon, comes into the faid court; and protéfting that there is no high crime or mifdemean or particularly alledged in the faid articles of impeachment, to which he is of can be bound by law to make answer ; and faving to himself now, and at all times hereafter, all benefit of exception to the infufficiency of the faid articles, and each of them; and to the defects therein appearing in point of law, or otherwife; and protefting alfo that he ought not to be injured in any manner, by any words, or by any want of form in this his answer; he fubmits the following facts and obfervations by way of anfwet to the faid articles.

The firft article relates to his fuppofed mifconduct in the trial of John Fries; for

treafon, before the cifcuit court of the United States; at Philadelphia, in April and May, 1800; and alledges that hë 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 to difcharge them; faithe fully and impartially, and without refpect to perfons," he did then, in his judi cial capacity, conduct himself in a man ner highly arbitrary, oppreffive, and une juft."

This general accufation; too vague in itfelf for reply, is fupported by three fpecific charges of mifconduct :

ift. In delivering an opinion; in writ. ing, on the queftion of law, on the cons ftruction of which the defence of the ac cufed materially depended; which opi nion, it is alledged, tended to prejudice the minds of the jury againft the cafe of the faid John Fries, the prifoner, before counsel had been heard in his favor."

2d. "In reftricting the counfel for the faid John Fries, from recurring to fuch English authorities as they believed ap pofite; or from citing certain ftatutes of the United States, which they deemed illuftrative of the pofitions upon which

William Lewis, Efq. is the fame perfon who appeared as counfel for John Fries, in the trial now under confideration.— Neither that learned gentleman, nor his able colleague, then thought proper to faife the question of law, "whether refifting and preventing by armed force, the execution of a particular law of the U. States, be a "levying of war against the U, States," according to the true meaning of the constitution? although a decifion of this question ia the negative, muft have acquitted the prifoner. But in the next trial, that of Mitchell, 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 U. States, is à les vying of war against 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 in férior jurifdiction; 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 va luation of lands and dwelling houses, and an enumeration of flaves throughout the United States; and directing the appointment of commissioners and affeffors for carrying it into execution: And on the 4th day of July, in the fame year, a direct tax was laid by another act of Congrefs, of that date, on the lands, dwelling houfes, and flaves, fo to be valued and enumerated.

In the months of February and March, A. D. 1799, an infurrection took place in the counties of Bucks and Northampton, in the ftate of Pennfylvania, for the purpose of refifting and preventing by force, the execution of the two last mentioned acts of Congrefs, and particularly that for the valuation of lands and dwell. ing houfes. John Fries, the perfon mentioned in the article of impeachment now under confideration, was apprehended and

committed to prifon, as one of the ring leaders of this infurrection; and at a circuit court of the United States; held at Philadelphia, in and for the district of Pennfylvania, in the month of April, A. D. 1799, he was brought to trial for this offence; on an indictment for treafon, by levying war against the United States, before James Iredel; Efq. then one of the affociate juftices of the fupreme couft of the United States, who prefided in the faid court, according to law, and the above mentioned Richard Peters, then diftrict judge of the United States, for the diftrict of Pennfylvania, who fat in the faid circuit court as affiftant judge.

In this trial, which was conducted with great folemnity, and occupied nine days; the prifoner was affifted by William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas, Efgs: two very able and éminent counsellors; the former of whom, William Lewis, is the perfon who affifted as above mentioned; in conducting the defence of Vigol, on a fimilar indictment. Thefe gentle. men, finding that the facts alledged were fully and undeniably proved, by a very minute and elaborate examination of witneffes, thought proper to rett the cafe of the prifoner on the queftion of law which had been determined in the cafes of Vigol and Mitchell above mentioned, and had then been acquiefced in, but which they thought proper again to raife. They contended, "that to refift by force of arms a particular law of the U. States, does not amount to levying war againft the United States; within the true meaning of the conftitution, and therefore it is not treafon, but a riot only." This queftion they argued at great length, and with all the force of their learning and genius; and after a very full difcrition at the bar, and the moft nature deliberation by the court, the learned and excellent judge who then prefided, and who was no lefs diftinguished by his humanity and tenderness towards perfons tried before hin, than by his extenfive knowledge and great talents as a lawyer, pronounced the opinion of himfelf and his colleague, "that to refift or prevent by force the execution of a particular law of the U. States, does not amount to levying war again them, within the true meaning of the conftitution, and does not thereforecontitute the crime of treafon," thereby

bearing of those who might be afterwards fworn on the jury.

And, laftly, it was then his opinion, and ftill is, that it is the duty of every court of this country, and was his duty on the trial now under confideration, to guard the jury against erroneous impreffions refpecting the laws of the land. He well knows, that it is the right of juries in criminal cafes, to give a general verdict of acquittal, which cannot be fet afide on account of its being contrary to law, and that hence refults the power of juries, to decide on the laws as well as on the facts, in all criminal cafes. This power he holds to be a facred part of our legal privileges, which he never has attempted, and never will attempt to abridge or to obstruct.— But he alfo knows, that in the exercife of this power, it is the duty of the jury to govern themselves by the laws of the land, over which they have no difpenfing power; and their right to expect and receive from our court, all the affiftance which it can give, for rightly understand ing the law. To withhold this affiftance, in any manner whatever; to forbear to give it in that way, which may be most effectual for preferving the jury from error and mistake; would be an abandonment or forgetfulness of duty, which no judge could juftify to his confcience or to the laws. In this cafe, therefore, where the queftion of law arifing on the indictment, had been finally fettled by authoritative decifions, it was the duty of the court, and efpecially on this refpondent às prefiding judge, early to apprize the counfel and the jury of thefe decifions, and their effect, fo as to fave the former from the danger of making an improper attempt, to mislead the jury in a matter of law, and the jury from having their minds pre-occupied by erroneous imprefiions,

It was for thefe reafons, that on the 22d day of April 1800, when the faid John Fries was brought into court, and placed in the prifoners' box for trial, but before the petit jury was impanelled to try him, this refpondent informed the above mentioned William Lewis, one of his counfel, the aforefaid Alexander James Dallas not being then in court, that the court had deliberately confidered the in. dictment against John Fries for treafon, and the three feveral overt acts of treafon fated therein That the crime of treafon

was defined by the conftitution of the U. nited States; that as the Federal legiflature had the power to make, alter, or repeal laws, fo the judiciary only had the power, and it was their duty, to declare, expound and interpret the conftitution and laws of the United States: That it was the duty of the court, in all criminal cafes, to ftate to the petit jury, their opinion of the law arifing on the facts; but the jury in all criminal cafes were to decide both the law and the facts, on a confideration of the whole cafe: That there must be fome conftructive expofition of the terms ufed in the conftitution, "levying war a. gainft the United States;" That the queftion, what acts amounted to levying war against the United States, or the government thereof, was a question of law, and had been decided by judges Patterson, and Peters, in the cafes of Vigol and Mitchell, and by judges Iredell and Peters, in the cafe of John Fries, prifoner, at the bar, in April 1799 That judge Peters remained of the fame opinion, which he had twice before delivered, and he, this refpondent, on long and great confidera tion, concurred in the opinion of judges Patterfon, Iredell and Peters; that to prevent unneceffary delay, and to fave time on the trial of John Fries, and to prevent a delay of juftice in the great number of civil caufes depending for trial at that term, the court had drawn up in writing, their opinion of the law, arifing on the overt acts, ftated in the indictment against John Fries; and had directed David Caldwell, their clerk, to make out three copies of their opinion, one to be delivered to the attorney of the district, one to the counfel for the prifoner, and one to the petit jury, after they thould have been impanelled and heard the indictment read to them by the clerk, and after the district attorney fhould have ftated to them the law on the overt acts alledged in the in dictment, as it appeared to him.

After thefe obfervations, this refpondent delivered one of the above mention ed copies to the aforefaid William Lewis, then attending as one of the prifoner's counfel; who read part of it, and thes laid it down on the table before him.Some obfervations were then made on the fubject by him and the above mentioned Alexander James Dallas, who had then come into court; but this refpondent

doth not now recollect thofe obfervations, and cannot undertake to state them accurately.

And this refpondent further faith, that the paper marked exhibit No. 11, and herewith exhibited, which he prays leave to make part of this his anfwer, is a true copy of the original opinion, drawn up by him and concurred in by the faid Richard Peters, as above fet forth, which original opinion is now in the poffeffion of this refpondent, ready to be produced to this honorable court, He may have erred in forming this opinion, and in the, time and manner of making it known to the counfel for the prifoner. If he erred in forming it, he erred in common with his colleague and with two of his prede ceffors; and he prefumes to hope that an error which has never been deemed criminal in them, will not be imputed as a crime to him, who was led into it by their example and their authority. if he erred in the time and manner of mak. ing known this opinion, he feels a juft confidence, that when the reafons which he has alledged for his conduct, and by which it feemed to him to be fully jufti, fied, fhall come to be carefully weighed, they will be fufficient to prove, if not that this conduct was perfectly regular and correct, yet that he might fincerely have confidered it as right; and that in a cafe where fo much doubt may exift, to have committed a mittake is not to have come mitted a crime,

And this refpondent further anfwering infifts, that the opinion thus delivered to the prifoner's counfel, viz. that "any infurrection or rifing of any body of people within the United States, for the purpofe of refifting or preventing by force or violence, under any pretence whatever, the execution of any ftatute of the United States, for levying or collecting taxes, or for any other object of a general or national concern, is levying war against the United States, within the contemplation and true meaning of the conftitution of the United States," is a legal and correct opinion, fupported not only by the two previous decifions above mentioned, but also by the plaineft prin ciples of law and reafon, and by the uniform tenor of legal adjudications in England and Great Britain, from the revo lution in 1688 to this time. It ever was,

and now is his opinion, that the peace and fafety of the national federal government, must be endangered, by any other construction of the terms levying war against the United States," ufed by the federal conftitution; and he is confident that no judge of the federal government, no judge of a fuperior ftate court, nor any gentleman of eftablished reputation for legal knowledge, would or could deliberately give a contrary opinion,

If, however, this opinion were erroneous, this refpondent would be far lefs cenfurable than his predeceffors, by whofe example he was led aftray, and by whose authority he confidered himself bound. Was it an error to confider himself bound by the authority of their previous decifions? If it were, he was led into the error by the uniform courfe of judicial proceedings in this country and England, and is fupported in it by one of the fun, damental principles of our jurifprudence. Can fuch an error be a crime or mifde. meanor?

If, on the other hand, the opinion be in itself correct, as he believes and infifts that it is, could the expreffion of a correct opinion on the law, whenever and however made, mislead the jury, infringe their rights, or give an improper bias to their judgment? Could truth excite improper prejudice? Could the jury be lefs prepared to hear the law difcuffed, and to decide on it correctly, because it was correctly stated to them by the court? And is not that a new kind of offence, in this country at least, which confifts in telling the truth, and giving a correct expofition of the laws.

As to the fecond fpecific charge adduced in fupport of the firt article of impeachment, which accufes this refpondent, "of reftricting the counfel for the faid Fries, from recurring to fuch English authorities as they believed oppo- a fite, or from citing certain ftatutes of the United States, which they deemed illuf trative of the pafitions upon which they intended to reft the defence of their cli. ent," this refpondent admits that he did, on the above mentioned trial, express it as his opinion to the aforefaid counsel for the prifoner, "that the decifions in England, in cafes of indictments for treafon at common law, against the perfon of the king, ought not to be read