The Trials of John Fries

Home , James Iredell, Samuel Sitgreaves

The Trials of John Fries N THE spring of 1800 Samuel Chase, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, presided with District I Judge Richard Peters at the Circuit Court for the Middle District in Pennsylvania. One of the cases before them which was destined to attract much public attention was that of the United States v. John Fries. The defendant, a Federalist, was fifty years old when he was brought to trial a second time for treason. Fries was a moderately successful auctioneer who had served as a captain in the Continental Army and in the Whiskey Rebellion. His arrest and first trial in 1799 resulted from his participation in the tragi- comic "Hot Water War" of that year. This ludicrous episode originated from a misunderstanding precipitated by poor com- munications. Anticipating war with France, Congress had enacted legislation designed to provide a means of financing it. Under the provisions of an Act of July 9, 1798, Congress authorized excise officers to assess the value of houses, lands, and slaves. On July 14th Congress also sanctioned a direct tax of $2,000,000 which was to be laid according to the preceding evaluation of property.1 In urban areas the acts were publicized, and the inhabitants were relatively in- different to the officers who proceeded unmolested with their work. In rural regions, however, such as northeastern Pennsylvania where many of the residents spoke and read only German, many people were unaware of the reason for the inquisitiveness of the men who were so assiduously assessing property and inexplicably counting windows of houses. The last was not required by law and, ironically, led to the succeeding insurrection. Resentful and fearful of some of these officers who were considered locally to be of poor character, many women began to heap verbal and physical abuse on them, and soon the male residents took up their wives' offensive. In a

l U. S. Statutes at Large, I, 580-591, 597-604; W. W. H. Davis, The Fries Rebellion, 1798-99 (Doylestown, 1899), 3-4. 43* TH I979 E TRIALS OF JOHN FRIES 433 short time the disturbance mushroomed and normal administrative functions were hampered or forced to cease in parts of Bucks, Montgomery, and Northampton Counties. The "Hot Water War" received its name when a housewife doused one of the revenue officers with the contents of a bucket of hot water. It was the proverbial last straw for the exasperated man, who in retaliation sought to arrest his assailant's husband. Accounts differ as to what followed, but while pursuing the husband the exciseman was himself captured by a band of the husband's neighbors. Meanwhile William Nichols, a United States Marshal, had received warrants to arrest several men charged with insurrection following earlier incidents. Being in the vicinity when he learned of the exciseman's plight, Nichols went to his rescue only to be himself taken captive and held for a time until he explained the purpose of the revenue officers' activities. Released, Nichols returned to Bethle- hem with twenty-three men under arrest. On March 7, 1799, John Fries led a "body of armed men, between 80 and 100," as estimated by Judge James Iredell, "in military array, forming one troop of horse and two companies of foot," who forcibly obtained the release of the men arrested by Nichols. Fries and his associates were sincere in their belief that the tax measures were designed to de- prive them of their constitutional rights and of their property.2 Some of the disaffected men had second thoughts about continued opposition, however, as the reason for the excisemen's work became better known and also as word was received that the federal government planned to take strong measures against the insurgents. Approxi- mately 200 men from Bucks, Montgomery, and Northampton Counties met on March 15th to discuss the situation. It was the consensus that their opposition had been unwarranted because the revenue officers had a valid reason to assess property. Made aware that their actions could be construed as treason, some of the men rescued from prison at Bethlehem decided to go to Philadelphia and give themselves up to the authorities. A few succeeded in reaching the city but the majority were stopped by a large body of men who

2 James Iredell to Hannah Johnston Iredell, Mar. 14, 1799, Griffith J. McRee, Life and Correspondence of James Iredell (New York, 1949), II, 547; Aurora, Apr. 1, 3, 1799; Davis, The Fries Rebellion^ 7-8, 38-66. 434 JANE SHAFFER ELSMERE October continued to believe their liberties were in danger of being infringed as a result of the revenue officers' work. This latter group forced the former to swear that they would not surrender and told them to return home.3 Meanwhile, rumors and a few facts reached government leaders. Remembering the Whiskey Rebellion, some of the Federalists feared that a similar or worse problem might be brewing. The dread spectre of civil war was raised. Federalists conjectured that the disturbance was part of a Republican plot to overthrow the government. Oliver Wolcott urged adoption of a watchful posture until the truth of what was occurring could be learned. He was not as alarmed as were some of his colleagues, terming the trouble a "paltry insurrection" but stating that it could "be nursed into something formidable." Wolcott heartily disliked Republican leaders in Pennsylvania, especially Thomas McKean and Alexander James Dallas; he wrote of them that "What lies in their power towards promoting rebellion against the government, they will effect."4 Some Republicans, on the other hand, believed that the insurrection had been fomented by Samuel Sitgreaves, the Assistant United States District Attorney, in an attempt to channel federal money into Pehnsylvania's etonomy. Judge Chase followed the progress of the "Northampton Insur- rection," as many now called it, from accounts appearing in newspapers and from correspondence with friends. He concluded that it was a serious matter and expressed his opinion privately that "a body of horse and foot" should be "ordered to seize the insurgents."5

3 Annals of Congress, 5 Cong., 2 sess., Appendix, 3758, 3778-3786; Aurora, Mar. 12, 23, Apr. 11, 1799; Gazette of the United States, Mar. n, 30, 1799; Connecticut Courant, Mar. 15, Apr. 1, 8, 1799; Davis, The Fries Rebellion, 5, 45-46^ 67-69; Frank M. Eastman, The Fries Rebellion (New York, 1922), 72; Joseph M. Levering, A History of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1741-1892 (Bethlehem, 1902), 564; Harry M. Tinkcom, The Republicans and Federalists in Pennsylvania, 1790-1801 (Harrisburg, 1950), 215-216; Francis Wharton, comp., State Trials of the United States During the Administrations of Washington and Adams (Philadelphia, 1849), 2, 458-459, 50^-504, $*SS*6, 53*S36> Dwight F. Henderson, "Treason, Sedition, and Fries' Rebellion," American Journal of Legal History, XIV (1970), 309-311. 4 Oliver Wolcott to Frederick Wolcott, [?], 1799, Wharton, State Trials, 466. 5 Samuel Chase to James Iredell, Mar. 17,1799, McRee, Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, II, 548; James Iredell to Hannah Johnston Iredell, Apr. 25,1799, ibid., II, 573. I979 THE TRIALS OF JOHN FRIES 435 On March 12, 1799, President John Adams issued a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse and to obey the laws of the land. When continued reports of difficulties reached him, Adams determined that troops should be sent into the disaffected area to arrest the ringleaders. He directed James McHenry, Secretary of War, to request Pennsylvania's governor, Thomas Mifflin, to dispatch militia with qrdelrs to make the desired arrests. This corps of state militia was placed under the command of Brigadier General William Mac- Pherson. Later it was joined by federal troops. The military rode nearly sixty miles to make their arrests. John Fries was crying a sale when he sighted the approaching soldiers. He slipped off into a nearby woods, eluding his pursuers until his hiding place was betrayed by the barking of his little black dog "Whiskey." John Eberhart who had assisted Fries with the release of the prisoners at Bethlehem was arrested at his home, and the two, escorted by a guard of twelve troopers, were taken to Phila- delphia where they were charged by Judge Peters with high treason and were committed to jail. Other insurgents were also arrested and either jailed, or, like Hermann Hartmann, Adam Stephan, and Henry Skanwiler, released upon bail until the next sitting of the circuit court. Of the men arrested, forty-four were indicted for conspiracy, thirty-two for conspiracy, rescue, and obstruction of process, eleven for treason, and one for uttering seditious statements.6 Willing as each was to use the insurrection as a basis for political propaganda directed against the other party, neither Federalists nor Republicans could find much of value to exploit. The Federalists were embarrassed to learn that most of the arrested men were themselves Federalists. Therefore, a convincing case could not be made that the disturbance was a Republican effort to subvert the government. Nevertheless, President Adams was reluctant to give up the idea that the "obscure, miserable Germans" were being

6 Minute Book, 1796-1799, 30, 33, 36-39, 46-47, 50-51, Records of the District Courts of the United States, United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, RG ai, National Archives; Connecticut Courant, Apr. 15, 1799; Kentucky Gazette, May 2, 1799; Robert Goodloe Harper to [?], Mar. 5, 1801, Select Works of Robert Goodloe Harper (Baltimore, 1814), 338; Tinkcom, The Republicans and Federalists in Pennsylvania, 216-217; Wharton, State Trials, 458-482; Henderson, "Treason, Sedition, and Fries' Rebellion/' *3l-3l3l Aurora, Mar. 23, 25, Apr. 15, 1799; Davis, The Fries Rebellion, 11, 69-77, 92-114. 436 JANE SHAFFER ELSMERE October manipulated for party purposes. To Oliver Wolcott he stated, "It is of importance to discover, if possible, the great men ... at the bottom of the business, and the evidence of any agitator among the insurgents ought to be collected/'7 Adams may have believed, as indeed did many Republicans, that the insurrection was incited by the Hamiltonian wing of the Federalist Party to embarrass the Adamsites prior to the national election. Republican-oriented newspapers specifically mentioned Alexander Addison, James Ross, and John Woods as working toward this aim. There is no evidence to indicate, however, that the insurrection was other than a reaction by uninformed men to a governmental action which they did not understand. With a certain amount of amusement and assumed righteous indignation Republicans in and around Philadelphia prepared to defend the arrested men from what they averred was unwarranted harshness of Federalist officials. William Duane, Republican editor of the Philadelphia

7 Adams to Wolcott, May 17, 1799, Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society; Adams to James Lloyd, Mar. 31,1815, ibid.; Manning J. Dauer, The Adams Federal- ists (Baltimore, 1953), 280; Kentucky Gazette, Nov. 17, 1800. 8 Aurora, Mar. 12, 22, 1799. 9 Kentucky Gazette, Nov. 17, 1800; Tinkcom, The Republicans and Federalists in Pennsyl- vania, 217; Henderson, "Treason, Sedition, and Fries' Rebellion," 31411. I979 THE TRIALS OF JOHN FRIES 437 Next day the grand jury indicted Fries, Frederic Hearny, and Anthony Stahler for treason. The indictment against Fries charged that "on March 7, 1799, at Bethlehem . . . [Fries] unlawfully, maliciously and traitorously did compass, imagine and intend to raise and levy war, insurrection and rebellion against the United States" when he led the force to rescue his neighbors from their place of imprisonment.10 Because Fries was considered to be the leader of the disaffected men, the insurrection was now referred to as "Fries's Rebellion." His trial generated more public interest than did those of the other insurgents. Fries's sympathizers sought to obtain able legal counsel for him. Approaching Alexander James Dallas and Jared Ingersoll, they received the assent of Dallas, but Ingersoll declined because of his position as attorney general of Pennsylvania. In his stead they en- gaged William Lewis, a Quaker and Federalist who detested Re- publicans in general and Alexander James Dallas in particular. Lewis, who preferred not to work upon equal terms with another lawyer in a case, was unaware when he agreed to defend Fries that Dallas was to be his colleague. He let it be known that he disliked Dallas and did not want to work with him. When Dallas learned of Lewis' attitude, he became angry and challenged the older lawyer to a duel. Fortunately, District Attorney William Rawle intervened, differences were smoothed over, and the antagonists cooperated well in the defense.11 Rawle and Samuel Sitgreaves contended for the prosecution that Fries was guilty of committing treason. By hindering the work of the excise officers and taking prisoners from the custody of officials Fries had, in effect, waged war against the federal government. Article III, Section 3, of the United States Constitution declared: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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." Repeating his earlier argument in

10 United States v. John Fries, Apr. 1, 1799, Records of the District Courts of the United States, United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, RG 21, National Archives. n Raymond Walters, Jr., Alexander James Dallas (Philadelphia, 1943), 80-81. 438 JANE SHAFFER ELSMERE October United States v. zMitchell> Rawle maintained that "an insurrection with an avowed design to suppress public offices, is an act of levying war."12 The defendant had clearly done so. That Fries may have feared destruction of his rights or loss of his property as a result of the excisemen's work did not furnish, it was asserted, an accept- able reason for him to commit an act of resistance. For seven and a half hours Alexander James Dallas' voice was heard as he painstakingly built a defense relying heavily upon English precedents. Observers noted that many of the precedents had little relevance to the case. Dallas was attempting by a cir- cuitous argument to prove that the jury was entitled to decide what constituted treason as well as whether or not the defendant had committed treason. As an extenuating circumstance the lawyer emphasized that Fries could not read English and therefore could not have read the acts of Congress authorizing the excisemen's activities.13 Fries remained tranquil during the trial which lasted nine days. Lewis had assured him that his offense, though grave, did not constitute treason. Without discussing the case the jury cast secret ballots, and on May 9, 1799, they voted unanimously that Fries was guilty as charged. "Though Mr. Peters and myself were clear that such ought to be the verdict," commented Judge Iredell, "we both felt a great deal when it was actually pronounced. I could not bear to look upon the poor man, but, I am told, he fainted away."14 There was general agreement among the spectators that the trial had been fair, but there was also a feeling that Fries had been more guilty of bad judgment than of treason. William Lewis addressed the court before sentence was passed. He stated that it had come to his attention that John Rhodes, one of the jurors, had declared publicly before the trial that Fries and the other accused insurgents should be hung. Lewis produced corroborating evidence in requesting

12 United States v. Mitchell, 2 Dallas 348 (1795); United States v. Vigol, 2 Dallas 346 (1795); United States v. The Insurgents of Pennsylvania, 3 Dallas 513 (1799). 13 Case of Fries, No. 5,126, 9 Federal Cases 826-923 (April Term, 1799); Walters, Jr., Alexander James Dallas, 81; William W. Story, ed., The Life and Letters of Joseph Story (Boston, 1851), I, 163. 14 James Iredell to Hannah Johnston Iredell, May 11,1799, McRee, Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, II, 574. 1979 THE TRIALS OF JOHN FRIES 439 that Fries be granted a new trial. Although it was "contrary to my wishes, bias, and inclination," stated Iredell, "I was at length com- pelled to vote for his having a new trial, and Judge Peters, with some hesitation, acquiesced."15 Later that summer Fries and the other convicted men requested President Adams to pardon them. Their plea was supported by numerous Pennsylvanians. Adams sent the petitions to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, asking him to secure the opinions of Attorney General Charles Lee and the heads of the departments. Pickering did so and about a month later replied "that no pardon should now be granted, nor any answer given."16 Consequently Adams did not extend clemency to the convicted men. Since there were 107 cases on the circuit court's docket in the spring of 1800, Judge Chase attempted to shorten the number of days expected to be consumed in hearing the cases of Fries and the other insurgents granted new trials the preceding summer.17 With the exception of Chase who sat in Iredell's former place, the same men occupied similar positions as in the first trials. Chase had heard about Dallas' long speech with its questionable use of precedent and argument that the jury should decide what constituted treason as well as whether or not Fries was guilty of that offense. Consulting with Judge Peters, who agreed with him, Chase determined to present the court's opinion on the law. Chase prepared a written statement in which he recapitulated the court's opinion in United States v. %)igol and the Case of Fries. He stated: "where the question of law . . . has been settled by authoritative decisions, it was the duty of the court . . . early to apprize the

15 Ibid.y May 19, 1799, II, 575; United States v. Fries, 3 Dallas 515 (1799); [Baltimore, Md.] American, May 16, 1799; Kentucky Gazette, May 30, 1799; Oliver Wolcott to Adams, May 11, 1799, Wharton, State Trials, 642; Aurora, May 15, 1799. 16 Seeking presidential pardon were Philip Desh, John Eberhart, Jacob Eyerman, John Fries, John Getman, Frederick Heynes, Jacob Kline, Valentine Kuder, Conrad Marks, Christian Rhodes, David Schaffer, George Schaffer, Henry Schaffer, Anthony Stahler, Henry Stahler, and Daniel Schwartz. See Adams to Timothy Pickering, Aug. 14, 1799, Adams Family Papers; Pickering to Adams, Sept. 9, 1799, ibid. 17 Memorandum of the Proceedings in the Circuit Court Respecting the Trial of Fries in April 1800, Records of the District Courts of the United States, United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, RG ai, National Archives; Richard Peters to Pickering, Jan. 24, 1804, Richard Peters Papers, X, 91, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 44° JANE SHAFFER ELSMERE October counsel and the jury of these decisions, and their effect, so as to save 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 preoccupied by erroneous impressions."18 Judge Chase asserted that it was improper to cite English precedents, as Dallas had done in the 1799 trial, because the United States had its own constitutional provision regarding treason. In Chase's opinion, therefore: "Any insurrection or rising of any body of people within the United States, for the purpose of resisting or preventing by force of violence, under any pretence whatever, the execution of any statute of the United States, for levying or collect- ing 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 Constitution of the United States."19 Judge Peters felt uneasy about presenting a written opinion prior to hearing defense counsel, but before he expressed his concern to Chase the latter tossed on the bar table copies of the opinion intended for the defense counsel, the District Attorney, and the jury. Handing down a written opinion to the principals in a case was unusual in Pennsylvania practice. With Alexander James Dallas absent from court when Chase presented the copies, William Lewis refused to examine the defense counsel's copy and made it quite clear that he disapproved of it. Peters noticed Lewis' reaction and predicted that the latter would "abandon the cause, or take advantage of this paper to operate on public opinion, or on that of the jury at least." Chase, however, minimized the situation, called Lewis' attitude a "Freak," and said he did not think the defense counsel would retire from the case. Throughout the remainder of the day spectators saw the worried Peters urging Chase to some course of action.20 After court was adjourned the two judges went to William Rawle's home where they discussed the situation with him. Peters and Rawle persuaded Chase to withdraw the copies of the offending opinion, and Rawle volunteered to retrieve them. One was in his

18 Annals of Congress, 8 Cong., 1 sess., 107-108. IS Ibid., 109. 20 Peters to Pickering, Jan. 24, 1804, op. cit. I979 THE TRIALS OF JOHN FRIES 44I possession and that intended for the defense counsel was presumably still in the courtroom with the third copy intended for the jury. Some members of the bar were known to have made copies for their own use, and it was surmised it might [not be possible to gain possession of these. The following day Lewis and Dallas announced that they would not defend Fries despite Chase's assurance that they were free to present their defense as they thought proper. The attorneys refused on the ground that their rights as advocates and the rights of the defendant had been jeopardized by the presentation of the court's opinion. Should the court's construction of treason be accepted, as they had every reason to think it would, then Fries must inevitably be found guilty. Chase was nettled by their withdrawal. Peters recalled that Chase said:

The Counsel could not embarrass him. He knew what he was about. As to any turn they might give to the Declaration of the opinion of the Court (which being recalled was as if not made) he valued it not. It was an opinion he adopted on great Consideration it having been settled by the Judges [William] Paterson & [James] Iredell & the one who now sat with him [Peters] who still continued in that Opinion.

With his irritation gaining momentum, Chase continued:

If he could not make up an opinion without argument, on the general principles of law, he was not fit to sit there. All judges of law did this. In England it was done everyday. He was, however, willing & desirous to hear. It might be controverted either with the Jury or any other Way. But he would not permit improper or irrelevant Authorities. If Judges could not regulate Trials & direct in Points of Law & decide on the legality & competency of Evidence they might as well not sit in courts.21

Fries was informed by Chase that he should select other counsel. The defendant declined, saying that the court should serve in that capacity. This was in accordance with the common law practice that a judge may advise a defendant having no counsel to represent him. Chase told Fries that he would advise him of his rights at

21 Ibid. 442 JANE SHAFFER ELSMERE October each step of the trial, and he kept his word scrupulously. With the prosecution's case substantially the same as in the first trial, it was a foregone conclusion that Fries would be convicted. Deliberating less than an hour on April 25th, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Judge Chase spoke kindly to Fries before passing sentence. He told the defendant that should anyone point out a flaw in the indictment or find any other ground for an arrest of judgment time would be granted for an investigation. Fries was then sentenced to hang between nine o'clock in the morning and two o'clock in the afternoon of May 23, 1800, at the junction of the Bethlehem and Newtown Roads in Richland Township, Bucks County.22 Stating that because of ill health and a change in scheduling this would be the last circuit court in Philadelphia over which he would preside, Chase complimented the "ability, honor and respectability of the Pennsylvania Bar," and singled out William Rawle "for the very respectable manner in which [he] had conducted the prosecu- tions" which had been "so perfectly free from incidental passion, heat or impatience of conduct." Chase remarked that William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas had "acquitted themselves with ability and propriety"; and, he continued, "if any expressions, in the hurry of business had escaped him, which might have been considered as reflecting upon the conduct of any of the counsel" that he had not intended "to convey any idea of the kind." He concluded by extending his best wishes to Peters and the assembled members of the bar.23 It was a gracious speech and was delivered in evident good humor, but it did contain a slightly-veiled barb: if Chase had erred in his interpretation of the law and conduct of the Fries case then, so he implied, had Richard Peters. Adams disapproved of the sentence. He thought the auctioneer should have been indicted for riot, aggravated by rescue. In the President's opinion, Fries and the other convicted insurgents were "miserable Germans, as ignorant of our language as they were of

22 Case of Fries, No. 5,127, 9 Federal Cases 924-949 (April Term, 1800); American, Apr. 30, May 9, 1800; Connecticut Courant, May 5, 1800; Bradley Chapin, The American Law of Treason (Seattle, 1964), 91-97. 23 American, May 7,1800. 1979 THE TRIALS OF JOHN FRIES 443 our laws/' He still suspected that the whole insurrection had been purposely engineered and that the convicted men had been "Pitiful puppets danced upon the wire of jugglers behind the scene or under- ground. Had the [unnamed and probably nonexistent] mountebanks been in the place of the puppets/' commented Adams, "mercy would have had a harder struggle to obtain absolution for them."24 Adams asked his son, Thomas Boylston Adams, to find out from Lewis and Dallas upon what they would have based their defense had they continued with the case. Charles Lee made a similar request. After studying Lewis' reply and learning the opinions of several of his department heads, Adams pardoned Fries and the other insurgents. The pardons were well received and Fries was promoted promptly from captain to lieutenant colonel in the Montgomery County militia.25 A knowledgeable contemporary who attended the 1800 trial received the impression that the bar did not regard the court as having oppressed either the defendant or the defense counsel. Instead, recalled Horace Binney, Judge Chase's actions had resulted "in part, from the character of the principal judge, a very learned and able man, but confident and rather imperious, and in part from his greater familiarity with the Maryland practice . . . than was, in point of form, the usage in Pennsylvania."26 Had Chase refrained from handing down the written opinion, the second trial would presumably have attracted no more attention than that given sparingly to those other men tried for similar offenses. The written opinion, however, gave the case a singularity which the Republicans could use against Chase and his Federalist colleagues. William Duane did not comment in the ^Aurora on the trials when they were in progress, but once sentence was passed he fulminated against the verdicts and the judges. Chase received the brunt of Duane's displeasure. The editor declared: "No lawyer of

24 Adams to James Lloyd, Mar. 31, 1815, Adams Family Papers. 25 Charles Lee, Oliver Wolcott, and Benjamin Stoddert to Adams, May 20, 1800, ibid.\ Adams to Charles Lee, May 21, 1800, ibid.\ Aurora, May 22, 1800; Timothy Pickering, A Review of the Correspondence Between the Hon. John Adams, Late President of the United States, and the Late William Cunningham, Esq., Beginning in ISOJ, and Ending in 1812 (Salem, 1824), 67-68, 97; Davis, The Fries Rebellion, 141-142. 26 Horace Binney, "The Leaders of the Old Bar of Philadelphia," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XIV (1890), 20. 444 JANE SHAFFER ELSMERE October the present day can boast of more original and surprising ideas [than Chase]. . . . The bar of Philadelphia can bear testimony of his originality, and they acknowledge one and all, they never witnessed the like before."27 Other Republican newspapers reprinted Duane's strictures and added to them. Criticism of Chase in the Republican press intensified during the next four years, in part due to his penchant for becoming involved in partisan politics and also for his alleged indiscretions and illegal actions on the bench. As a leading Federalist Chase became a natural target for the Jeffersonian Republicans who were determined to breach the Federalist-dominated judiciary and break the latter party's dominance over the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1804 Samuel Chase was impeached. Of the eight articles of impeachment the first was based upon his alleged misconduct in the second trial of John Fries. Three charges were discussed. The first accused the jurist of wrongfully delivering a written opinion on the definition of treason. Chase contended that this procedure had been legal because the jury was to decide whether or not Fries had committed treason and not what constituted treason. The second charge asserted that the jurist had restricted Fries's counsel from the use of applicable English and American precedents which would have supported their client's case. Chase denied this accusa- tion. The third one stated that the jurist had kept the defendant from addressing the jury or giving argument through his counsel because the judge had in effect forced the defense counsel to retire when he refused to let them discuss the nature of treason. Chase answered that William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas had withdrawn voluntarily and had advised Fries to refuse other counsel whom Chase had offered to appoint for him. By withdrawing, said Chase, the lawyers presumably hoped to secure an acquittal or pardon by implying that Fries had not been tried fairly. Chase's answer to the charges in Article One refuted that he had committed a high crime and misdemeanor in the second trial of Fries.28

27 Aurora, May 22, 27, 1800.

28 Case No. L, April Term, 1800, The United States v. John Fries y Records of the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, RG 21, National Archives; Annals of Congress > 8 Cong., 2 sess., 101-117. 1979 THE TRIALS OF JOHN FRIES 445 Articles Two through Six dealt with the jurist's alleged misconduct during the trial of James T. Callender for sedition; Article Seven accused Chase of refusing to discharge a grand jury in New Castle, Delaware, of urging it to inquire into the reported offenses of a Wilmington printer, and of ordering the District Attorney to lay the groundwork for a prosecution against the newspaperman. The last article asserted that Chase had delivered a political harangue in the guise of a jury charge to a grand jury sitting in Baltimore.29 Following his acquittal in 1805, Judge Chase returned to his home in Baltimore.30 A visitor whose call at that time must have been as gratifying to Chase as it was unexpected was John Fries. He talked with the jurist about his trials for treason and expressed his gratitude to Chase for the latter's aid at the second one after the withdrawal of Lewis and Dallas. The Pennsylvanian was destined to survive by seven years the man who had once sentenced him to hang.31

zMuncie, Ind. JANE SHAFFER ELSMERE

29 Ibid.) 117-151. 30 For accounts of the impeachment, trial, and acquittal of Chase in 1804-1805, see Samuel H. Smith and Thomas Lloyd, reporters, Trial of Samuel Chase (Washington, D. C, 1805); Jane Shaffer Elsmere, "The Impeachment Trial of Justice Samuel Chase" (Ph.D. disserta- tion, Indiana University, 1962). 31 John Sanderson and Robert Walz, Jr., eds., Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence (Philadelphia, 1828), IV, 104; Davis, The Fries Rebellion, 141-142.