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 neigh- bors. 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 govern- ment 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 news- papers 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 insur- gents."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 deter- mined 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 con- spiracy, 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.