The United States versus The Insurgents of Pennsylvania

The United States versus The Insurgents of Pennsylvania. SEVERAL, indidiments were found againft perfons charged with High Treafon, by levying war ' againft the United States, in the counties of Northampton zná'Bucks, in the ftate of Pennfylvania ; and the prifoners having pleaded “ Not'Guilty,” Lewis and Dallas, their counfel, filed a fuggeftion, that all the offences were charged to have been committed either in in Northampton or Bucks, and moved for a trial of each indidhment in the proper county, on the provifion contained in the 29th fedtion of the Judicial adt: (1 Vol. p. 67 Swift's edit.) “ That in cafes puniihable with death, the trial fhall be had.in “ the coünty where the offence was committed, or where that “ cannot be done without great inconvenience, twelve petit Ju- “ rors at leaft fhall be fummoned from thence.” The motion was oppofed-by Ramie, (the Attorney'of the diftridt) and Sit-greaves. And, after argument, The Court delivered an opinion to the following effeét: [MAJORITY — J3y the Court.] J3y the Court. The mere circumftance of delay, in-trials of fo much expedtation and importance, though entitled to, fotne confideration, would not be fuiBcient of itfelf to prevent a compliance with the prefent application ’ And, we think, that the 12th fedtion of the Judicial ait ougbtto bé fo conftrued, as to veft in the Judges a power of holding a fpeciál Court, in the proper County, if in other r.efpedts they, do not deem it greatly-inconvenient. The adt of Corsgrefs, paffed the 2nd of March 1793, (2 Vol. p.:226. f. 3. Swift's edit.) empowers the Judges to “ diredt a fpecial feifions of the Circuit Court to be “ holdenfor the trial of criminal cafes, at any convenient place “ within the Diftridt, nearer to the place where the offences, may be faid to be committed, than the place, or places, appointed by law for the ordinary feifionsbut this provifion does nor exprefsly difcriminate between cafes of a capital, and of an inferior, nature; and a provision having been previously-made for capital cafes, it would be juft d..l-le to apply this to inferior cafes. ’ At all events, any criticifm upon the word nearer (confidering the whole State as a Diftridt, or County, in relation to the United States) would not prevent our appointing a fpeci.d Court irtthe proper county, if fuch an apointment VfaS, otherwife, eligible. The truth is, that the a<S gives to the Court a legal difcretion upon the fubjefl:. A trial in the proper County might have been ordered, when the offences were committed; but no candid' man -will fay, 'thatv-v it' that ⅛⅛⅝ fuch an order would l;ave been juftifiabléy^'ípbe'ñeiit ftep, therefore, was to . bind the offenders over to this Court, having complete jurifdiction of the care; and, now, the only queftions are, whether it js pra£ticable' •? refer the trials to the counties, refpedlively, in which the offqn ^^er,ex,qnji?iitted i.jAndjdjR/iadUcable, whether jtijcan'be'dpn ''wi^qut^gre^tjÁcon.Y.^niejife ? jjf’’CiYi'the’ qiié^ion^qif pfií^ic.abil’ityVí^wo;¡difficulties occur: ⅛:ether the indl^qien^iqupd^at^^is-Court, can be tranf-fefred'fo‘á fpeqtajlEXsjirf S* ,,,A.nd ,2c(. yV-hether the motion is fioftqp'late;;.'fqVj’as‘‘.tíje^inaiótineptflight to be confidered as ^.‘irtfeparably.^qcidentj, trial,''^nd in truth a part of it” '('fifi.'G. Z'.„2’35. p.^;can thejtrjal b,q .commenced here, and be .'térmihate.cl>elfew;itliéfeí?\', ,5* - /.. jr But evé.iji Tíj i'jjyere. p.ra'£ficable, on legal principles, to direft a fpecial\^Q()qr|:,.c”aif;iit..l|e ^pught convenient, or fafe, in fhe- prefent.ftat^ Bucks counties, to do fo ? • It', is'evident, fhailoptí]ing.b.u?..an armed force has recently beep -füSic'iénf ítQ q^ejüffheápfi^pq^tjion, and to arrefl the infurgents $ and,( we,hope,never be expected from the exercife • of' a’judicial diícretión, that a Court of juftice ihall be voluntarily placed in a fituations where the execution gf its funñions, slip; ¿fie n^aiijtainaflcejqljitsauthenty, muir depend on the fame ffc'illt'S rjiva'u^-il'iary j’ t¡.[ ' '’Üpón.bóthfgrpunds,however, we think the motion ought to-fcb-# , Motion Refuse :ii cftosb jjjR on va¡ At3 Ball, BeP- Í7.18. was cited on this point. ‘ ' '-Ti \ Jfl'l W.'fliAj V ‘ ' -,i, ii .-¡rjV'ütjíco 1/ ■vd oJ .¡¡t.-.-íV;1 c; '.vjl-iq a-nVi-jhi1 ■ ~ip.' v-nrjSU) t«i.iiüv*0'¡t¡ r hut: J>:< n) «i(l? O.t ■¡oiwtai