## Facts

- Congress enacted a federal direct tax requiring valuation of houses and other property; assessors were dispatched to rural Pennsylvania to carry out the valuations.
- Local residents in several counties obstructed and intimidated federal officers seeking to enforce the tax law.
- John Fries, an auctioneer and militia veteran, was alleged to have led and encouraged the resistance.
- Fries allegedly threatened assessors to force them to abandon their duties.
- Fries allegedly led an armed group that confronted federal authority and compelled a U.S. marshal to release individuals arrested for interfering with execution of the tax law.
- Fries was first tried and convicted of treason in 1799, but a new trial was granted after a juror admitted prejudice.
- In 1800, Fries was tried again on a new indictment charging treason for “levying war” against the United States; he pleaded not guilty.

## Issues

1. Whether organizing and leading an armed uprising to obstruct execution of a federal tax statute and to overawe federal officers constitutes treason by “levying war” under Article III, § 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
2. Whether the controlling distinction between riot and treason turns on the public object and intent of the armed assembly rather than the amount of force used.

## Decision

- The court held that an insurrectionary armed assembly formed to resist or prevent by force the execution of a federal statute of general public concern constitutes “levying war” against the United States.
- The court distinguished private, localized violence (riot or felony) from public, general resistance aimed at obstructing a national law (treason).
- The court ruled that once conspirators proceed from planning to carrying the design into execution by force, treason is complete; the scale of the force does not affect the classification.
- The court stated that there are no accessories in treason: participants who are present aiding, abetting, or ready to assist are principals.
- Fries was found guilty of treason at the second trial.

## Legal Principles

- An insurrection or rising to resist or prevent by force the execution of a federal statute addressing matters of general national concern constitutes treason by levying war.
- The boundary between riot and treason depends primarily on the intent and object of the armed assembly: private ends remain riot/felony; general public ends aimed at obstructing federal law constitute treason.
- Mere agreement or plotting to resist federal law by force is not treason; treason occurs when the plan is put into execution by force.
- The amount of force is immaterial to whether levying war has occurred; what matters is warlike resistance directed at execution of federal law.
- All participants present aiding, assisting, abetting, or ready to assist in a treasonable act are principals; collective intent may be attributed to those who knowingly join and act with the assembly.

## Conclusion

The court treated organized, armed resistance aimed at stopping enforcement of a federal tax law and compelling federal officers to yield as a public, warlike opposition to national authority, and therefore treason by levying war under Article III.


United States v. Fries, 9 F. Cas. 924 (C.C.D. Pa. 1800)