similar or analogous, which he has rendered to the cause of inhumanity, I here pass by.
This is a world in which "men do nothing for nothing;" the workman is worthy of his hire; in due time Mr. Curtis received his reward.
He has lately (June 7th) "charged" the Grand Jury of the Circuit Court of the United States, pointing out their duty in respect to recent events in Boston. A federal enactment of 1790 provides that, if any person shall wilfully obstruct, resist, or oppose any officer of the United States in executing any legal writ or process thereof, he shall be imprisoned not more than twelve months, and fined not more than three hundred dollars. Mr. Curtis charges that the offence is "a misdemeanour:" to constitute the crime, it is "not necessary to prove the accused used or even threatened active violence." If a midtitude of persons should assemble, even in a public highway, with the design to stand together, and thus prevent the officer from passing freely along the way, … this would of itself, and without any active violence, be such an obstruction as is contemplated by this law."
So much for what constitutes the crime. Now see who are criminals: "All who are present and actually obstruct, resist, or oppose, are of course guilty. Bo are all who are present, leagued in the common design, and so situated as to be able, in case of need, to afford assistance to those actually engaged, though they do not actually obstruct, resist, or oppose." That is, they are guilty of a misdemeanour, because they are in the neighbourhood of such as oppose a constable of the United States, and are "able" "to afford assistance." "If they are present for the purpose of affording assistance, though no overt act is done by them, they are still guilty under this law." They are guilty of a misdemeanour, not merely as accessory before the fact, but as principals, for "in misdemeanours all are principals." "Not only those who are present, but those who, though absent when the offence was committed, did procure, counsel, command, or abet others to commit the offence, are indictable as principals." But what amounts to such counselling as constitutes a misdemeanour? "Evincing an express liking, approbation, or assent to another's criminal design,"
