Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

cions. He determined immediately to take measures for apprehending him. He accordingly left the place, after men tioning in a careless manner the way he meant to take. The way he indicated was opposite to the course he thought Burr would pursue. After getting beyond the reach of observation, he took the road to Fort Stoddart, and obtained the aid of the commandant and four soldiers. The circumstances of the arrest have been already stated to the public.

Perkins further said, that, while they were on their way to Washington, at Chester Town or courthouse, in the back part of South-Carolina, Mr. Burr, observing a small collection of people, got off his horse, went into the company, asked for a magistrate, and complained of being under an illegal arrest and military guard. Perkins, however, soon reinstated him on his horse, and directed the guard to proceed. The people manifested no disposition to interfere.

After the evidence was gone through, Mr. Hay submitted to the chief justice a motion in writing for the commitment of the prisoner on the two charges above mentioned. A discussion was then agreed, on both sides, to be necessary; and, in pursuance of the arrangement previously made, Mr. Hay moved for an adjournment to the capitol, to which the counsel of colonel Burr readily assented. Colonel Burr was then admitted to bail in the sum of five thousand dollars for his appearance on the following day at ten o'clock.

TUESDAY, 31st March, 1807.-Present, John Marshall, chief justice of the United States. Counsel for the prosecution, Cæsar A. Rodney, attorney general for the United States; George Hay, attorney of the United States for the district of Virginia. Counsel for colonel Burr, Edmund Randolph, esquire, John Wickham, esquire.

At ten o'clock, the chief justice was seated on the bench, and the court room crowded with citizens. Colonel Burr ar rived at half past ten o'clock, and apologised for the delay, declaring that he had misapprehended the hour at which he was bound to appear.

On the suggestion of the counsel, that it would be impossible to accommodate the spectators in the court room, the chief justice adjourned to the hall of the house of delegates.

Mr. HAY, the attorney for the United States, for the district of Virginia, moved, that the prisoner should be committed in order to take his trial upon two charges, exhibited against him on the part of the United States: 1st, For a high misdemeanor, in setting on foot, within the United States, a military

expedition against the dominions of the king of Spain, a foreign prince, with whom the United States, at the time of the offence, were, and still are, at peace. 2d, For treason in assembling an armed force, with a design to seize the city of NewOrleans, to revolutionize the territory attached to it, and to separate the western from the Atlantic states.

He stated the first offence to be a violation of the fifth section of an act of congress, passed on the 5th of June, 1794, intitled, "an act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," continued for limited periods by several succeeding laws, and continued without limitation by an act passed in 1799. The said section provides," that if any person shall, within the territory or juris"diction of the United States, begin or set on foot, or provide "or prepare the means for any military expedition or enter"prize, to be carried on from thence against the territories or "dominions of any foreign prince or state, with whom the "United States are at peace, every person so offending shall, "upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of a high misdemeanor, "and shall suffer fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of "the court in which the conviction shall be had, so as that "such fine shall not exceed three thousand dollars, nor the "term of imprisonment be more than three years." He supported this charge by the letter of the prisoner addressed to general Wilkinson, and insisted that it showed probable cause to suspect him of having committed this offence; nay, that he had actually committed it, and that this construction of the letter was deliberately adopted by the supreme court of the United States; that the intention of the prisoner to commit these offences was perfectly clear from the evidence.

But, secondly, he insisted, that there was probable cause to suspect, that the prisoner had committed an act of treason; that he intended to take possession of New-Orleans, make it the seat of his dominion, and the capital of his empire; and that this charge was proved by the affidavits exhibited in the cases of Bollman and Swartwout, and he referred to the opinion of the supreme court in those cases, as supporting the doctrine for which he contended, that there was just ground of suspicion against him. He went minutely into an examination of the evidence, to show that he was correct, and among other circumstances mentioned his flight from justice.

Mr. WICKHAM, in behalf of the prisoner, contended, that there was no evidence of treason committed by colonel Burr; that there was nothing like an overt act, or probable ground to believe him guilty of such an offence; that the letter in cypher to general Wilkinson was not delivered by Mr. Burr, nor

proved to be written by him; that a comparison of the handwriting was inadmissible evidence; that if it were written by him, the contents of it might be mistaken, and general Wilkinson acknowledged that it could not be fully interpreted; that the definition of treason was clearly marked out by the constitution itself, and could not be mistaken. He contested the propriety and effect of the evidence relied on by the attorney for the United States, and insisted, that if any thing could be inferred from it, an invasion of the territories of the king of Spain, a power with which we were in an intermediate state between war and peace, was by far the most probable; that if his intention were to attack the Spanish settlements, it was not only innocent, but meritorious; that there were strong circumstances at that time to justify the expectation of a war with Spain; and he appealed to the message of the president of the United States, at the opening of the session of congress, to prove the provocations on the part of Spain, and the probability of such an event; that if we remained at peace with that power, still colonel Burr might very innocently contemplate some individual enterprize, and the president recommended strong settlements beyond the Mississippi; that as to what was deemed a flight, he only exercised a right in endeavouring to escape from military despotism. He concluded, that there was not a shadow of evidence to support the charge of treason; and as to the other, the evidence was trivial; but if deemed sufficient to put him on his trial, it was a bailable offence; and as, unfortunately for colonel Burr, he was brought to the place where he had fewer friends or acquaintances, than in almost any other part of the United States, it would be cruelty in counsel to insist on his giving bail in a considerable sum.

Mr. RANDOLPH enforced the same principles in behalf of the accused. He denied that there was any evidence to support either of the charges; that, though long conversant with criminal jurisprudence, he never before heard of a conjecture of an overt act of treason attempted to be proved from a supposed intention! which was as inconsistent with law and justice as with charity. But whatever the intention might have been, the law required, that a criminal act must be proved, to support a prosecution; that the government, who had caused him to be brought such a great distance from his friends and the scene of intelligence, ought not to avail itself thereof to oppress him; that as treason was of all crimes the most heinous, it required the strongest evidence to support it; whereas here there was no proof except what was vague, weak, and unsatisfactory; that he had not fled from justice, but from military oppression, (which he had a right to resist) after he had been acquitted in

Kentucky, and a grand jury in the Mississippi Territory had found him not guilty. Notwithstanding the alarm excited, nothing like an overt act of treason in levying war was proved. No military preparations existed, not a single soldier was enlisted; nay, not even a servant extraordinary has been shown to have attended him; that there was no evidence that Swartwout's communication with Wilkinson was authorised by Burr, or that he faithfully delivered the message, if entrusted with one; that therefore the affidavit of Wilkinson proved nothing: that his being in the western country, and engaged in collecting persons to settle some valuable lands, were the only circumstances which remained to subject him to the slightest shade of suspicion; and these were strangely converted into acts of "levying war;" that the terrible alarm at New-Orleans was imputable to the conduct of general Wilkinson, whose arbitrary and violent proceedings, and magnifying accounts of danger, were calculated to make the people tremble for their personal safety. As to his attempt to escape in South Carolina, Mr. Randolph concluded that any other man would in the same circumstances have endeavoured to escape from military persecution and tyranny; and that the manner in which he was treated, was barbarous, inhuman and oppressive, to the last degree. That, according to the doctrine contended for by the counsel for the United States, a man might be apprehended in the district of Maine, and carried as far as the Tombigbee, illegally, without redress any where between those places, for want of evidence; and when brought to the place appointed for his trial, the court would not try him, but wait for further evidence, if the commitment appeared to be right on the face of it, which would annihilate, altogether, the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus. He concluded, that there was no evidence of an overt act to support the charge of treason, and that it ought to be renounced. As to the other point, the fitting out an expedition against the dominions of the king of Spain, he asked, where it was prepared? in what state? Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, or the Mississippi Territory? That they had no arms, no ammunition; that they had some boats calculated only to accommodate families removing to form new settlements. He hoped, that if the judge should think that a recognisance ought to be required, it should be in as small a sum as possible.

Colonel BURR rose, he said, not to remedy any omission of his counsel, who had done great justice to the subject. He wished only to state a few facts, and to repel some observations of a personal nature. The present inquiry involved a simple question of treason or misdemeanor. According to the constitution, treason consisted in acts; that an arrest could

only be justified by the suspicions of acts, whereas, in this case, his honour was invited to issue a warrant upon mere conjecture; that alarms existed without cause; that Mr. Wilkinson alarmed the president, and the president alarmed the people of Ohio. He appealed to historical facts. No sooner did he understand that suspicions were entertained in Kentucky of the nature and design of his movements, than he hastened to meet an investigation. The prosecution not being prepared, he was discharged. That he then went to Tennessee. While there he heard that the attorney for the district of Kentucky was preparing another prosecution against him; that he immediately returned to Frankfort, presented himself before the court, and again was honourably discharged; that what happened in the Mississippi Territory was equally well known; that there he was not only acquitted by the grand jury, but they went farther, and censured the conduct of that government; and if there had been really any cause of alarm, it must have been felt by the people of that part of the country; that the manner of his descent down the river, was a fact which put at defiance all rumours about treason or misdemeanor; that the nature of his equipments clearly evinced that his object was purely peaceable and agricultural; that this fact alone ought to overthrow the testimony against him; that his designs were honourable, and would have been useful to the United States. His flight, as it was termed, had been mentioned as evidence of guilt. He asked, at what time did he fly? In Kentucky he invited inquiry, and that inquiry terminated in a firm convic tion of his innocence; that the alarms were at first great in the Mississippi Territory, and orders had been issued to seize and destroy the persons and property of himself and party; that he endeavoured to undeceive the people, and convince them that he had no designs hostile to the United States, but that twelve hundred men were in arms for a purpose not yet developed; the people could not be deceived; and he was acquitted, and promised the protection of the government; but the promise could not be performed; the arm of military power could not be resisted; that he knew there were military orders to seize his person and property, and transport him to a distance from that place; that he was assured by the officer of an armed boat, that it was lying in the river ready to receive him on board. Was it his duty to remain there thus situated? That he took the advice of his best friends, pursued the dictates of his own judgment, and abandoned a country where the laws ceased to be the sovereign power; that the charge stated in a hand-bill, that he had forfeited his recognisance, was false; that he had forfeited no recognisance; if he had forfeited any recognisance, he asked, why no proceedings had

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »