his communications placed me, left me, I confess, at a stand to know how to conduct myself with propriety. He had committed no overt act of aggression against law. I could draw nothing from him in writing, nor could I learn that he had exposed his plans to any person near me, by whom my testimony could be supported. He had mentioned to me no persons who were principally and decidedly engaged with him, except General Wilkinson, a Mr. Alston, who I found was his son-in-law, and a Mr. Ephraim Kibby, late a captain of rangers in General Wayne's army. Satisfied that Mr. Burr was resolute in pushing his project of rebellion in the west of the Alleghany, and apprehensive that it was too well and too extensively organized to be easily suppressed, though I dreaded the weight of his character when laid in the balance against my solitary assertion, I brought myself to the resolution to endeavor to defeat it by getting him removed from among us, or to expose myself to all consequences by a disclosure of his intentions. cordingly, I waited on the President of the United States, and after some desultory conversation, in which I aimed to draw his view to the westward, I used the freedom to say to the President I thought Mr. Burr should be sent out of this country, and gave for reason that I believed him dangerous in it. The President asked where he should be sent? I mentioned London and Cadiz. The President thought the trust too important, and seemed to entertain a doubt of Mr. Burr's integrity. I intimated that no one, perhaps, had stronger grounds to mistrust Mr.

Ac

Burr's moral integrity than myself; yet, I believed ambition so much predominated over him, that when placed on an eminence, and put on his honor, respect to himself would insure his fidelity; his talents were unquestionable. I perceived the subject was disagreeable to the President; and to give it the shortest course to the point, declared my concern that if Mr. Burr were not in some way disposed of, we should, within eighteen months, have an insurrection, if not a revolution, on the waters of the Mississippi. The President answered, that he had too much confidence in the information, the integrity, and the attachment to the union, of the citizens of that country, to admit an apprehension of the kind. I am happy that events prove this confidence well placed. As no interrogatories followed my expression of alarm, I thought silence on the subject, at that time and place, became me. But I detailed, about the same time, the whole projects of Mr. Burr to certain members of Congress. They believed Colonel Burr capable of anything, and agreed that the fellow ought to be hanged; but thought his projects too chimerical, and his circumstances too desperate, to give the subject the merit of serious consideration. The total security of feeling in those to whom I had rung the tocsin, induced me to suspect my own apprehensions unseasonable, or at least too deeply admitted; and, of course, I grew indifferent about the subject.

Mr. Burr's visits to me became less frequent, and his conversation less familiar. He appeared to have abandoned the idea of a general revolution, but

seemed determined on that of the Mississippi; and, although I could perceive symptoms of distrust in him towards me, he manifested great solicitude to engage me with him in the enterprise. Weary of his importunity, and at once to convince him of my serious attachments, I gave the following toast to the public: The United States-Palsy to the brain that should plot to dismember, and leprosy to the hand that will not draw to defend, our union!

I doubt whether the sentiment was better understood by any of my acquaintance than Colonel Burr. Our intercourse ended here; we met but seldom afterwards. I returned to my farm in Massachusetts, and thought no more of Mr. Burr, nor his empire, till some time late in September or beginning of October, when a letter from Maurice Belknap, of Marietta, to Timothy E. Danielson, fell into my hands at Brimfield, which satisfied me that Mr. Burr had actually commenced his preparatory operations on the Ohio. I now spoke publicly of the fact; transmitted a copy of the letter from Belknap to the department of state, and about the same time forwarded, through the hands of the Postmaster-General, to the President of the United States, a statement in substance of what is here above detailed concerning the Mississippi conspiracy of the said Colonel Aaron Burr, which is said to have been the first formal intelligence received by the executive on the subject of the conspirator being in motion.

I know not whether my country will allow me the merit of correctness of conduct in this affair. The

novelty of the duty might, perhaps, have embarrassed stronger minds than mine. The uprightness of my intentions, I hope will not be questioned.

The interviews between Colonel Burr and myself, from which the foregoing statement has resulted, were chiefly in this city, in the months of February and March, last year.

WILLIAM EATON.

Washington City, Jan. 26, 1807.

Sworn to in open court this 26th day of January,

1807.

WILLIAM BRENT, Clerk.

Hope Insurance Company

V.

Boardman,

AND

Bank of the United States

ข.

Deveaux.

NOTE.

THE case of the Bank of the United States v. Deveaux arose out of an attempt by the State of Georgia to tax the branch of the Bank of the United States in Savannah. This suit was brought by the Bank in the United States Circuit Court for Georgia to recover certain moneys collected. The defendants objected that the federal court was without jurisdiction, since no federal question was raised, and it was not a controversy "between citizens of different states," and that the jurisdiction of the court under the Constitution was thus limited. The argument of the Bank was that this was a suit brought by certain natural citizens of Pennsylvania, acting in their corporate capacity, and that in such capacity they had a right to resort to the federal court, since they were citizens of a different state from the defendants, and that it was therefore a controversy “between citizens of different states." The case was argued on those lines. The opinion adopted the argument of the Bank and decided that the citizens of Pennsylvania had a right thus to litigate in their corporate capacity,-Marshall refused the narrower interpretation