sion) to complete the prisoner's guilt. His guilt is the promise, not the levying of war. There is nothing therefore in these cases to warrant the principle, that when a man is attempted to be implicated by accessorial acts, in the treason of levying war, those accessorial acts must be detailed. There is nothing in them to prove, that the charge of levying war with an armed multitude is insufficient; on the contrary, in the only case in which this point came directly in question before the court, it was unanimously and solemnly declared to be sufficient.

Is it not sufficient in reason as well as in law? They say that colonel Burr is taken by surprise by the general form of the indictment; nay that he is therefore persecuted by the government. But how is the fact? Do you believe that Aaron Burr is not sufficiently apprised by this indictment of the charge against him, to prepare for his defence? When it is recollected that he formed a plot for the dissolution of the union; that his party went from Beaver to Blannerhassett's island; that he joined them at the mouth of Cumberland; that they were approaching to New-Orleans, when his career was terminated by the activity and energy of the constituted authorities; that efforts were made to try him in other states; and that he has been brought hither for trial; will any man in his senses believe that he is not sufficiently informed of the nature of the charge against him? Has he not prepared for his defence? He himself states, that he has summoned twenty or thirty witnesses. For what purpose? Is it because he does not understand the charge? He well understands the charge. Let us not then sir, by these captious exceptions, unsupported either by law or reason, permit ourselves to be turned aside from the inquiry before us. Reason and law concur in shewing that there is nothing in Mr. Wickham's second point to obstruct the evidence.

I come now sir, to the gentleman's third point, in which he says he cannot possibly fail. It is this: " because if the prisoner be a principal in the treason at all, he is a principal in the second degree; and his guilt being of that kind which is termed derivative, no further parol evidence can be let in to charge him, until we shew a record of the conviction of the principals in the first degree."

By this I understand the gentleman to advance, in other terms, the common law doctrine, that when a man is rendered a principal in treason, by acts which would make him an accessory in felony, he cannot be tried before the principal in the first degree.

I understand this to be the doctrine of the common law, as established by all the authorities; but when I concede this point, I insist that it can have no effect in favour of the accused, for

two reasons: 1st. Because it is the mere creature of the common law.

2dly. Because if the common law of England be our law, this position assumes what is denied, that the conduct of the prisoner in this case is of an accessorial nature or such as would make him an accessory in felony.

First, Because this position is the mere creature of the common law. If it be so, no consequence can be deduced from it. It is sufficient, on this branch of the subject, to take his own declaration, that the common law does not exist in this country. If we examine the constitution and the act of congress, we shall find that this idea of a distinction between principals in the first and second degree depends entirely on the common law. Neither the constitution nor the act of congress knows any such distinction. All who levy war against the United States, whether present or absent-all who are leagued in the conspiracy, whether on the spot of the assemblage or performing some minute and inconsiderable part in it, a thousand miles from the scene of action, incur equally the sentence of the law: they are all equally traitors. This scale therefore, which graduates the guilt of the offenders and establishes the order of their respective trials, if it ever existed here; is completely abrogated by the highest authorities in this country. The convention which formed the constitution and defined treason, congress which legislated on that subject and the supreme judiciary of the country expounding the constitution and the law, have united in its abrogation. But let us for a moment put the convention, congress and judiciary aside and examine how the case will stand. Still this scale of moral guilt, which Mr. Wickham has given us, is the creature of the common law, which as already observed, he himself in another branch of his argument has emphatically told us does not exist in this country. He has stated that the creature presup poses the creator, and that where the creator does not exist, the creature cannot. The common law then being the creator of the rule which Mr. Wickham has given us, and that common law not existing in this country, neither can the rule which is the mere creature of it exist in this country. So that the gentleman has himself furnished the argument, which refutes this infallible point of his, on which he has so much relied. But to try this position to its utmost extent, let us not only put aside the constitution and act of congress and decision of the supreme court, but let us admit that the common law does exist here. Still before the principle could apply, it would remain to be proven, that the conduct of the prisoner in this case has been accessorial; or in other words, that his acts in relation to this treason are of such a nature as would make him an accessory in felony.

But is this the case? It is a mere petitio principii. It is denied that his acts are such as would make him an accessory in felony. I have already in another branch of this subject endeavoured to shew on the grounds of authority and reason, that a man might be involved in the guilt of treason as a principal by being legally though not actually present; that treason occupied a much wider space than felony; that the scale of proximity between the accessory and principal must be extended in proportion to the extent of the theatre of the treason; and that as the prisoner must be considered as legally present, he could not be an accessory but a principal. If I have succeeded in this, I have in fact proved that his conduct cannot be deemed accessorial. But an error has taken place from considering the scene of the overt act as the theatre of the treason, from mistaking the overt act for the treason itself, and consequently from referring the conduct of the prisoner to the acts on the island. The conduct of Aaron Burr has been considered in relation to the overt act on Blannerhassett's island only; whereas it ought to be considered in connexion with the grand design, the deep plot of seizing Orleans, separating the union and establishing an independent empire in the west, of which the prisoner was to be the chief. It ought to be recollected that these were his objects, and that the whole western country from Beaver to Orleans was the theatre of his treasonable operations. It is by this first reasoning that you are to consider whether he be a principal or an accessory, and not by limiting your inquiries to the circumscribed and narrow spot in the island where the acts charged happened to be performed. Having shewn, I think, on the ground of law, that the prisoner cannot be considered as an accessory, let me press the inquiry, whether on the ground of reason he be a principal or an accessory; and remember that his project was to seize New-Orleans, separate the union and erect an independent empire in the west, of which he was to be the chief. This was the destination of the plot and the conclusion of the drama. Will any man say that Blannerhassett was the principal, and Burr but an accessory? Who will believe that Burr, the author and projector of the plot, who raised the forces, who inlisted the men and who procured the funds for carrying it into execution, was made a cat's paw of? Will any man believe that Burr, who is a soldier bold, ardent, restless and aspiring, the great actor whose brain conceived and whose hand brought the plot into operation, that he should sink down into an accessory, and that Blannerhassett should be elevated into a principal? He would startle at once at the thought. Aaron Burr, the contriver of the whole conspiracy, to every body concerned in it was as the sun to the planets which surround him. Did he not bind them in their respective orbits and give them their light,

their heat and their motion? Yet he is to be considered an accessory, and Blannerhassett is to be the principal!

Let us put the case between Burr and Blannerhassett. Let us compare the two men and settle this question of precedence between them. It may save a good deal of troublesome ceremony hereafter.

Who Aaron Burr is we have seen in part already. I will add, that beginning his operations in New-York, he associates with him men whose wealth is to supply the necessary funds. Possessed of the main spring, his personal labour contrives all the machinery. Pervading the continent from New-York to NewOrleans, he draws into his plan, by every allurement which he can contrive, men of all ranks and descriptions. To youthful ardour he presents danger and glory; to ambition, rank and titles and honours; to avarice the mines of Mexico. To each person whom he addresses he presents the object adapted to his taste. His recruiting officers are appointed. Men are engaged throughout the continent. Civil life is indeed quiet upon its surface, but in its bosom this man has contrived to deposit the materials which, with the slightest touch of his match, produce an explosion to shake the continent. All this his restless ambition has contrived; and in the autumn of 1806, he goes forth for the last time to apply this match. On this occasion he meets with Blannerhassett.

Who is Blannerhassett? A native of Ireland, a man of letters, who fled from the storms of his own country to find quiet in ours. His history shows that war is not the natural element of his mind. If it had been, he never would have exchanged Ireland for America. So far is an army from furnishing the society natural and proper to Mr. Blannerhassett's character, that on his arrival in America, he retired even from the population of the Atlantic States, and sought quiet and solitude in the bosom of our western forests. But he carried with him taste and science and wealth; and lo, the desert smiled! Possessing himself of a beautiful island in the Ohio, he rears upon it a palace and decorates it with every romantic embellishment of fancy. A shrubbery, that Shenstone might have envied, blooms around him. Music, that might have charmed Calypso and her nymphs, is his. An extensive library spreads its treasures before him. A philosophical apparatus offers to him all the secrets and mysteries of nature. Peace, tranquillity and innocence shed their mingled delights around him. And to crown the enchantment of the scene, a wife, who is said to be lovely even beyond her sex and graced with every accomplishment that can render it irresistible, had

1

blessed him with her love and made him the father of several children. The evidence would convince you, that this is but a faint picture of the real life. In the midst of all this peace, this innocent simplicity and this tranquillity, this feast of the mind, this pure banquet of the heart, the destroyer comes; he comes to change this paradise into a hell. Yet the flowers do not wither at his approach. No monitory shuddering through the bosom of their unfortunate possessor warns him of the ruin that is coming upon him. A stranger presents himself. Introduced to their civilities by the high rank which he had lately held in his country, he soon finds his way to their hearts, by the dignity and elegance of his demeanor, the light and beauty of his conversation and the seductive and fascinating power of his address. The conquest was not difficult. Innocence is ever simple and credulous. Conscious of no design itself, it suspects none in others. It wears no guard before its breast. Every door and portal and avenue of the heart is thrown open, and all who choose it enter. Such was the state of Eden when the serpent entered its bowers. The prisoner, in a more engaging form, winding himself into the open and unpractised heart of the unfortunate Blannerhassett, found but little difficulty in changing the native character of that heart and the objects of its affection. By degrees he infuses into it the poison of his own ambition. He breathes into it the fire of his own courage; a daring and desperate thirst for glory; an ardour panting for great enterprises, for all the storm and bustle and hurricane of life. In a short time the whole man is changed, and every object of his former delight is relinquished. No more he enjoys the tranquil scene; it has become flat and insipid to his taste. His books are abandoned. His retort and crucible are thrown aside. His shrubbery blooms and breathes its fragrance upon the air in vain; he likes it not. His ear no longer drinks the rich melody of music; it longs for the trumpet's clangor and the cannon's roar. Even the prattle of his babes, once so sweet, no longer affects him; and the angel smile of his wife, which hitherto touched his bosom with ecstasy so unspeakable, is now unseen and unfelt. Greater objects have taken possession of his soul. His imagination has been dazzled by visions of diadems, of stars and garters and titles of nobility. He has been taught to burn with restless emulation at the names of great heroes and conquerors. His enchanted island is destined soon to relapse into a wilderness; and in a few months we find the beautiful and tender partner of his bosom, whom he lately permitted not the winds of' summer 'to visit too roughly,' we find her shivering at midnight, on the winter banks of the Ohio and mingling her tears with the torrents, that froze as they fell. Yet this unfortunate man, thus deluded from his interest and his happiness, thus seVol. II.

N