The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1807-10-03 00:00:00

The Enquirer.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE.....AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.....(PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.)
VOLUME 4.]
RICHMOND, SATURDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 3, 1807.
[NUMBER 42.]
The Enquirer.
RICHMOND, 3rd OCTOBER.
TRIAL OF AARON BURR.
SKETCH of the celebrated ARGUMENT held, on the propositions submitted to the Court respecting the charge of Treason .
[CONTINUED.]
Mr. Wirt's Speech Concluded.
The fourth and last objection to the admission of our evidence is this: "That no evidence is relevant to connect the prisoner with others, and thus to make him a traitor by relation until we show an act of treason in those others; and the assemblage on the island was not an act of treason."
The question which the court is here called on to decide, is, whether the assemblage on Blennerhassett's island was a levying of war. The gentlemen who hold the negative of this position must admit that the intention of that assemblage was a treasonable one; or else we cannot be deprived from proving it. They must admit that the individuals who composed that assemblage were enlisted by A. Burr, or by his subaltern officers; that they had marched by individuals to the mouth of Beaver, a place of partial rendezvous; that when collected there, they proceeded to Blennerhassett's island, another place of rendezvous; where they were to receive an accession of boats, men, provisions, arms and ammunition, under the command of Blennerhassett himself; that from the island they proceeded to the mouth of Cumberland, a place of general rendezvous for the expected forces from the east and from the states of Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee; that at the mouth of Cumberland they took in their commander in chief, the prisoner at the bar, with a considerable addition of men and arms, and proceeded to Baton Rouge, attempting the seduction of the officers and men at the several forts and garrisons of the United States, as they passed; which forts and garrisons were too weak to have resisted their passage with effect; that expecting the co-operation of the United States troops, the project was to seize upon New Orleans, together with its banks, shipping, military stores, &c. to plant the standard of treason and a separate empire in that city, and to rend from the union all that portion of territory which lies west of the Alleghany. All this they must admit, for this and more we are prepared to prove. The question then is, whether all these things admitted, the assemblage on the island was an overt act of levying war.
Here we are brought back to the constitution and act of congress; and the enquiry is what is levying war? Gentlemen on the other side speaking on this subject, have very artfully dropped the word levying altogether. "Shew us your overt act of war," they exclaim; "hard knocks, says Mr. Lee, are things we can all feel and understand; where are the hard knocks?" "Where was this bloody battle, this bloody war?" cries Mr. Martin. No where, gentlemen; there was no bloody battle, there was no bloody war. The energy of a despised and traduced government prevented that tragic consequence. In reply to all this blustering and clamour for blood and havoc, let me ask calmly and temperately, does our constitution and act of congress require them? Can treason be committed by nothing short of actual battle? Mr. Wickham striking from a position both indefensible, has said that if there be not actual force, there must be at least potential force —such as terror and intimidation struck by the treasonable assemblage. We will examine this idea presently. Let us at this moment recur to the constitutional definition of treason, so far as it relates to this case. "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them; or in making war; or in levying it." The whole question, then, turns on the meaning of that word, levying .
We know that ours is a motley language; variegated and enriched by the plunder of many foreign stores. When we derive a word from the Latin, the Greek, or any other foreign language, living or dead, philologists have always thought it most safe and correct to go to the original language for the purpose of ascertaining the precise meaning of such word. Levy , we are told by all our lexicographers, is a word of French origin: It is proper therefore that we should turn to the dictionaries of that language to discover its true and real meaning; and I believe we shall not find that when applied to war, it ever means to fight as gentlemen on the other side would have us to believe. Boyer's Dictionary is before me, sir; and I am the more encouraged to speak to him, because in the case of Bollman and Swartwout, your honor, in estimating the import of this very word, thought it not improper to refer to the authority of Doctor Johnson. " Lever ," the verb active, signifies, according to Boyer, "to lift, heave, hold or raise up." Under the verb he has no phrase applicable to our purpose; but under the substantive, levée , he has several; I will give you them all:
Levée d'un siege ; the raising of a siege. Levée des fruits ; gathering of fruits, crop or harvest. La Levée du parlement Britannique ; the raising or recess of the British parliament. Levée (collected deniers) a levying, raising or gathering. Levée de gens de guerre ; levying, levying or raising of soldiers. Faire des levées de soldats ; to levy or raise soldiers. So that when applied to fruits or taxes it means gathering as well as raising; when applied to soldiers it means raising only; not gathering, assembling or bringing them together even; but merely raising. Johnson takes both these meanings as you mentioned in the case of Bollman & Swartwout; but in the original language we see that levying , when applied to soldiers, means simply the raising them, without any thing farther; in military matters, levy and raising , if Boyer may be trusted, are synonymous.
But to ascertain still more satisfactorily the meaning of this word levy , let us look to the source from which we have borrowed the whole definition of treason; the statute of the 25th E. 3. That statute is in Norman French, and describing the treason of levying war, uses these words, "si l'ome leue de guerre contre nostre seigneur le roy en son royaume." In a subsequent reign, when the factious and turbulent reign of Richard the II. when the statute of Edward, which incorporated, was forgotten, lost and rendered the billows of party rage and venegance became at length necessary for parliament to interfere and break its pieces the engine of destructive treason; and in the 21st
year of Richard the II. a statute was passed which may be considered as a parliamentary construction of that of Edward the III. In that statute the treason of levying war is thus explained, " celuy que levy le peuple et chascun de son countre le roy a faire guerre deins son royaume ." Here the French verb, leve , is the same as that used in the statute of Ed. with an unimportant orthographic variation; and here, it is clearly contradistinguished from the actual war:—the levy is of men and horses, for the purpose of making war; and the levy would have been complete, although the purpose had never been executed. I consider, therefore, the statute of Richard as not only adding another authority to that of Boyer to prove that the extent of the French verb levee , when applied to soldiers, goes no farther than the raising them; but I consider that statute also as a parliamentary exposition or glossary of the phrase leve de guerre in the statute of Edward. In this latter opinion I am supported by 1. Hale 85, who speaking of the statute of Richard says "these four points of treason" settled by the parliament of Richard, seems to be included within the statute of 25 E. 3. as to the matter of them with these differences. 1. The forfeiture is extended further than it was formerly, namely to the forfeiture of estates tail and uses. 2. Whereas the ancient way of proceeding against commoners was by indictment, and trial thereupon by the country, the trial and judgement is here appointed to be in parliament. 3. But that wherein the principal inconvenience of this act lay, was this, that whereas the statute of 25 Ed. 3. required an overt act to be laid in the indictment and proved in evidence this hath no such provision. These are all the differences which he takes between them. Hence it is clearly the opinion of Hale that the treason of levying war is materially the same in both statutes. For if the statute of Edward required actual war, hard knocks, bloody battle , to constitute treason, while that of Richard made the mere preparation for those purposes treason, would it, could it have escaped such a mind as Hale's; more particularly when he was especially employed in discriminating between the two statutes, and marking the points of difference, to the disadvantage of the statute of Richard. If nothing short of actual war will satisfy the statute of Edward, while that of Richard covers so much more ground as to comprehend the first act of recruiting and to make that treason, how can the former be said to include the latter? it might with as much propriety be said, that a field of battle includes the kingdom within which it lies, or that the less includes the greater. Yet of this absurdity Hale has been guilty, unless it be conceded that the statutes of Richard and of Edward are materially the same; if in conformity to the opinion of Hale, this point be conceded, then as it is indisputably clear and certain that the statute of Richard makes levying of war, to consist in the preparations for that war, in the raising of men, horses &c. for the purpose of making war, then also under the statute of Edward, levying war means the preparations for that war. And if this construction of the statute of Edward be admitted, we have but to remember that our definition of treason is borrowed from this statute and to ask whether the same words, levying war , in the English and American statutes mean the same thing.
Confiding in the candour of this investigation and in the truth of the conclusion to which it has led me, I should myself have thought the mere enlistment of soldiers, of itself, an overt act of levying war. I should think such enlistment too, sufficient to satisfy the reason of the statute of Edward and consequently that of our constitution and act of congress in requiring an overt act to be proved. What is the reason avowed by all the books?—It is, because the secret intentions of the man lie beyond the ken of mortal sight. They can be known only to the man himself and to that being whose eye can pierce the gloom of midnight and the still deeper gloom that shrouds the traitor's heart. To his fellow men those intentions can be manifested only by some external or overt act: I consider the phrase overt act as intended to be in contrast with secret intention ; but whenever this secret intention ripens and breaks out into an act, of which the human senses can take cognizance, I consider the reason of the law as being satisfied; we are then relieved from the necessity of prying into and guessing at the secrets of the heart. It is not pretended that any case ever occurred to contradict this idea until the case which is reported by Ventris; which has been said by some modern English writers, and pronounced by your honor to settle the principle that the mere enlistment of soldiers is not sufficient to constitute the levying of war. Permit me, with the utmost deference and respect for your honor, to examine that case and see whether it justifies a conclusion so broad. That case it is to be observed is adjudged under the statute of the 25th E. 3. Now it requires but to adopt for a moment the idea which I have shown to be sanctioned by Lord Hale, that the statute of Richard explains by a paraphrase the more condensed definition of that of E. to perceive the reasoning and whole scope of the case in Ventris:—"If a man" says the statute of Ed. "shall levy war against our Lord the King in his realm" or "he" says the statute of Richard "who levies men and horses, against the king, to make war in his realm." The levy , then, is a totally different thing from the war, the levy is the preparation; the war is the purpose; but it is "to make war in his realm." Wherefore then the levy is made, the purpose must be to make war in the realm. Hence it is very clear that although the levying should be within the realm, the statute would not be satisfied, unless the purpose also was to make war within the realm. It is upon this latter point alone that the case in Ventris turns and not upon the scene of the enlistment, nor the insufficiency of the fact of enlistment. The case in Ventris is that of Patrick Harding 2 Vol. 215-16: The charge in the indictment is compassing the death of the King and Queen (Wm. and Mary) and the overt act laid is levying war by raising divers soldiers and men armed and to be armed, (armatos et armaturas) or enlistes lie ut preteritur levatos extra hoc regnum anglice mittit et iter fecerunt succipere procuravit ad sece jungendos alios hostibus &c. The special verdict finds that the prisoner did "list, hire, raise and procure sixteen men, subjects of this kingdom, at the time &c. and those sixteen men to list, hire, raise, and procure, did send out of this kingdom, into the kingdom of France to aid and the French king &c." Upon this special verdict found, "the Lord Chief Justice, Justice Gregory and
Justice Ventris, who were then present at the sessions conceived some doubt; for they were of opinion that it did not come within the clause of the statute of 25 Ed. 3. of levying war: for that clause is, if a man levy war against our sovereign lord the king in his realm; and by the matter found in the special verdict it appears that these men were listed and sent beyond sea to aid the French king." In the original report the words in his realm are printed in Italics, as marking the particular part of the statute on which the opinion rested. But suppose the proposed war had been within the realm: is not the implication from the reasoning of the court irresistible, that the enlistment would have been a sufficient overt act of levying? It is not clear that the court in this case considered the statute of Edward as explained and expounded by that of Richard II.: that they distinguished between the levy and the war ; and required according to the express letter of the second statute that not only the preparation, but the purposed war should be within the realm ? But it has been said that if the enlistment had been a sufficient overt act of levying war, then war had been levied within the realm. But this is confounding the levy with the war , the means with the end, the preparation with the purpose: it is losing sight of the requisition of the statute that not only the levy, but the intended war shall be within the realm. Besides when the court avows the reason of their opinion; when they declare it to consist (not in the insufficiency of the fact of preparation, but) in the fact that the proposed war was to be out of the realm , with what propriety can it be argued that their opinion rested, not on the reason which they themselves avow, but on one which they do not avow and which they disapprove as far as they can do it by implication? If it was immaterial where the war was to be, if the enlistment of men was in itself sufficient as an overt act of levying war, why did not the court take this ground at once and say that the mere enlistment of men was not an overt act of levying war? The answer is obvious; it was because they considered the statute as requiring that the purposed war should be within the realm ; whereas the war as found by the jury was intended to be out of the realm; and to my judgement, the inference is equally obvious that if the war had been found to be intended within the realm, the court would have had no doubt that the war had been levied by the enlistment. The case in Ventris therefore is so far from warranting the conclusion that the mere enlistment is not a sufficient overt act of levying war; that in my conception, it warrants the conclusion that it is a sufficient act. And if the case in Ventris does not justify that doctrine that enlistment is insufficient as an overt act, I defy the gentlemen to produce a case, not dependent on that , which does warrant it. But let me yield the authority of this case, let me admit it to prove what it has been supposed to prove, still it impairs the etymology of the word levying , no farther than this, that raising men only is not levying war. How far then are we to carry the meaning of this word levy ? Shall we add the other meaning of the word in the original language and say that the men must not only be raised, but that they must be brought together, assembled? Be it so; and I contend that neither the courts of this country or of England have ever required more than an assemblage of men with treasonable intent; whether they be armed or unarmed; whether they use force or not; whether their numbers be great or small; still according to authority the treason is complete.
Arms are not necessary. Whenever the English books have appeared to require them, it will be found, on examination, to be in the statement of some hypothetical case, where the overt act is to contain, within itself , evidence of the treasonable intent: but whenever the treasonable intent can be proved by evidence extrinsic of the overt act, arms have never in any case been required. 1. Hale 131, for example puts these cases; "As where people are assembled in great numbers armed with weapons offensive, or weapons of war—if they march thus armed in a body—if they have chosen commanders or officers—if they march cum vexillis explicatis, or with drums or trumpets or the like." In all these cases there is not a word of any extraneous evidence of the treasonable intent: but that intent was to be found in the appearance and warlike array of the assemblage itself. Mr. Dallas, whose legal opinions are certainly entitled to very high respect, when he was of counsel for John Fries, and was consequently not interested in extending the doctrine of treason, admitted the distinction which I have here taken. In page 108 of Fries's trial he is reported to have said—"As on the one hand I grant that the circumstance of military array is not necessary to an act of treason, if the intention is treasonous, so I insist on the other hand that the circumstance of military array will not constitute treason, without such intention." In this he is supported by all the English authorities. Lord Hale who seems more disposed than any other writer or judge to narrow the doctrine of treason, no where says that arms are necessary. Speaking of the difficulty of defining what constitutes levying war, he says it is commonly expressed by the words more guerrino arraitis , 1 Hawk's P. C. 131, that is, in treating generally of the subject or describing the offence in indictments it is commonly expressed; and in this light he is understood by Foster 208. So far indeed is Lord Hale from requiring military array, that by the strongest implication he declares it unnecessary.—Again, the actual assembling of many rioters in great numbers to do unlawful acts, if it be not modo guerrino or specie belli , as if they have no military arms nor march or continue in the posture of war, may make a great riot, yet doth not always amount to a levying of war." What is the candid inference from this passage? that sometimes such an unarmed assemblage, without the warlike array or the show of war, may amount to a levying of war: for if this be not the inference the word always used by Lord Hale has no signification whatever. I affirm that no case can be produced to show arms to be necessary; that no description of an overt act in which arms form a necessary ingredient can be adduced, unless when the overt act itself to afford the only evidence of the design; nor can even the dilum of an elementary writer be adduced to prove that arms are necessary. That on the contrary every writer and every judge who has had occasion to mention the subject directly, has declared arms to be unnecessary; if the intention can be otherwise proven. "I do not think," says Foster 208, any great stress can be laid on "omission," (be-
ing armed or unarmed.) It is true that in case of levying war, the indictments generally charge that the defendants were armed and arrayed in a warlike manner; and where the case would admit of it, the other circumstances of swords, guns, drums, colours, &c. have been added. But I think the merits of the case have never turned singly on any of these circumstances." "In the cases of Damaree and Purchase," he continues, "which are the last printed cases which have come in judgement on the point of constructive levying war, there was nothing given in evidence of the usual pagnantry of war, no military weapons, no banners or drums, nor any regular consultation previous to the rising; and yet the want of these circumstances weighed nothing with the court, tho' the prisoner's counsel insisted much on that matter." In the same paragraph he adds what confirms Mr. Dallas's distinction.—"The true criterion in all these cases is Quo animo , did the parties assemble?" East in his crown law, page 67, collects the authorities together and proves the truth of Foster's positions, that arms or military array are unnecessary; and that the intention is the criterion .—Judges Chase, Iredell, and Foster, expressly declare themselves of Foster's opinion. I beg leave to read a short paragraph from Judge Chase's charge to the jury on the trial of Fries, 197. "The court are of opinion that military weapons (as guns and swords mentioned in the indictment) are not necessary to make such infurrection or rising amount to levying war; because numbers may supply the want of military weapons, and other instruments may effect the intended mischief: The legal guilt of levying war may be incurred without the use of military weapons or military array ." I think I may now consider it as proven that arms are not necessary to the constitution of treason. Since then no arms were necessary to make the assemblage on the island a treasonable assemblage, it is scarcely worth while to notice Mr. Wickham's observation that the rifles which are proven to have been in the hands of the men there, are not necessarily military weapons. I suspect, however, that there may yet be those living in Great Britain who remember the name of general Morgan, and who can bear witness that a rifle in the hands of a back-woodman of America is a military weapon, emphatically, and as formidable a one too as a soldier need wish to encounter.
But we are told that if arms be not necessary, force is necessary to make an assemblage treasonable: let us now enquire if this be so. On this branch of the enquiry I beg leave to premise that in the several cases on this subject the word force is generally used figuratively; intended to signify the assembled body and not any deed of violence actually committed by them status in Vaughan's case it is stated that he came with an armed force ; and in the opinion of the presiding judge of this court in the motion to commit the prisoner in March last, we also find this word used in this figurative sense—page 33: after saying it is clear that an intention to commit treason is an offence entirely distinct from the actual commission of that crime the judge proceeds. "War can only be levied by the employment of actual force . Troops must be embodied; men must be assembled in order to levy war." The troops then being embodied, the men being assembled, war is thereby levied; force is employed; not that a blow is actually struck; but that there is a body capable of using force, if they please to use it. Sir, as to the demand of actual violence, there is not an English authority which countenances it; they concur in distinguishing it. They take the distinction between the bellum levatum and the bellum percussus : thus Foster 218. "An assembly armed and arrayed in a warlike manner for any treasonable purpose is bellum levatum although not bellum percussus . Lifting and marching are sufficient overt acts without coming to a battle or action ." 1. East 67 repeats this doctrine and cites various cases in support of it. Sakels Reports 635—"there may be levying war without actual fighting." Same case 5 St. Trials 37.—There is not a single English authority which requires force, that is actual violence, or the bellum percussus ; the assemblage and clear evidence of the treasonable design have always been held sufficient. The case of Purchase has been erroneously stated from the bar. That case did not turn on the question of force or no force; the difficulty in his case arose from this circumstance; it appeared that Purchase knew nothing of the designs and motives of the rising: it was questioned therefore whether the act of others could be imputed to him. This is proven by the original trial itself; and so Foster 215. considers it. "With regard to Purchase there was some diversity of opinion among the judges present at his trial, because it did not appear upon the evidence that he had any concern in the original rising, or was present at the pulling down any of the houses, or any way active in the outrages of the night, except his behaviour at the bonfire in Drury Lane, whither he came by mere accident for aught appeared to the contrary." But suppose he had been concerned in the original rising, or had been present at the pulling down the houses and encouraged it by his voice; would there have been any doubt? The reasoning of the case shows that there would not; and even as it was, although three of the judges doubted, the majority of them agreed in his guilt and he was condemned accordingly. The case in Kelyng 75 on which the gentleman so much relies to prove the necessity of force is one of those cases in which the treasonable intent is only manifested by the employment of force and the extent to which it is carried. It was the case of a riot, a sudden ebullition of popular passion preceded by no concert, no arrangement and a case therefore in which the intent was unsusceptible of proof, except by the acts of the mob. It was a case, I will add, in which any kind of force would not have been sufficient to make it treason; for if they had stopped with pulling down one hawdy house, or opening one prison to let out a favourite prisoner, that would have been a riot merely; they continued however, together, and in action for two days, and shewed by the extent and nature of the violence which they practiced, that their intent was general and universal. From such a case surely nothing can be inferred which will fairly apply to a case so different as that at bar; a case in which there was a previous concert and arrangement, and a case, in which the quo animo , the criterion of the crime, is susceptible of proof independent of the assemblage. Let us come now to our own country and see if our adjudications require actual force. Before I proceed to the examination of Fries's case,
let me remind you of an observation of Mr. Randolph's, equally elegant and true; "an elementary principle resulting from the circumstances of a particular case and to be found in that single case only should never be applied except to a case parallel in its circumstances." Nothing can be more just than this remark; and it is by violating the rule which it contains, that so much jarring, so much irreconcilable discord, so much Babylonian confusion is seen to exist among our cases. With this remark let us come to the trial of Fries. What was the circumstances of that case? There had been actual violence; it was also a disorganized and disorderly riot and the reasoning of the British cases applied to its character. But as there had been violence in that case and the judge in charging the jury was giving a description of treason adapted to the case at bar, what was more natural than for him to introduce that feature of the case into his description. It will be found that Judge Chase considers the case of Fries as a riot and reasons upon it in that point of view, applying to it all the English doctrine of riot, where violence as before remarked, is the only evidence of treasonable intent. But if each dilum of the Judge in delivering that charge is to be considered as an abstract truth, it will be easy to find in that charge the clearest indications of his opinion that violence is not necessary. Thus in page 196—"It is the opinion of the court that any insurrection or rising of any body of people within the United States, to attain or effect by force or violence any object of a great public nature or of public and general (or national) concern, is a levying of war against the U. S. within the contemplation and construction of the constitution." Here it is not the actual attainment of the object , by violence which is declared to constitute the treason; it is the rising for that purpose ; and in this supposed case nothing is found but the assemblage and the treasonable purpose or intent. In the succeeding paragraph he repeats the same opinion. In the next he declares military weapons unnecessary. Then proceeds with the more particular doctrines of riots as that the purpose must be general or universal; not private or personal. The intention he says is the true criterion of the offence. Next comes a paragraph which has been much relied on: "The court are of opinion that if a body of people conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, that they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war; and the quantum of the force employed neither lessens nor increases the crime; whether by one hundred or one thousand persons is wholly immaterial." I understand the word force here, to be used in its figurative sense; that it is used as contrasted with the conspiracy or mediation of the treason; that it is used to signify the body assembled for the purpose of carrying that conspiracy into effect; hence it is, that in the concluding member of the paragraph, he speaks of the number of assembled or what he calls the quantum of the force , declaring it to be immaterial whether one hundred or one thousand. In the next paragraph he maintains the same idea, concluding that paragraph with these words, " but it is altogether immaterial whether the force used is sufficient to effectuate the object; any force connected with the intention will constitute the crime of levying war ." He proceeds to state that his opinion is in substance the same with the opinion of the circuit court in 1795 in the case of Vigol and Mitchell. Now in the case of Vigol 2 Dall. 347. The court give no absolute opinion; the opinion is rigidly confined to the circumstances of that case, in which the judge states, there were acts of violence and devastation. But in the case of Mitchell, Id. 355. The Judge, Patterson, commenting on the circumstance of its not being sufficiently proven that the prisoner was at general Nevill's house, where the violence was used, speaks thus:—"He is proved by a competent number of witnesses to have been at Couches Fort. At Couches Fort the conspiracy was formed for attacking General Nevill's house, and the prisoner was actually passed on the march thither. Now in Foster 213, the very act of marching is considered as carrying the treasonous intent into effect." In a subsequent part of his opinion speaking of the conspicuous figure which the prisoner had made, the judge uses these explicit words "His attendance armed at Bradock's field would of itself amount to treason, if his design was treasonable." So that if Judge Chase's opinion be, as he professes, substantially the same with that of Judge Patterson's, then a deed of violence is not necessary, but the assembly and treasonable intent are enough. Judge Chase sums up his opinion in these words. "It from a careful examination of the evidence, you shall be convinced that the real object and intent of the people assembled at Bethlehem was of a public nature (which it certainly was if they assembled with intent to prevent the execution of both of the abovementioned acts of congress or either of them) it must then be proved to your satisfaction that the prisoner at the bar incited, encouraged, provided, or aided in the insurrection or rising of the people at Bethlehem, and the terror they carried with them, with intent to oppose and prevent by means of intimidation and violence the execution of both the above mentioned acts of congress or either of them; and that some force was used by some of the people assembled at Bethlehem." But for these concluding words the opinion of the judge would have resolved merely in requiring what Mr. Wickham calls potential force ; the last words may well be accounted for from the particular circumstance of this case in which there was actual violence; and I will venture to affirm that it is the only case in which a deed of violence ever was declared necessary when the assemblage and the treasonable intent could both be made out by proof independent of any such deed. If there be another let it be shown. If this case stands alone, why will you make this principle an abstract and general one; since in the language of Mr. Randolph it results from the circumstances of this particular case and can be found in this case only. I have shown that in England the distinction is clearly settled between the bellum levatum and the bellum percussus ; and that there war may be levied although no blow be struck; I will now show that by the authority of a court of this country superior to that in which Judge Chase fat it has been in substance declared again and again that war may be levied without battle; that the assemblage with a treasonable intent completely the crime of levying war: you will know, Sir, that

I am referring to the opinion of the supreme court in the case of Bollman and Swartwout. In that case page 59-40 the court commences the declaration of its opinion.
"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort."
"To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the court have been committed, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into operation by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war, cannot have been committed."
Is there any requisition of force here? Is it said that the conspirators must be brought into operation by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, and by deeds of force and violence, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed? No, Sir, it is the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, which a one is declared sufficient to make the fact of levying war. "It is not the intention of the court to say that no individual can be guilty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against his country. On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assemblage of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war." Here force is mentioned, but how is it mentioned? merely as the ultimate purpose of the assemblage; the means by which they intend to execute their treasonable design. So in the assemblage on the island their object was the seizure of Orleans; they intended to effect that purpose by force; there was then a body of men actually assembled; and the purpose which brought them together and which they were going to effect by force was a treasonable purpose. To complete the crime of levying war against the United States there must be an actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design." Here an actual assemblage of men for the purpose of executing a treasonable design is declared to complete the crime of levying war; not a word of force or deeds of violence; yet the crime is completed. The court professes to be enumerating the ingredients which taken together would make this crime; and concludes the enumeration by stating that that would complete it: yet it is pretended by the gentlemen on the other side that the great ingredient of force and violence not enumerated by the court is necessary to its completion. "In the case now before the court, a design to overthrow the government of the United States in New Orleans by force, would have been unquestionably a design which if carried into execution would have been treason, and the assemblage of a body of men for the purpose of carrying it into execution, would amount to levying war against the United States, but no conspiracy for this object, no assemblage of men to effect it, would be an actual levying of war." Here again the court declares that the assemblage for the treasonable purpose would amount to levying war; well, if that would amount to levying war, it required nothing else to make it amount to it; yet gentlemen persist in saying it did require something else, as deeds of violence, to make the assemblage an act of levying war, or what is bolder still, that these deeds of violence were required by the opinion of that court. In other words that while the court was perpetually and uniformly saying one thing, they as uniformly meant a totally different one—Let us proceed with the opinion. "If this enterprise was against Mexico, it would amount to a high misdemeanor; if against any of the territories of the United States, or if in its progress the subversion of the government of the United States, in any of their territories, was a mean clearly and necessarily to be employed, if such mean formed a substantial part of the plan, the assemblage of a body of men to effect it would be levying war against the United States."
"But whether this treasonable intention be really impracticable to the plan or not, it is admitted that it must have been carried into execution by an open assemblage of men for that purpose, previous to the arrest of the prisoner, in order to consummate the crime as to him; and a majority of the court is of opinion that the conviction of Mr. Swartwout affords no sufficient proof of such assemblage."
"We have been before told that the assemblage with the treasonable intent would amount to levying war, would complete the crime of levying war, were in variant language but language equally as strong if not stronger—we are told that if the treasonable intent is carried into execution, how? by deeds of violence and force? No; but by an open assemblage of men for that treasonable purpose; this crime is consummated; not that by such assemblage the crime is in an incipient stage; not that it is advancing to maturity; but that it is consummated. To remove all possibility of doubt, the court then begin to consider the subject analytically. "The prisoner stated that "Col. Burr with the support of a powerful association extending from New York to New Orleans, was levying an armed body of 7,000 men from the state of New York and the western states and territories, with a view to carry an expedition to the Mexican territories."
"That the association, whatever may be its purpose, is not treason, has been already stated. That levying an army may or may not be treason, and that it depends on the intention with which it is levied, and on the point to which the parties have advanced, has been also stated. The mere enlisting of men without assembling them is not levying war. The question then is whether this evidence proves Col. Burr to have advanced so far in levying an army as actually to have assembled them." Here again it is clear that if the case has gone so far as that the men have been assembled, the crime in the opinion of the court is complete. Proceeding with the analysis the court says: "It cannot be necessary that the whole army should assemble, and that the various parts which are to compose it should have combined. But it is necessary there should be an actual assemblage, and therefore this evidence should make the fact unequivocal."
"The traveling of individuals to the place of rendezvous would perhaps not be sufficient. This would be an equivocal act, and has no warlike appearance. The meeting of particular bodies of men and their marching from places of partial to a place of general rendezvous would be such an assemblage."
"The particular words used by Mr. Swartwout are that Col. Burr was levying an armed body of 7,000 men. If the term levying in this place implies that they were assembled, then such fact would amount, if the intention be against the United States, to levying war. If it barely imports that he was enlisting or engaging them in his service, the fact would not a-
"It is, therefore, the opinion of a majority of the court, that in the case of Samuel Swartwout, there is not sufficient evidence of his levying war against the United States to justify his commitment on the charge of treason." After this language so clear and unequivocal, I should feel that I was insulting the understanding of the court, if I were to press the inquiry whether deeds of violence are necessary to constitute the treason of levying war against the United States. So far from deeds of violence the court does not even require the assemblage of the whole force; but expressly declares that the mere marching of individuals from a place of partial to a place of general rendezvous is such an assemblage as would amount to levying war. Our court in this case has clearly maintained the line of demarcation acknowledged by the British courts between the Bellum levatum and the Bellum percussum .
Does reason, Sir, and more than law, require that you should wait until the blow be struck? If so, adieu to the law of treason and to the chance of punishment. The aspiring traitor has only to lay his plan, assemble his forces, and strike no blow till he is in such power as to defy resistance. Then what becomes of your constitution, your law of Congress or your courts? he laughs them to scorn.
But where can be the necessity of waiting for actual violence? The overt act is only required as proof of the secret intention; now, although it is true, as Mr. Lee says, that hard knocks are things we can all feel, yet it is equally true, that an assemblage of men is an object which we can all see; true it is, as the gentleman says, that small arms and cannons may be heard; so may the disclosure of a treasonable plot. At least, the overt act which they require is but an appeal to the human senses; and the overt act which we have proven is equally satisfactory to them.
But Mr. Randolph likes to know if enlisting be not enough, where you will draw the line short of force: the answer is obvious; at the assemblage; where the courts of England and the highest court of this country have concurred in drawing it.
Mr. Wickham, indeed, complains that if you stop short of actual force, you take away the locus penitentiae . I say if you do not stop short of it, you take away the motive of repentance; for you offer the traitor victory and triumph and it is not in their arms that we are to expect from him repentance. But was there, Sir, no opportunity for repentance in this case? We shall prove that the prisoner was for more than a year brooding over this treason. The ruin & desolation which he was about to bring upon this country must have been before him when all his love of his country were so far extinguished in his breast that he would not forbear; if the downfall of liberty and the horrors of civil war gave no pang of remorse to his bosom, why for his own sake did he not repent? Why did he not remember the treason of Cæsar and the dagger of Brutus? Why did he not remember Cromwell, as bold and daring as himself, and the miserable effects of his successful usurpation; the terrors that haunted and scourged him day and night, and blasted him even amidst the splendor of a palace. Cæsar and Cromwell, he did remember; not to detect and to repeat; but to envy, to admire and to emulate. Such is the kind of remorse which he felt at the idea of drenching his country in blood and substituting despotism for liberty; such the very promising disposition and temper for repentance which alone he manifested.
Sir, it is clear that neither reason nor law require actual war, the bellum percussum , in order to make a levying of war. But Mr. Wickham tells us, that if actual force be not necessary, potential force at least is necessary; and by potential force he means intimidation. To illustrate his meaning still more dimly, he puts this case: suppose a body of men assemble in the country in great numbers and move into this town for the purpose of attacking the capitol and seizing the public arms; the people of the town intimidated by them, stand aloof and make no resistance; this, says he, is potential force.
To this requisition I have two answers: First, that neither the law of England nor the supreme court of this country require any such thing. I need not repeat the authorities upon this subject. The passages which I have recently read from the decision of the supreme court are fresh upon your memory; and you know that they do not even squint at any such idea; but repeatedly declare the crime to be completed and consummated by the bare assemblage for a treasonable purpose.
My second answer to this requisition of potential force is this, that if it be necessary, and if I understand what is meant by it, it does exist in the case at bar. Let us examine what is meant by potential force. In the case put by the gentleman of a multitude marching to attack the capitol and the people of the town standing off in apprehension and alarm; what is the force which operates? not hard knocks, confessedly; but the excitement of fear and apprehension. Suppose, however, that the town people instead of being frightened into submission, had been excited by apprehensions for their capital and themselves to take arms in their defence; the same affection, of the mind would still be in operation, although in a different degree; it would still be apprehension for their safety, which would urge them to their defence; in this case the approaching body, although not successful, has had its effect; it has compelled the town to arm in opposition to it; would not this be completely the exertion of potential force; would not the town have been forced to its defence; and as the force which produced that effect was not actual, must it not have been potential? Suppose in this case, the town thus compelled to arm in its defence should march out to meet the approaching body; should rent them, without a blow on either side, and should seize and destroy their baggage wagons; I ask whether this approaching body, formed of citizens, would not be traitors? My reason and judgment tell me that the force then acting on the inhabitants of the town, the alarm which made them fly to arms, is potential force; and that those who had exerted this species of force upon the town, would be traitors even according to Mr. Wickham's conception.
I ask then, whether the assemblage on Blennerhassett's island did not exert this species of potential force on the surrounding country? What was it that urged the State government of Ohio, to send a body of men to take this party and seize their boats? It was a well founded alarm and apprehension of the objects of this assemblage. What was it that caused the militia of Wood County to be put in motion and marched to the island? The same mental affection, the same potential force, the same alarm and apprehension which had acted on the government of Ohio? What was it, when this assemblage fled from the island and advanced down the river, gathering, like a snow ball on the side of a mountain, magnitude and momentum as it rolled along, what was it that threw the city of N. O. into dismay and consternation, and produced the movement of the American army in that quarter for its defence?—Sir this terror and alarm arose from the designs of the prisoner and his party designs which we shall
prove upon them, if permitted. And contemplable in point of numbers as the party under Aaron Burr may appear, it will be shown to you, Sir, that the United States had not a garrison on the river, nor in N. Orleans in the then temper of that city, capable of resisting the designs of the prisoner. These are facts which will be in proof if the evidence shall go on; and furthermore, if the accused and his party may be believed, that he had men engaged, and prepared to join him at the motion of his finger in sufficient force to have given battle, and in a better cause, successful battle, to the whole army in the South. This threatened power did not indeed rise and shew itself; the unexpected vigour of the government, and the equally unexpected virtue and indignation of the country, awed them into silence and kept them down. Upon the whole, Sir, if potential force be required, we shall prove it in this case; and I believe it is by this time too apparent that the assemblage on the island had every character and property which either law or reason require to constitute an overt act of levying war.
But let me suppose that you shall think otherwise; to whom does it belong to decide whether there has been an overt act or not? What did you yourself decide the other day upon this subject?
"Levying of war, is a fact, which must be decided by the jury. The court may give general instructions on this, as on every other question brought before them, but the jury must decide upon it as a compound of fact and law. Two assemblages of men not unlike in appearance, possibly may be, the one treasonable and the other innocent. If, therefore, the fact exhibited to the court and jury, should, in the opinion of the court, not amount to the act of levying war, the court could not stop the prosecution—but must permit the counsel for the United States to proceed to show the intention of the fact, in order to enable the jury to decide upon the fact, coupled with the intention."
In strict uniform with this opinion is the English law. 1 Hale, P. C. 1 East 67. This court then having itself decided that the question whether there has been an overt act or not belongs exclusively to the jury, it is strange that the prisoner should persist in pressing it on the court. What does he mean by it? Such an anxious perseverance in this course, certainly implies a reflection either on the jury or the court: it implies his belief either that the jury will not do him justice or that the court will do him more than justice; if he believed that the jury would do him justice, and wished nothing more, he would be content to leave his case to the jury; if he believed the jury would not do him justice and he therefore tries to force his cause before the court, whether they will or no, I may truly say that he exhibits a phenomenon unprecedented upon this earth; a man flying from a jury of his peers to take refuge under the wings of the court. Sir, I can never think it folly of my countrymen as to believe that innocence need fly from them. Nor will my respect for this court suffer me to apprehend for a moment that any consideration will induce them to invade the peculiar and acknowledged province of the jury. Sir, I believe that my respect for this court, personally and officially, is too well known, to apprehend that remarks of a general nature will be applied to them. But if, at this period, when the intellectual power and illumination of the bench is so universally admitted, a precedent be set, by which the great facts in a trial for life and death, shall be wrested from the jury and decided by the bench—what use may not be made of it hereafter!—In the fluctuations of party—in the bitterness and rancour of political animosity—some tyrant Bromly, or some ruffian Jefferson may mount the bench;—in an evil hour look forward, without horror, to the dark and bloody deeds of death which he might perpetrate armed with such a precedent as you are now called on to set. But you will not set it, Sir. You will not bring your country to see an hour so fearful and perilous as that which shall witness the ruin of the trial by jury. I boulder to reflect what might be the consequences of such an hour.
I have finished what I had to say Sir: I thank the court for its patient and polite attention. I am too much exhausted to recapitulate, and to such a court as this, I am sure it is unnecessary.
MOTION FOR COMMITMENT.
WEDNESDAY, Sept. 23.
Mr. Alexander Henderson's testimony continued.
Mr. Wirt. Could you understand, why your brother inquired whether John Randolph was not concerned? A Because Mr. Blennerhassett had mentioned that the leading characters in the union were concerned, and we considered J. Randolph as a man of great character, and a very leading man. Mr. Wirt. Did you understand whether he said any thing of Mr. Jefferson? A Mr. Blennerhassett said, if Mr. J. was any way imprudent, that Col. Burr would tie him neck and heels, and throw him into the Potomac. Q What did he say of his means of opposition to the government? A He mentioned that with 3 pieces of artillery and 300 sharpshooters, he could defend any pass in the Alleghany Mountains that he had seen, against any force the government could send against him. Mr. Wirt. Did he show you any composition he was about to publish? A He showed me the 1st and 2d No. of the Querist which he intended to publish: at all events he showed me one, which he read to me and then gave it to me to read the over night. I kept it all night and returned it next morning. Mr. Hay. Did he say that he had written those pieces? A So I understood. Mr. Wirt. Did he say that he was going to publish them? A He said, that he was going to Marietta next day to attend to the publication; for that the printer was a timid man and required to be backed. Q What did you inform him about your own intentions? A We informed him that we knew not whether we could or could not join in the scheme. We however told Mr. Blennerhassett that we must not consider us as in any way committed. Mr. Wirt. Do you recollect, he told you, what particular circumstances would prevent your long remaining neutral? A I think, he said, that being in possession of the river, we could not long remain neutral. Q Do you carry your produce to Market through that channel? A We do not. Mr. Hay. He said that Mr. Graham was engaged: had you seen Mr. Graham on the subject? A I had not seen Mr. Graham for 8 or 10 years before; but I saw him a short time after this interview. On the 20th of November, I received a letter from Mr. Graham, earnestly requesting an interview with me at the mouth of Little Kanawha. I met him there on the 22d. I must confess, that I had every inclination to disclose this secret to him, when I first met him, but I did not conceive myself justifiable, because I had promised to keep this communication secret. Considering however that Mr. Blennerhassett had positively assured me that Mr. Graham was positively concerned in it, I asked him first, if he was concerned in any scheme with Col. Burr down the river. He said that he was not, and moreover that he was authorised to prevent and arrest any such illegal proceedings. I then conceived myself justified in communicating to
him the substance of the scheme. Before this time, about the 1st of October we had determined to oppose the scheme; and went down to the mouth of Kanawha to inform Mr. Blennerhassett of our intentions, but he was gone down to Kentucky perhaps with Mr. and Mrs. Allson; and we then sent a message to that effect to Mr. Blennerhassett that they might not be deceived as to our intentions. At the same time my brother and myself proposed a meeting of the citizens of Wood county, in order to obtain the sense of the people on what course they ought to pursue. Mr. Hay. And was there a meeting? A There was. Q Did you come to any resolutions? A We did. Mr. McRae. What was the influence of them? A That we were determined to support the constituted authorities of our country. Mr. Martin. And were the resolutions published? A They were, I think, in a paper published in Morgan Town. Mr. Hay. Do you know B's writing? A I am not certain. Q Did you ever see him write? A I do not recollect. Q Did you receive those two letters from him? A I did. Mr. Hay. This letter dated on the 31st August mentions his intentions to visit you. Winfield. It may not be improper to state what gave occasion to that 2d letter. Mrs. Blennerhassett insisted on taking my little boy home, 2 or 3 weeks with her family. I agreed to it reluctantly. Three or four days after they had left him, I sent my overseer for my boy, who brought the child with that 2d letter from Mr. Blennerhassett. This 2d letter covered an extract from a Marietta paper signed Querist , relative to the "Western World," and referred to in that letter. Mr. Wirt. Do you know Peter Taylor? what is his character? A I have heard no one speak of him but Mr. Blennerhassett, and he spoke of him in very high terms. Q What is your brother's name? John G. Henderson? A Yes. Q Did he not represent Wood county? A He did some years ago.
Cross Examination.
Mr. Blennerhassett. Have you not been a representative of Wood County? A Yes. Q You lived in Wood county sometime before I knew you? A I did. Q Did you any reason for not cultivating my acquaintance sooner? A I had: the reasons were partly private and partly political. I have no objection to state those reasons. The political reason, that you were a democrat, and I was opposed to the present administration. Q Do you not recollect that I opposed the election of your brother J. G. Henderson and that my vote was refused? A I do; for I then perforated my brother. Q Do you not recollect that it was refused because I had at that time no deed for my land? A I do. Q Do you not recollect that I had the honour of voting for you on a subsequent occasion? A I do. Q Was it not after that election, that our acquaintance was formed? A It was. Before that election, I do not recollect to have known you.
THURSDAY, Sept. 24.
MR. ALEXANDER HENDERSON'S Cross Examination, (Continued).
Mr. Blennerhassett. Do you recollect at the time of our conversation, you expressed any personal dislike of Col. Burr? Did you not express a sense of hostility towards him? A I am sorry that the gentleman has put the question. I am sorry to wound any man's feelings wantonly. But I always thought him a dangerous man, and the late occurrences have not at all changed my opinion. Mr. Martin. How long has your opinion of him been formed? a 10 or 15 years ago, when he was making the tour of Virginia. Mr. Martin. No; when he was said to be fixing means to overturn the federal administration? a I do not recollect; but I heard much at that time of Col. Burr. Mr. Hay. Here willed to identify the 2 letters, which Mr. Henderson had presented to the court, from Mr. Blennerhassett. Mr. Bats however admitted them. They were then read by Mr. Hay, but they contain nothing important. The examination proceeded. Mr. Hay. Did you, Sir, read the Querist ? a I read the 1st No. in manuscript. It was signed Querist . I think you said yesterday, that Mr. B. confessed, he was the author and was going to Marietta to publish these publications on such evidence. He observed, that somebody may have written under the same signature on the very same subjects; and that there was a lacuna or chasm, which was required to be filled up. Mr. Hay. We will fill up that chasm. Mr. Neal copied it.
Mr. Neal was then called into court and sworn. Mr. Hay. Will you state to the Judge, what you know of the publication in the Marietta Gazette , under the signature of Querist ? A About the 1st Sep. Mr. B. sent for me and told me that he had something to copy about the division of the states; and that the printer had met with some difficulty in understanding the writing of the 1st No. I copied the 2nd and 3rd Nos. and carried them to Fairbank, the printer at Marietta, and gave them to him. Q Did you read the papers as they came out? a Yes. Mr. Blennerhassett supplied me with the whole, Q Did they correspond with the manuscript? a Yes. The very same I think. The court accepted them, but on the suggestion of Mr. Hay, the reading was waived, and they were to be put into the possession of the C. Juit.
At Mr. Hay's suggestion, all the witnesses who had been examined, were agreed to be discharged, except Gen. Eaton. He declared that he did not "wish to go."
JOHN G. HENDERSON.
I rode with Mr. Blennerhassett and his wife to my brother's house on the second Monday in September last. When we got near to my brother's, Mr. B. introduced the subject of the separation of the union. He stated, I think, that it was to be concluded under the auspices of Col. Burr. He mentioned that there were many eminent characters in the Eastern and Western states concerned. He mentioned the names of Gen. Eaton and Mr. John Graham, perhaps others at that time, I do not recollect. I do not believe that anything more passed between us, till we arrived at my brother's. When we got to my brother's, we took some refreshment (dinner). I was not much in company with Mr. B. till dinner, and I do not know whether his conversation led to that subject or not. After dinner we walked into the meadow; my brother, Mr. B. and myself. The subject was then renewed, under injunctions of secrecy which we agreed to observe. Mr. B. observed that it was a subject of great importance. He stated that the object was the separation of the Union; he mentioned characters who were concerned in it; observed that Col. Burr was at the head of it, or words to that effect. I spoke very much in praise of Col. Burr; mentioned an instance of his goodness of heart with respect to the Manhattan Company, and making the fortunes of many without benefiting himself. Gen. Eaton's and Mr. Graham's names were again mentioned as concerned, and a number of others, whom I do not recollect, that were acquainted with it; among the rest was Mr. Harper, & Mr. Allson's name was mentioned, as being highly pleased with the scheme. In the course of conversation, Mr. B. observed, that New Orleans would be seized. He mentioned that the Park of French Artillery at N. O. was, which Mr. B. believed was too economical to purchase, was to be procured, whether located or obtained in any other way, I do not recollect. He stated that the people in the lower country were displeased with the present government on account of their interests not being protected or attended to. He seemed to apprehend no opposition in that quarter. He said, the attempt would be made in less than 9 months; that he himself had embarked in it. He observed, that it would be a favorable juncture for effecting the object, owing to a want of energy in the administration; I am not, however, certain, whether he or which of us made the observation; we all three concurred in it. I think Mr. Blennerhassett observed, that he hoped he should see my brother at the head of a regiment of horse, at some time, but I do not recollect. He seemed anxious for
us to join. Sometime in the course of conversation, the name of Mr. Grainger was mentioned, I thought in a threatening style, as if he would have cause to repent his having made use of an expression sometime before published, importing that danger was threatening in the West. I do not know whether my brother was present during this observation. Mr. B. said, that we must take an active part one way or the other, as we could not remain neutral. He mentioned an expression of Colonel Burr's, respecting the people in the city, or the administration; that if they were any way imprudent, he would tie them neck and heels, and throw them in the Potomac. Mr. Hay. Did I understand you to say that this was an expression quoted from Col. Burr? a Yes. We desired Mr. B. just before he left my brother's, just to consider us as committed; that it was a subject which required reflection; and that we must consult our friends on this side the mountain, who were interested in that country. I mentioned to my father under the same injunctions, on which I had received it from Mr. Blennerhassett. I recollect having asked Mr. B. when he spoke of the leading characters of the Union, whether John Randolph had been made acquainted with it. He answered, no. Mr. B. said, why did you put that question? a Because Mr. B. had said, that the leading characters of the country were concerned. I asked Mr. B. what kind of a government he would establish in the Western country; He said, that this was not yet determined; but that a more energetic one than the present, would be accepted. I asked Mr. B. also, if any foreign power was concerned. He assured me, there was none.
Mr. Hay. You asked me what form of government was to be established? a Yes. Q Which did you suppose the fear of this energetic government was to be? a He did not mention, but I supposed it was some central place. Mr. McRae. Did he mention the line of division? a He did not particularly, but he said that the people in the South Branch would be in an awkward situation. Q Did he mention the Alleghany? a I do not recollect. Q Did he mention any thing about commanding the falls of the Alleghany? a Yes. He said, that with a few cannon and a few sharpshooters, he could defend any pass in the Alleghany. Q Did he mention the Querist in your presence? a He did. Q What did he say of it? a He read one number of it. The first words in it were "sinister-habits everywhere reaches or informs," or some such expression. Q Do you remember what was the object of those pieces? a I understood that it was to promote the separation of the union. Mr. McRae. Do you recollect any observations about Blennerhassett's property? a I think he eliminated his property on the island at 50,000 dollars, and besides he had a small fund in Europe, which he said would be safe. He said they could not touch that. Mr. McRae. What did he mean by "they"? a I do not know his allusion; but I suppose he meant the government. Mr. Wirt. Do you recollect any observation about the expenses of supporting government? a He said that we were contributing 3 or 4 millions to the present government, when 100,000 would be sufficient for a government of our own—Winfield. I have omitted to state, that after my brother received his last letter from Mr. Blennerhassett, my brother and myself went down to inform him of our decided opposition to his plan. He and Mr. Allson were gone down the river, and we directed the overseer to inform Mrs. Blennerhassett of our intention. There was a subsequent meeting of the people of Wood county on this subject, and resolutions were adopted in opposition to the scheme. And a month afterwards, the militia volunteered their services to suppress it. Shortly after I left that county for Dumfries.
Cross Examination—Mr. Wickham. Was this conversation in earnest or jest? a Perfectly serious. Q Did you hold any conversation with Mr. Blennerhassett before this, which led to it? were you in the habit of expressing opinions adverse to the union? a I never was opposed to the union. Q Is it talked of in that country? a It has been talked of as an event that would take place in half a century or a century. Q Was your deposition ever taken? a It never was. Q At what instance, did he mention of the people you spoke of take place? a Several of us called at, & among the rest my brother and myself. Q And they left resolutions about this plan? a They did. Q How were they inclined of this scheme? a From reports in the county. Q Did you communicate any information to this meeting? a No; nor my brother; any thing but general observations. Q What was the purport of those resolutions? a Nothing but to prepare for the danger which was to be apprehended. One of the resolutions alluded particularly to Col. Burr. Q Was Mr. Blennerhassett's name ever mentioned? a A proposition was made to inform Mr. Blennerhassett of our views in one of the resolutions; but I opposed it. Q Did you communicate on this subject with Mr. Graham? a I had left the country at that time. Mr. Martin. Where were your politics? a They were federal and are so still. Mr. McRae. What have you considered Mr. Blennerhassett's politics to be? a Democratic. Chief Justice. Did you understand that this separation was to be effected by political means quietly or by force? a I understood him to mean, that if the lower country was in their possession, it would bring the upper country along with it. Mr. McRae. And he conceived the lower country to be determined with the government? a He did. Mr. Wirt. Did Mr. Blennerhassett state the manner in which this revolution was to be brought about? a No; he did not. Q Did the meeting in Wood county arise from any of Mr. Blennerhassett's declarations, or from the movements in the Ohio? a I suppose the last. Mr. Blennerhassett. What movements? a I did not mention that word. I alluded to the building of the boats and kiln-drying meal, &c.
Alexander Henderson again called by the counsel for the accused.
Here, at Mr. Wickham's request, the court for the prosecution read the numbers of the Querist , from the Ohio Gazette . They consist of a short introductory essay, containing some flourishes on "The Western World" and of three other numbers, which decided object appears to have been to demonstrate to the western people the advantages that would result to them from a dissolution of the union, and their constitutional right to adopt this expedient. Every line of them breathes the air of a discontented, disaffected, and revolutionary spirit. The reader must be satisfied with this general character of them. We re-published one or two of them during the last fall; and were they not even too voluninous for our paper, we could have no other possible motive for re-publishing them, than to show that even in such a country and under such a government as our own, there are yet spirits wild and wanton enough to fish for a revolution. But there are direct proofs enough of this discontented disposition. Pass we on therefore to such proofs:
Mr. Wirt to the court: "It is remarkable that Col. Burr was at the island on the 1st of September and the 1st No. of the Querist is dated on the 4th." Mr. John Henderson returned to supply the omission in his evidence: That Blennerhassett informed him, that the officers of the army and navy were disgusted with the administration and disposed to join. Mr. B. also mentioned in the course of the day, that Gen. Moreau was expected to reside near Pittsburg.
Richard Nalle. Whilst I was copying the Querist , Mr. Blennerhassett informed me in conversation, that the object was to divide the states by the back bone, the Alleghany, including a part of Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky & all the Western country; to establish a separate government on that side of the mountain, by which means the money arising from the sale of the lands would be kept among themselves. I asked him where was to be their Capital. He said he expected it to be at Lexington, Kentucky. I asked him if Congress would not be opposed to it. He said he expected not; but it was immaterial whether they were or not, as one cannon on the mountain would keep all the forces they could send—a late Wood county paper of the 20th October with a draw of logs for Lexington, which Mr. Blennerhassett and my brother (the overseer) had purchased in partnership. A week or two before I started, Mr. B. was in our place, and I never saw him till I met with him in our place.

MR. JOHN GRAHAM. In the latter end of October last, I received a letter from Mr. Madison, requesting that I would pass through the Western country, on my return to New-Orleans...
came you, fir, informed about this title? a. I had been at New-Orleans, where the subject was much talked of. b. Have there been any judicial proceedings about it?
there never was one. Mr. Burr. You have said that the greater part was water; I will assure the court, that it was to be laid out without any water. c. Were you ever examined before?
leans; but never since; but I have had frequent communications with Mr. Blennerhassett. The first time I ever had any, was at Marietta in September 1806, when I had flour to sell.
population of Zealand, which contains their capital, and the true courage of the inhabitants which has been already braved, with the indignation excited by this second unprovoked invasion...
Sales at Auction. For the benefit of the underwriter, to be sold by the subscribers, on Monday the 30th inst. without reserve: ONE BALE CLOTHES, T.M.R. No. 1, damaged on board the Harkness, Capt. E. G. Parrot from Liverpool.
NOTICE. THE Subscribers, Commissioners appointed by the Court of Cuyahoga County, to contract for the building of a COURT-HOUSE, for said county, give this notice. Plans of the same are lodged with Mr. Richard Norris and Capt. Benjamin Shackleford in the town of Fairfax, for the inspection and information of such as may be inclined to undertake the same.
Ran away from the subscriber, in the month of June last. A SMALL NEGRO MAN, by the name of JOE, of a yellow complexion; his hair grows very far back, and shows a large forehead; he is about 40 years of age and is a very good shoemaker, and likewise undertakes to be a doctor; he is inclined to be sickly.
SAMUEL MYERS, Has removed his Counting-Room to the Brick Warehouse fronting the Basin, lately occupied by Messrs. Lefevre and Saunders, and adjoining Messrs. T. and L. Ludd.
WHERE HE HAS FOR SALE—LIVERPOOL Salt in Sacks, Green Coffee, Holland Gin, Virginia Wine in Quarter Casks, Soft Shelled Almonds, October 3.
ANTHONY PEIZER, TEACHER of the FRENCH LANGUAGE, at Duf. Haller's Academy, respectfully informs his friends and the public in general, that his EVENING SCHOOL is actually open for the reception of PUPILS on the street leading to Col. May's bridge, in the upper part of the house adjoining the Rising Sun Tavern and occupied by Mr. John Darroux.
At a Court held for Henrico County, at the Court House, the ninth day of September, 1807. Joseph Wheatley & Company, Compts. against George Duncan and Lazarus Joseph, Defs. IN CHANCERY.
THIS day came the complainant by his counsel, and the defendant Thomas Reeves, not having entered his appearance and given security according to the act of Assembly and rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that he is not an inhabitant of this country; On the motion of the complainant; it is ordered, That the said defendant, Thomas Reeves, do appear here on the fourth Monday of November next and answer the bill of the complainant; and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some newspaper published in the city of Richmond for two months successively, and another copy thereof at the front door of the court house of this county.
Last Evening's Mail. IMPORTANT. The English Expedition—The Schooner Joanna, Capt. Prince, arrived at Salem on Tuesday last in 50 days from Cronstadt, and 40 from Elsinore.
From this information it is probable that a similar scene like that of 1801, has opened at Denmark. This unoffending people are again called to contend for the liberty and existence of their nation. The great

Europe.
NEW-YORK, Sept. 26.
LATE FOREIGN NEWS.
Continued from London papers to the 15th of August, inclusive, received at the office of the Mercantile Advertiser.
LONDON, August 12.
A mail from Gottenburgh arrived yesterday. The private letters by this conveyance, state, that the Emperor Alexander arrived at Peterburgh on the 17th ult. but that his arrival was not announced by any discharge of cannon, or any other demonstration of joy. The mail contains an account of the military operations at Stralsund to the 23d ult. but we had previously received accounts to late as the 30th, at which time the fortress had not surrendered. The German Legion did duty for the first time on the 21st. On the same day Lord Cathcart left Stralsund for Riga.
The private letters by the Tonnigen mail which arrived on Monday evening, state, that the recent proceedings in Russia have little confidence in the adherence of Russia to the interests of Great Britain; and indeed, the circumstances imparted by Mr. Secretary Canning in the House of Commons on Monday evening, have considerably damped the hopes of those among us, who, on the first blush of the subject, expected from the Russian overture a pacific result. The friendly intentions manifested towards this country in one of the articles of the Treaty between Russia and France, have, from circumstances which remained to be explained, been suffered to remain a dead letter in respect to us, who were the declared object of it. We cannot help observing, that Bonaparte far from having lost sight of his favorite object of hostility against Great Britain, appears by the last letters from the continent, to be more intent than ever on the establishment of a new law of nations, securing the liberty of the seas and the independence of every flag. Whether Russia will ultimately be induced to enter into those ingrate views of Bonaparte against the naval supremacy of Great Britain, is a question upon which we are at present desirous of withholding our opinion. The continental politicians, however, are less backward in pronouncing their decision upon this subject; and it is even asserted, that to determine whether Napoleon upon the universal recognition of his favorite principle, that the French troops will remain in Germany until the full accomplishment of his object.
The passengers who came over in the last packet from Tonnigen, state, that previously to the sailing of the packet, an express had arrived, with instructions for all the English ships lying at Tonnigen, to proceed down the river, below the battery. This is considered as a precautionary measure to secure the shipping, in case the French should by force or stratagem, get possession of the battery which commands the navigation of the river.
Dispatches were yesterday received at the Admiralty from Admiral Gambier, which were brought to Grimsby by the Swan cutter. At the date of these, the fleet had not reached its destination, but was continuing its progress towards the Baltic.
DIFFERENCES WITH AMERICA.
The following resolution and circular letter have been drawn up by the American Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool:—
At a general and very numerous meeting of the members of this Association, held this day, it was Resolved unanimously, That the following circular letter, prefixed to this resolution, be printed, and that the Vice-President (in the absence of the President) be requested to sign the same, on behalf of the American Chamber of Commerce in Liverpool, and to transmit a copy thereof to Philip Santon, Esq. Chairman of the Committee of American Merchants in London.
(CIRCULAR.)
SIR, A Meeting of the members of the American Chamber of Commerce, at this port, has been convened this day, for the purpose of taking into consideration the present serious and critical state of affairs, as relating to the intercourse between the British Empire and the United States of America.
When it is considered how essentially the vital interests of both the countries are concerned in a maintenance of the relations of amity and commerce, and particularly at the present juncture, it must be the wish of every sincere friend to his country, whether British or American, that these relations should not be interrupted, unless such interruption be rendered inevitable by some imperious and irresistible necessity, arising from that regard which it is incumbent on every country to pay to its honor and interest.
If the manufacturers & merchants of this kingdom shall be convinced that the conduct of the British government towards the United States of America has been, and continues, such as becomes a government desirous of preserving the relations of peace and amity; and if it should now be found that their relations cannot longer be preserved, without compromising the honor, and thereby sacrificing the best interests of the British empire, it is hoped there are no sacrifices or privations to which the manufacturers and merchants will not cheerfully submit, in order to prevent such consequences.
On the contrary, the manufacturers and merchants of this kingdom shall be convinced that the intercourse, which has now subsisted for more than twenty years, between the British empire and the United States of America, with so many and such progressively increasing advantages to each, is in danger of being interrupted by an assertion of claims, incompatible with a due regard to the equal rights of both countries, or by unjust conduct on the part of either the British government, or of any persons acting under its authority, it then becomes a duty to exercise that invaluable privilege, the essential bulwark of the British Constitution—of respectively making such representations to the government as the circumstances of the case may require.
And as these circumstances may be such as to render it highly important that the persons making such representations should act with promptness, and in concert, it is requested to inform you, that if such circumstances should arise, the members of the American Chamber of Commerce in Liverpool hold themselves in readiness to correspond and to co-operate with the manufacturers and merchants of Great Britain & Ireland, for the attainment of the important objects herein mentioned. I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient Servant,
JOHN RICHARDSON, Vice-President. Liverpool, August 11, 1807.
August 15.
A mail from Gottenburgh arrived this morning bringing news from Gottenburgh of the 7th, which states that on the 3d Admiral Gambier's fleet passed the Sound saluting Cronberg Castle as it passed, and receiving a salute in return. A great number of English ships of war and transports are also said to have passed Gottenburgh on the 5th and 6th. They were probably the 2d and 3d expeditions. A letter from Copenhagen informs us that orders have been received by the inhabitants in the suburbs to prepare for lodging a large body of cavalry. Another bulletin has been received of the operation against Stralsund, but it is of little importance. The King of Sweden sent his proposal for an Armistice in writing—it was made verbally before. But Brune replied that he could not accede to it except on the condition of Stralsund being surrendered to the French.
A gentleman is arrived who left Tonnigen on the 9th, and Copenhagen on the 4th—at this time there were two British fleets in the Baltic. Admiral Gambier's and the second division which sailed from the Downs.
In consequence of some information said to have been received, relative to the secret Articles of the treaty between Russia and France, Sir Stephen Sharpe, our Consul at Peterburgh, who has been in this country since his return, was dispatched yesterday upon a special mission to the Russian government.
Paris papers have arrived to the 7th, and Dutch to the 11th. The Moniteur of the 6th, contains some notes upon the news extracted from the English papers. It asserts that Prussia will never ratify her treaty with us, and that she will not only shut her ports against us, but declare war. What Bonaparte proposes to accomplish by forcing Prussia to declare war we know not—The hostility of Prussia can now be of no injury to us. From the language used by the French papers, in speaking of the King of Sweden, it is evident that Bonaparte will not make peace with him, unless he consents to abandon all his German Territories.
Forty thousand men, it is said, are to be assembled at Bayonne, for the purpose of forcing Portugal to shut her ports against this country. The assembling of so large a force is, we have little doubt, for other objects than the mere shutting the Portuguese ports against Spain has not yet received the recompence of her devotion to the conqueror—and Portugal perhaps is again destined to be under the Spanish yoke.
Price of flax this day, at 12 o'clock. 3 per cent Cons. for Money 62 3/4—Ditto for August 62 3/4 per cent Red—Omnium par.
From the French Papers.
PARIS, Aug. 8.
Letters from Hamburg state, that a Russian squadron is to join the Danish fleet, in order to shut the Sound against the English. It is also said, that for the same purpose, a corps of French troops is to proceed to Denmark, to act in concert with that corps. The Cardinal of York bequeathed, a short time before his death, to the King of Sardinia all his jewels, worth about four millions of francs, and his title and claim to the crown of Great Britain.
The King of Holland is now at Tarascon, and drinks the waters of Ussat. He is much better.—The Queen is at Cauterets, where she drinks the waters of that place. The prince Benevento, and the secretary, Maret, arrived here on the 5th.
A letter from Copenhagen, dated July 18, says, "The Council at War has not yet decided upon the fate of the principals and accomplices in the late troubles which have taken place in that capital. It is prosecuting its enquiries with activity. The regiment of cavalry of Zealand, stationed in the suburbs, continues to send parolled into the city."
It is said that the Marshals of the empire, commanding the different corps of the grand army, are named dukes, and receive their titles from estates in Poland, which they are entitled to sell, and exchange for others in France. The Generals Walter and Savaury will obtain the same favor. M. Champagny, the Minister of the interior, will also be created a Duke.
The peace has been promulgated in all the cities of the empire with the greatest solemnity, and amidst unanimous and loud repeated cries of—Long live Napoleon the Great! Every where the public joy and gratitude have been manifested by spontaneous illuminations, and devices and inscriptions shifted to the occasion.
August 6.
A deputation from the senate, with the president Lacedepec at their head, and both the Prætors, with the Marshal Duke of Dantzic, and M. Clemen de Ris, went yesterday to St. Cloud, to congratulate the King of Westphalia. A deputation from the Tribune was also admitted to an audience of his majesty.
Bayonne, July 21.
Every thing on our shores wears a warlike aspect. We are in daily expectation of seeing French troops, who are to form an army of 10,000 men, for the purpose of compelling Portugal to shut her ports against the English.—(Journal de l'Empire, Aug. 5.)
Gottenburgh, Aug. 7.
By accounts from Elsinore we learn, that the first division of the English fleet passed the Castle of Cronberg on Monday last, and saluted and received a salute in the customary manner.
A letter from Copenhagen states, that all the inhabitants of the suburbs have received orders for preparing for a considerable number of cavalry to be quartered there.
Extra of a letter, dated London, August 15.
Messrs Mullens have just received information by way of Paris, that the Shepherds, Doan, from London, to New-York, having been carried into Bilbao, the judge at Bilbao has declared the capture to be unjustifiable, and has condemned the captors with damages and interest. The reasons given by the captors for detention were—1st. The French decree of the 21st November, declaring England to be in a state of blockade.—2d. That she carried more passengers than her papers mentioned.—3d. That her bills of lading were not signed.
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
House of Lords—Aug. 13.
NEUTRAL POWERS.
Lord Stanhope rose to make the motion of which he had given notice, respecting a resolution that all independent nations should be treated upon the principle of perfect equality and complete reciprocity. In proposing this resolution to the house, he had not merely in his eye the circumstance in which we now stood with regard to America; the principle to which he alluded should, in his opinion, be extended to all states and nations indiscriminately. He could not help noticing the absence of ministers on this occasion; but he had already occasion to observe that they seemed anxious to avoid all discussions on this topic. He would not say that their conduct was not prudent; but whatever it might be, he felt it incumbent on him to express his sentiments, when the voice of an imperious duty called on him to express them. He had, therefore, most earnestly deprecate a rupture with America, and the House would, no doubt, unite with him in deprecating that calamity, when they duly considered the many difficulties and dangers with which we were already beset. They must recollect that in times of scarcity our principal relief was derived first from Poland, next from America. Poland was now shut against us by the influence of the enemy; would we also shut against us the ports of America by our own folly? Whence were we to derive materials and stores for our naval arsenal, if the North of Europe and North America are to refuse us supplies? Where is the greatness and security of England, when our navy, the source of our pride, the source of our strength and wealth, is gone? These were serious considerations. He should now only remark, that as all individuals, whether high or low, poor or rich, were the same in the eye of God; so nations, whether extremely powerful or weak, whether opulent or poor, should be the same in the contemplation of the law of nations. This was the principle upon which his mind rested, and upon which he grounded the resolution he had now to move. The noble lord then concluded with moving, "That it be resolved, that the principle upon which we should act towards independent nations at peace with the British government, should be a principle of perfect equality and complete reciprocity."
The Lord Chancellor could not but commend the honorable manner in which the noble Earl had expressed himself on topics of such importance. As, however, no authentic documents were before the House, to guide an opinion upon matters of such magnitude, he thought it more prudent not to agitate them under such circumstances. The noble Earl would therefore, he hoped, excuse him for moving the previous question.
Lord Stanhope, in explanation, thanked the noble lord for his kind allusion, and observed that what he had advanced, not only referred to the present state of America, but to all independent nations, at all times, when at peace with us.
Lord Morton objected to the motion, as tending to legislate upon abstract principles, which was contrary to the spirit and the practice of Parliament.
The question was then put, that the present motion be not put; and the previous question was carried without a division.—Adjourned.
STATE PAPER.
[From the German.]
Note of Mr. Canning, English secretary of state for Foreign Affairs to Prince Staremberg, the Austrian Ambassador at London.
"The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has laid before the King the note delivered to him by Prince Staremberg, Ambassador Extraordinary, and Minister Plenipotentiary of his majesty the emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, in which his imperial majesty offers himself as the mediator of a general Peace."
"The undersigned has received it in command from the King his Sovereign, to communicate to Prince Staremberg the included official answer to the note of his imperial M. The King does complete justice to the motives that have induced his imperial majesty to propose a mode of negotiation, which, by embracing the interests of all parties, can alone lead to the restoration of a lasting peace, and the permanent tranquility of Europe; and his majesty, therefore, accepts the offer of his imperial majesty's mediation, so far as he is concerned; but with this provision, that it shall also be accepted by all the other powers involved in the present war."
NOTE.
His majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, has received with due regard the communications of his majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, and also justly appreciates the motives which have upon this occasion determined his majesty to become the mediator of a general Peace.
The King who never ceased to look to a secure and lasting peace as the only object of the war in which he is engaged, and who has never refused to listen to any proposal which offered the least probability of obtaining his proposed object, cannot, for a moment, hesitate to give his full assent to the declared opinion of his majesty the Emperor and King, and that such a peace is only to be obtained by a general negotiation on the part of all the powers engaged in the present war.
The King will have no difficulty in entering upon such a negotiation, as soon as the consent of the other powers interested therein shall have been received. His majesty will without delay, make the necessary communications in this respect to those powers with which he is more especially united by the ties of friendship and confidence, in order to ascertain their views, and in the event of their being favorable to the proposition of his imperial majesty, to consult with them as to the mode in which the negotiations shall commence, and agreeable to his imperial majesty's proposition, to come to an understanding as to the principles which should equally form the ground and basis of discussion and of a general arrangement.
As to what concerns the choice a place to become the seat of negotiation, any place will be equally acceptable to his Majesty, provided (exclusive of the indispensable condition which is also expressed in the note of his imperial majesty, that it shall be free from all immediate influence of the events of the war) that it affords to his British majesty, in the same degree as to the other powers the means of a speedy and uninterrupted communication with the Plenipotentiaries whom his majesty should send to this Congress.
A letter from St. Peterburgh, dated July 5-14 says, "In consequence of the non renewal of the treaty of commerce between Russia and England, and of some recent laws passed here respecting foreigners, it is my intention to leave this country immediately. Some of our merchants here have thought proper to become what is called foreign guests, and to pay for it a tax of 1400 roubles per annum; but I have judged it prudent to quit until a change for the better takes place."
A Russian officer arrived at Milan on the 15 ult. brought orders from his Sovereign for the cessation of hostilities between the Turks and Russians, in the Adriatic and Mediterranean.
Bonaparte not content with revolutionizing the continent, appears now resolved to revolutionize the heavens. The University of Leipzig has resolved that the stars in the Sword and Girdle of Orion shall be in future called, "The Stars of Napoleon."
Letters of a late date, we understand, were yesterday received from Buenos Ayres. The greatest apprehensions prevail there that the place would be shortly attacked by our forces. Most of the inhabitants had retired into the country, few remaining except such as could assist in defending the place. The Spaniards, it is said, were resolute in their determination to resist our troops to the last.
The British ships which were at Tonnigen were on the 7th, by the commander of the Sparkler gun-brig, lying in the Eyder, ordered to proceed immediately to Yarmouth.
The convoy from the Humber for Tonnigen has been countermanded.
Of course the commander of the Sparkler gun-brig, must have received some intelligence of a hostile intention on the part of the Danish government; for no French troops were near Tonnigen. The French have not yet, at least no information has been received to that effect, entered the province of Holstein. Tonnigen is in the province of Schleswig. Bernadotte, according to the last Tonnigen mail was at Kiel, in Holstein, where the Prince Royal of Denmark was, to whom it was generally believed, he had carried a message from Bonaparte. It may be, that in consequence of that message, measures have been determined upon to exclude our trade from the Danish ports, and to stop such ships as were in those ports.
LONDON, Aug. 14.
Mr. Sheridan's motion upon the state of Ireland came on last night, and was negatived upon a division by a majority of 76 to 33.
King Joseph has passed a decree, compelling the agents of all the proprietors of lands in his dominions, who have left the kingdom without having taken the oath of allegiance, to pay the rents into the royal Treasury, on pain of forfeiting double the value.
PARIS, Aug. 2.
The Prince of Benevento (Talleyrand), and M. Maret, the Secretary of State, are arrived at Paris.
August 4.
On Sunday the corps diplomatique repaired to the palace of St. Cloud, and had an audience of the Emperor. The Spanish, Austrian and Portuguese ambassadors, were present. After the audience the institute were introduced and addressed his majesty. He received the members graciously and conversed some time with them.
No important event has marked the so-called war, which the King of Sweden already reports having provoked. The English landed in the Isle of Rugen do not seem very anxious to take part in it. The Swedes are terror-struck on seeing that they have embarked in a quarrel so obviously unequal. They fear, and with too much reason, that the generosity of the emperor may have been wearied out by the extravagant conduct of their sovereign. The possession of Stralsund and Pomerania was advantageous to Sweden, both on account of their commercial relations, and of the political consideration it gave her in the affair of the north—but the scandalous example of this rupture, exposes the King of Sweden to the risk of being excluded from this side the Baltic. We are ignorant what hopes the British government have given him; but he cannot expect an equivalent for the losses he has to fear. When all the nations of the continent sigh for peace, he has suffered himself too easily to be persuaded by the English to furnish them with the means of disturbing it. The common interest ought to get rid of every one who shews himself disposed to endanger the tranquility of Europe.
French Funds 83.
By a gentleman who came passenger in the Perseverance, arrived at Boston from Russia, we learn, that on the 6th August, (a late date from that quarter) 12 English sail of the line, under Admiral Gambier, had passed the Sound, and were taking in water at Elsinore; and that in the Categat, other ships bound up were met with:—That none were permitted by Admiral Gambier to land on the Danish shore, excepting one or two of the chief officers:—That no expectations were entertained at Copenhagen or Elsinore, of any attack of the English on the Danish possessions; and that the object of the expedition was kept a profound secret:—That Stralsund still continued in the hands of the Swedes, and that no new military event had occurred in Pomerania:—That the Emperor Alexander had arrived at Peterburgh
from the army, with the tidings of peace; but that very few demonstrations of joy were seen, the people being indifferent to political events: That General Benningsen had been removed from the command of the Russian army, and another (a Russian) appointed in his place; that this event was supposed to have been occasioned by Benningsen's opposition to the peace; and that his celebrity as an officer continued very great.
Before Contin.
Captain Stickney of the ship America, arrived at Boston, in 36 days from Elsinore, informs, that a British squadron lay there the 8th Aug. consisting of about 20 sail of the line, from 15 to 20 frigates, a large number of ships and brigs, bomb vessels, fire ships, &c. 200 sail of transports, with 40,000 troops. Many of the vessels were loaded with ordnance. Capt. S. further informs, that a British minister landed at Elsinore and proceeded to Copenhagen to enquire of the Danish government, whether they intended to side with the French or English; and that the answer was, that they intended to preserve their neutrality.
A letter dated Liverpool, Aug. 15, says, "The appearances of a rupture with America have subsided, & Admiral Berkeley will be recalled."
Mr. Sansom on the 12th ult. had an interview with Mr. Canning, on the subject of the misunderstanding with America. The minister informed him, that he had sent to the American envoys, to know whether they had received any farther information adding, "that if they had, our government was ready to enter into an amicable adjustment of all differences." The answer was, "that they had received no instructions."
WANTED,
FOR THE ENSUING YEAR,
AN OVERSEER.—None need apply but one who can come well recommended for honesty, sobriety, industry & a thorough knowledge of farming. To a person of this description, liberal wages will be given.
EDWIN JAMES HARVIE.
August 7. tf.
JOHN ALCOCK,
Informes his friends and the public at large, that he has just received, and is now opening, next door to Messrs. Proffer and Manare's vendues, a large assortment of
MERCHANDIZE,
CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES:
CARPENTERS and joiners Tools, iron and steel Locks and Hinges, for house work and cabinet Ware. I also carry on my
CABINET MANUFACTORY,
as usual, adjoining the fire insurance office, and have on hand three thousand dollars worth of furniture, finished in the best workman-like manner and in the newest fashion. Also, Windsor Chairs. I will sell all of the above goods, very low for cash, or good paper at a short date.
Sept. 5. epfr.
TEN DOLLARS REWARD.
Deferted from my recruiting rendezvous in this town, on the 12th instant,
JOSEPH WILLIAMSON, who was duly enlisted on the 15th day of August, as a private in the army of the United States; he was born (according to his own account) in Hanover county, (Virginia;) aged 26 years, he is five feet 7 1/2 inches high, dark hair, hazel eyes, dark complexion, remarkably large and black beard.
The above reward, with reasonable expenses will be paid on the delivery of the said deserter at this place, or to any officer of the army of the United States.
J. C. CARTER,
Ensign 2nd Regt. U. S. Infry. Frederickburg, September 15. tf.
FOR SALE.
THE following PROPERTY, belonging to Robert Alexander, Esq. of Woodford county, in the state of Kentucky:—ALSO OF GROUND, in the City of Richmond, with a valuable House thereon, one room of which is occupied by the Jews as a synagogue—under the house there are a set of Vaults, originally intended for a Wine Cellar; also the Tract of LAND whereon William Alexander, Esq. formerly resided, about three miles from the City of Richmond. Two years credit, from the first day of January next will be allowed the purchaser, of whom bond with good security bearing interest from the said first day of January, and a mortgage on the premises will be required, and to whom a conveyance in fee simple with a warranty will be granted. Possession of the tract of Land may be had on the day of sale, and of the Vaults, but the Jews are entitled to the possession of the rest of the house until the first day of May next.—Unless the property is sold by private bargain, it will be sold publicly at the front door of the Eagle Tavern between the hours of 12 and 3 o'clock, P. M. on Saturday the 24th day of October next. The title papers may be seen and every information granted by applying to me.
WM. HAY, Attorney in fact for
ROBERT ALEXANDER.
Richmond, Aug. 7th, 1807. epfr.
MARSHAL'S SALES.
WILL be sold, to the highest bidder, for ready money, under a decree of the court of the United States for the fifth circuit, in the Virginia district, between Phoncas Bond, attorney in fact for the creditors of Ezekiel Edwards, plaintiff, and David Rofs and others, defendants, in order to raise the sum of fifteen thousand six hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-six cents, due and payable the first day of last month, and the expenses and charges attending the sale; a number of very valuable SLAVES.—The sale will take place at the Oxford Iron Works, in the county of Campbell, on the 23d day of September next.
BEN. MOSBY, D. M.
FOR
JOSEPH SCOTT, M. V. D.
August 7th, 1807. 238
BY consent of the parties, the sale above-mentioned, is postponed till the 15th day of October next, when it will take place at the Oxford Iron Works; and by the like consent, will be sold, under the decree aforesaid, nine thousand six hundred acres of LAND, more or less, situated on Calwaha Creek, and the waters thereof, in the county of Botetourt, granted to the said Rofs by twenty two several patents: one for 1200 acres, bearing date the 12th day of December, 1785; the other twenty-one patents, bearing date on the 13th of May, 1736, and which are as follows: one for 362 acres, four for 500 acres, each; two for 900 acres each; one for ninety acres, one for 410 acres, one for 189 acres, one for 480 acres, one for 290 acres, one for 210 acres, one for 112 acres, four for four hundred acres each, one for three hundred and sixty acres, one for 480 acres, one for 420 acres, and one for 87 acres; the metes and bounds of which Lands will appear by the said patents as mentioned in the said David Rofs's deed of trust to Burwell Starke and others, bearing date on the 5th of June, 1795, and recorded in the General Court.—The sale of the Land aforesaid, will take place at the Eagle Tavern, in the City of Richmond, on the 21st day of October next.
BEN. MOSBY, D. M. FOR
JOS. SCOTT, M. V. DCT.
1 APPROVE, Sept. 19. DAVID ROSS. tm.
THE SUBSCRIBERS
HAVE JUST RECEIVED A SUPPLY OF COLOGNE MILL-STONES, OF DIFFERENT SIZES,
WHICH will be disposed of at Cash or approved negotiable Notes at 60 days. TAYLOR & BROWN. June 19. tf.
AT CITY POINT FOR ROTTERDAM.
The good fast sailing copper-bottomed Ship,
RUSSELL, Capt. TAMER,
Now on her second voyage, is in complete order for the reception of a cargo, and having a large proportion of the fame engaged, will be dispatched in all the present month—for terms of freight apply to Richard Blow, Esq. Portmouth, R. & A. Pollok & Co. Richmond, or BUCHANAN & POLLOK, Peterburgh, Sept. 9. epfr.
MARSHAL'S SALE.
By virtue of a Decree of the United States' Court for the fifth circuit and Virginia District, pronounced May term, 1807; between the Executors of John Somervell, deceased, plaintiffs, and David Rofs, defendant.—Will be sold, for ready money, on Wednesday the 23d of September next, to much of
TRACT of LAND, commonly called & known by the name of the FALLS PLANTATION, lying in the county of Chesterfield, as will raise the sum of one thousand six hundred and eighty dollars, with interest after the rate of six per cent per annum, from 1st January, 1807, till paid and costs.
The sale will take place on the premises, on the day above mentioned, precisely at twelve o'clock. TH: H. BREW, D. M. for JOS. SCOTT, M. V. D. Sept. 1. tf.
The above sale, is postponed (by consent) till