The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1807-09-16 00:00:00

The Enquirer.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE.....AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.....(PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.)
VOLUME 4.]
RICHMOND, WEDNESDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1807.
[NUMBER 37.]
VIRGINIA BANK STOCK.....102.
Richmond Prices Current.
   D. C.     TOBACCO, : : : : : 4 3/4 00   WHEAT, NEW, : : : : 92 to 100   FLOUR—SUPERFINE, NEW, : : : 5 ca/b   FINE, : : : : : 4 50   CORN, PER BARREL, : : : : 4 00   BACON PER lb. : : : : : 16   BAR IRON—PER TON, : : : : 110 to 120   HEMP—PER TON, : : : : 200 to 210   WHISKEY—PER GALLON, : : : : 54  
NOTICE.
TO SUBSCRIBERS. NO BANK NOTES, except of VIRGINIA, will, hereafter, be received in payment at the Office of the ENQUIRER. The practice of transmitting other Notes, not current among us, has become so general, that this measure is deemed indispensably necessary.
TO ADVERTISERS.
NO ADVERTISEMENTS will, in future, appear in the ENQUIRER, except they are precisely paid for, or the payment guaranteed by some responsible person, residing in Richmond or Manchester. The price of advertising 20 lines, or less, in print, is 4/6 for the first insertion, and 3/ for every insertion thereafter. There will be no exceptions to this Rule. September 12.
Europe.
LONDON, July 29.
The terms of the treaty of peace have not yet transpired officially, but it should seem as if no intention were entertained of wresting Silesia from the King of Prussia. All the fortresses in Silesia are it is said, to be delivered up to the King on the 1st of October. It is added, there is to be a meeting of Plenipotentiaries at Berlin on the 25th of July, to complete the arrangements rendered necessary by the peace. Other accounts say, the Congress of plenipotentiaries is to be held at Dresden. The French troops are to evacuate Tilsit, on the 20th of July, Konigsberg on the 25th, Eastern Prussia by the 1st of August, and all the country to the Vistula by the 20th, to the Oder by the 5th of September; and the territories on this side the Oder by the 1st of October. The Duchy of Magdeburg, however, and the right bank of the Elbe, is not to be evacuated before the 1st of November. Bonaparte left Konigsberg on the 13th for Dresden, he proceeds directly to Paris.
ALTONA, July 22.
The following, says a private letter, you may depend upon it, is the substance of the conditions of the treaties between France, and Russia and Prussia:
 1. Russia will not lose any thing, and no cessions are demanded from Austria.  2. There is to be no kingdom in Poland; but Warsaw, and a district round it of about 50 or 60 miles, is to be erected into a Dutchy.  3. Jerome Bonaparte is spoken of as the new duke.  4. Prussia is to take all her territories on this side of the Elbe; and Westphalia and Hanover will, it is supposed, be erected into a kingdom, of which Jerome Bonaparte will be king, as well as duke of Poland.  5. Dantzick is to be a free Hanse town.  6. Dresden, July 16.  7. Prince Jerome is expected here this day from Silesia, and the celebrated royal palace in this place is fitting up for his reception. His royal majesty leaves this capital to-morrow to meet the Emperor Napoleon at Buthsfelde. Besides the French Emperor, the Emperor of Russia, the king of Bavaria, and other princes are expected here. According to other accounts the Emperor of Russia is gone to Petersburg. Our town will be very brilliant.  [PRIVATE LETTER] The following are said to be the fundamental stipulations of the peace concluded between Russia and France:  1. The boundaries of the Dutchy of Warsaw shall be determined as well as  2. That of the territory of the Free Hanse-Towns of Dantzick; the latter are to be marked two miles round the town by the French, Dantzick, Saxony and Prussian arms.  3. The boundaries of the kingdom of Westphalia shall also be defined.  4. Tilsit shall be evacuated by the French troops on the 20th of July, and  5. Konigsberg the 25th July.  6. Before the 1st August, East Prussia, as far as the Passarge.  7. Before the 17th, as far as the Vistula.  8. Before the 5th September, as far as the Oder; and,  9. All the other royal Prussian dominions as far as the Oder, as well as Silesia, by the 1st of October.  10. The province of Magdeburg, on the right of the Elbe, Passauwald, and Prenzlow, shall not be evacuated until the 1st of November.  11. With regard to Stettin, the time of its evacuation shall be determined by the plenipotentiaries, until the evacuation, it shall be occupied by 6000 French troops.  12. Spandau, Custrin, and all the fortresses in Silesia shall be surrendered to the Prussians on the 1st October.  13. All other points yet to be arranged shall be settled by the Plenipotentiaries to be appointed by both Contracting Parties, who are to meet at Berlin, on the 25th of July. The revenue of the Prussian dominion is to be for account of his Prussian majesty from the 13th of July, on condition that the contribution demanded be paid to the French. 
NUREMBERG, July 16.
There is talk of a confederation of the North, to be established under the protection of Russia; of indemnification of several German Princes in the North; of the extension of the Confederation of the Rhine to the Elbe, &c. It is said also that the kingdom of Poland will be re-established, and given to a French prince; and that Russia will engage to renounce for ever Moldavia, Wallachia, and several other neighboring Turkish Provinces.
BANKS OF THE MAIN, July 14.
We learn that the French will not leave Germany till a peace shall have been concluded with England.
WARSAW, July 12.
All the persons in the train of the prince of Benevento, (M. Talleyrand) have left this city for Dresden, where it is said a congress will be held for the conclusion of a general peace. This report, however, requires confirmation.
MAGDEBURG, July 16.
A Courier who passed through this city with the utmost speed, carries orders to Paris to prepare every thing for the reception of his majesty the emperor, who expects to arrive there on the 1st of August. His imperial majesty has left Tilsit, and is going to Dresden, where he is expected.
BANKS OF THE ELBE, July 6.
Letters from Naples say, we may now speedily expect the capture of the Island of Sicily by a corps of French. It is believed that this conquest will be the easier, as the fruitless expedition of the Prince of Hesse Philippi has deprived the court of Palermo of the remainder of its troops, and the greater part of the English troops which were in Sicily have been sent to Egypt.
COPENHAGEN, June 23.—On the 21st inst. the first intelligence was received at Elsinore of several ships having been lost in the North Sea, in the last week but one. The Swedish Mail which arrived yesterday has brought the further particulars, according to which an English ship of war has been totally lost, with several transports, which had cavalry on board, near Stromstad. From six to seven hundred dead bodies, horses, &c. are said to have been washed on shore; and an East Indian belonging to a house of trade of this place, also foundered in the storm, and every foul on board perished. Her name is the Charlotte, capt. Muller.
LONDON, July 26.
Bonaparte is stated to have arrived at Konigsberg on the 11th, whence he was to proceed to Berlin, and thence by way of Dresden and Mentz to Paris. The Emperor Alexander and the King of Prussia remained at Tilsit, but it is added, that both monarchs had promised to visit Napoleon at Paris.
The French are stated to have lost between 30 and 40,000 men in the battle of Friedland. Austria, it is said, had been called upon to cede the two Gallicias; and it is reported that the grand duke Constantine is to be established in Poland.
Peace was signed at Tilsit on the 8th inst. between the emperor of the French and the emperor of Russia.
The treaty of peace between France and Prussia, was signed the 9th of July, and ratified the following day.
JULY 27.—About noon yesterday, the fleet assembled in Yarmouth roads, and supposed to be intended for the Baltic, got under weigh.
The troops which are already embarked or under orders, amount to at least 20,000 men. The force already in the Baltic amounts to 10 or 12,000.
JULY 30.—An American sevr. with dispatches from the U. S. relative to the Chesapeake, is said to have arrived at Portsmouth yesterday.
JULY 31.—Considerable sensation was excited yesterday by a report that the Emperor Alexander had accepted the order of the French Legion of Honor.
The grand duke Constantine, Prince Kurakin and Gen. Benningsen, have also been presented with the insignia of Bonaparte's order.
The embargo which was laid on for 8 days for the purpose of obtaining seamen, was taken off this morning in the port of London. We should suppose, from this, that the expedition has failed.
Lord Cathcart passed the Sound on the 14th, and proceeded directly to Straffund.
Some of the German papers state, that the Emperor of Russia is gone back to Petersburg. The king of Sweden is said to have applied for an armistice, and to have expressed a desire to enter into negotiations for peace; but Bonaparte replied that he must have a guarantee, and that guarantee must be the placing Straffund in his hands. The French are under the walls of Straffund.
There are reports of a confederation in the North, and of the extension of the Rheinbund confederacy to the Elbe.
An engagement has taken place between the Russian and Turkish squadrons off the island of Perekos; and we suspect to the disadvantage of the latter.
It is reported that a successor to the hon. admiral Berkeley will immediately be sent out to the American station. He, however, is to take with him a formidable augmentation to our naval force on that station.
We sincerely deplore the dreadful calamity which has befallen our allies, and annihilated every hope of checking the career of the enemy, by any means short of continental peace. We do not stop to notice the unprincipled levity of the ministerial journals, who are continuing to feed their readers with tales of the defeat of the French at a moment that accounts of this, we fear the last, overthrow of the allies have arrived.—But, let the people of England at length awake from their delusion; let those who rejoice in the failure of the negotiation, look at the consequences which have followed from that disastrous event, and let no one be so thoughtless as now to expect that the independence of these crowns shall be sought for in Poland. Above all, we trust, not another English soldier will be sent abroad at this commencement of a new, we fear, a merely defensive war.
What a dreadful prospect is now before us! We are once more to cope single handed with France, and not merely single handed at the beginning of the contest, though that was reckoned enough to alarm us considerably in 1803, but deprived of every chance of a diversion in our favour, unless the war shall endure until the Continent can be renovated, and the power of our allies created anew. In 1803, there was a good chance that Austria, Prussia, or Russia might attack France, should she attempt an invasion of England—there was a certainty of their doing so should the war last it. The fate of the Continent then rendered it hazardous to invade England, and fatal to be defeated in the attempt. The present state of the Continent makes it perfectly safe to try the invasion; and not even hazardous to fail. If Bonaparte in 1804 had been repulsed in a descent upon the kingdoms, he would have been undone, and England would have secured both her own and the independence of Europe. When he tries now, we trust we shall defeat him, but the utmost which we can hope to gain is present security; for he may fail in the autumn of 1807, and repeat the attempt in the following spring. There is no longer any Continent to take advantage of his dilemma; he is playing a false game; he can only lose what it is convenient
for him to risk. We are, for the first time since England was a nation, playing a game of such odds, that if we win, we merely save our stake, if we lose we part with our all.
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS—Tuesday, July 14.
The House resolved itself into a committee on the American Trade Indemnity Bill, when it was moved by Lord Holland, "That a different preamble should be fixed to this bill." His Lordship then read a very long preamble, which distinctly referred to the Provisions of the Navigation Act, to the tonnage and poundage act, the Bill of Rights, and the Treaty with the United States of America, immediately subsequent to the termination of the American War. His motion was rejected without a division, the Report was brought up and the Bill ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
Earl Bathurst moved the third reading of the American Commercial Regulation Bill.
Lord Holland contrasted the conduct pursued by the Noble Peers, who now thought it their duty to oppose his Majesty's Ministers, with the line of action adopted by them, when at his initiation, or a final settlement of our differences with America, the present men, when out of power, carried on a harassing and relief opposition. Every moment they sought for fresh documents, and endeavoured to distract where they ought to have assisted. His object in rising was not to oppose the present bill; on the contrary, it had his full acquiescence; but at the same time he wished to impress upon the House and the country, the expediency of cultivating a good understanding with the United States of America. Never, perhaps, were two countries better situated to afford to each other mutual advantage. The common intercourse of Commercial Nations generally tended to promote their respective interests; but those of this Country and America were respectively pre-eminent. The Noble Lord expatiated upon the rising prosperity and wealth of the U. States, and contradicted that assertion which he had heard repeated in foreign countries, under arbitrary Government, that the Republican Constitution could not long continue among such an extensive and accumulating population. He would not say that such a community of interests should exist between America and Great Britain, as would involve the former power in offensive and defensive alliances; but he still contended, that the path to greatness, which both nations ought to follow, was, the most liberal confidence and friendship with each other. He could not conclude without adverting to the consistency of those men, who, now in office, have resorted to that very measure, which, out of office, excited their hostility and attack.
Earl Bathurst defended the present Administration from the charge of inconsistency. There was a great difference in opposing a measure, formerly, under certain circumstances, and continuing that opposition, when the Bill had in the interval been acted upon, and the circumstances had in a great degree changed. The policy of the present government was not to meddle with the conduct of the late Administration as to America; every thing was left in the same state, until the final result should be ascertained; but by so doing, Ministers were under no pledge of continuing them when the necessary information was obtained. Had Ministers acted otherwise, they might have induced a political spleen at the hazard of the country's interests, and would have resembled an opposition rather than a government.
The Earl of Lauderdale forcibly reviewed the conduct of the present men when in opposition. There was exhibited by them a great apparent display of disinterested patriotism, an ostentatious show of confidence in the talents of the then ministry, whilst at the same time every paltry device and underhand expedient was resorted to, to promote intrigue and propagate calumny. Instead of a broad, open, and manly system of opposition, fully understood, and boldly acted upon, nothing was to be observed amongst them but puny evasions of their public professions and mean insinuations, of what they had not the courage before the country to pronounce. Indeed, to be considered as connected with that opposition, he should feel himself to be dishonoured.
Lord Mulgrave, in pointed terms retorted upon the statement of the Noble Earl. He first trusted that the noble Earl and his friends would continue to act upon the bold plan of opposition, which he had recommended, and he was sure there was no cause of apprehension for the present Government. With respect to the resolutions which the noble Earl had thrown upon himself and his colleagues, he had only to remark, that it was not the judgment or approbation of the noble Earl, or the various descriptions of his acquaintance, that they fought. No; they wished their conduct to be examined and decided upon, by the patriotism, the loyalty, the good sense of the nation, and they felt no fears as to the result.
Lord Holland, Lauderdale and Mulgrave, explained.
The Lord Chancellor having left the Wool-fack, observed, that it was not his intention to follow the noble Lords into the extraneous and irregular discussion which had been carried on. Whether his conduct, when in or out of office, was correct or incorrect, consistent or inconsistent, he would not argue; but of this he was convinced, that there was no opposition to the late Administration, until that Administration began to oppose each other.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
GEN. BENNINGSEN'S DISPATCHES.
BATTLE OF FRIEDLAND.
Copies of the Dispatches from Gen. Benningsen, to the Emperor Alexander.
HEAD-QUARTERS AT WEHLAU, June 3-15.
The enemy having immediately directed the whole of his force from Heilsberg towards Friedland and Wehlau, with an intention to cut off my army from the Pregel, I humbly beg leave to inform your Royal Majesty, that I could not form any position at Schippenheil, but made a forced march to Friedland on the 13th inst. The advanced detachment, which I sent forward to occupy that town, found the place at 3 P. M. in the possession of four squadrons of the enemy, which were, however, driven out immediately.
In order to keep possession of the town, that my troops might rest from their fatigue, I put one infantry to the left bank of the Alle during the night. But in the morning at break of day,
the enemy attacked my advanced posts, and at half after five the cannonade commenced. I therefore sent another division of my army across the river, to support the other troops, as I had reason to suppose that the enemy's was only had come up.
The enemy was repulsed at every point, and the troops fought for fourteen hours together with the greatest bravery, and proved always victorious. General Oudinot, whose division formed the right wing of the enemy, attempted to make an attack with the bayonet; but my left wing eagerly advanced upon him, and destroyed an entire column. Another column was routed. The cavalry of my right wing also made an impetuous and successful attack upon the enemy's cuirassiers, pursuing them as far as Heilsberg, which village supported the left wing of the enemy. At three in the afternoon, Bonaparte arrived in person, with the rest of his army, and sheltered by a wood, he reinforced his right wing in such a degree, that at six, when he commenced a fresh attack, and opened upon my left wing a mangled battery of forty pieces of cannon, I was under the necessity of resolving to commence my retreat, which was effected in the best order, and my rear stopped the whole force of the enemy, until all my troops had crossed the Alle. Although my loss, during a battle which lasted sixteen hours, and from my army's being obliged to file off over a bridge, which was exposed to the enemy's artillery, cannot be inconsiderable, the enemy must have lost an equal number at least, since the attack with the bayonet, and that of the cavalry, has caused him a great loss, and as in the former we took from him the Eagle of the 15th regiment of the line. Nor has the enemy taken any other prisoners but such as were wounded dangerously, and which could not be removed from the town, and only some dismounted pieces of cannon belonging to the regiments, with a few which could not be removed, because the horses attached to them had been shot, fell into their hands. On the other hand, all our pieces of camp artillery were got off safe. I am now taking with my army a position behind the Pregel, near Wehlau, causing all the passes of that river, as far as Konigsberg and Insterburg, to be occupied by my troops, in consequence whereof I have re-opened a communication with General L'Ecocq. If the enemy should venture to cross the Pregel, I shall attack him immediately, and the reinforcements which are already on their march, will soon supply my loss, and enable me once more to cope with the enemy.
(Signed) BENNINGSEN.
ANOTHER DISPATCH,
From the Camp at Schillupfschen, June 5-17.
After the surrender of Konigsberg, my position at Wehlau was no longer tenable, and, having informed Gen. Lefcoq that I should make my retreat on the road of Tilsit, I requested him to follow me; I commenced the retreat yesterday. I am happy, most humbly to inform your Royal Majesty, that I have this day formed a junction with that General, and that my army, besides, has this day received a reinforcement of 3000 men.
Moreover, the division from Cow, will pass the frontier to-morrow, consequently my loss will not only be replaced in a very short time, but I shall even be stronger than I was before the battle of Friedland.
Thus of all the results of that lost battle, the surrender of Konigsberg proves the worst; for unless the enemy pursue me with too great a superiority of numbers, and provided he allow me sufficient time to draw towards me my reinforcements, I shall directly advance, and I hope to recover from the enemy the advantages which he has obtained.
(Signed) BENNINGSEN.
EIGHTY-FOURTH BULLETIN,
OF THE FRENCH GRAND ARMY.
TILSIT, June 24.
The Marshal of the Palace, Duroc, went on the 24th to the head-quarters of the Russian army, on the other side of the Niemen, to exchange the ratifications of the armistice, which had been ratified by the Emperor Alexander.
It is already seen, by the armistice, that the left wing of the French army supports itself on the Curilch Haff, at the mouth of the Niemen, from whence our line extends itself towards Grodno; the right commanded by Marshal Massena, reaches to the confines of Russia, between the sources of the Narew and the Bug. The head quarters are about to be removed to Konigsberg, where every day new discoveries are made of provisions, ammunition and other effects, belonging to the enemy.
A position so formidable is the result of successes the most brilliant; and while the enemy's army lies routed and almost destroyed, more than half the French army has not fired a musket.
INVASION REVIVED.
Letters from the coast, state, that already very active preparations appear to be making on the heights near Boulogne, for the re-establishment of an immense camp. A great number of new huts have lately been erected, all of which are painted white exhibiting to the distant spectator a very formidable appearance. The vessels composing the grand flotilla intended for the invasion of this country are represented by no means to be in a state of decay.
The King of Prussia is to regain all his territories as far as the Elbe; the Grand Duke of Berg is to have Hesse, as far as Hanau; as the greatest part of Westphalia is to be added to Holland.
The Diet of Hungary has granted to the Emperor a considerable peace establishment, which in the event of war, is immediately to be raised to 150,000 men.
"Abille du Nord, July 7."
"Tilsit, June 25.—The conference of the two emperors of Russia and France took place yesterday, at one o'clock in the afternoon, on a raft in the Niemen, on which gen. Larebriere, commander of the artillery of the guards, had caused one pavilion to be erected for their imperial majesties, and another for their attendants. His majesty the emperor Napoleon, attended by the grand duke of Berg prince of Neuchatel, marshal Berthier, grand marshal of the palace, Duroc, and Caulaincourt, master of the horse, proceeded to the banks of the Niemen, and went on board the vessel which was to take him to the raft. At the same time the emperor Alexander, with the grand duke Constantine, gen. Benningsen, gen. Ouarhoff, prince Labanoff, and his first adjutant-general
count Lieben, put off from the opposite banks.
The two vessels reached the raft at the same time; the two emperors embraced each other on leaving the vessels, and entered the pavilion prepared for them. This conference lasted about two hours; and when it was closed, the attendants of the two emperors were admitted. The emperor Alexander paid many handsome compliments to the French officers who attended Napoleon, and the latter conversed for a long time with the grand duke Constantine, and with gen. Benningsen.—Both emperors returned afterwards to their vessels.
"Tilsit, June 26.—Last night, immediately after the conference was over, prince Labanoff arrived at the French head quarters. A convention was concluded, that one half of the town of Tilsit is to be considered as neutral. His majesty, the emperor Alexander, his retinue and guards are to take up quarters in the neutral part of the town.
"The emperor of Russia intends, we understand to dine this day with the French emperor; and it is supposed, that the king of Prussia, will be of the party."
LONDON, July 11.
The Hon. David Erskine, and Robert Fergusson, Esq. Ambassadors and Secretaries of Legation to the U. States of America, will, it is said, shortly arrive in England, having executed the business of their mission.
COPENHAGEN, June 23.
On the 21st inst. the first intelligence was received at Elsinore of several ships having been lost in the North Sea, in the last week but one. The Swedish Mail which arrived yesterday has brought the further particulars, according to which an English ship of war has been totally lost, with several transports, which had cavalry on board, near Stromstad. From six to seven hundred dead bodies, horses, &c. are said to have been washed on shore; and an East Indian belonging to a house of trade of this place, also foundered in the storm, and every foul on board perished. Her name is the Charlotte, capt. Muller.
FROM THE ESSEX REGISTER!
While the English are providing to reinforce their allies in the north, and to support their troops in Egypt, a report is in circulation that the Spaniards have gained late advantages in South America. Various accounts have been given of the disposition of the Spaniards upon the La Plata. The bravery they had displayed gave great expectation of retaining their colony for Spain, and the Spaniards seemed to be confident of their success. But it was reported that discontent had arisen, and that independence had been proposed to them. Every artifice has been used to tempt their fidelity, and the success has been mentioned. But the last accounts discovered no such events, and reinforcements might induce a vigorous attack, which, if successful, would undoubtedly be pursued with the vengeance they have denounced against the invaders of the colony. In the neighborhood of this river, the famous Order of the Jesuits displayed their powers in recovering the natives from the strength of those prejudices, which in all other cases have proved irresistible. Well tells us in his history of this remarkable Order of men, that in 1751, the governor general of Porto, Gertari, found in Paraguay 36 parishes, including 10,000 families of the natives, who had churches and a college, besides such as were not reduced to parish orders, and could command 40,000 head of cattle. They cultivated their fields, planted cotton, and knew how to spin and weave it, so that yearly they supplied from 60,000 to 80,000 ells of cotton cloth, from 5 to 6 reals an ell, besides raising sugar and tobacco and providing other articles for the market. The authority which had been established gave a sovereign power to the Order which had instructed them. The difficulty of recovering this power from the Religious order and the measures of Spain is sufficiently known, as well as the interference of the papal authority. The success, however, deserves to be contemplated by all friends of man who hope to accomplish great changes in the condition of human nature.
This subject has been properly noticed by Molonet in his notes upon the Memoirs respecting the administration of the French Colonies, and particularly in regard to Paraguay. He observes, "As scarcely anything has been said in this collection respecting the Indians except respecting the plan of their civilization, which is not yet abandoned, I shall take the liberty here to observe, what I think decisive, and what I have already noticed, that it is impossible to do in Guinea, what has been done in Paraguay. A great population supposes always the commencement of civilization, and it was this which the Jesuits found in many parts of Paraguay. They were then in numerous tribes, and had already overcome the aversion which savages naturally have to the cultivation of the earth. As soon as they could be brought to submit to the restraints of religion, to instruction, and to familiar acquaintance with the practice of many European arts, it is easy to conceive that this example of order, of labor and enjoyment could proceed from one to another, and that aided by natives already civilized, they could have easier access to the savage natives, would draw them to their purposes, and fix them in their settlements. But in French Guinea, the materials are wanting for this development of progress and success. The missionaries could not obtain only villages from 20 to 50 families, placed at great distances from each other. The missionaries too in our service are of a class very much inferior to the order of Jesuits, who provided for the employment of the young men that were most distinguished by their talents, and such as they had taken care to perfect in the study of all the arts the most useful to the new men to be united in society. They could keep among them and send to Paraguay, active & ingenious workmen who were ready to execute machines and works the most complicated; who could plan, and give designs, could reach, &c. We know they had a plan, and a discipline which they pursued with perseverance and ability, which has characterized that society, and whose success was to produce civilized men obsequious to their sovereign pleasure." He then proceeds to display the natural and moral causes, which had contraracted such exertions as had been made. Porto is about 14 1-2 degrees of latitude less than Buenos Ayres, being in 20 s. l. and situated near the sources of the Plate River, and having 9 degrees greater w. l. Buenos Ayres is given by Ulloa at 34, 52, 28, s. l. So that Porto, so celebrated from its mints, lies 8 degrees in higher southern latitude than Lima, and 10 degrees more easterly.
CHARLESTON, August 28.
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Bordeaux, to the Editors of the City Gazette, dated July 9.
"I have enclosed you a few Bordeaux paper, containing an account of the battles lately fought between the French and Russians, in which the latter have been totally defeated; and the best informed people here look every hour for accounts of nearly the whole Russian army being either taken or dispersed, as seven

TRIAL OF AARON BURR.
SKETCH of the celebrated ARGUMENT held on the propositions submitted to the Court respecting the charge of Treason .
The following is indeed a mere sketch of Mr. Wickham's elaborate argument.
THURSDAY, August 20.
Mr. Wickham contended, that under the constitution of the U. S. under the laws of England, and under the usages of courts, it was impossible to convict the prisoner under this indictment, as it is admitted he was not present, where the overt act of treason is said to have been committed.
He contended, that no man could commit treason under the constitution, unless he actually in person levies war; that these words of the constitution were plain, and that no artificial rules of construction could be applied to the construction; that it was a new and original compact; that the people of the U. S. embracing their concerns in the most extensive sense, and was not to be construed by the rules of a particular art or science; that the rule which was applied to the construction of the statute of Edward 5th of England was not to be applied to it, because that statute was made in reference to the previous law, whereas the constitution was of superior dignity, it was made without any such reference, and is intended as a rule to be applied to future cases.
He argued that the opposite counsel must contend for an artificial meaning such as prevails in England, and that in that country all persons aiding others in the act of levying war are guilty of treason; that the proposition, that all are principals in treason is not settled even under the English law, to say the least of it; that admit that there are ditto from Lord Coke down to that effect, yet that there is not one decision to that point unless it be N. Throgmorton's case can be called one; and that this is so contrary to law, that it cannot be supported.
On the 7th two more divisions of the English expedition, under convoy of an armed ship and two cutters, arrived in the Sound, and immediately proceeded to the Baltic. On the morning of the 8th, both these divisions, supposed to consist of 101 sail, passed the ill of Akans.
CARLSKRONA, July 10.
Lord Hutchinson, the English General, is arrived here from Memel. The Pandora, an English ship of war, with five sail of transports under convoy, laden with Gunpowder, originally bound to Memel, has put in here, and also another English vessel of war.
AMERICAN AFFAIRS.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 27.
Previous to the reading of the order of the day, Lord Hollirod rose, for the purpose of obtaining some information from Ministers on a subject which extremely agitated his mind; he alluded to the reports of some unpleasant occurrences on the coast of America. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Ministers to make any communication to Parliament on the subject. A war with America was, in his opinion, a most serious calamity, the effects of which would be equally felt by both countries. He trusted and hoped that Ministers would be prepared to make such a communication, and lay such documents before Parliament as would justify them in a measure of such importance and responsibility.
Lord Hawkesbury replied, that all he could say at present was, that he was not authorised to make any communication to the House on the subject alluded to by the noble lord. He could venture to assure the noble lord, that his majesty's ministers would as sincerely deplore a war with the United States of America as the noble lord could possibly do. His noble friend would feel the impropriety of entering into a premature discussion of the subject. Should it be necessary to make any communication to the House on the subject, Ministers would see that it should be as fully and satisfactorily as possible.
Lord Holland was far from wishing to force a subject of such extreme delicacy into premature discussion; but he could not help repeating, that he trusted a speedy communication, if any were necessary, would be made, and that Parliament would not separate until they had all the circumstances before them which gave rise to such an unhappy state of things.
LONDON, July 28. A considerable degree of anxiety seems to be felt by the opposition to prove that the Americans were in the right and we in the wrong—that the right exercised by Captain Humphreys is not recognized by any writer of authority upon the Law of Nations, & that no civilian will venture to defend his conduct. The case of a neutral power receiving, perhaps enticing away the seamen of another nation, and refusing upon application to deliver them up, is not, we believe, contemplated by Vattel. It is asserted that we have no right to search a vessel bearing the flag and commission of the United States—but has a vessel bearing that flag and commission a right to receive deserters from our service, and to refuse giving them up upon application being made? Is the commander of a ship or squadron to see his men deserting to a neutral ship bearing the flag and commission a neutral power, and to have no power for seizing and bringing them back again? This was a case in which the British captain did not proceed upon mere doubt and suspicion—he did not wish to exercise the right of search upon a loose probability that he might find his men on board the American ship. He knew they were on board. If it be said that he should have applied to the American government, and that upon their refusal to give them up, or upon their returning an unsatisfactory answer, he should have confined himself to the sending off an account of the transaction to his own government, we reply, that in that case it might happen that a ship or squadron sent upon a particular service to a distant port, might, from deflection to neutral ships bearing the flags and commissions of neutral powers, be wholly unable to execute that service. Five Pappenburgh sloops, bearing the flag of the petty Pappenburgh sovereignty, would be sufficient to defeat the best concerted expedition.
TEN DOLLARS REWARD.
Defected from my recruiting rendezvous in this town, on the 19th 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 Hovey county, (Virginia) aged 26 years, 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 defector at this place, or to any officer of the army of the United States.
J. C. CARTER, Ensign 2nd Regt. U. S. Inf'ty Fredericksburg, September 15.
A STRAY.
Came to the Plantation of the Subscriber, about the 1st of July of this last year.
A BAY MARE, about 5 feet 6 inches high, long mane and tail, the left ear a little flopping, trot and gallop, and judged to be about 12 years old—Potted and appraised to 20 dollars.
J. ROBERTSON, Jr. Amelia, Sept. 16.
England a Statute made in aid of the common law or to supply the defects of the common law is to be construed by the rules of the common law when England a Statute is made, declaring any offence felony or treason, the accessories are punishable, because felony &c. are crimes known to the common law; but on the contrary, 3 Hawk. B. 3. 37 proves that piracy not being considered as an offence at common law accessories were not included in the law punishing that offence. We have no common law. Treason is created alone by the constitution and the statute; therefore treason not being considered as an offence by our common law, for we have none; accessories are not included.
Mr. Wickham contended, that such was the opinion of counsel in the act of April 1790, in sec. 5 of 11 punishing aiders and abettors before and after offences on high seas proved that congress did not recognise the doctrine of accessories being all principals, since they thought it necessary to punish accessories by a particular law; that the law of the U. S. States particularly punishes those who shall be a traitor after conviction at liberty; but there is no difference between an accessory before and after the act; if then accessories are principals, why punish those by a particular clause, who are nothing more nor less than accessories? Or would congress punish those with death under the common law, that accessories are all punished? who merely receive a traitor after conviction, and yet by a particular clause punish those in a milder manner, who effect their liberation? This is an absurdity which congress could never have intended.
Mr. Wickham said, that it might be objected that it was not necessary for the law to have mentioned aiders and abettors, because in treason all are principals, and the law knows nothing of aiders and abettors; but that this was incorrect in point of fact, as these expressions were often used in the English books and statutes in reference to treason.
Mr. Wickham contended that there was a still stronger reason why they were not mentioned by the act of congress; because congress was forbidden by the constitution of the U. S. States; that this instrument was to be construed not only according to its letter, but its true spirit; that its object was to preserve the union of the states, to perpetuate the liberties of the people, to guarantee our republican institutions; but that forms of government were mere means; and freedom and protection were the real ends; that the framers of the constitution well knew that in every age accusations of treason were the usual means for those in power to destroy the most virtuous citizens, and hence they intended to guard against the evils they foresaw by constitutional functions; but what would be the consequences of the doctrine advocated by the prosecution? A man might be in Georgia, and an insurrection in N. Hampshire; the insurrection might be proven by 50, but the connection of the accused with the persons concerned might be proven by one only, yet he might be convicted. Where then is the safeguard of the constitution?
Mr. W. observed, that the opinion of the supreme court in the cases of Bollman and Swartwout might be quoted against him, and it might be said, that argument must yield to authority; that he admitted, if the principle there stated is to be considered as conclusive authority, it controverted his doctrine; but that the point relied on by the prosecution did not come before the court on that occasion, as it was merely stated arguendo ; that it was therefore a mere dum of the judges, made without sufficient consideration; an obiter dictum delivered without argument on a point not necessary to have been decided; and that it was consequently no authority according to the doctrine of Mr. Hay himself, as laid down in his opening speech.
Mr. W. then proceeded to consider, whether the offence as laid in the indictment could be supported by the nature of the evidence adduced; or in other words, whether the indictment was not too imperfect to let in evidence of the acts of an accomplice. He contended that the indictment must give information of the nature of the crime; but does this indictment inform Col. Burr that it was meant to be proven that he was not present when the overt act was committed, but that he committed treason by being connected with persons who did commit the overt act? It does not. It informs him, that he committed treason on Blennerhassett's island, where he was not. He comes prepared to show that, and that only—Mr. W. also contended that "public" super ought to be inserted in every indictment, 8 St. Tr. 219, 9 do. 513, 1 Tremaine's P. of the 6 Fries's case; Somerville's case; Anderson's Reports; that the form of the indictment was settled after great consideration, and that this last authority proves that the form of the indictment ought to be special, where there is a conspiracy to perform an act of treason, 1 Hale 250. That the indictment, moreover, ought regularly to have stated with whom the treason was committed, and not to have said with persons unknown ; that it therefore resulted, that no acts of third persons not mentioned in the indictment, can be given in evidence under this indictment to charge a person accused who was not present; that the doctrine that in treason all in England are principals, applies only to the punishment and not to the denomination of the offence, and not to the manner of prosecution; that if a person gives traitors advice in one country, and the treason is committed in another, he must be indicted in the county where he gave the advice, for there his offence was committed; and that therefore Col. Burr ought not to have been tried here— if any where.
FRIDAY, August 21.
Mr. Wickham contended, that even if all these points were against him, there was one to perfectly clear on reason and authority, that in a case of less importance, no other need to have been mentioned; that if aiders, procurers and abettors of treason be liable, their guilt being derivative, can only be established by legal proof that the principals are guilty, and the only proof is a record of their conviction. To this point he spoke at considerable length and quoted 4 h St. Tr. 130 for Act of Parliament reviving Lady Lisle's act under Lord Hale 1, 615. Foster, ch 2, sec. 38, p. 100.
Mr. W. observed, that if it were possible that he could be wrong in this point, he would then contend that before the evidence of the connection of the accessory Mr. Burr with the principal Mr. Blennerhassett was given, it must appear to the Court that the principal was really guilty of an overt act of treason; and that from the circumstances of the case there was no hostile arrangement of men on Blennerhassett's island; that if it be objected, that if the court undertook to decide this question, they would invade the province of the jury, it might then be answered, that the jury were to decide on the weight of the evidence only; the court must decide upon its relevancy. Mr. W. then enquired what constituted an overt act of levying war; and inferred from the opinion of the Chief Justice on a former occasion, Mr. Rawle's argument in the trial of Fries; and Fries's trial p. 19, 20; that all three authorities proved that actual or potential force was necessary. Mr. W.
admitted that he might have gone too far in saying that the word "public" is absolutely necessary in an indictment, though he still insisted it was the approved usage; the second indictment in Fries's trial omits the word public. Mr. Wickham next commented upon the evidence already produced, to prove that it did not go to demonstrate the existence of an actual or potential force on Blennerhassett's island.
Mr. Randolph followed Mr. Wickham. He urged the same principles, enforced by similar and additional arguments, and supported by new authorities.
It is impossible for us to do adequate justice to the ingenuity of Mr. R's argument.
SATURDAY, August 22.
Mr. McRae. The answer of the motion made on behalf of the prisoner, is to exclude all further evidence from the court and jury, and at this stage of the proceedings, to put a period to the prosecution. I could have wished most earnestly, that the necessity were not thus early imposed upon me, of declaring my conviction of the prisoner's guilt of the crime which is charged against him. It was my anxious desire, to have postponed all remarks of my nature, till the whole evidence in support of the prosecution, and in favor of the prisoner, had been heard by the jury; but I am no longer allowed to pursue the 1st effective course, which I greatly preferred. The counsel for Aaron Burr, have themselves obliged me to take a different direction. They have made a motion, which from its very nature, necessarily involves the consideration of the question, whether the prisoner be a principal or not, in the treason for which he is indicted; and this question, according to the best information I have received, is now bound to discuss. Why, permit me to ask, sir, is this motion now made? I do not make this enquiry as regards to the counsel for the prisoner. It is their duty to conduct their client, and to suppose the defence aggressively to his instructions. His situation authorises him to prefer, and his talents eminently qualify him to select the best possible route to an escape from the fides of this prosecution.
With a dexterity unexampled, he has from the commencement of these proceedings, almost invariably contrived to leave the onus of one accused , and to appear before the public as an accuser of others.
The highly respectable citizen, who apprehended and conducted the prisoner, to the place designated by the constitution and the law as proper for his trial, has been loaded with obloquy, for the meritorious service he has rendered to his country.
A distinguished officer of the U. S. States, for detecting this treasonable plot, and for opposing the execution of it, at the hazard of his fortune, his life and his honor, has been wantonly and cruelly derided, as if he were himself a traitor for having opposed treason, and upon his arrival in this city in obedience to a subpoena requiring his attendance as a witness against the prisoner, an effort was made to the prisoner, to cast him into a dungeon, for an alleged offence, which was not proved and for which, which, when examined appeared to be in the highest degree proble-matous . The public functions, also, to whose vigilance, activity, wisdom and patriotism America is indebted; for the preservation of her peace, liberty, government and union against a fact, rank, deep laid, extensive, and most formidable plot of treason —without the effusion of blood, have been denounced, and a vain attempt has been made to stigmatize them, as the tyrants and oppressors of the people.
It required no extraordinary strength of discernment, to perceive the object which these measures contemplated. The development of this plot, had derisively excited universal indignation and abhorrence, and to divert the public odium from themselves, to those who had found their country , was certainly, daring attempt; but perhaps the very best policy of these , who were concerned in the treason, Cataline Romanus , was of that opinion, and as well the attempt; but as upon all such occasions ought to be the result, fortunately for this country, he failed. Remember I beseech you, sir, the multiplied prostrations of innocence, made for the prisoner, while all these battles were thrown in our way—like (previous to General Wilkinson's arrival) it was yet hoped, that an indictment might not be preferred before the Grand Jury against Aaron Burr, and while, afterwards, the result of the deliberations of that respectable body, remained uncertain: How often we were challenged, to produce our witnesses and go on with the prosecution: How frequently it was repeated, that the prisoner was innocent, and was persecuted and that he feared no proof which could be brought against him: How the gentleman from Maryland, solemnly declared his belief, (I think his words were) "that his honorable friend, was as innocent and as innocent of any treasonable plot, as the child yet unborn"—and as late as Thursday last, I understood the worthy gentleman who opened this debate, solemnly to declare it as his belief that the prisoner was altogether innocent of the overt act committed on Blennerhassett's island—I will make it is proper to do, every reasonable allowance, for the favorable impressions which the prisoner may make on the minds of his counsel—but, as relates to himself, this enquiry will intrude itself upon every reflecting mind. If there be in reality no danger apprehended from the testimony on the part of the U. S.—if this boasted innocence and ignorance of any treasonable plot, do in reality exist—Why this strenuous effort to exclude our evidence from the jury? With such an exclusion of the evidence, serve to place the onus of the accused , on the high ground which innocence ought to occupy?—Many appeals have in the course of the debate been made to common sense, and I leave it to common sense to answer these enquiries. But, sir, the court have decided that the motion might be made. The counsel for the prisoner, have, in arguments delivered at very great length, and relying on a number of authorities, insisted that it ought to prevail; and maintaining, as I do, a contrary opinion, it is my duty to give them a reply.
Mr. McRae observed, he was not a little astonished at the confidence of success expressed by the gentlemen who had made the motion; but supposed that confidence proceeded from his feeling a sure wisdom for the success of the motion, by dwelling on which he had at length convinced himself that it ought to prevail.
But the authorities cited by him had not supported the points for which he contended. The positions relied on by Mr. Wickham, were, first, that the accused not having been present at the commission of the overt act charged in the indictment, no evidence can be adduced to prove his connexion with that overt act, and secondly, that the overt act laid in the indictment, was not sufficiently proved to admit any further evidence: Upon which grounds Mr. Wickham said, that neither by the constitution or laws of the United States, the laws of England, nor usages , the prisoner could be convicted.
It will be sufficient, said Mr. McRae, to have recourse to the laws of England and the constitution of the United States upon this occasion; for usages has nothing to do with the question.
The definition of treason in the federal constitution, is in the following words: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
Mr. McRae then proceeded to examine the arguments of Mr. Wickham in the order in which they had been by that gentleman delivered. He observed that Mr. Wickham had admitted that the words of the statute 25th Edw. 3. concerning levying war, are the same with those of our constitution, but says that the construction of the constitution ought to be different from that which in England has always been given to that statute. I think it of no consequence to the present enquiry whether the United States as such have a common law or not, and whether the common law of England is to be referred to or not. If the construction of a statute in the same words with the constitution of the United States is reasonable, the same construction ought to be applied to the constitution; otherwise not.
Can it be said, either under our constitution or the laws of England, that a man cannot levy war as such?
ral of their divisions are surrounded. The French Emperor, in the late actions, has displayed more judgement than at any former period. If peace is not very shortly concluded, St. Petersburg must fall, and, perhaps with it, the Russian monarchy; for the Russians are so harassed by the Turks and Persians on two sides, and by the numerous French and allied armies on the other, that it is impossible to resist their united efforts. The politicians here speak much of an attempt being shortly made (with the permission of the Porte and Persia) on the British East India possessions; and when we consider Ispahan, the capital of Persia, is only about 110 leagues from the British frontier, we may look upon almost certain success attending such an expedition; for the English well know that the powers in India are not friendly to their interest."
Another letter dated June 4. "I have sent you this day's Gazette, containing the bulletin of the victory of Friedland—The courier from Paris arrived this morning has brought nothing new. I expect that some news of importance will reach Bordeaux soon, which I will send you by the first vessel."
Continuation of Foreign News, from London Papers to July 31, received at Bostn by the Sally-Anne.
CONTINENTAL PEACE.
Hamburg, July 15. A Courier from Berlin has just arrived, with the following important intelligence, so far as respects humanity:—
"Imperial Head Quarters, at Tilsit, July 9.
"Yesterday, the 8th of July, Peace was signed between the Emperors of France and Russia, by the Prince of Benevento, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the one side; and by the Princes Kurakin and Labenoff Von Rottow, on the other. These Plenipotentiaries were furnished with full powers by their respective Sovereigns.—The ratifications were exchanged this day, the 9th of July, as both Sovereigns are still at Tilsit.
(Signed) "The Marshal Prince of Neufchatel, "BERTHIER."
A journal announces that at the dinner at Tilsit, at which the two emperors were present, the following toast was given, "The freedom of the sea."
EIGHTY-FIFTH BULLETIN.
TILSIT, JUNE 24, 1807.
The Grand Marshal of the Palace, Duruc, went yesterday to compliment the emperor Alexander. Marshal Count Kalckreuth, was presented this day to the Emperor. He remained an hour in his Majesty's Cabinet.
The corps of Marshal Lannes was reviewed this day by the Emperor. He made several promotions, & gave rewards to those who had distinguished themselves by their bravery.
To-morrow the two Emperors will have a conference.
EIGHTY-SIXTH BULLETIN.
TILSIT, JUNE 25, 1807.
Agreeable to arrangements the two Emperors met on the raft in the centre of the Niemen, and saluted each other in the most cordial manner.
The vast number of persons belonging to each army who flocked to both banks of the river to view this scene, rendered it the more interesting, as the spectators were brave men, who came from the extremities of the world.
SWEDISH AFFAIRS.
Hamburg, July 17. Marshal Brune has received the most peremptory and laconic orders to attack the Swedes, and take Stralsund by storm.
ORDER OF THE DAY.
"Head Quarters, Stettin, July 10.
"The corps of Observation belonging to the Grand Army must prepare for an attack. It will enter Swedish Pomerania."
An armistice was concluded with Sweden at Schladkow, on the 18th April. Ten days notice was to be given previous to its termination: But as the general had farther conferences by an additional article the term was extended from ten to thirty days, and this article was signed at Stralsund, on the 29th of the same month.
"Respecting this last arrangement, no difficulty occurred; but his majesty the king of Sweden appeared in Pomerania, took the command of his army, and soon made it appear that it was his view simply to abide by the previous engagement for the term of 90 days. At the same time the Swedish marine appeared in activity before Colberg, and notwithstanding the armistice commenced hostilities against the French and allied corps which besieged that place.—In consequence of this state of things, a correspondence commenced between the generals and his Swedish majesty; and with the view of bringing the points at issue to a conclusion, a conference was proposed at Schladkow, on the Swedish territory."
"Accordingly repaired to Schladkow on the 4th of June, accompanied by five or six Officers of the Staff, and an equal number of ordinary grooms of chambers. His Swedish Majesty's Adjutant had apprized me that his Majesty was at Schladkow almost without any escort, and with a small suite. Upon my arrival at Schladkow, I found the house with his majesty without guards; but in the Court before it I observed a squadron of cavalry drawn up in order of battle. As I was left alone with his majesty, I began to explain to him the cause of the interview; but he interrupted me immediately, and assured me that his determination to abide by the first term of his armistice was irrevocable, and thus made use of his authority to wave the questions which would otherwise have formed the principle object of the conference. Europe will hear of this with regret, because the laws of honor, and the right of nations, were equally violated. He even dared to propose to a French General, one of the Emperor Napoleon's first subjects to betray his country and his sovereign. He invited him to join the disgraceful colours of a band of renegades, the partisans of the English, insensible to the good of their country, and strangers to glory. This conference also tended to prove, that the King of Sweden partook of the madness of these foreigners, and sacrificed to them the true interests of his own people."
"Since this conference, the King has continued his hostilities before Colberg, and committed other acts of the same nature before the mouth of the Travé. He has drawn men and money from England; he has collected as many fugitives and deserters as possible; and confident of his own strength, on the 30th of last month he announced the termination of his armistice of ten days, at a time when he might have known the new disposition of Russia and Prussia."
"Of course hostilities with Sweden will recommence on the 18th of this month. We might begin them sooner, because the conduct of the King has exhibited a succession of manifest violations; but it is consistent with the character of our Sovereign, equal to celebrated for his moderation and generosity, as for his genius and heroism, not to avail himself of the advantage. Europe will justify this conduct, and will distinguish those who wish to extend the scourge of war."
"The French and the Allied troops will emulate with each other in discipline and courage; they will never forget that the eye of the Emperor Napoleon is upon them, and I am convinced that all of us will merit, by our devotion, the satisfaction of our Sovereign."
(Signed) "Marshal BRUNE."
ALTONA, July 17, in the evening.
"This moment we received advice that 18,000 Dutch troops, under the command of General Dumonceau are on their march through Bremen, to reinforce the army under the command of General Bruin in Pomerania."
Frontiers of Swedish Pomerania, July 16.
Hostilities with Sweden have commenced. His Excellency Marshal Brune has removed his head quarters from the Castle of Brök to Drammin, and will be this evening at Grimn.

the United States without being personally present? Mr. McRae was about to speak to the evidence which might be adduced to prove that Aaron Burr, although not present at Blennerhassett's island, at the time charged in the indictment, did in fact levy war against the United States at that time and place; when Mr. Martin interrupted him and objected to his saying anything about the evidence which had not been heard. Here a defamatory conversation took place for a few minutes; the counsel for the U. States declaring that they were ready to introduce the evidence if permitted; and Col. Burr and his counsel objecting to the evidence being admitted and insisting that nothing should be said concerning it. But the Ch. Just. said that Mr. McRae had a right to rebut the evidence of any evidence which could by possibility be adduced to prove the prisoner guilty, as the motion was to exclude all evidence. Mr. McRae proceeded—can any person doubt after hearing the testimony of Gen. Eaton, Commodore Truxton, and the Morgans, the treasonable intention of the prisoner? The credibility of all those witnesses is unimpeached; and Eaton's evidence is immediately to the point. [Here Mr. McRae took a review of the evidence which had been introduced.] Suppose, in addition to all this, we can prove that the men who came to Blennerhassett's island came thither by Aaron Burr's direction; that he had supplied them with provisions for their support and purchased boats for their use; that he was waiting for them at the mouth of Cumberland; that he had furnished them with arms; that he had given them orders to fly from the island without delay, since "the Philistines" would shortly be upon them; that they joined him at the mouth of Cumberland; and that he and his associates were armed and that afterwards, when a body of militia were coming to search his boat, he took all the arms in the river, for the purpose of concealing them; would any rational person doubt whether he was guilty of treason? We have authorities to show that, even in England, he would be considered as a principal traitor and indicted as such. Those authorities prove that a person who enlists men for a treasonable purpose; who aids in concert, and in league with them; and though not on the spot, acts elsewhere; is a principal traitor; and that all these are different ways of the same treason. But Messrs. Wickham and Randolph have introduced certain authorities, on which they pretend that we must rely, and have attacked them as arbitrary and oppressive; as springing from the cruelty of judges like Lord Coke, whom Mr. Wickham declared to have been without bowels, and Mr. Randolph without a heart. I will read one of these cases ( Throckmorton's case 1 St. Tr. 60) to show how differently constituted the court who tried Throckmorton was from this court; how widely different the situation and treatment of Aaron Burr during this trial has been from Throckmorton's before the commissioners who tried him; and to demonstrate that that case has nothing to do with this. Mr. McRae then read a large part of Throckmorton's case ; from which it appeared that no counsel was allowed him; books were withheld from him; he was not listened to by the court; and confessions of others were read as evidence against him without proof of his connexion with them. He strongly contrasted with those tyrannical proceedings, the advantages which Aaron Burr had enjoyed during this prosecution. Whereas Throckmorton had no counsel, Aaron Burr has six, most able and learned in the law; one of whom was attorney general of Maryland, another has been attorney general of the United States; a third for many years filled the same office in Virginia, and afterwards the office of attorney general for the United States, and the prisoner himself was once attorney general of the state of New York. Throckmorton was allowed no books; but the prisoner has had the use of cart loads of them, both in and out of court. Instead of not being listened to, himself and his counsel have had uncontrolled freedom of speech, and have taken unexampled liberties with their opponents and with the government. And, (to so far are they from permitting confessions of others to be read in evidence against him) they are now endeavouring to exclude altogether any testimony on the part of the prosecution. Mr. McRae observed, that the counsel for the United States never thought of drawing any authority in their favor from that case; and that such an intention ought never to have been attributed to them, for they abhorred and detested the cruelty and the tyranny of the proceedings against the persecuted Prisoner in that case . Mr. Wickham has also referred to cases where accessories after the fact were indicted before the conviction of the principal; and insinuated that we were obliged to resort to such cases in support of this prosecution. But we do not rely upon any such cases. No part of the evidence goes to prove Aaron Burr an accessory after the fact. He was the Alpha and Omega , the body and the head of this treason; not an accessory at all, but a principal; and the chief among all the principals. Mr. McRae proceeded to answer the authorities which Mr. Wickham had adduced in support of the position contended for on behalf of the prisoner. Fol. p. 9 and 22, had been cited to show that a man cannot be indicted for an overt act unless he were personally present. He observed that those cases rather showed that, after proving the overt act laid in the indictment, additional overt acts might be given in evidence to show the quo animo of that which was proved; not that proof of the personal presence of the accused was necessary to charge him with the overt act of levying war. The question whether such actual presence be necessary did not occur in those cases; Folter p. 6 has been also referred to by Mr. Wickham for the same purpose; but the examination of the passage referred to, will serve to show that it proves nothing concerning any legal definition whatever. It is a mere nota bene, stating that persons who were not concerned in the particular overt act in that passage mentioned were not indicted. Lord Balmerino's case (5 St. Tr. 605) had also been relied on; but Mr. McRae insisted that it did not apply. The only real question in that case was, whether the offence could be proved on a different day from that laid in the indictment. Although Lord B. was not at Carlisle when the town was taken, he was admitted to be a principal in that treason; because, (independently of other overt acts proved against him) the fact of his having been at Carlisle afterwards with a body of men was also proved. 10 St. Tr. 450, and Hob. 93, were quoted to show that, if an act not criminal by the common law is made so by statute, accessories in such case are to be judged of in conformity to common law principles. Mr. McRae said that he had not read the case in Hobart; but the passage referred to in the state trials was only the argument of a lawyer and not the opinion of a court. But this question, said he, is unimportant in this case. We may safely admit that common law principles do not apply to this case. We are willing to rest it upon the constitution and the act of Congress. The whole question depends upon the true interpretation of the words "levying war." Mr. Wickham has asserted, "If accessories in treason are to be punished, why did not the act of Congress provide for it?" We answer it was unnecessary, as to those concerned before the fact; because all such are principals in levying war. As to accessories after the fact, we cannot tell why they were not provided for. But who, in the eye of the law, can be more guilty than he who plots, contrives, enlists, and furnishes money and provisions for carrying on the war? Is the configuration framed to punish only the poor instruments employed by the author of the treason, and to let the man who was the body and the soul of the whole enterprise escape? He has also argued that the language of the constitution is brief, and carried to notice accessories, on purpose to guard against the machinations of bad men in power, and not to be supposed to mark out their victims and create them with accusations of conspiratorial treason. In conformity with this idea, he has stated that in the advisers ; that government might with to be concerned in an information in New-Hampshire; might drag into innocent man a land owner from home, and punish him for a crime which had never been committed—Permit me, also,
resumed the argument. He was followed by Mr. Martin; and the argument was wound up by Mr. Wickham. On Monday, the Ch. Justice delivered the opinion of the court: Mr. Griffin was absent.—A defamatory conversation then ensued upon the resumption of certain points, when the court adjourned to give counsel time for its consideration. THE UNITED STATES, } On a MISDEMEANOR. vs. AARON BURR. The present motion is particularly directed against the admission of the testimony of Neale, who is offered for the purpose of proving certain conversations between himself and Herman Blennerhassett. It is objected that the declarations of Herman Blennerhassett are at this time inadmissible on this indictment. The rule of evidence which rejects mere hearsay testimony, which excludes from trials of a criminal or civil nature the declarations of any other individual than of him against whom the proceedings are instituted, has been generally deemed all essential to the correct administration of justice. I know not why a declaration in court should be unavailable unless made upon oath, if a declaration out of court was to criminate others than him who made it; nor why a man should have a constitutional claim to be confronted with the witnesses against him, if mere verbal declarations made in his absence may be evidence against him. I know of no principle in the preservation of which all are more concerned. I know not by undermining which, life, liberty and property, might be more endangered. It is therefore incumbent on courts to be watchful of every inroad on a principle so truly important. This rule as a general rule is permitted to stand, but some exceptions to it have been introduced concerning the extent of which a difference of opinion prevails, and that difference produces the present question. The 1st exception is that in cases of conspiracy, the acts, and is said by some the declarations, of all the conspirators may be given in evidence on the trial of any one of them, for the purpose of proving the conspiracy, and this case it is alleged, comes within the exception. With regard to this exception a distinction is taken in the books between the admissibility and operation of testimony which is clear in point of law, but not at all times easy to practice in fact. It is that although this testimony be admitted, it is not to operate against the accused unless brought home to him by testimony drawn from his own declarations or his own conduct. But the question to be considered is, does the exception comprehend this case? Is this a case of conspiracy according to the well established law meaning of the term? Cases of conspiracy may be of two descriptions. 1st. Where the conspiracy is the crime, in which case the crime is complete although the act should never be formed, and in such cases if several be indicted, and all except one be acquitted, that one cannot, say the books, be convicted, because he cannot conspire alone. 2d. Where the crime consists in the intention, and is proved by a conspiracy, so that the conviction of the accused may take place upon evidence that he has conspired to do any act which manifests the wicked intention. In both these cases an act is not essential to the completion of the crime, and a conspiracy is charged in the indictment as the ground of accusation. If the conspiracy be the sole charge as it may be, the question to be decided is not whether the accused has committed any particular act, but whether he has conspired to commit it. Evidence of conspiracy in such a case goes directly to support the issue. It has therefore been determined that the nature of the conspiracy may be proved by the transactions of any of the conspirators in furtherance of the common design; the degree of guilt however, of the particular conspirator upon trial, must still depend on his own particular conduct. In the case at bar the crime consists not in intention but in acts. The act of Congress does not extend to the secret design if not carried into open deed, nor to any conspiracy however extensive if it do not amount to a beginning or setting on foot a military expedition. The indictment contains no allusion to a conspiracy, and of consequence the issue to be tried by the jury is not whether any conspiracy has taken place; but whether the particular acts charged in the indictment have been committed. I do not mean to admit that by any course which might have been given to the prosecution, it could have been converted into a case of conspiracy; but most assuredly if it was intended to prove a conspiracy, and to let in that kind of testimony which is admissible only in such a case, the indictment ought to have charged it. I have not been able to find in the books a single decision, or a solitary dictum which would countenance the attempt that is now made to introduce as testimony the declarations of third persons made in the absence of the person on trial, under the idea of a conspiracy where no conspiracy is alleged in the indictment. The researches of the counsel for the prosecution have not been more successful. But they suppose this case, though not within the letter, to come clearly within the reasoning of those cases where this testimony has been allowed. It has been said that wherever the crime may be committed by a single individual, although in point of fact more than one should be concerned in it, as in all cases of felony, the prosecution must be conducted in the usual mode, and the declarations of third persons cannot be introduced at a trial; but whenever the crime requires more than one person, where from its nature it cannot be committed by a single individual, although it shall consist, not in conspiracy, but in open deed, yet it is in the nature of a conspiracy, and evidence of the declarations and acts of third persons connected with the accused, may be received whether the indictment covers such testimony or not. I must confess that I do not feel the force of this distinction. I cannot conceive why, when numbers do in truth conspire to commit an act, as murder or robbery, the rule should be, that the declaration of one of them is no evidence against another, and yet, if the act should require more than one for its commission, that the declarations of one person engaged in the plot would immediately become evidence against another, I cannot perceive the reason of this distinction; but, admitting its solidity, I know not on what ground to dispense with charging in the indictment the combination intended to be proved. If this combination may be proved by the acts or declarations of third persons made in the absence of the accused, because he is connected with those persons; if in consequence of this connection the ordinary rules of evidence are to be prostrated, it would seem to me that the indictment ought to give some notice of this connection. When the terms used in the indictment necessarily imply a combination, it will be admitted that a combination is charged and may be proved. And where A. B. and C. are indicted for murdering D. yet in such a case the declarations of one of the parties made in the absence of the others, have never been admitted as evidence against the others. If then this indictment should even imply that the fact charged was committed by more than one person, I cannot conceive that the declarations of a particeps criminis would become admissible on the trial of a person not present when they were made, unless those declarations form a part of the very transaction charged in the indictment. From all this I should be still led, yet it remains to be proved that the offence charged may not be committed by a single individual. This may in some measure depend on the exposition of the terms of the act; and it is to be observed that this exposition must be fixed. It cannot vary with the varying aspect of the prosecution at its different stages. If, as has been said, a military expedition is begun or set on foot when a single individual is enlisted for the purpose, then unless it be begun as well by the soldier who enlists as by the officer who enlists him, a military expedition may be begun by a single individual. So if those who engage in the enterprise follow their leader from their confidence in him without any knowledge of the real object, there is no conspiracy, and the criminal act is the act of an individual. So too, if the means are any means, the crime may unquestionably be committed by an individual. Should the term be even so construed as to imply that all the means must be provided before the offence can be committed, still all the means may, in many cases, be provided by a single individual. The rule then laid down by the counsel for the prosecution, if correct in itself, would not comprehend this case. 2dly. There are also cases in the books where acts are in their nature joint, and where the law attaches the guilt to all concerned in their commission, so that the act of one is in truth the act of others, where the conduct of one person in the commission of the fact constitutes the crime of another person; but this is distinct from conspiracy. If many persons combine to commit a murder, and all assist in it, and are actually or constructively present, the act of one is the act of all and is sufficient for the conviction of all. So in acts of levying war, as in the cases of Damare and Purchase , the acts of the mob were the acts of all in the mob whose conduct showed a concurrence in those acts, and in the general design which the mob were carrying into execution. But these decisions turn on a distinct principle from conspiracy. The crime is a joint crime, and although who are present aiding in the commission of it participate in each others actions, and in the guilt attached to those actions.—The conduct of each contributes to the nature of this joint crime; and declarations made during the transaction are explanatory of that transaction; but I cannot conceive that in either case declarations unconnected with the transaction would have been evidence against any other than the person who made them, or persons in whose presence they were made. If, for example, one of several men who had united in committing a murder should have said, that he with others contemplated the fact which was afterwards committed, I know of no case which would warrant the admission of this testimony upon the trial of a person who was not present when the words were spoken. So if Damare had previously declared that he had entered into a conspiracy for the purpose of pulling down all meeting houses, I cannot believe that this testimony would have been admissible against a person having no knowledge of the declaration and giving no assent to it. In felony the guilt of the principal attaches to the accessory, and therefore the guilt of the principal is proved on the trial of the accessory. In treason all are principals and the guilt of one who has actually committed the treason does in England, attach to him who has advised, aided or abetted that treason. Consequently the conduct of the person who has perpetrated the fact must be examined on the trial of him who has advised or procured it. But in misdemeanors by statute, where the commission of a particular fact constitutes the only crime punished by the law, I believe there is no case where the declaration of a particeps criminis can affect any but himself. 3dly. The admission of the declarations of Mr. Blennerhassett may be insisted upon under the idea he was the agent of Col. B. If so far the acts of one man may affect another criminally, is a subject for distinct consideration, but I believe there is no case, where the words of an agent can be evidence against his principal on a criminal prosecution. Could such testimony be admissible, the agency must be first clearly established, not by the words of the agent but by the acts of the principal, and the word must be within the power previously shown have been given. The opinions of the circuit court of New-York in trials of Smith and Ogden have been frequently mentioned. Although I have not the honor to know the Judge who gave the decision, I consider it as the determination of a court of the U. S. and I shall not be lightly induced to disregard them, or unnecessarily to treat them with disrespect. I do not however perceive in the opinions of Judge Talmadge any expression indicating that the declarations of third persons could be received as testimony against any individual who was prosecuted under this act. If he has given that opinion, it has certainly escaped my notice and has not been suggested to me by counsel. He unquestionably lays in page 113 of the trial "that the reference which was made to the doctrine of conspiracy did not apply in that case." The reference alluded to was the observation of Mr. Emmet who had said "that if the object was to charge Col. Smith with the acts of capt. Lewis, they ought to have laid the indictment for a conspiracy." The opinion of the Judge that the doctrine of conspiracy had no application to the case, appears to me to be perfectly correct. I feel therefore no difficulty in deciding that the testimony of Mr. Neale, unless he can go further than merely stating the declarations made to him by Blennerhassett, is at present inadmissible. But the argument has taken a much wider range. The points made, comprehend the exclusion of other testimony suggested by the attorney for the United States, and the opinion of the court upon the operation of testimony. As these subjects are entirely distinct, and as the object of the motion is the exclusion of testimony supposed to be illegal, I shall confine my observations to that part of the argument which respects the admissibility of evidence of the description of that proposed by the attorney for the United States. The indictment charges the accused in separate counts with beginning, with setting on foot, with preparing, and with providing the means for a military expedition to be carried on against a nation at peace with the United States. Any legal testimony which applies to any one of these counts is relevant. That which applies to none of them must be irrelevant. The expedition, the character and object of that expedition, that the defendant began it, that he set on foot, that he provided and prepared the means for carrying it on, are all charged in the indictment, and consequently these charges may be all supported by any legal testimony. But that a military expedition was begun or set on foot by others, or that the
means were prepared or provided by others, is not charged in this indictment, is not a crime which is or can be alleged against the defendant, and testimony to that effect is therefore not relevant. (Opinion to be concluded in our next.) Tuesday, Sept. 15th. Mr. Hay said that the counsel for the prosecution would attempt to go on as well as they could; and that they would attempt to introduce no evidence which interfered with the opinion of the court. He should state what he conceived to be the advantage of that opinion. Mr. Hay stated one or two propositions, when the opposite counsel objected to this course.—Mr. Martin suggested whether it would not be better to introduce particular points of testimony, for the court then to determine upon their admissibility.—After some conversation, Mr. Hay called up Mr. Neale. Q. Were you on the island, on the night of Blennerhassett's departure? A. I was not; I left it about the 20th of August. James McDowell was then called; when Mr. Hay observed that this witness was introduced for the purpose of proving an interview between him and the accused at the mouth of Cumberland river, when the accused stated to him the object of his expedition.—Mr. Burr observed, that he understood this was offered as corroborative or auxiliary testimony. Auxiliary to what? They ought first to demonstrate that he did commit the acts at the island, that were laid in the indictment. Why do they thus attempt to prove acts done in Kentucky out of this district? Some argument ensued upon this point; when Mr. Hay observed, that he considered the terms "providing and providing means" as the direct and operative terms of the law; he would prove that means for a military expedition had been provided at the island; and the question was, who did provide them? He would undertake to deduce from circumstances, to the complete satisfaction of the jury, that Mr. Burr was the provider. These circumstances were satisfactory to his mind, and he thought they would be equally so to them. C. Just. If you have any testimony about providing the means at the island, let it be produced. Mr. Dudley Woodbridge was then called up, whose testimony we have already retained in the Enquirer. He now gave a particular history of his contract with Mr. Burr, the building of the boats and the preparing of provisions. The prosecution interrogated him particularly about the corn which Mr. Blennerhassett had purchased on his flood, and attempted to show that in this transaction he acted under the powers of the firm. The opposite counsel asked him, whether this purchase of corn had ever been carried into the company's books. A. No. Whether were the partnership accounts settled? A. Yes. Peter Taylor was then interrogated about the corn purchased by Bl. on the island. He said that this corn was landed on the island; then carried to the mills on the Mississippi and on the Kanawha; that the meal was brought back to the island; but he was not certain whether any had been carried away by Bl.'s party. Mr. Hay at length arose. He said, he perceived very distinctly that he could not prove in his evidence without meeting the opinion of the court. That opinion had removed the great and most effective part of his testimony; that under such circumstances, he could not support the prosecution; he was willing therefore to enter a Nolle Prosequi and he quoted Folter p. 327-8 to show, that after a jury was impanelled, it was within the discretion of the court to admit that practice: that he was led to this mode of proceeding by the consideration that the law under which the indictment was laid was vague in its terms, and as yet undecided, and that this course might permit him to resume the prosecution at some future day, should any substantive testimony occur.—The opposite counsel objected to this proceeding: that it was contrary to the uniform practice of the courts; that it was the right of the jury to give a verdict; that the confines of this proceeding would be the delay of justice to the accused, to whom the constitution had awarded the benefit of a speedy trial. They attempted to reply.—Mr. Hay was perfectly willing to submit it to the court.—The Ch. Justice decided that the attorney could not enter a Nolle Prosequi after an audience of about 20 minutes, Mr. Orris Payne, their foreman, returned a verdict of "Not Guilty." Mr. Hay then announced the course, which he was now to pursue; Mr. Burr was not yet discharged from his recognizance for the misdemeanor; that it was his intention to move for his commitment to that place for trial where the military expedition is said to have been completed; that he should combine in the same motion Messrs. Smith and Blennerhassett, and that he should have no difficulty in entering a Nolle Prosequi to their trials for a misdemeanor.—Mr. Burr requested the attorney to allege the place where the act is said to have been committed. Mr. Hay replied, that the evidence he should introduce would cover a vast extent of territory; that he would name it when he could, the very point. Mr. Burr. The district then—Mr. Hay. I do not distinctly recollect the opinion of the court; but I believe it will be proved that troops were assembled at the mouth of Cumberland river and down the Mississippi to Bayou Pierre in a warlike posture. It is not my business to locate the scene. It will be the province of the court, after they have heard the evidence, to fix the place where he is to be tried. Mr. Martin mentioned the case of John Smith of Ohio; but no arrangement was made. Mr. Wickham mentioned the case of Jonathan Dayton. Mr. Hay observed, that he did not think himself justified in entering a nol. pros. so that would discharge him from his recognizance and he was not certain but some evidence would occur in the course of the examination which would induce him to combine Mr. Dayton in his motion for commitment; that he had no doubt that Mr. D. was engaged in the general conspiracy, and if he had had any, the familiarity of the hand writing of the letter he had in his hand (Gen. Dayton's) with some he had previously seen, would have satisfied his mind. Mr. Wickham then proposed, that Mr. Hay should enter a Nol. Pros. and that gen. D. should continue his recognizance: to which Mr. Hay acquiesced. Adjourned till this day (Saturday) 11 o'clock. * The file of the Columbia Mills, Coal Lands, and Geographical Court books belonging to Mr. Ross, and advertised for sale yesterday, has, by consent of parties, been postponed until THIS DAY, 12 o'clock, at which time the sale will commence at the Eagle Tavern. E. W. ROOTES, WILSON ALLEN, } Trustees. FOR SALE, IN WILLIAMSBURG. The two story brick HOUSE and LOT, on the main-street, near the Capitol, belonging to the estate of Charles Hunt, deceased. On this tenement there is a large Store House & Grainery, besides other necessary out Houses. The above property may be purchased on an accommodating credit at private sale, by application to Dr. William Tazewell, at any time previous to the 29th day of September next, when it will be set up to the highest bidder, on a credit of 12 months. The title to the above property is in disputable. Sept. 1.