The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-10-23

land appear to have ccniidered col Burr as their
chief. Whatever might he the point towards
which they were moving. they ftem TO have
looked upon him as their conductor.
They dsmeaned ,hemirlses in 4 peaceabe <
orderly manner. NJ aGt os violence was COM
mitted, nor was any outrage on the laws prac-
tiled. There was no aa Of diiobedieoce 10 the
civil authority, nor were there any military APP
pearances. There were fome arms and ione
boxes which might or might not contain arms.
There were ALTO fome implements oshu!6andry,
but they were purchafed at the place. Thefe
men shembisd under CONTRACTS To fet,,e traa
OF country on the Red River. No hottie oh
iects were avowed; and, after continuing day
or two on an i(l,nd in the mouth Of The river,
the party proceeded down the OHIO
There are fome circumltlnces in this traEfac-
ton, which are calculated to excite attention and
To awaken fnipicion. If the executive ohi~cf
of thoie who competed this meeting was TO tet-
tie lands, it would naturally form the fuSjecf
of public conversation, and there would moi
probably have been no impeachment to free
communication respecting it. The eourfe of the
human mind would naturally lead to fuch COM
munications. The hltnce obierved by the lea
dcrs on this fubjeet, connected with hints of
Interior views, feems calculated to impress On
the minds of the people themfelves, that fomc
| other project was contemplated, and was pro-
baby de6sned to make that imprenion.
That the men fhould have been armed with
rifles was to be expected, had their Jingle object
been TO plant themteves in the Cuachta; but
the muiIet and bayonet are perhaps not the
ipecies of arms which are mott uiually found
in our frontier fettiemrnts: Nor were the indi-
viduals, who were Attended, of that Description
of perfous who would mott naturally be en-
ployed for fuch purpofe. The engagement
for fix months too is stipulation for which it
q 70 he i-Dle th,t,
tettlement of lands was the fole or principal
objeet in contemplation.
Thefe are circumstances which excite fufpi-
clon. How far they may be accounted for by
laying, that Interior eventual Objects were
entertained, aud that the event on which thoft
Objects defended was believed to be certain or
nearly certain, need not determine; but ca
fcarcely fuppofe it poiiihe that it would be con-
tended by any perfon, that the traniacions at
| the mouth OF Cumberland DO, in themfeves
| amount to an act of 'evying war. There was nei
Their an a9 of nobility committed, nor any in
tention to commit fuch aGt avowed.
| Very early in the proceedings which proceed
ed this motion, declared the opinion that war
might be levied without bate, or the actual
application of force 10 the object on which it
was detigned to act that body of men az
tembled for the Purpole of war, and being in
| poiture of war, do levy war; and from that
! opI'iiou HdES Certainly 1Sit no uilDOutlCn to
| recede. But the intention is an indifpenfable
ingredient in the competition of the fIcf and
if war may be levied without ltrkng the blow,
the intention to ttrke mutt be plainly proved
| To prove this intention, the proiecutor for
the United States offers evidence of converiati-
| ons held by the acculed or fome of them, with
| various individuals at different times, relative
| to the vlews which were entertained and the
| plans which had been formed and of certain
| facts which took pace after leaving the mouth
of Cumberland For although i. was decided
not to be within the power of This court to com.
| NIT for trial in territory of the United States,
yet every tranfa6tion within territory has been
! gwen III evidence ia the expectation, that flch
teitimony might ierye 70 explain the meeting at
| the mouth of Cum berland, and bee aufe it was
believed to be proper for an examining rnaeis-
| tra.e to receive it.
That convciiations or Actions at different
time and place might be given in evidence as
corroborative OF the overt act OF levy;Dg war.
| after that had been proved in iuch manner as
to be LET, 10 jury, never doubted for an in.
itant /: But that in a cafe where the intent coud
not he inferred from the fact, and was not prov
ed by declarations connected with the fact a.
mong winch | !siouid ,ucude the terms under
which thoie who competed The aTemblage were
conycued together, this DETECT could be entjre-
!y fupplied by extriHiic ieflimony, not acpivin,
The iatent concluiiveiy to the particular faa, is
point, on which have entertained doubts
which are not YET entirely removed. The opi-
Mon OF Judge lredell IN the cafe of Fries, ac
cording to my understanding of it when read at
! the bar, appears TO bear ftrongiy on this point,
and that opinion would be concluIive with me.
at lear wn,ie attis as an examining mapiRrate.
/ have not reviewed It particularly, becauf.
ny decton Will not depend 90 the propriety of
admitting this mode OF proving the intent
1t ha. aiQ been made queition, whether af
ter proving a connection between the accufed
for Tome general ot;eet, the oonverfalions of
one OF them may be given in evidence againft A.
ny other than hmIelf for the purpofe OF proving
what that object was. On the part of the u
nited States 1t is United, that fuch conversations
may be given in evidence on an indictment for
treafon in levying OF war. By The dsf:nce it is
conteAdsd, that fuch evidence is Only aJmiM.
bic on indictments for confpracv, or on in
didtments where confPiracy may be laid as an
overt act.
The principle that one man fl,llnot be cri-
minated by the declarations Of another, not af.
fented to by him, not maze in due courfe of
law, contributes arue Of evidence, w7ch ought
rot unrsatGingly TO be invaded
II IS one of thole principles on which do not
think mylef required to decid', bccaufe am
not lure that its decifon, however irtereAing
r. might be or trial 10 chief, would cFen:ially
aTed The qu;ition Of commitment nor am
confident that it, decifiJu as argued on the part
OF the United States, would introduce the te(-
timony it was drigned to introduce. In the