Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-09-12

II0y, ana tod MN that. he understood the
argument on behalf OF Col. Burr to be
this THAT, since the person. who occasion
ga the means to be provided, employed o.
ther persons to enlist men and purchase
provisions, those who enlisted ;he men and
bought the provisions, and net the men as
Sembled, were argued to be the principal
offenders.
Mr.. Hay. I should be sorry, upon prin-
clples OF humanity, TO see doctrine or this
KIND prevail in Il Government like ours;
mat a rule should be laid down SO we'll CAL
,cuIated to project from punishment able
oeslSlhng men, and 10 consign to destruc-
non their poor weak deluded agents This
idea never occurred to the learned counsel
who defended Smith and Ogden. Evidence
OF acts done by their agents was admitted
without controversy.
See the trial of Smith and Ogden p. 1O2.
Mr.. Bots. l never meant to concede
mat the persons enlisted were net guilty;
II the expedition was criminal, and they
were acquainted with the design.
Mr. hay. This Sd position must have
a limitation. Ii Burr is TO he considered
as an accessory, ! wish Mr. Rot.s 20 say
who was the principal. Eur. applied to
Dudley Wood6rTGge and engaged him to
nave number OF boats built for him on
he AfuShmgum Ifood6udge, altho' he
aHs5iected his design to be unlawful, vet.
nor knowing it to be so, in the course of his
trade makes the bargain, and. has the
Joats built. Can Woodb,iGge be consider
ed as guilty of any crime? Much less can
he be. regarded as principal offender.
MI. ray observed, that Barr knew too
wei the ieakyness Of human nature to re-
veal his plans To all his subordinate agents.
nc mace use OF his great reputation,
which was sufficient TO induce multitudes
20 engage IN any.project proposed by him,
under persuasion that the man who had
hiied SO vast Il space in the affections of
ms fellow citizens would not propose anv
| terminal or chimerical scheme. He bad
trusted, indeed, to that reputation too
much, and found himself deceived and dis
| appointed III the end but it had had its eff
iect. HIS agents had got men to assemble
al S!dnneThdSseE'S Island, under the e,,
pectation OF meeting him on some grea,
design winch was not revealed. Were the
agents guilty when the true design might
not have been known to themselves
Mr.. HAY concluded his observations on
the 81 point by observing, that this was a
question which properly belonged to the
jury whose province 1t is to Judge both of
tact and law; and asked why the gentle.
men on the other side were so perpetual
~ lying from the Jury to the Court. and
so unwilling to trust the J1lru with anv
thing? any
he 18th point, made by Mr. Bolts. he
poSei yea was the same proposition with
'H"t ia',. @a"" ~ the trt ssof case, 5lQfaffs
"I"f0"0IS but, IN that case, the court had
expressly declared that, whether the acts
on bIannerhGSSet'S Island amounted TO
| treason. OR
faCt proper to be left to the iury altbo'
the court had thought proper to 90 largely
INTO description of the nature of such
acts as ought to be considered overt-acts of
treason. !.
but Mr. Bots had said that the means
provided at Blannerha.Set'S Island ought
10 nave been adequate means, and thar IF a
man mad furnished only one brick to build a
mouse, he could not be said to have provid-
ed me means for building it. Mr. Hay OH
( served 1T was true that, if a man was to
BRING only one brick in a cart, it wonld NOT
nave the aEEeGrance of providing the means
Tor building house but a single carr .lood
" 0Tic&8 would certainly be berfnniue, the
preparations for the building. AccoTding
20 MIR botES'S argument, a person conj3
nor be SAID to be providing materials for q
ouidihg, SO long as a single brick was
| wanting.
Mr. Bots here observed that his argr-
nent was not that a man could not he On
gagged IN providing the means for bniid-
lnS until the whole were prepared. Lut
that, unfH MeH, he could not he sud -
hare E''oUtaed the means.
Mr. Hay proceeded to observe if was i'm
possible for court or jury to say what were
ddequafe means for such an eSnedi,i,,
mat meditated by Col. Burr. The law
speaks OF means of military cxpeditio,
"helher 6deqHnfe or not must deDend uDor
the object in view. The intention of The
accused was TO keep the world in ignorance
ol the real object in view. Its immateriaI
VIII ther that was conquest, plunder or re
venSe. The law does not require the Oh
Ject to be asccrtaincd. According to tI,is
argument there could be no guilt nn.ess ,be
ic'ce should be so great as 10 defg ofhoei-
H"H IL TINS construction is correct, what
20 De zone with the words "5et ON E2ot"
ana "eeSan" which are used in the act of
congress 1t is evident that the law an
nexes punishment by fine anu inprison-
Went 70 The smallest degree of the crime
hr RAY denied that there must be a r,i-
MARY organization before the offence ;e
complete. Suppose, said he, man is ire
par'ng an expedition against one of tbe
west India Islands. He puts every tbiro
on Doard his vessels; implements of waT'
provisions, &C.--but reserves az he 1.st
ACT the enlisting Of men and taking fLey, or,
BOARD would lac not be gully Of ptoyiI-
ing ana preparing the means of the expedi-
'iuhj before MS men should come on board
whereby they would ne enabled ts col. III