Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-12-08
FROM THE AURORA.
LETTER THE THIRD.
TO JOHN lHARSHaLL,

SIR-Iou have supposed, q say unwar-
| rantab " ihat 1t was within The power OF
the executive of the u. States, not only to
have collected, by means of its officers,
proof of an overt act of treason; but that
It was also possible to have produced that
| proof az Richmond, on the 3otn of March,
| 1907.
| ] will admit that the fact to be proved
happened {" if eUe,. :" in November or
December last, or twelve months previous
to the examination in K .chmond-l ~ i'll adj
mt sufficient time to have elapsed or the
collection of all the evidence which hes been
adduced on the trial in chief. But win tt
will this admission avail?
! WE 1t shew that the production of that
evidence could be reasonably expected on
the examination in Richmond? surely not
and for this plain reason, that the exc
ctltiVe could no. possibly know that aaron
Burr wou be examined AZ TicaDoHd, or
that he ever would Oe III Virginia, until
about tenor twelve days previous to the ex-
animation.
/ Burr was arrested on the 10Th of Febru-
airy on the i'om5igbec river, in the Mssis-
sippi territory, and arrived in Richmond
OH the 26ih of March The president
could not have been appraised of his arrest
more than ten OR twelve days previous to
ducing tie testimony at Richmond, could
not e2,.s; anti. il was known that Burr could
DC examined there. This was ten or twelve
day previous 10 the examination
Row, sir, admitting the evidence. of the
overt act, which you demanded on she *
animation, 10 have been collected, where
should we reasonably expect tnat this evil
dence was at that time | am as unwil-
ling to attribute to- the executive any - re-
nnSSneSS" or neglect of duty as you profes-
Sed TO he on the examination, and therefore
suppose that if any evidence of tie overt
act had reached the executive, II had been
transmi tied TO the court where Aaron Burr
Vas recognised to appear. Was not this
the duty OF the executive! The ev demo
then ought to have been, and you were
bound to presume it, ten or twelve days
previous to the exam. nation ar place 6
or hundred miles distant from Richmond
II 1t was impossible in the time Intervening
between the examination, and that point
OF time at which it was known that A Burr
could be examined at Richmond, to pro-
Guce at that place, testimony of the overt
act, what opinion ught We to entertain OF
a JHIge who demands the produl ii II Of taat
testimony
When ID. Burr was in the western coun
try, the theatre of his treason, recognized
to appear before the court, will you tell the
men Of America, that il was &c Asonabe u
suppose that the president of the u. States
cou d fcreSee his fIght, his arrest, his RAJ
pid Transmission to Virginia, aud the pro-
priety OF examining him at Richmond?
Without all these Inonstrcus and un-
warrantable suppositions,' how could you
demand the production of testimony on the
examination in Richmond, which without
remssness on the part of those who pro-
: secute" ought TO have been ten days before
at the distance of 6 or hundred miles
from that place I'm ten days q messenger
: must pass through the wilds of the western
, country 6 orr hundred miles, collect the
testimony of an overt act OF treason, return
; the same distance, and bear it to the capt.
tol ofVirginia
Were the government gifted with pro-
phecy, or possessed of the power to create
Mercury, You would venture to pronounce
: the probability of Burr's guilt
1t does not require an intimate acquain-
tanCe with the law, to know that it never
demands the performance ofinpossibihties
in any case, nor even unreasonable eXcrtlOu
e to accomplish impossibilities.
r But your reasoning upon the non-produc.
r ton Of proof of the overt act is intended
= to lead directly 20 the conclusion that M
aSsemblage ever happened. For you say
t that it is " capable of proof, and when line
= to collect this proof has been giUsH, Il
= ought to be adduced, or suspicion becomes
ground TO weak too stand upon" You theI
i say " several months have elapsed since
q the fact did occur, il it ever occurred
n more than FIVE weeks have elapsed since
e the opinion Of the supreme court has declar
u ed the necessity Of proving the fact, If /
II excists--Why is il not proved!"
- WIl( be believed that your penetration
= could not detect such wretched sophistr.
II as this One single question will tear il
1t pieces the whole web.
e Did the probable necessity approving tn
s. fact at Richmond exist 4" several months
IN before the examination did iteXist ".fr'
" weeks" before, when the supreme cour
~ declared the necessity Of proving the fact
IN | answer for you, without fear Of contra
ir dction, 10 did not. Itnever did occur VIZ
>. I'll 10 or IL days previous TO the eXamir
id alton. IL was impossible that II could e.
er ist before that time with any person not
CT prophet.