The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-02-17

there, of which Mr.. B. was to be the fovereisn.
1t 10 probable he had another object alto in
view, fbe inpafon of Mexico +: but this does not
appear to be difinet from his treafonahle plan of
difmembering the union. This treafonable in
tention 10 alto fated in the conf. fIions made to
general Wikinfon by one of the prifoners. In
the Purfuit, then, Of this objeti, we find that
mar; .. mad actually commenced tie expedition,
and that he expelled to be at Natchez, with an
armed force, at certain period. It appears
too, from the confefiions ofthe prifcners them.
felves, that MIR. B. evas Ie1ying a large 5edy of
armed men, and what may 60 far to prove their
knowledge of and agency in that bufinefs 10, that
the officer who was to command the firf five
hundred men is Rated by name. One of the pri-
toners ALTO Jays, that he had written to colonel
Burr for provifions. Should .thefe circumftan-
ces, Of f6emlefveJ, not amount to overf adt of
le1ying aoar, upon which queftion Mr.. D. faid
ne fhould, at that time, fay nothing, yet when
taken In connection with the fituation of the
country, the tate of alarm exiting among the
people, and the active preparations of defence
againit an expected attack, they furuifted
frong prima taeie evidense that they had bee,
followed up by the commifIion of other aA
on the part OF MIR. Burr and the priConers, that
would amount to a ie1ying Of qvar within the
ftneteh definition of the terms. Nor is there
any thing in the teftimony, fad Mr.. D. that
can pohtiveiy exclude the inference, of an ac-
i've co operation ON the pant of the prifoners in
the different meafnres that are probably imputa-
BILE to Mr.. Is.
MIR. ID. then remarked, that an obfcryation.
made by hinielf, on iiiuine the warrant, feem-
ed not to have been correctly underlfood by the
prifoners' council.
He had not flid. that in tb. .r.c,, .,c :,
neceiary to refort To public documents 70 cid
the depoiitions in furnfhine probable eouk for
the arreit but he would now obferve as he had
then done, that although the depohtions did to
MS mind etabliih probable caufe on which he
could act, yet that this probability was ffrongly
eorrodorafed by the meiIage of the prefideut
and other public documents on the fuhiect.
mat even admitting that the 9Th article of the
amehdments to the contribution which provides
againt general warrants, may require an oath or
affirmation before any qvarruut can fine vct
ne could not iublcribe to the doctrine that the
circumstances fhowing the probable caufe, u,uft
IN all CAFES be contained in The oath or af.rma.
ION itieif. If this principle be once conGdered
correct, it would iEieed, when taken in con-
neetion with the nece fifty contended for in the
Preient cafe, of proving, on a sueRion ofeommit-
mem the pohtive exifcnce of the offence charp-
ca, oe the evoyf Preeedenr, as it regarded the
public LATELY, that could pofiibly be eftabfhed.
though at the fame time it might be the moft
convenient cloak for treafon that could he in
vented. Under this doctrine, even an authen.
tIcated record fhewing the conviction of Mr..
b. OF treaion, could it be produced on the pre-
tent queftion, would be deemed inadmifibIe
IN e0rroboration Of the praba6i< eagje contained in
the affidavits.
MIR. d. concluded by ohfcrving, that he was
oppoied to baiing the prifoners, for although
the evidence might alto have charged them with
mhdemeanor in fettng on foot an expedition
aga'nlt nation at amity with the United States,
yet as they had been arrefted on charge of the
higheH offence againit their country, nothing
but their pey(on5 could be conGdered an ade-
Guate fecurity to the public.