Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-06-20


from any thing expressed in it the letter
OF Gen. Wilkinson may, or may not be ma
terial Suppose those words s'or n,ay not''
had been inserted would it then have been
regarded! The absurdity would then have
been tso evident-And is it not the same
thing in substance as it now stands? II
such an affidavit as this is sufficient, and
mere curiosity is to be INDUCED, the Pre-
sident might be required to produce all
our correspondence with the Spaniards a.
bout our disputed territories in short, all
the papers OF government would be laid
open to the inspection of Burr. But the
court ought not to issue process on specu-
lation only; ought not to subject the public
ofhcers, to inconvenience and the national
archives to arrangement, unless in case
where Justice plainly requires it.
But the affidavit would not have been
sufficient if he had said, what be dared not
say, that the papers are material. 1t should
appear ho5v they are material The ma
ture ofth evidence ought to be specially
stated that the court may Judge of it. Will
the court rely on the judgment of the par
ty in this case? Misled as he is by his feel
ings, his Judgment ought not to be trusted.
Even III ordinary cases the court will
enquire as to the contents Of papers on Il
motion Tor ContInuance-which doctrine
is recognized in b.. Rep 514 The came
thing was done in the case of the u. S. Us.
Smith and Ogden, in which almost as much
clamor was excited as in this. There, the
evidence of MIR. Madison and others was
sworn to be material, but the court requir-
ed specification of its substance, and de-
clded that il was not admissible. The pa
pers required in the present case would
tNnk Isr II. Ill 4
have knowledge fthe orders AMI think
so with respect to them. The letter
know nothing about. Mr. Wickham's ar
gument that the court did right in Smith
and Ogden's case, because it was prima
facie presumable that the evidence would
not be admissible, turns against him here {;
for, certainly, it is Prima facie presuma-
bic that gen. Wilkinson's letter cannot
make IN Burr's favor, since the orders TO
intercept him on his passage to the seat OF
his empire were founded on the Informal
ton received from that letter.
The conduct of the gentlemen proves
that they feel us TO be right. Their invo-
luntary conviction of this is evnced by
their endeavoring to supply the defect in
the affidavit, and to specify the purposes
Tor which the papers are wanted. The
accused has not ventured TO swear that
they are material, but they assert it and
attempt to shew it by argument
First, as to the letter Mr.. Wickham
says, that Wilkinson has written other let
tiers to other persons differing from this.
We deny the fact. If it be true, why is it
not sworn to? But suppose Gen. Wilkin-
son had done SO, what is the inference Is
his evidence before. the Jury not to be re-
garded 1t is strange indeed that the gem
tlenen say they have never seen this let
ter and only guess at its contents, vet say
that letters containing different statements
have been written! Surely such Efforts as
these are deplorable for, whether the as
serhon be true or not, it is not known to
be true.
They next contend that the orders are
material because they were illegal, arbi-
trary, unconstitutional, oppressive and un-
just; that Burr's acts were merely acts of
seif-detence against tyranny and usurpati-
on, and, OF course, were iustihable.
Many strange positions have been laid
down, but this is monstrous. Mr. Martin
viii excuse me for saving that expected
sounder doctrines from his age and expe-
rlenCe. These principles were not lie rnt
by him in Maryland, nor are they the dec
trines of this place. Considering that he
has come all the way from Maryland TO en-
Tighten US inferior lawyers of the Virginia
bar by his great talents and erudition, l
hoped he would not have advanced doc
trine which would have been abhorred G
ven in the most turbulent period of the
French revolution, by the Jacobins of 1894 /
1t is the duty of the President to call out
the militia to suppress combinations against
the laws---(see l.. u. s. vol 8, pa. $50 !
and particularly to prevent enterprises ~
gaInst foreign nations in amity with the J.
States ;---Gb. p. 92.) Yet it is commended.
that his orders for such purposes are lille.
gal, and may be resisted by force of arms !
l will not say it is treason TO advance or q
mlsdemeanor 70 believe such doctrines ::
bat deplorable Is the cause which depends
Oh such means for support.
Suppose, however, the President was
misled; and that Mr.. Burr was peaceably
engaged in the project of settling his
Washita lands; will it be contended that
he had right to resist the Presidents or
ders to stop him : | say this would be tres-
son. 1t Congress were to pass an arbitra-
ry or oppressive act, but not unconstituti-
onal, (such as the excise law for cxaInple. \
1t has been decided that an armed comb.
nation to resist it would be treason. Of
course resistance to the execution Of the
statute under which the President was act
ing would be treason. The President re-
ceives information that law of the u. S.
is about to be violated he issues orders 10
enforce the law in the way prescribed bv
itself. is not opposition by violence trea-
son Will the gentlemen, after seriously