The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-06-10

/
pretent queRion. Sir, this fpecies of evidence
IS directly in the face of cnr bill of rights and
| OF the combination of the u. States. - In all
cr,ms1I profecs,ons the 5ccufsd ,fiiall enjoy
the right to ipeedy aud public trial, by an
impartial Jury of the Ra,e and dinriGt wherein
the crime ihall have been committed, which dit.
triet hal have been previouHy alcertaned by
law and to be Informed of the nature and
tcautc of the accrfatiou; to be eoafsntel qvifb
: tie sUitnsGcs egHinf lin, S'e.' Col. Burr
then, fir, has general constitutional right to
be confronted with the witnefles sgainR him.
Let gentlemen how any exceptions to it, if
they can And what have they done WHY
they bave-fhown here an obfolatc, an evapo.
rated affidavit, for which there is no prcefii,y
| snd no law. The law poGtvely dc clares, that
the belt evidence is always to be had that
when a "itnefs is attauable, his affidavit il
not to he admitted rs teaimony.-We Rand.
/ therefore, FIR, upon the bill Of rights. Gentle
men may, indeed, attempt to evade it's proyi.
hons, by laying that they can hereafter prove
the material aet !; but hope that this court
VIII never ootintenance fuch illegal procce dnps.
| Ire Grief cJnqiee ftsted, that the Supreme
Court of the u. States had already decided, that
! an affidavit might be admitted under GER
tam circumstances hut they had alf, deter
mined, that gen. Wiknfoh's affidavit did no,
contain any proof of an overt aS that he was
4 Or.
ney for the U. S. TO purdue his own COURT. in
the order of drawing out his evidence, under
a ful, confidence that he would not waite the
time OF the court by producing any exsraneous
| matter but where was the neceiIity of pro-
dncing gen. WIS affidavit firft !? Ifthere was
no other evidence to prove the overt act / viii.
knfon's affidavit goes for nothing for 10 the
fupreme court of the U. S. have already de-
cided and by that decihon he fhoud have
\ red hifyaT. hD,, L ~
ed from it. Why then produce this affidavit
Mr. Hay obferved, that there was "a great
difference between the courfe prefcrbed by the
court and the one which be would have himfelf
/ Puriued and that he feriouny believed, if he
had been left to himfelf, he would at leait have
fatsfied the court itfelf that his own courfe
was the beft that as to General Wilkinfon's
affidavit, Ii might even now be confronted
with witnetics as MefIrs. Bollman and Swart.
won't were prefent, and would fay whether
fuch and fuch conversations were ever held. az
are detailed in this affidavit that he was now
before an examining court, and not before the
Petlt Jury :,Why then the fame ftrctnefs of
evidence nezu as would be required on the trial
in chief! That he really believed it was the
intention of the oppofte council, by dint of
long ipeeches to attenet to drive him into their
courie: but that they ought to know he never
coniuited the countrl oppofed to him; and
|
! world, whole opinions he would confalt on the
pretent occafion that he ferioully believed,
that the evidence which he poffefed, would,
! beyond the poiiioility of doubt, convince the
mind OF the court, not only OF the exiftence of
a traiterous deGgn, but of an overt acf i: and
that all that he aiked was the liberty of prodn-
eng this evidence in the order, which he tho't
beit-ls no part of this depofition, then, ad-
! rniiiiblt! not a word
|
| part OF 1t adniiible at this time; that gen.
WiikiSfon's affidavit either contained proof of
the tfeaionabIe deligD, which was no proof of
the overt act; or 1t related to conversations,
which however ftrongly they might bear rpon
| thofe who held them, did not bear upon Col.
! Burr.*
Mr. Hay aiked how the court was to be fatis-
he'd OF the contents of any paper, before it was
read TO them. An affidavit might contain both
the proof OF the overt att, and of traiterous de-
Ign. Was fuch paper as this to be read nm
der the deciiion of the court? Or how was
the court TO know, whether paper might not
contain Tome proof of the overt act satisfactory
10 them, unefs they had an opportunity of in
iPectng that paper?
| Mr.. NIekbsm. Thefe gentlemen talk of de-
lay; and yet they would produce to this court
fwhole males of evidence that are perfectly ir-
relevant to the preieut quenion. They declare
that they VIII not purfue our advice and that
we were the laft perions whom they would take
tor councillors. Sir, we do not ak them. All
that we want is, that they would purfue the
ttiiet principles of law and evidence. One of
the belt rules of evidence is the order of evil
dence. IT man is charged with a crime, muA
not the deed itielf exit, before any teRimony
is produced as to the intention, with which it
IS done! ] hope that no tenimony will be
uttered to be introduced, before the overt ac
ltfef iha be produced and call upon this
court to enforce the ftritt order of evidence.
Mr.. Burr obferved, that in point Of fs9 il
was very immaterial to him whether this affida-
VII was read or not; that what he particularly
wanted, was, that the great principles of evil
denee ihould be laid down, which would be
equally applicable to this and to all other aft.
/ daVits. He confented that The court might
nave this depofition read, if they thought pro-
per.
Mr.. Hay. This depofition will prove that
II was one of A. Burr's objecis to feize upon
MEXICO: Then if we can prove by fome other
evidence In at this object was connected with
an attack upon the u. States is not this de-
Po'ltioH OF material importance in that point of
view! IL both NUT be proved, does il make
any difference which we begin with /? fla con-
PIRACY has been planned, of mifGemeanour
ana OF tredion 10 hrongly combined, that they
are made to go on together, and the accom-
pl'ihment OF the one facilitates the accomplish
+ ment OF The other, is 1t not of material confe
quence to prove the miidemeanour! | have
not myieif ieen MIR. Taylor OF Mr.. Albright.
but am crcditly Informed that thew will nrove