The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-06-23


ly E.n,aeratfo his defence. But although the si.
davs does no, attempt 20 few, wherein thele orders
are material FOR the prifoncrs deivrce Mr.. Martin
he's attempted impply ira, oninr. ny his argument
iee'ns thee orders were 10 iawiels tina, Burr had
rgh, to ren them < whatever he has done has been
~ icif de!ene- again! slrie orders. lr would be
y, fir. TO expoie tao lmziiiefs and faacy of this
pfeteSs by reference Ia dates, the have
a very chronological head who can irpute crimes
throughout 1905, 1906, orders ilIned in the Ian
month Of the la6 year, the beginning of 1907
bnt without topping TO anaiizc more mnutely, this
range anachronln, let enquire this doe rine
oi relitanee which MIR. Martin has advocated am
not an advocate for pafve obedience and IF
tauce. do NOT think Mr.. Martin has afked, that
aman becomes a God When he becomes PRECEDENT:
think he does not become God even by becoming
King or an Emperor the contrary, think
that man, who, ~ governmen, ike ours, even az
pres to become one, dPp,osGbJ in point Of e5arat7r,
elst' Of beings v-ry eP'sts 30 Godi.But Attending
again to Preiident, he is bound by his oath OF of
tce to take that the laws fa be carried into e
fect BY the particular act Of Congress which pre-
fcribes the pvnifhment of the mfdemeanor charged
on the Psone, the PreGdent is authorized and requ
red to cali The naval and military force of the
try tn defeat the enterprie in the prefrnt ufance
ne has done 70 aud given orders for the apprehension
OF the offender and are told that Aaron Burr in
Read oi iubmtting hnfeIf osshe laws and juiics of
his country had right TO resia thefe orders. That
Aaron Burr was to be the Judge, whether he fhould
ebsy, or not, orders proceeding from the lawfully
conituted authorities of his country and that he
Thought them unlawful he had right TO reiilt them
by force: If this be TO- there is an end Of
every individual in the country, preiun,e has, at
leait. the fane rights with Aaron Burr and If he
has this right cf'iu5mitting to, refnng the laws
| and officers of the government he pleaes, every
body ellie has the fame right then where is the uie
ef our eonnitution laws officers might as we'll
a nIt Ill, n.
FIR, neither Aaron Burr any other individual
res abouthm this difpenGng power. 1t is clear tia,
the very a4 of rcfiitance, of which Mr.. Martin
has fpoken tielf an aa of treaion. Before the
orders can De material for his defence this ground,
| &c NUT be determined that he had the right OF
rsliiiauce tut as prclume il be inpoible, that
the court can entertain this latter opinion, conclude
that the orders in queAion, be relevant
teris TO his defence in this light and no other has
| been Preiented, or believe, can Be prsfeuted.
| Let us now coniider the letter from Cen Wilkin-
I'm to the PRECEDENT, and enquire how that touches
either Of the iues in which the prifoner is involved
and how the production of the original letteris 20
operate his benefit. n the letter be ma,eriala,
al, copy will anfwer every Purpofe. The letter
prelume, from the ufe made of it BY the Prefdert
IS public document, and is lodged III the depart
ment of ftate. The law of the United States which
elsabli!hes this Office, contains the following claue
And be 1t further eraaed. that the faid Secretary
\ ici OF TO De made Tor the laid de-
partment of lueh deve, sthe PRECEDENT of the Uni
ted States fhalt approve; and all copies of records
aud papers in the faid Office, authenticated under
the aid ieal ihall be evidence sgudy f5e s,ieina
! rseorS sr Papsr.--1 Vol Laws of II. S. Chap. XIV
p 5.--HcDce copy of this letter will anfwer every
pprpoie OF the original; and will be Gem
petent to Gen. Wi!knion deny rhe authenticated
copy than the original. But let us fee of what ufs
copy OF this le,cer can be TO him We know no
thing OF this iete-, except from the meliage of the
PreidenT TO which the council on the other ide have
referred and by this meffage it appears that il
was from this letter connected with others thar the
Preiidcnt inferred the prloners euiit letter then
winch according to the only account have of it
contributes to eaablilh the priioners guI, is re-
CURED for the purpole of proving his innocence -
But this letter learn, from the affidavit bat
from ARGUMENT, is required far the purpoie of con-
fronting Gen. Wilkinfon, if he hould "trip in his e.
violence AT rretent then, there is conefedly no
iue to WHICH this letter applies; bur one may pof
hbiy occur by Gen. Wilkinfon', departing in his mar.
rative from the itatenents of his letter Now fir,
iuppofe man fhoud move you for Epb5saa G.e.s
tssa~ in civil que1on eating, indeed, that there
was at Preient no fu TO which the Pap,r could APP,
ply bnt that he aPPrehended one night be brought,
| in which it might be material :--now where is the
| difference between fuch motion and the very re-
4 mote probability thar Gen. Wilkinion will produce
occason for This letter, is contradlng by MS pa.
ro toitinony the fatemeuts of his letter but er
us preis this point little further: no ore who pre-
tends to know any thing OF the details Of this letter
all we know OF it, is derived from the Preidpnt's
meage; and from that all learn Of it, is is gen
eral character, that it goes prove the gull, of
! Burr :--Now in order 10 produce any co!Efon be
tween this letter and WilkiHion's parol evidence the
latter NUT have oPpoGte character; that Isl
NUT go to Thew the Innocence of Burr. II Wikinion
continues avow the guilt of Burr, there will be 10
contradiction between his tefinony and his letter
| and coniequently there be conformation be
tween them, beaefical the prfsuer there can be
conironts'io ION in other event, than that of his
dePoilng to Burr's innocence. The refult eff the ar
gnment sthat Barr, apprehenfve that the evidence
! OF Gen. Wilkinlon may be favourable to him.
wthes the Generals letter for the purpofe of de-
iroying that evidence and proving his own guilt
Again hr II have lcen heard Of an inGance
OF this proeets being required bring forward any
Upper, but where fuch paper wash its nafps Ell
sSnfs; Tor which efhrr party had an equal right TO
call, and 70 uie it when produced. BUT it is oh
Yous thai in this clfe and in the prefent nate of
things 7ye could uie the letter Of Gen. w as e.
violence; although the oppofte party mould chain
his iuhpGua dueei tceaza for this paper and would
ieen thereby to have made it evidence and intro
dueed it INTO the csufe, yet aftert comes 1ve cannon
ne itfence, there is reciprocity in 1.-THE pa
per IS not at pfeienf euSaes. aud therefore is not
within the principle which this proc efs is awarded
One more remark this letter and have done with
It'll am not more advocate for the reedleGs null
DUPLICATION Of Fate feerets, than the gentlemen who
4