The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-09-16


declaring any offence felony or treaion, the ac-
cetiar'es are pnuiiaable. hecaute felony &c.
are crimes known to,he common law but on
'he contrary, = Htp k.t53. e 81 proves that pi-
'a'y nG' h>ini corii.crrd as IN eff nee ut com.
mon Law acceifnics were not included in the
law punithiuc that offence. We have no com.
mon law. Treafon is CT, ated alone by the con
iitmiop and tie it1tn,r: therefore treaiun not
being couh'it-rd rs IN offence by our commo
law, 'nr we have more (; accendries are not in
cl6ted
Mr. Wi, Khan coutendrd, that fuch was the
opinion of coag'efa II Il, that the att of April
1920. 10 fec. S IL II rumihng aGers and ats;
'oFs befo, and after offences high fsas provst
'hIt ooagref' dad not recognize the doStrine OF
acceha'ies being all principals, iince they
thought II ucceiary to pnn.h acct tisr'es by a
particular law that the law of the IT, State.
partit uTry puni'hes tiiofe vino flsaIl fer trai.
tor after convittirn at liberty; tut there i, nc
diiitrence between IN arceliary before and after
the att if then acce!firi-s are principals, way
puniih thoie by patti ular c!aufe, who are
nothing more nor eis than acceflsries? o.
would consreis pnniih thofe with death under
the common law that cceHsres are all puniG,-
ed who merely receive traitor after convi ri
on, and yet by a particular claufe runlh thof
in nlider manner, who effect their liberation
Thia IS an abfurdity which consrers could ne
ver have interdrd.
Mr.. Wickham faid, that il might be obicd
ed that it WIS not niece fairy for the law to have
mentioned aiders and ahettors, becaufe i'm trea.
fon all are principals, and the law knows no.
thing Of aders are anettors but that this was
incorrect in point of fact, as thcfe EXPIRE fiions
were oftrn ufed nthc Eng!ifh booksand ftatutss
in reference to TO treafon. 49,
Mr.. Wiokham commended that there was a
nil! ftronger reafon why they were not inen;i.
oned 10y the act of Cougrefs; becauGe Congrefs
was forbidden By the contribution of the u
States; that this inltrument was to he couit.u
ed not only according 10 its letter, but its true
ipirt /; that its objeel was TO preicrve the union
OF the ttates, to perpetu ate the liberties of the
people, to guarantee our republican inttituti
ons but that forms of government were mere
means; and freedom and pr lection were the
rea! ends that the trainers of the contribution
well knew that in every age accuiations oftrea-
ion were the uiual rncans for thofe in power 10
deitroy the mot virtuous citizens, and hence
they intended to guard agantt the evils they
foreiaw by constitutional fanaions but what
would he the conf quences of the doctrine ad-
vocated by the proE> oution A man might tie
in Georgia, aud IN infarreetion in N. Hamp-
ihue the iniurrS6tion might be proven by SO,
but the come ction Of the accuftd with the per
ions concerned might be proven by one only,
yet he might be convicted Where then is the
lfeguard OF the contribution
Mr.W. oi;ieTved, that the opinion of the fu
preine court in the cafes of no!man and S.gart.
won't might he quoted agaiutl him, aud it might
be laid, that argument nun yield to authority ::
that he admitted, if the principle there fated
Is to be coniidered as concluiive authority, il
controverted his doctrine but that the point
relied on ty the pro!ccution did not come be-
fore the court on thai location, as it was mere
ly fated arguendo that il was therefore A
mere 6iaum &c the judges, made without iuf-
hcIent confederation +; an obiisr d:.sAm deli e.
red without argument on point not aecehlry
to have been decided and that it was c0ufz-
quently no authority according 10 the doctrine
OF Mr.. Hay himieIf, as lzid down in his open
ing fpeech. --~
Mr.. w. then proceeded to confder, whether
the offence laid in the Indictment could be
inPportcd by the nature of the evidence adduc-
ed; or in other words, whether the indiGtme ut
was not too imperfect to let in evidence Of the
acts of an accoHplice. He contended that the
indictment uult give Information Of the nature
of The crin;e but does this Indictment inform
Col. Burr that it was meant TO be proven III It
he WAS not pre- ent when the overt at was COM
mitted, bur that he committee treaion by be-
ing connected with perfons who did commit
the overt att 1t does rot. it informs him,
that he committed treafon ION BIannerhaf.tt's
lllnd, where he was not. lie comes prepared
TO thew that, and that only Mr.. w. ALTO con
tended that s. public" qrar ought to be INHERIT
ed 10 every Indictment, 8 ST. TT. 7l9, 9 DO.
515, / Tremaine's L. Of the { Fres's cafe So
mcrviile's cafe 4; Andcrion's Reports that the
form Of the Indictment WAS fettled after great
confederation, aud that this Taft authority
proves that The form cs the indictment ought to
be fpecial, where there is confpracy 10 PET
form An att of trea!on, J Hale $50. That the
indictment, moreover, ought rcgular!yto have
ita,ed qvjtb qVbom the trealon was committed,
and nor To- have fad with berj5nJ mkaezv1 /.
that it therefore reiuted, tt2t no acts of third
perions not mentioned IN the indictment, can
be given in evidence under this indictment 10
charge perfon acculed who was not pref Mt ;
that tie doctrine that in treaion al in England
are principals, applies only to the punilhment
aud to the denomination Of the offence, aud
not TO the manner of profsCution that it per-
ion gives traitor advice in one county, and the
treaion is COMMITTED in another, he nun be in
diced In the county where he gave the advice,
for there his Cmtnce was committed I; and that
therefore Col. Burr ought not to have been tri.
ed here-;f any where.
FRIDAY, Augua 81.
MIR. Wickhan contended, that even If all
theie points were againtt him, there was one
so perfectly clear on reaGou aid authority, that
III cafe of efs importance, no ether need to
have been mentioned that if aiders, procurers
and abtttors Of trealou be liable, their guilt be-
Ing deriyative, can only be ,tsblifhed by legsl
proof lhs, the principals are guilty, and the OF.
Iy proof is a record Of their conviction. To