Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-08-19

any witnesses, whom they might please, &c
, the list originally furnished; to demonstrate
which he entered into particular nara.
= tive, Of several conversations between Mr.
Hay and himself, and read the agreement
(relative to the list of the witnesses) which
had been entered on the record, and con-
tanned no such expressions. He said the
statements he had made were not for the
purpose of excluding the witnesses on the
part of the United States, but of disprov-
ing the alledged agreement Therefore,
g as a matter Of voluntary motion and
grace" and not as right, permission was
granted by COL Burr and his counsel to add
the four witnesses to the list.
/. The ten jurors who had been sworn were
called over, and answered TO their names
Richard Cnrd and yoktn IA. Shchhard
were then called, and sworn to complete
the PANEL. 90. .-e..,. ;.,
| r The jury impannelled to decide this We
ry important case, consists therefore ofthe
following gentlemen: Edward Darlington,
Richard E. Parker, David Lambert, Hugh
Mercer, James Shiphard, Reuben Blskey,
| christopher Anthony, Miles Bolts, Henry
f.. Coleman, BENJAMIN Graves, Richard
Curd, and John NJ Sheppard ,.,
Mr.. Hay proposed that the jury should
he furnished with supplements to enable
tuShi W Ndt>S uolCa vi NlS ANU tliS ONl~
dence, as the cause would require all their
attention, and it would be necessary fer
their memories to be aided as much as pos.
! sible. The proposal was agreed to, and
each juryman directed to be furnished with
pen, ink, and paper ,.,Y,
! MIR. Hay then addressed the iurs, in an
able, iudicious, and dispassionate speech,
in which he stated the points ofiaw, which,
in his opinion, would govern their decision
in the case, and gave a summary or the evil
dence intended to be introduced on behalf
or the United States. This speech (Which
lasted two hours and FIVE minutes) was lis
tened to with great attention, and we be-
lieve with universal pleasure by the hume-
rous audience; and it is with much regret
that we cannot give il TO our readers at
full length.
He admohished The jtry to divest their
minds of every prejudice and bias, to en-
ter into this enquiry with candor and i'm
Partially and with a fixed determination
to do Justice observing that, If they doubt
ed of the prisoners guilt, after hearing the
evidences, they Ought to lind him not gull
ty, but, it, from the evidence, they belize
; we'd him guilty, they would themselves be
guilty of treaehery to God and their coun-
, try, if they did not find a verdict accord
ingly
On the subject of treason, he cited the
decision of the supreme court of the Uni
. ted States, in tile case of holman and
Ssodrfevout, as clear and explicit authori-
: ty, in which opinion the stages of conspira-
cy not amounting to treason were pointed
. out and what shall be called An oVrrt act
OF treason IN teUuiHs Ep1r against the Uni
! ted States, was aSccrtAincd & defined from
which he commended. that wherever there
S IS an dSSenbLage .cf 5oc5i, TOR. the fur
POSE Of CARRYING into effect, by force, q
f REASONABLE dssign, 7ifh an Intention of
nor set1drGffnS nnfLi IL should be effected i;
5 oHthoSr, ruiio are to5acerned IL SHch design,
/ and assembLdge, though not actually hre-
: sent, and though the comEany gyere nor
. armed, are guilty Of treason dgdinst fhr
8 United States.
I Mr.. Hay made a number ofeXcelleht OBJ
/ scrvations, in illustration and confirmation
= ofthis doctrine and quoted as authorities,
to- the same effect, and in support of the st =
!. veral branches OF his definition of treason,
, Fries's trial, p. 1917, 10S, 1922 Dallas's
Rep. 3S5---Foster's crown laws 203---1
t East's do 67---Foster, oil.
Y He said it might be objected, on the o.
! thersidej that this was an attempt to esta-
4 blish constructive treason; but he con-
tended that explaining the meaning Of the
. constitution in using the words " levying
war against the United States" was not in
+. Producing a constructive treason. He ci-
. ted 4 81. IS to shew what constructive treG-
{ sons are, and Judge PcterS's opinion in
Fres's trial p. 206 to demonstrate ;hat the
= indispensable use of construction ought not
o TO be argued against from its abuse and
insisted that it was the duty Of the judges
= to fix the true construction of the constitu-
a tion for the purpose Of avoiding the uncer.
: tainty of the law which would otherwise
y exist.
e The remainder of the outlines of Mr.
v Hays speech shall be given in the Mex
:, Argus.
r After Mr.. Hay had finished, Gen. Ia
If ton was sworn as a witness for the CnteI
is States.
Col. Burr and his counsel objected t.
II the introduction of Gen. Eaton's evidence
as it is related, to the reasonable intention
y only, until the testimony relative to the O.
Vert-act should be gone through.
On this question a most ingenious and in
tereSting debate ehsued which was con
Il. Quoted by Messrs. Bolts, Wickham, Lee
y and Martin, on behalf of Col, Burr and b,
I'd MIR. Writ on the part Of the United States
and lasted to a very late hour when tin
y court adjourned, until Tuesday ten O'clock
TUESDAY, Augtst ID.
or The CHIEF Justice delivered in within
ell the OpiHion ofthe court on the question con