The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-09-12

4
with beginning, fstting on foot. providing and
preparing the means of a military expedition
at B!annerhaiieett's Hand againf Mexico
| hste are the charges to which his L,ea relate,
and s.h'ch)we ate bound to eitA5,.i The wi
dence Offered goes to prove, that men eyrys ai
| 'tmbied and means qver= provided for an expe.
dition again6 Mexico on the ifsnd and th,,
Burr was the protector of the plan and provid-
or OF the means. Is not this tettimouy relevant
and 1t is, how can the court exclude it
| IN the tre1ion cafe, the indictment charged
the pr'oner with being prelent at the acts done
| on The illaud.
here is manifelt difference between this
and the indictment in The tteaf,n cafe. la the
latter, the indictment charged the priiouer with
being Preient. Blu, in this indictment, there
is nothing which either expressly or by imp'i.
cation proves him to be prefent. Burr might
begin or iet on foot, provide or prepare ths.
means OF military expedition at Blannerhaf.
ietts Hand, without being preient. Thus A
merchant in Philadelphia might ptepare the
means of an expedition in New-Yo,k; he might
emit men by bounty and even equip vefitl for
carrying them 70 the Wef-Indiss without
once turing from his ComptiRg houfe
fre'ence, therefore, not being expressly Rat
ed, nor even alledged by inference, there is not
even variance between the cafe and the evil
dence. If there was, it would b- TO good
ground for excluiion. If it be fad that the ill.,.
dietment is detective in not Eating expressly
whether he was preient or abfent, il might he
a good rcaion for motion il arren, Int not for
Tue execution OF evidence. This objection as to
the variance is entirely new. In the cafes of
fndctne man for keeping gaming houfe !;
OF retailing iPirituous liquors without licenfe
or for providing meat and drink for voters, it is
NOT neceiia,y TO prove the preience of the ac-
culed and fuch defett is no ground of OBJ
Ject'on. But even if the defendant was charged
expressly to have been Preftnt, in this cafr,
aiii he might be convicted, though the evidence
proved him to be abfent; becauie in this cafe
no proof of In overt act is reuuired.
Asto Mr.. Botts's iecond proportion, that no
evidence OF facts done out of the diitri6t was adj
miihoie, this had even been ftttled in the trea-
Ion Gale; for If after giving evidence Of an overt
act or treafon on Bannerhafiett's iAand, YOU
can give explanatory and confrmatory evidence
from another diltriet, a fortiori can it be done
III the prefent occanon.
as TO Mr. Botts's srd propolition, that no G.
violence OF acceiioral agency can be given, un-
III the guilt OF the principal he proved by re
cord 1t may be anfwered, that the sccuGtd
himielf ia charged as the offender that the
perfons fuppofed TO be the principals are mere
~ meaus, the providing of which conlitutes
his guilt; that in trsaion every member of an
ahemoly Performing an overt act is traitor,
but that IN this cafe, the perfons called princ-
pals, are not iuppoied TO have any legal guilt
under this act, becauie tbey have not begun and
iet on foot, or provided The means of A military
expedition and that ,hofc eny who have had
agency IN the tcheme, have begun and fet it on
foot.
The CD. JaRiee here interrupted Mr.. Hay,
and iaId that he teemed TO have mfunderftood
the argument of the oppoG.e CO. ilel. The
principals to whom they alluded were not the
men who were emitted, but the agents who had
emitted thete men, and purchafed arms and pro-
vikoRs-mr. Hay replied, that he lhould regret
to ice fuch doctrine ever eltablilhsd in this
country doctrine which was calculated 10
lave able, intriguing and artful men, from the
penalties of their ambition, ard to exp 3fe their
poor and humble agents to defruetion. The
Perinns who enlifed men and purchafed arms.
might be comPieatly ignorant of the u!es to
which they were TO be applied, and yet by this
doctrine, they were TO be treated as the pin
cipals.
Mr.. Hay continued and obferved, that this Sd
objection OF MIR. Botts's had not been taken bv
the able and jealous council in the cafes of Or.
den and Smith, and that az all events this was
queltion OF law and of fact and proper for the
confederation of the jury.
MIR. Hay contended that the 4th propoGtio7,
that the acts on the iland do not come within
the law, there being no military expedition,
was queisIon OF fact and law, and W as there
tore proper for the confederation of the iurv
that whether uader tins act man can be faid
to provide the means of a military expedition.
nnIeis he provides adequate means, As Mr. Bolts
had aiierted, was not therefore eli.ntial to be
dhcuhed. Mr. Hay coutended, however, that
thele were iniuperdbe objections 70 thia con-
iruction that It was impoGible to aiccrtan
what were adequate means that this point
would depend upon the object to be attaned,
whether conquelt, revenge and plumber that
tins conitrutton was alto inconlifent with the
law itfelf, for it would be abfurd to REQUIRE
iull means for punilhment, and yet puniGh for
beginning or fettng on foot au expedition
Mr.. Hay conteuded that the word " military"
was only intended 10 mark the charaGsr of the
to lnow that it was an expedition
OF war and not mere commercial or trading
voyage and that no military organisation was
necefary, as 1000 men emitted, 1000 guns
provided, and boats, provilons, and ammunl-
ton prepared, would certainly come within
the purview of the Jaw.
MIR. Ii. commended, that Mr.. Botts's 5th pro-
petition was no reafon for excluding the evil
dence, that this was queniou of law and faa,
iit for the confederation of the Jury.
He admitted, that the 9Th proportion nand
ing naked was true IN felf, but he commended
that If there was connection between the par
ties, that the acts aud confellions Of one we've
evidence agana the other that this principle
was fettled IN Hardy's, Theiwaii's, and Tooke's
CAFES aud that in the prei,ht cafe, the evidence
of The connection and agency of B'annerha1e,t