Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-08-20
TUESDAY,. Augustif.

Che United States.
Mr., Bots observed that every crime
consisstd OF q great many component parts,
and he qusstio0 was when upon analysls,a
ju,vmsn says be has not commiued HIM
self upon two or three of these points, ne
ecu berrgsrded as az inlpastia! lurymao.
The e,sasensiois is certainly an important
feature siu she crime !. Fix twelve inrymen
whose minds are made up as TO his designs
and col. Butr is already half condesn ned.
These men would be prepared 10 find a
verdict Of guilty if the acts only could be
Z proved, whentweiye olherimpartial jury.
men might be willing to aequiesce in the
evidence of The acts, when they could not
be satisfied from the testimony, that there
YVES the least guilty inte.;iou. With what
face could colonel Hurr's couasei stand be.
fore jury thus prrdeterminea svEgaeg up
o0 them al innoCens intess
MIR. BuYr rose 10 narrow The argument
not 10 extend il, nc, 10 add any thing more
had been sccidentlye introduced. That
the public mind was prsjsdiced against
him was an obvious fact /; but how this
prejudice had been pfoducsd he knew
nol. He had nor wished this point to be
at all Introduced. Certain anaiogirs had
been introduced betweee treason and other
cf,mes. II was his hope that the court
wculd for'she present dismiss such aaaio-
gics, as they might hereafter be construed
into op,niens. Il was ssidensrnough tia,
no jusyman could beimparsial whose mind
was made up as 10 the intention. la the
case OF staying for instance, the act nigh be
differently Construed. Il may be murder,
ii may be clergybie felony. Could josy
man b. considered as impartial, that tniaks
the ascused person guilty ola murder US
Intent!
MI. AcRGe stated tha,is had never been
his visa in this controversy before -,hs
court, 10 wander from the way, in order
20 defend gov srnment that needs no de.
fence, or 10 givr an unnecessary wound
TO the bosom OF the prisoner. He had
most sludsusly avoided TO excite the re.
sen,men1or 6istu,b the feelings of the
Opposite counsel Frequent as had been
The cecssicns mhsn he was prompted TO
nitrate their example; he had carefully
avoided pru6iiDg BY the opportunity un.
less 90 one occasion wheo he had been
forced to resalliate the attack. He shepld
not however always pursue this course, if
some Of the opposite counsel Should still
persis, 10 disregardiog the admonitions OF
the court. He should attempt 10 re,ort
with the force such attacks deserved in eve
Try case, and more especially 10 cases OF
this descripsi He declared before that
cours, before that people, aud before the
God Of his being that he felt the in.
human wish of demanding the Blood Of
the ptisoner; or of any human being.
That man was a stranger TO him who
should attribute to him such disposition.
He wished The prisoner TO have an impair.
sial jury !; sndif there was single one a.
morg those set over who was not Impair
,iaI whe was not capable Of passing between
sthe u1isd-S States aud Aaron Bufr,- he re.
equested he court TO rejec, him. AS TO
the principles stated by Mr.. Martin he
did rot intend To cootrovert them. He on.
ly differed with him intheir application to
the present case. Which OF these Jury.
men has informed the court, that he has al
iHwil agains, Aaron Burr? a. personal
prejudice ? and that on the question Of
treason, be has bias against aim! Il is
true they have formed come opinions about
his intentions, bItthey have received DO e.
yidence On which they can form any OPT.
niors as to the question OF actnal Treason.
And as TO these iotentions they may have
related to. other acts, than those charged
IN the indictment as TO acts dopeswi,huus
the district, which are not now before the
court The distraction which they have
drawn sstween Intentions and acts. is per-
fectiy clear and rational. These jurynaen