Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-10-17
s.TRLdL or COL. BURR.
LATEST PROCEEDINGS.

Thercswas DO court on Saturday, OF ac-
untof Mr.. Wir,'s iodisposi,ion.
On Monday, Mr.. Aarnn resumed the
argument az 10, and continued speaking
I'll four.
On Tuesday Mr.. Hay offered the aisida.,
Wit of BrDjsmia Stoddsr, esq. which he
had just received from that gentleman.
Mr. Burr objected to its production, on
the ground that Mr.. S. ought to bavc been
preaeni 90 be Cross Examined. The sm
davit was DOT received. Mr.. Hay thsn
moved for an attachmen, against Mr.. Ssod
derr; which was awarded by The court.
Mr.. H7rs observed, that he had understood
the gentleman who opened tho cause on the
part of the defendants, had asserted that a
system of espionage had peryaded the trans
attlons IN the western country, OF which Mr..
Graham was said TO have been the hrsf minis
ter. s'sI hold in my hand, says Mr.. w, the
original instructions OF the secretary of state
to Mr.. Graham, which / offer as evidence to
the court
Mr.. Burr objected to their production, on
the ground that the paper referred. to previous
8s verbal erhlauations.
The Chisf Justice observed that there was
no necessity for their introduction; that, ac-
cording to Mr.. Graham's own statement, he
had been commissioned by the government
to enquire into the situation Of the western
country, in a character very different from
that Of Spy; and that no evidence had been
produced to disprove these sta e.nents.
Mr.. W7rt observed, that if no further allu-
SIGN was made to Mr. Graham as discharging
the duties of a spy, he should wave the read
ing of those Instructions !; but if the opposite
counsel thought proper to press such instruc-
tons again, he should consider it necessary to
reproduce this paper.
Mr.. Martin then resumed the argument on
the motion for commitment.
1t is understood that Daniel Clark, esq. of
New Orleans, Mr.. Powers and DR.. Cum
mings has arrived in this city at witnesses on
behalf of the accused.
Commodore S. Decatur has arrived as a
witness on the part Of the U. S.
From the rapidly of Mr.. Grahan's pro-
nunciation, it was impossible for us not to
commit some inaccuracies in the report of his
testimony. MIR. G's abselce prevented US
from having the opportunity of correcting it
before it was published The two following.
errors occur in the statement of his opinion as
to the Ouachita land:
MIR Graham did not tell Mr.. Blannerhas-
sett that Col. Burr would have no title under
Bastrop's grant. He hazarded doubt or gave
an opinion on that subject, for which he as
signed his reasons among these, that Colo.
mel Lynch (under whom he understood Col.
B. claimed) had purchased part of this grant
from Mr.. Edward Livingston that he had not
complied with the conditions of the contract,
and that it had been set aside by "a decree Of
the supreme court Of Orleans territory. From
the manneri in which this circumstance is re-
portedin the Enquirer, it might be supposed
that COL Lynch had no claim to any part of this
grant, save what he derived from Mr.. Living
stDn an idea which MIR. G.. never meant to
convey to Mr.. Bl. or any other person for he
expressly told Mr.. Bl. that Col. Z. had a claim
to part of this grant which he derived from
another source. Mr.. G.. mentioned the pur-
chase from Mr. Livingston, because he was
under the impression that col. Lynch had sold
his whole interest in this grant to col Burr.
When Mr.. Graham was asked as to the cha
racter ofthis land he answered, that those who
were Interested in it said it was very good
those who were not said that some of it was
fine land; but taat a greek Part Of the grant
was covered with water Mr. G. did not mean
to say as it is stated in the Enquirer, that the
g greater aart" was in that situation.
NEJV5 PAMPHLET.
We have just received by mail lsays the N.