The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-02-17
Tie JaBaanee of JUDGE Dueket's opinion.

Mr.. d fad he fhould not make many OFFER
vations in addition to7what he had remarked on
granting the difrcf attorneys motion, for
warrant to arreft the prifeners on the charge of
treafon. Nor fhou'd he make any prot1LFons of
ErupnIont attachment to tie right ofber/onaiH H.
berty in the citizens of our country becanfe, if
the whole tenor Of his conduct through life,
had not evinced fuch attachment, he felt af1ur-
ed, that no pretebioxs on his part could, on this
point, fecure the confidence of the public.
He cOncurrcd in the fentiment, that no rsa.
ions Of fate, no Political motive lhould be fut-
fered to influence in the flightef degree the de-
cihon of the prefent queftion but while on
the one hand, due regard hould be paid TO
THE right Of per/Onal liberty in the citizen, we
fhouId not be entirely forgetful of the duty we
owed to the public, ofpreterving the contribution
and goUernment oftbe country.
1 hat on the quefton then before the court,
he would obferve, as he had done when the
warrant iliued, that he would at that time give
no opinion, as TO what contributed a hepying of
AGAR within the definition of treaion in the con-
ftitutioD of the u. States. That it appeared to
him unnecefIary, if not improper to do 70, as
he might be called upon to decide the law, in
reference to the facts that might appear on the
trial Of the prifoners.
That the only quehion then to be decided
was, whether there was probable eauje fupport-
9th article of the amendments to the conftitRti-
Oh, to induce belief that the prifoners were
guilty of the crime for which they had been ar
retted. This quefton he faid had been delibe-
rately conlidered by the court before the war
rant iued, and he thought every thing in this i'm
oeptve fate of the bufnefs, was regularly IN ex-
parte proceeding he therefore had been againft
permitting council to argue any quehion,
except, whether the offence was baable, and
whether under the circumstances, the court in
ibeir dijeretion ought to bail. They had, howe
yer been allowed to argue in efe8 to the utmoft
latitude againft the proprety of having inued
the warrant. To this argument he had given
the ftrietef attention, and could obferye with
Mr.. Fitzhugh, that it would have been well adj
drefied TO the jury, if the prifoners had been
upon their trial. 1t had however produced no
alteration in his opinion, he itil thought there
was probable eax/e appearing to the court to
authorize the commitment of the prfoners for
trial.
10 determine this queftion, fad Mr.. D. let
us take fbort view OF the evidence.
The depoitions of general Wkiufon prove
unqueftionaby, the connection of THE prifoners
with Col. Burr, in carrying into effect one COM
mon intent or plan, and their knowledge of
this view. They, indeed, new, from the acts
OF the prfoners and their own confeliions, their
immediate agency in the furtherence of this
fcheme. IT, then, it can be fhewn, that Mr..
Burr has probably committed treaion, their ageD-
cy and connection with him, while poneliug
this knowledge of his treafonabe views, create
the fame probability againit item, as in the
fame tresfon all in this Rage of the bulnefs
NUT be conhdered principals. What then was
the intention, the que anime with which Mr..
Burr'S expedition was undertaken? This, by
general Eaton's depoftion, is proved to be the
iepsr1tion Of the Weiiern from the Atlantic
ftstes, aud the eftsblihHept OF a monarchy