Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-02-10

1hey hao oeen arrested. MS question he
said had been deliberately considered by
the court before the warrant issued, md
he thought every thing in this inceptive
state OF the business, was regularly an cr
fcrte proceeding; he therefore had been
against permitting counsel to argue on any
question, except, whether the offence was
bailable, and whether under the circurn-
stances, the court IN their discretion ought
to bail. They had, however, been allowed
to argue III effect TO the utmost latitude a.
Sainst the propriety of having issued the
warrant. To this argument lie had given
the st1ctest attention, and could observe
with Mr. fitzhugh, that it would have been
wen addressed to the jury, if the prisoners
had been upon their trial. 1t had however
| produced no alteration in his opinion, as
he still thought there was nr26a6ie censc
appearing to the court to authorize the
commitment Of the prisoners for trial
10 determine this question said Mr.. d.
! let us take short view of the evidence.
1he dispositions of general Wilkinson
prove unquestionably, the connection OF the
prisoners with col. Burr in Carrying into
effect one common intent or plan, and their
knowledge ofthis view. They indeed shew
from the acts of the prisoners and their
| own Concessions, their immediate agency i'm
i
1T can be shewn, that MIR. Burr has hroba-
ofy committed treason, their agency and
connection with him, while possessing this
knowledge OF his reasonable views, create
the same probability against them, az IN
inc sans treason al in this stage of the bu-
siness mustbe considered principals What
then was the intention, the quo amino with
which Mr.. Burr's expedition WAS underta-
J Ken This by general Eaton's deposition,
sproved to be the separation of the western
from the Atlantic states, and the establish
ncnt of monarchy there, OF which Mr.. h.
was tobe the sovereign. 1t isprobable he
had another object IN view, the iaUGSiOn o.
| 11eEico; but this does not appear to be
distinct from his reasonable plan of dis
memhernS the union. This reasonable
intention is also stated in the confessions
made 20 general Wilkinson bv one OF the
prisoners. In the pursuit then of this OBJ
Ject we ind that Mr. B. had actually COM
ncHce7 me ecte1ition, and that he ex-
pected to be TT Natchez with an armed
| force at certain period. 1t appears too,
| IRON the cofessions the prisoners them
| Selves that MIR. IS. ycas iovpinS O iarSe bo-
! ay 9 armed men. and what may go far TO
prove their knowledge of and agency in that
business is, that the officer who was to COM
mand the iirst FIVE hundred men is stated
| ny name. One of the prisoners also saw.
that ne had written to col Burr for provisi-
ons. Should these circumstances, orihen,-
serves, not amount To oUert acts of iepvinP
Tpar, upon which question Mr.. y. said c
should at that time say nothing, yet when
TAKEN IN connection with the situation of
the country, the state of alarm existing a.
| n>ong the people, and the active prcparati-
onS OF defence against an expected attack,
1 fIs.ra h.1
dence that they had been followed up nv
the commission of other acts on the part
OF Mr.. Burr and the prisoners, that would
amount to icuyins cf 3ar within the
strlctest definition of the terms. Nor is
there any thing inthe testimcsy said Mr.
! ~. that Can positively exclude the infer
ence OF an active cooperation on the part
OF the prisoners in the different measures
that are hro5G6iy imputablc to Mr.. Is.
| Mr.. ID. then remarked that an observati-
on made by himself on issuing the warrant,
seemed not to have been correctly uader
stood By the prisoners counsel.
Tie had not said, that in the hresent case
1t was necessary to resort TO public docu-
| ments To- aid the dispositions in furnishing
lfrood6Ie cause for the arrest; but he would
not now observe as he had then done, that
! although the dispositions did to his mind
| NSNN'%''9'' ~ iliu)'lOiC cause on which ne could
| act, yet that this probability was strongly
corro6orated by the message of the Presi-
! dent and other public documents on the sub
Ject. That even admitting that the 9th ar
| ticlc of the amendments to the constitution
which provides against general warrants,
may require an oath or affirmation before
any 7rarrGnt can issue, yet nc could not
subscribe 10 the doctrine, that the cifcum-
stances showing the probable cause, must
IN all cases be contained in the oath or af-
firmation itself. IF this principle be once
considered correct, it would indeed when
taken IN connection with the necessity con-
tended FOR in the present case, of proving
on qnfsIion Of comm '.Uent the positive
existence Of the offence charged, be the
7oorsf precedent, a, it regarded the public
safety that could possibly be established,
though at the same time it might be the
most convenient cloak for treason that could
DC invented. Under this doctrine, even an
authenticated record showing the conviction
OF MI. of treason, could it lie produced
on the present question, would be deemed
lnadmissable in Confederation of he hro-
oa6Le cause contained in the affidaYits.
Mr.. ID. concluded by observing, that he
was opposed to bailing the prisoners, for
although the evidence might also have
charged them with misdemeanor in set
ting on foot an expedition against nation
AZ amity tn the United States, vet AZ they
had been arrested or n CHARGE ofthc high