The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-09-19

. u
underitani the gentleman. We are not be-
fore the court TO determine ohjedions t,,sYi.
dence.--Mr. Fev. All that fay is, we are not
befote the court TO hear regular motion, bur
40 determine a motion for commitment. Let
all the evidesce be produced and the 6ench
will then determine npon any objections, that
may be urged. Mr.. Wic&ham. IF we Fart
objections, prefume that it is right To hear
them. The Court viii not fureiy hear irrclc-
want and Illegal teGimony. There are furely ma
nfeit reafons, why this kind oFsviience IhalI not
be introduced. Every atom ofitis taken down;
publiil,ed in the Newspapers, and circulated
throughout the world. AS there is no reafon
TO exps e. that this proiecuion will be dropped !;
rs motion has been made to Try him in Ken
lucky; 1t is improper To publiNh this evidence
and to prejudice the public mind againG Col.
Burr?
MIR. Me'Rae. The evidence that we offer re-
lates to one of the very charges urged againa
him for it embraces his conduct at Bayou
Hierre.-Mr. Burr. 1t will be ftving time, if
The gentlemen will ccnfne the'nfelves TO Ken
lucky. fiiall not interrupt them: but if they
: go into the Miihiiippi Territory, ihall GER
tainly nae objections, which the court viii fuf-
fer to be heard.
MIR. Martin. Let them prove an overt act
FRI and then there viii he efficient foun-
fation for the introduction OF this teftimony.-
CD. JTfiee. That fureeiion is for the conf
Iteration Of the cou :. for the u. S. BuI if
the accuIed i; prepas>I 10 Rate any objections,
To going into the MiniGiQpi Territory, mutt
hear them.
n1r. Hay will flbmit this idea TO the con-
alteration of the court. Ought the witnelies 10
be detained hsre day after day? Let the evi
dence be tirft heard, and the court may then de-
terminc, which part of il is to be laid out of
,iew. Mr.. Hirt fureeted that to avoid the ex-
pence of detainiug the witneilcs their evidence.
neot he reduced 10 DepoIiiions. Mr.. Barr !
preturne the gentlemen will iirf ak my content.
CD far If the witneirs are abient, their afii-
davi,, can he heard. But if they are here, they
Eiut he produced.
Mr.. Barr Do underfand gentlemen as in
fltiug on going below the line into tie Miliifiip
pi Territory?
Mr. Hqy fee no objection to going through
the whole line Of march.
Mr.. Bots objected to the production of (ae6
evidence on grounds:
/. That no evidence of aas in the MifiiiiiPpi
Territory vras admitlihle, by the SD SECT. OF
the judicial act. MIR. Bolts centended that ac-
corc.ing TO this act of Congrefs, perfon arref-
ed is'to be bailed orimprfoued for trial, before
fuch court of the y. States as" by this al" had
cognizaGce of the offence that the MiliNppi
cnurt was not court of the U. S. within the
n,raning of lis sgd fctt. that by this al that
c1urt has no cognzance; that thc word " cif-
trift" which is 70 f'equently uted in that act
applies entirely to the tates aud not TO the Ter
ritcries; aud that tbs court cannot judicially
hesr Whit II has no ccgnZance of.
2. That the verdiGt Of acquttal operated as a
sar'to any trial for the charge now laid by the
attorney thar this charge was.n eff Ct the fame
offence fer which he had been already tried and
acquitted, and that by the contribution and by
common tenfe, no man could be vice put III
jeopardy for the fame offence that trcafon was
continued and indivi6be act aud iii was
definitely divlfble, that man might be fublect
To iRiinite perle,,utons that the u. States had
the evidence before them they had then the
f-leGion OF places TO try Col. B. in and if they
Esd made wrong ferctyon, it was Their own
fInlT I: that no nfance had occurred in the Eng
lilh rebeliions of Us or as, wherela rebel had
bad two trials and that if fuch had teen the
u.ape in England Lord George Gordon might
have been tried in S.. Georges ie''.s, and If &C
fnitted there, at MoorGclds at Lincoin's Inn
II rs; at G. Queen Street &c.
3. inat col. q. had been already acquitted
Ey ~ enquiry oil Grand Jury il the MiGilip-
pi Territory that upen fuGh report here, a
perton in cntody would he difcbarged; and af-
TAR this diicharge, could the court reco.nmit
him for the fame offence 3
The latter point was in eff & abandoned by
thr accuIcd, during the coui- of the argument
CYI, z. however obferved, it might addrefs IT.
ic!f to the found diGcretion of the court.
Mr.. WeRae replied 10 Mr. Bolts: and exPa-
iiated over wide field Of argument and Rate
IaeHt.
On ThurfIly, Mr.. Hay returned The areumcnt--
bic vas followed by MelIrs. Mir':n and W,,sham
~h'were anfwered by MIR. Wit Mr. BO,,s replied to
Eir. Writ.
Yeaerday MIR. Randolph clocyd the argument az
ter which the Chief IuGice delivered the opinion oil
abe court tha he had power TO commit for trial
in she court for TIE milhiPPi territory and of COME
quence hatit would he improper in him 20 into
ny enquiry iubjeta on which he cannot aGt that
asto the operation Of the aylto a.ga, bis Judgment
was decidedly GorS..d aud ,hst he bonid there
iars hear the telinony relative the oondut OF the
s,eufed within the T. s and loud in the mean time
rSAse farther on this fuhjca.
The Attorney Tor the u. S. then proceeded with
APPROXIMATION Of James NJ. Dowell, William Love
aDd Thomas Hartley, who called in 20 prove
Tie mil tary afenibiage the mouth of Cumberland
river The teAimony flnsred to extend be
low the Chickn'Iw Bluffs the iouth Wetern frontier
OF Terneise MIR Burr obi tled to the admit
fon OF any evidence the MilhGppi; bccauCe the
boundary Of I enreGce lid not extend beyond the
margin Of the river. This poiut was not deiii, ely
isttied.
Mir. HI. obferved, that he had one other :, inef
20 induce Jacob Dunbangh) relative to the ansni-
blaze a, Cumberland river, who would prove a qaan-
ti,y Of arms IT. ere collected that he would then re-
fer to the couit Row far the evidence produced pro
we'd an overt i Of Trc1ou; and If did, tina; then
he undernood ne was liberty proceed TO produce
bis o;Lcr tef;ycny (,,ithn the Sfa!sl) ia the IA