The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-06-06

fsoved on The latter, and until fash ass Nal!
lsppearto have bees within the limits of thar
plan, Eats Power Law 90 81. Part of Tx
proof in this affidavit is of the declarations of
tuppsied Allocate as IN what the plan iif.ls
was. But in this country, as there ca,,not be.
tonuructive .rcafoRable war, plans aud atf =
OF sIoc,lfss. can only come in, when the for
ner nae. be executed aud the latter has been
Black. Appendix 3.
/ sd'y The overt ao by the accufed in az,
actual war muff not only be proved but il
nun be proved TO have been>committed zvi,bis
tbs Sifyid. The slh arti of the conftitution
OF The U. 5. & the sth article of the amendments
TO the contribution, require that the trial fhall
ee by jury off the difriet where the offence
was committc4r The. oath of, tie Grand Jury
is accordingly&o enquire Of Offences within the
ditriet. The jurifdic,ion cfthis court is alfo
united ~ eopIsfs law to ofsences within the
c'triS. and it is obviouly true thai the courts
Jurisdiction cannot be broader in an inf.ipien,
enquerks than il would be in issconneCtion
with aJury on fual trial. Dott. Bla ckftone,
IN the 4th volume of his com aes, refers to
the oath OF the Grand Jury "to enquire into
'ohenoes committed within the body of the
county, and denies the right of the Grand Iury
to enquire into fatls out of the county. In
preparing work for tho G rand Jury the court
cannot diiregard the limits of their power.
The crime TO e. committed in the diftria
mutt he qtbolLy committed there. AT the COM
mon law, IT the ftroke was given in one country
and the pcrfon frken died in. another. the
murderer could not be protsfirtcd in either.
Ioremedy this defea aud to ppvids for others
hniiar to 1t, many proviiioBs I'VE been made
by the Eng'lih parliament Blac&sos S. But
tue Englh parliament never did alter the COM
mon law as II refpected the ciirne of levying an
aciuai treaionable war, Kelyngls. The con.
Intuition and act of Congrefs have both adopted
the rule of location, v. fuckers Backbone
Vol. Appendix B. 1884 81. Granting then,
tnat ihfcntion may make that war which would
not otherwiie be 70, iiIl as formed Intention,
is no proof Of it's own continuance or exc
cutloD, the intention muf be proved to have
oeen cotemporaneous and Homogeneous with
the act in the ditriet. In this view the inten-
ton forms confituent part of the offence.
II one contt':uent part of the offence can be
brought from without the diftri0, and coupled
with others in the diltrict, any one conftituent
part, or number of conftitucnt part., of the
CRIME may be brought from without The difra
\ hen one component part only happens in
virginia out OF 90 neceH3ry to its completion
would give this court rifdtton-and. thence
one out of loo parts of crime would be a
Let US view the consequences of this logic.
Upon proof aganit Col. Burr touching 4
crime part Of which was committed in this diff
trict, ne may be tried and acquitted. In Ohio
ne may be indicted, and evidence may be
prepared touching the fame crHe. Can he
plead H@ftetoi5 aeqHt in bar, by avowing that
the crimes charged in the two ftates was one
and the fame His averment would be aeainft
the record OF the indictment charging com
pieat iePerate crime in each diaricf. Will
you, hr, put upon the contribution, fuch
contribution as will fuDie9 citizen to he hunt
ed down, by trial after trial, in fate after tate
as long as the perfecu,iug fprit Of wicked
executive may laH? Do not uudcrliand me to
a!iude, in this, to the prefrnt administration,
the characters Of which have been in the habit
OF admIring but the contraction now to be
t'xed mutt go down 10 poferity and may be
made instrumental in effeGtlng the WORT OF fate
opprefliops.
Remember that Col. Burr has forborne to
avail hI'nfslf OF this legal principle in kentucky
and IN the Miiiiiiippi Territory in order that
the merits OF his cafe might come before the
iLquehs but il ought now TO be agreed that
he fhould protea himitlf from being haraffed
further by calling into exerciie the great prn-
c'pies OF the contribution declaring that no man
mai be twice put in jeopardy of his life for the
lame offence. V amendments to conf,
Now what part of the affidavit fpeaks of a
/ fact within the diltriGt
4ihly: The overt act of treafon by Col. Burr
within the dlfriet mutt DC proved by wit.
uefIes.
The conft;tution and act Of Cougrefs require
two wtnt iies, not onlyto the act, but to the
treafonabe quality of the act. After fall time
has been afforded 10 csllea all the witnefIes in
the power of the government, the aceuGed
ought not TO be deprived of his liberty, unefs
1t ras believed that the evidence collected
wouin convict him. imprisonment is only in.
1 tended for trial and not for puuiihment. What
does gen. Wiikinfons affidavit make out in
teEtons by. The anfwer is by the coufefIions
OF the accuied or of his fuppofed affociatcs.
The confeilons Of the accufed by the exprefs
words OF the contribution, are not evidence,
unIeis made in open court. Confeffions arc
often admitted, from necefliy, to get at crimes
that deal IN frcrecy, as larceny. forgery and
robbery: but the fafety ofthe people requires
that crimes which deal in eu6Geify, as does the
crime of a tredfonsble war, fhoud not be prov
ed by evidence 10 incapable of exculpatorv
proof. When an honorable gentleman, (Mr.
! Otes) was challenged the other day upon A
fuegeition of his having exprcfftd hmfelf upon
the cate o. the accuied, tie fad be was indifpof.
ed to bear evidence of ungUardcd exprefIions
~ which the witnefs might have mitaken his
meaning--have mifUnderilood what he faid or
not have heard all that he faid---or have f,Ib-
itltuted MS own differences for the words of the
ipeaker. Backbone and Fo(ter have character
fed It TO be the mott dangerous fpeoies of evil
dence, ever liable 10 mifconftru6tion and abufe,
In he r.,ntg I...