Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1807-03-03

which musthavc been threatened, If ter
ritory of the y. States was threatened, and
that he commanded the army, n part of
which was stationed in that territory, the
probability that the information commune
Gated related TO foreign country, it must
be admitted, gains strength.
Their agents now with Burr say that If we
will protect their religion and will not subject
them TO foreign power, in three weeks all viii
be settled"
This is apparently the language OF people
who from the contemplated change OF their po-
iincai situation, feared for their religion, and
feared that they would be made the subjects of
toreign power. That the Mexicans should en-
terrain these apprehensions was natural and
would readily be believed. They were, if The
representation made of The dispositions be correct
about to place themselves much in the power of
men who protested fai h different from theirs.
and who by making them dependent on England.
or the U. >. would subject them TO fo,eign
power
That the people Of New Orleans as people,
| IL really engaged in the conspiracy, should feel
'he same approximations, q require assurances on
| me same points, j; by no means so obvious.
lhere certainly is NOT the letter delivered TO
gen-ra Wrk nSon. so FAR that lettcr is laid be-
tore the court, onr syllable which has n neces.a
Try or natural refe,e to an enierprize agans,
any territory of the u s.
| $3.50 ''S oedtSr Oh tnlS iSiter must DC consider
ed as acquainted with its contents. il not TO be
con'rover,ed. The letter and lis own declatati-
o c the fact
After staring himself TO have passed through
New fcrkand the western states and erriiories,
without inSinuatmg that he had performed on
ms rout any act whatever which was connected
W IN The en,erPrize he states their object 10 be
TO r. an expedition to the Mexican prov II.
ces.''
This statement may be considered as ex-
planatory of the letter of col Burr, if the
expressions of that letter could be thought
ambiguous.
but there are other declarations made
py Mr.. Swartwout, which constitute the
ohhculty OF this case. On an enquiry from
gen. Wilkinson, he said s'this territory
would be revolutonized where the people
were ready to join them, and that there
would be some Selling, he supposed, at n.
Orleans"
Ii these words import that the govern
ment established by the United States in
any OF Its territories, was to be revolution
lzed by force, although merely as a step to,
on a mean OF executing some greater pro-
Jec's, the design was unquestionably trea-
sonable, and any assemblage of men for
that purpose would amount to levying OF
war. But on theimport of the words diff.
terence OF opinion exists. Some Gf the iud-
ges suppose they refer to the territory a.
gainst when the expedition was intended,
cthers to that in which the conversation
was held. Some consider the words ifeven
aPphcaDle to a territory of the United
otates, as abiding to revolution to be eff
fected by the people rather than by the par
ty conducted by COL Burr.
But whether this reasonable intention
be really imputable to the plan or not, it is
admitted that it must have been carried in
10 execution by ain open assemblagc of men
| LOT that purpose, previous to the arrest of
; the prisoner, in order to consummate the
CRIME as to him; and a majority of the
court is OF opinion that the conversation of
Mr. Swartwout affords no sufficient proof
OF such assembling
The prisoner stated that "col. Burr with
the support Of a powerful association ex-
tending from New-Tork to New Orleans,
was leVyinS an armed body of 1000 men
from the state of New York and the wes-
tern states and territories, with a view 70
carry an expedition to the Mexican terri
t0ries.'
That the association, whatever NAV be
Its purpose, is not treason, has been alrea-
dy stated. That levying an army may or
may not be treason, and that this depends
on the intention with which it is levied,
anu Oh the point 10 WHICH the parties have
advanced, has been also stated. The mere
enlisting of men without assembling them
Is not levying war. The question then is
whether this evidence proves col. Burr to
have advanced so far in lcvying an army
as actually to have assembled them.
1t is argued that since it cannot be neces-
sary that the whole 1000 men should have
assembled, their commencing their march
by detachments to the place OF rendezvous,
must be sufficient to constitute the crime.
his position is correct, with some qua
nhcaUoD. Ii cannot be necessary that the
whole army should assemble, and that the
various parts which are to comnosc it
should have combined. But it is necessa-
ry that there should be an actual assem-
blage, and therefore the evidence should
make the fact unequivocal.
The travelling individuals to the place
OF rendezvous would perhaps not be suflic-
ent. This would be an equivocal act, and
has no warlike appearance. The meeting
OF particular bodies Of men and their march
ing from places of partial to place of ge-
neral rendezvous would be such an assem-
blage.
The particular words used by Mr.. Swart-
won't are that col. Burr was levying an arm
ed body of 1000 men. If the term levying
IN this place imports that they were assem-
bled, then such fact would amount, if the
intention be against the United States, to