The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-09-12

conrt to demand at once fsme evidence on M
facts charged in the indictmef,, than to be amuf
ed tor two months with an idle parade of tn
Idle tales o.: idle people ?
!, MIR. BstfJ laid down the following genera
petition, which he fupported at conhderabl,
eus,h.
/. That under the a6t of Congrefs there car
be no acc-noral offender, /. G. none are v,i,hir
the pains of the itatute but zach as are a 1.;n,
at the fact.
Q. the fri point be not fuftainable, no at,
Of Col. Burr out of the dillriGt can be given in
evidence againlt him.
3. Again, if the frft point be not fufainablc
| no act ot an acceilorial agency can be given in
evidence on this indictment, charging the of.
! fence OF a6iag at the iGland, and nor fpecially
! that the indictee did the accenorial aG.
4. lhat IT the foregoing points be not fuf.
tainab!e, fill no evidence of an acceforial apen-
| cy could be given TIL the record of the convic-
tIoa OF an actor in the expedition be produced.
| S. That the acts a BIaunerhafiett's ifland
cannot amount to a providing or preparing the
means or beginning or fetting on foot MILL
eary expedition there. This point refolves it
ielt into two Others. 1T. There was no militia
ry expedition Ia maturity. endly. If there was
military expedition in progrefs there, it was
| not begun or iet on foot there, nor were the
means provided or prepared thereon, In en-
quirng into what contributes the offence under
the act OF Conerefs, he commended that the ,aGt
was 10 uncertain and ambiguous hat it never
could be carried into exec u,ion. He inftanced
many Gales which went to thew, that according
to the rules of cOaltruug penal ftatutes, this a6t
could not be enforced.--He argued that provd-
ing the means fpoken OF in the act of Congrefs,
required the entire means; that the meass muit
be, not of an exp, iition merely, but military
expedition that to make it military expedi-
ton 1t mutt have military character, the mot
ehentlal means of military expedition is mi
litary organisation; that there mutt be mill
tary Poiture; that the means mutt be adequate
to the end; that no afIembly of men was en-
gagged in this expedition, nor was Burr ever
preient at 1t; that no intention could aid fats
IN turnihipg the means OF military expedition :;
that war might be without military form, but
the means OF military expedition muit have a
military character and that bottle means will
not do, the means mutt be military.
THURSDAY, Sept. 10.
Mr.. BoH5 continued his observations, and
laid down a new propoii,ion.
This 81 point was, that no evidence of con-
veriations fad to have taken place between any
other perfons can be given in evidence agsinft
Col. Burr, unlefs he were prcfent at the time
the conversations pahed.
Mr. Martin obierved that he flould merely
offer few additional authorities on the queiiion
before the court. He commented on the terms
60 letting on foot" ufcd in the att of Congrefs.
He commended that it was not to be found in
the Engllh laws or Engifh dictionaries and
that it was an American word and in American
ufe; that the law itfef had paled the Senate
of the U. States by no more than the eating
vote of the Vice -Pretidept and that when it
pafed through the other houfe it had received
fevera! notifications ; & that its ambiguity was
fuCh as to forbid its being carried into effe q.
He contended, that the law was not intended 10
punifh an aecegary who adviles another TO begin
and fet on foot military expedition that
upon the principles of the common law acce(.
fories were confined 10 Treafon, Felonics and
Trefpafies and that this was not cafe where
there could be any acceHorial guilt uua.r the
common law that COL B. was not TO be con-
fidsred as principal, bee aute it was not pretend
ed that he was on the Hand and that he could
not be confdered as acceiiorially prelent ac-
cording to thefe principles of the common law.
MIR Martin entered into ihoIt elucidation of
the points ffated by MIR. Bolts.
Mr.. Hey commenced his argument with fone
obiervations upon the light and ludcrous man.
ner in which Mr.. Bolts had treated this luhiect
why this foicitude of the accufed TO rcprefs
the evidence? Is ii becaufe its introduction
would oy-rwhelm him beyond the pofibilty of
redemption Why treat the fubject with this
extraordinary levity? is it to lmprefs the pub.
tic mind, that it is not worthy of ferrous con-
federation With what is a. BUR- charged
One of his council had alierted that the accom-
pliihment Of his fcheme would have been ho.
nourable to him and 10 his country. And what
were thofe fchemes? They were contrary, to
every principle of an honeft man ard virtuous
citizen. They conihed in violating the laws
OF MS country IN a point the mott materially
n'erehing to her foreign relations. Thtywere
iuch as man OF ambition difpofrd to deude
ignorant people might be dif2ofed to conceive
lhey have alarmed and exafperated the whole
country. And 10 difficult has it been TO obtain
4 complete jury for the trial that lo out of 90
men have been excluded and yet in cafe thus
intereitIng to the public mind, have the oppoGte
council had the hardihood to- ftand up here and
declare that II was fo farcicaI he coul not treat
1t NTH ferrous confederation. II thefe gentle.
men mad but one moment reflected uDoD the
consequences which muf have relulted from the
military expedition, they would have fhrutk
from this courfe. Perhaps the ambition ofthis
party would have been gratifi-d, and their hope
OF plumber would have been fatisfed: perbaps
the mines OF Mexico would have been theirs.
but little would it have Geen to them, that
France and Spain fbould have exhaufted their
revenge IN devastating the Ea1ern COATS OF
our country. Had the gentlemen confdered il
IN this light, they would have viewed it as eve
W other man would, as a fcheme formed nv an
ambitious man to eGed his owu ACKNOWLEDGMENT,
and they could not have treated the G,b;eA
with tuCh un~arautable levty.
tn. otJeet Ot this motion is to exclude the
evidence.