The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-12-08

DIX,
You have supposed, q say unwarranta-
bly, that it was within the power of the exc
cutive of the United States, not only to have
collected, by means of it's officers, proof of an
overt act of treason but that II was also pos
sible to have produced that proof at Rich
mond, on the 3Oth of March, 1907.
will admit that the fact to be proved hap
pened ("if ever'') in November or Decem-
Der last, or twelve months previous to the ex-
animation in Richmond-I will admit sufh-
cient time 10 have elapsed for the collection
u all the eyiSeacc which has been adduced
on t;,e trial in Chief. But what will this add
mission avail.
Will it slew that the production of that G.
violence could be reasonably expected on the
examination in Richmond? Surely not-and
for this plain reason, that the executive could
not possibly know that A. Burr would be eX-
amined at Richmond, or that he ever would
be in Virginia, until about ten or twelve days
previous to the examination.
Burr was arrested on the 10Th Of February
on the Tombigbee river, in the Mississippi
territory, and arrived in Richmond on the
Goth of sMarch-The President could not
have been apprised of his arrest more than
ten or twelve days previous to the examinati-
on. The necessity of producing the testimo-
ny at Richmond, could not exist until it was
known that Burr could be examined there.
This was ten or twelve days previous to the
examination.
Now sir, admitting the evidence of the O.
vert act, which you demanded on the exam
ination, to have been collected, where should
reasonably expect that this evidence was
at that time, / am as unwilling to attribute
to the executive any g remiSSneSs" or neglect
of duty as you protested to be on the examin-
alton, and therefore suppose that if any evil
dence of the overt act had reached the exc
entIu hpd hnnr, frl,. tod ft.a,-
where A. Burr was recognized to appear.
Was not this the duty of the executive? The
evidence then ought to have been, and you
were bound to presume it, ten or twelve days
previous to the examination, at a place orr
hundred miles distant from Richmond. If it
was impossible i'll the time intervening be-
tween the examination, and that point of time
at which it was known that A. Burr could be
examined at Richmond, to produce at that
place, testimony OF the OUert act, what OPT
zion ought we to entertain of a judge who de-
mands the production of that testimony?
When n. Burr was in the western country,
the theatre OF his treason, recognized to APP
pear before court, will you tell the men of
America, that it was reasonable to suppose
that the President of the United States could
foresec his flight, his arrest, his rapid trans
mission to Virginia, and the propriety of eX-
aiming him atRichmond?
Without all these monstrous and unwar-
rantable suppositions, how could you demand
the production of testimony on the examina-
ton in Richmond, which without "remissness
on the part of those who prosecute" ought to
have been ten days before at the distance of
six or seven hundred miles from that place
In ten days messenger must pass through
the wilds of the western country six or seven
hundred miles, collect the testimony of an o.
vert act OF treason, return the same distance
apd hea RI q canJtOl Of I'M
Were the government gifted with prophe-
cy, OF possessed OF the power to create a
Mercury, you would venture to pronounce
the probability of Burr's guilt
1t does not require an intimate acquain-
lance with the law, to know thatit never de-
mands the performance of impossibilties in
any case, nor even unreasonable exertion to
accomplish impossiblities.
But your reasoning upon the non-producti-
on of proof of the overt act is intended to lead
directly to the conclusion that no assemblage
ever happened. For you say that it is 'sca-
pable of proof, and when time to collect this
proof has been giUen, it ought to be adduced,
or suspicion becomes ground too weak to stand
upon" You then say "several months have
elapsed since the fact did occur, if it ever oc-
Cured !; more than FIVE weeks have elapsed
since the opinion of the supreme court has de
clared the necessity of proving the fact, if it
exists-Why is it not proved9 %
Will it be believed that your penetration
could not detect such wretched sophistry as
this One single question will tear in pieces
the whole web.
Did the probable necessity of proving the
fact at Richmond exist " several months"
before the examination did it exist " fpc
zveek8" before, when the supreme court de
clared the necessity of proving the fact i? |
answer for you, without fear of contradiction, |
IL did NOT. 1t never did occur until 10 or 70 |
days previous to the examination. 1t was i'm |
possible that it could exist before that time |
with any person not prophet.
Those who can believe that you had faith in |
the correctness of your own reasoning, and |
that the true point of time, at which the ne
cessity of proving the fact at Richmond (and |
from the late period of which you could not |
reasonably have expected or legally reques- |
ted the production of proof of the assemblage) |
occurred, never presented itself toyour mind, |
must feel more contempt for your understand |
ing than do for your principles. They must |
do you the injustice to suppose that your head
is as weak as your heart is 7vicked.
But there was no necessity that your mind
should be tortured, to make this discovery,
The true point of time was adverted to by Mr.. |
HAY, and Mr.. Rodney in their arguments
This must convince the most incredulous, of
the ilegality and partial tendency of the de-
4 E Al.