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

court.
M. Hay. Agreed.
The Grief J'nfiee decided, that the Attorney
for ;Iv. u S. might puriue whatever courie he
thought beh.
mr.. Belts. Send us the written teRimony
before you fubmit it toxhe court.
INr. Hsy As ! faid before, ] tiiaIl tase>np
the depoiitons firf and then the vipa asee
tef1imony, in chronological dsder.-i mali Crit
Introduce gen. Wilkinfon's depoh,on.
Some defal,ery cohypflation, then enfned be-
tween MIR. Hay and N Bolts, on the iatter's
ton. At length MIR. handed thepaper to
hin. Mr.. Bolts then aeidreGed the Court.
Gas MIR. Bolts fpeech contains an explana-
tion Of much of the courfe, which is lDbaby
to be purified by Col. Bars Council, particu-
Iarly in regard 70 inRruetious from the Court to
the Grand Jury on the Evidence I've have
puhiiihed it at fome lengthy
AIR. Bstts. In my objeetionsto Gen. VIII
kinfen's affidavit, may be compelled to ,quef.
ton the correttnefs of principles, in fan |ofs
which the court has expref1ed an imprefhon.
Ii has been our misfortune to have been drawn
out into defukory difcufion- OF Tome OF the
proaoitions fixing limits to te examination
when thefe proportions had fueh relation to
each other and among themfcves as to render 1t
difficult totersify one efectuaily againft afiauii
Without the fupport of the others. And al.
though the fubiett was not wanting IN novelty
or Importance to fit It for folemn argument,
vet the complaints of the profecuor 10 often,
fo loudly and 10 caufeleisIy repeated, has fore
f.. ed from the court a premature intiniation OF
Judgment. ] feel the perp'exlty OF my ituati-
on moi fef..ibly, and fhalihope for the indul-
sence of the court, if1 fhoud unwarily fray
into the ieeaing indecorum OF RENTING, now
aud then, an inclination Of the mind OF the
bench Whenever venture into a fcene 10
delicate, lhall prefent to the court authorities
not to be reited.
The opinion of the Supreme Court crerrul-
ing the objection, that tie oath administered to
gen. Wiikipfon was extrajudiciai, Fixes the law
for this court.
The beA evidence that the nature of the
cafe will admit of, ihould be produced. This
rule applies to eVery ttage ot every cafe IN e7'e-
~ court. The failure to produce the belt evil
tence that :hesnature of the Gale admits OF.
furnifhes prcfumption, that the higher evi-
faence left behind, wouldn't produced, make
againit the party offering the weaker. All this
is familiar in civil cafes, where 4Qj may he the
ouansum of irtereft in litigation. The benefit
of this common law and common ienie ought
not to be loft, when the liberty OF a citizen is
concerned--when months dungeon may bs
the object of the molten.
The Supreme Court confidered an affidavit
as the ben evidence the cafe then admitted
of. The accufation was treiA, and neither
time or means had been allowed for procuring
a perfoual attendance. Now the accusation
is old, and the government has had all the ne
seGary means of bringing the witnsfs here.
The circumstances do therefore now admit OF
higher evidence than an exparte affidavit.
The q,iya 4,oee teitimony of Gen. Wilkirfon
is the right Of my client. he man ihonid be
deprived OF the benefit of 4 crois examination
without necefi,y. You have in another place
faid, fir, that il was to be made out only by IN
ference from gen. Wilkinton's affidavit, that
Co. Burr was the writer of the letter in cy-
pher. IF the witnefs was here he would i'm
pugn that inference by fwearipg that it was
not in Col. Bur hand writing. If general
Wilknfon was prefent, would you admit his
affidavit IF he ought to have been prelent
and the government would not get him, ihall
the prcfecution be favoured fori ito negligence
But the prefent charge is confined to High
Treafon in levying war againft the u. States;
and the gfeat quehion is, whether Wknion's
evidence is in any form pertinent to the charge !?
] do not mean to urge the Objection, that if it
tIeveIopes any criminal purpoie, il is not trea-
fonahle purpofe, for this contribution has
been fettled by the Supreme Court. Admit
ting for The time, that it contained evidence
of a tleafona6lc purpoie and that the Su-
preue court is to be overruled, ftiil the evil
dence would he mott impertinent upon the
preient charge oil at7nai treaioD.l
have alluded to legal proportions, intend
ed to be pre6ed, as forming legal reRrictions
upon the taft, in which we are engaged. ]
Will frf combine them, that their titnefs to
each other, and their collective efe6ts, may be
feen. My fecond procefs will be to ditunite
them, and by an analitycai companion of
them, with the known principles of our trea-
fon laws, to afcertain their legality.
No evidence of any matter ought to be given
HnH proof fhail he adduced that there
was an actual war levied in the difri6t of
Virginia; and until il is proved that an
overt act of treafon, in that war, was
done by Col. Burr: which proofs ihall
he by witnefIes at lean.
Firt 1t nun be proved that there was an
actual war. war conflts Sub1!iy in acts and
not in intentions. The acts mutt be in them
feIves acts of war and il they be not 70 intrin-
ticaiy, words or intentions cannot make them
10: In England, when confpiring the death
OF the king was treaio6, the quo amino formed
the offence of the offence but in merica, the
national convention, has confined irealon to
tie 81. We cannot have conductive apGr,
within the messing of the contribution. An
intention to levy war, is not evidence that
war was levied. IG,ent!ons are always u'uta-
bic and variable. The continuance OF guilty
intentions is not TO be preiiImed. If this were
not the cafe, the avowal of a purpofe 10 levy
war, would FIX the crime For prov'd inten-
tion might be attached 10 the next innocent
at OF the perioD who fOrmed il aud 70 pre-
paraiions Of emigration be turned into levy