The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-10-04
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
FRIpAy, ArRrL 9, 1905
CASE OF JOHN SIfTH.
SrEEcn OF MIR. GILES.
(coNTiSuEp.)

co. with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
HiuhoGse) who seemed to intimate, that there
was nothing criminal in expressing speculative
p'ons in favor OF Il separation OF the Union. In
my opinion, it tine expression OF that speculative
cb'nion, be accompanied with intent to gain
proselytes, and thus to eject the object, tits high
" criminal because 1t is an opninn tcnSling d.
rcctly to subvert the constitution and govern
ment of the United States, and to attempt that
object in any way deem highly criu.:nal What
IS treason, but speculative opinions against the
fundamental principles Of the government, &C
compnied with an atte..pt 10 carry s;ich opini-
oHs into effect by force The only difference
therefore, between thcsS offences consists in this
that the criminal object the one case, is 60 be
effected by force III the other. by persuasion
but do not believe that Mr. Smith could have a
ny such object in view. To whom this con-
versation addressed. To gentlemen of the first
respectability--known to be firm friends of the
government To col Taylor, 10 gen. Fineley, to
doctor Scllman, &c. &c Could Mr.. Smith pre-
sumo, for a moment, that he could make prose
lytes Of gentlemen Of this description , Could
he suppose they were fit objects to be used in
illicit enterprises Certainly not. Does either
of them state that he made any attempts of this
Kind 4. Certainly not. Is there any other in
stance of his having expressed any opinion in ia
vor of separation OF the Union during tho whole
course of his life Certainly not This is the
onIy solitary instance of such an expression, that
criminal intent ascribcd to col Taylor for the
preston OF similar opinion to gen. Carberry ;?
Certainly not. What rule OF evidence is appli-
cable to Mr.. Smith, which is not applicable to
COL Tayior Isit Just to condemn one man for
the expression Of an opinion, when the exPressi
on of The same opinion by another, does not even
subject him to suspicion! From all these CIR
cumstances l am satisfied, frst, that Mr.. Smith
did not express the opinion in favor OF the sepa-
ration of The Union, III tire Gtrisuted to him
by sol. Taylor; and in the NEXT place, II he did,
it was not expressed with any criminal intent.
The next evidence in point oftime, from which
differences are drawn, injurious to Mr.. Smith, is
the testimony Of Peter Taylor. II relates to civ
cums.ances, which took place Mt MIR Smiths
house on the 2Sd ct October, and shortly after
wards The first observation made IN relation TIC
this point is that Nv Smith IN his answer states
that Peter Taylor is man unworthy of credit,
for several reasons mentioned by him, and tha,
he was Incorrect in his evidence in the recital OF
.eqeral incidental circumstances whereas it is
sail that Peter Tavior is man of far character,
though ignorant and uniformed, and that his tes-
timony is unimpeached lreadily admit that Mr..
Smiths impressions in relation to Peter Taylor's
character are more unfavoraSe, than are war
ranted from the state of tile evidence before the
Senate but this is not wonderful, when all cir
cumstances are considered. When it is consi-
dered. that deadly woundto Mr.. Smiths cha
racter was apprehended by him TO he about to
be inflicted by r. Tayior's evidence; which con-
sisted principally i'll the recital OF Incidental Cir
cmstances, IN some OF which he was evidently
mistaken; when all the kuowied, e Mr.. Smith
had Of him, was, that he was one of Banner
hassetts servants, and presumed to be both ig-
nnrant and uniformed, 1T is not wonderful, that
MIR Smith should have entertained a worse OPT
Mon of him than he merited-: But see nothing
criminal in this mlscOnception. 1t was perfect
ly innocent and natural one.
7 reaIily alsD admit. that general. Peter
Taylor's character for truth and veracity stands
uniinpeached although 1t must at the same hme
be admitted, that he was mistaken in some of
the MANY incidents he relates and in one very
remark able instance Ito wit forgetting the death
of his wife, which happened about six weeks be
fore he mentions circumstance OF making a fur
tier provision Tor her support | mention this,
however, not Tor the purpose of having inju-
rious influence upon the general course OF his G.
whence bat merely Is a caution against paying
too much respect 90 the episodes or the ncislen-
tai circumstances ment i0Hed by witnesses and |
Particularly BY him. differences of guilt ought |
very cautiously TO be drawn from such .Ources-t
Bar see nothing N the Tnateria and substantial
f.,t OF Peter Tayior's evidences but what is per-
fcctly consistent with Mr.. Smiths innocence, and
in my judgement tends strongly to support it
As this evidence has been very much relied up |
on TO criminate Ir Smith, letitnow be critical |
ly examined in spirit of justice and impartiali
ty Peter Taylor's testimony is substantially as
follows: During the month of October Mrs. |
B,anneYhassett having become very much alar-
med for the safety of her husband, in conse-
ouence Of the resentment of the people in the !
neighborhood, against him, produced by tie !
pieces under The signature Of the Ouerst, which |
he acknowledged himself TO be the author Of |
and believing chat Burr had instigaied him to
that conduct, dispatched Peter Taylor, her gar
dener IN quest of Biannerhassett, with aIetter, |
requesting that he would return to the island, &
would prohibit Yurr from again returning ththcr.
Being uncertain where Blsnnerhassett might be- |
but presani1T he would be found with Burr, shc
directed Peter Taylor 30 search ior1D,; first at
ChilicotIe and If he should not be found there,
at Cincinnati, and to enquire at the house of John
Smith, store keeper In pursuance of these in
stYuetion,, Peter Taylor being unsuccessful in
his search at Chillcothc, arrived at MIR. Smiths
ho,.s. IN Cincinnati, on the esd of October
Wbcn Mr. Sm,t, came o,it to him, he endured
FOR Burr and arnerhassctt--iiis objecthe states
To be, to sec &c Mr. Smith could give any account
of them. SIr Smith at first told him. that he
had mistaken the place, that they not there,
and he knew nothing Of them. But upon telling
Mr. Smith Uhathe was one of Blannerhassett's
, rvants, and was sent in quest Of him by Mrs
Blannerhassett, NJ. Smith took him up stairs TO
a chamber he was accustomed to write in, to
write a letter TO Mr.. Blannerhassett and told
him, they would probably be found at Mr. Jour.
dams, I'm Lexington, Kentucky, where, it appears
from his evidence, that Mrs. Bannerhassett orr.