The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-10-07

states and Spain, shall head corps of volun-
teers, and be the first TO march into the Mexican
provinces it peace should be preserved, which
do .-,t expect, shall settle r,y Washita lands,
md make society rs pleasant about me posi-
ble In this government have beenpersccuted,
shamefiiliy prosecuted, and ara sorry 10 say, t.t
in it all private confidence between man a,.d
seems to be nearly destroyed. He she wed me a
deed for a large tract of land o. Red river, and
said i'll would consent to let my sons go thither,
he would provide wellfor them, to which gave
consent. though never commune ated ii to my
eldest son till last Saturday, the day on which he
returned from Marietta, and not til lie express
ed a Discrimination to cooperate wild, col Burr's
object, till he knew whether it was hostile to tbs,
government of the United States or not Col
Burrtold me further, that very many ofiis friends
in different parts of the United States would re-
move and settle with him, and that he would be
the best neighbor this country ever had, and re-
peated that his object was no. hostile 80 the peo-
pie OF the United States, or dishonorab!e III HIM
self, and further, that i'll few months many OF
his enemies would be proud to call him their
frends
What is here disclosed two objects only. The
first to settle HIS Washita lands, the sccond-in
tho event Of Suar with Span to head company o!
volunteers, and be the first to march into Mexico
What was the charge against Burr' INSIDE
meanor, by beginning and setting on foot, mill
tary expedition or enterprise against nation,
with which the United States spere at eeace, &C.
Would this evidence have had any tendency to-
wards supporting this charge, Certainly not
Spain had nothing to do with the settlement Of
the WaslIita lands and with respect to the con-
templated military expedition into Mexco--it
was to be undertaken only IN the eSsas Of u Svar-
and OF course could be no violation Of law which
forhds such enterprises, only against nations
Srih which the y. .States are at peace. The evil
dence' therefore, could not support the charge /;
ana whether such enterprise IN time Of S,ar
would nave been lawful or not, would have de-
peneed upon the circnnlstange Of the oaytis ans
dctns qrith Svithoat commission fos,. the u
Stdfes-but the gentleman from Massachusetts.
remarks that this pretended condition, upon
which the expedition against Mexico was to be
undertaken, was too thin disguise to impose up
OH the most creduious or ignorant. / will here
admit THAT always thought it u very thin disguise
but did every body think so And particular
~ betors Burr's other views were disclosed 1t
Is known that many men Of the first talents were
deceived by this disguise long after this period
1t was urged by many a substantial ground of
defence in favor Of Burr, during the whole course
of his TRIAL at Richmond, and many; adhered to it
even after the trial was over. Whyisit expected
tiIat Mr.. Smith particularly ought not to- have
been the dupe of this disguise at that particular
period 1t cannot be because he is known to
have reposed blind confidence in Burr It is
probable that Burr's knowledge of that circum-
stance, indicted him to suggest the Disguise Il
is certainly the circumstance, which lulled Mr.
Smiths suspicious and made MIN the dupe OF the
artli!ce 1t may be said, and truly said, he ought
to have been more guarded--t would Ger
tSinly have been better for Mr. Smith to have
been better judge of human nature. and
his present condition is sufficient evidence of the
misfortune of the want of that knowledge but
1t IS no evidence of crime, or of a criminal in
tent. The only conclusion draw from this cir
IL Mr. StrN,tl 4, E,..n. IL.
example of plain dealing, unsuspicious man
involved IN irretrieyabie difficulties, from the
professions and batteries Of an arttul and design
ing one.
The next observation made upon this part of
the evidence disclosed by Mr. S. is, that he con-
sented to let las sons go with Burr, from which
knowledge OF Burr's :iiicst views Is Inferred
1t certainly would be an incorrect application of
the rules OF evidence to infer an obiect different
from the enc disclosed by the evidence 'particu
iarly whenthe one expressed is much more natu
raj and probable, than the oas Inferred Mr. Smith
himself furnishes both the fact and the object -
He says, he was induced to consent to his sons
going with Barr, from Bur-'s promises to advance
their fortunes, by giving them large portion. of
his Washita lands Was not this a very natural
object What could be more natural or proba-
bic than Tor father to be influenced bv a motive.
OF advancing his sons fortunes But it is said
this conduct discovered too much confidence in
burr, ana TOO mucn simplicity III MIR. Smith -
there must be therefore some other concealed
motive for it. Its admitted that none is proved
and believe none exists. II is perfectly consis-
tent with all the rest of the evidence. 1t does
demonstrate too much confluence and too much sim,
bfcity but 1t demonstrates nothing else 1t de-
monstrates no crime. he DOES nat demonstrate any
participation in the conspiracy Of Aaron Burr We
have now passed through these scenes of infer
ences and suspicions, and arrived at the 18th De-
cember, 1906
The gentleman from Massachusetts,, with his
Smiths conduct became exemplary f.om this
date every effort on his part was made to defeat
the conspiracy; he contributed his full quota of
exertion Tor that purpose, and succeeded. How
can this laudable conduct be recOnciled with the I
differences of guilt made against him Why,
SIR, another inference more prcpostcrous than a
ny other, is brought up to support all the former
differences, in my judgment, sufficiently prepos-
ferrous and improbable in themselves 1t is said
that this audable exertion to suppress the con-
sPracy by MIR. Smith, was intended as a cover to
his former misconduct But certainly, sir, be-
tore this inference is drawn, the former miscon-
duct ought to be proved. 1t ought not to be
made evidence of the misconduct itself 1t GER
family cannot be rule of evidence, to in
Ter a wrong n,ohve from right action. But, sir,
this inference is made against every rule of pro-
liability. It's not probable that if the conspiracy
Should be suppressed by Mr.. Smiths cxertions in
common with others, that such suppression
would cover his own misconduct. II would have
been the most efcctual mode Of detecting and