Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-10-11
FRIDArs) Br SAMUEL PLEAsANTs, Jus1oN,
TUEsD oeroBE II, 1903.

king the separation OF the union q subject
OF conversation whilst at Mr. Smiths house.
Burr also would naturally be cautious and
reserved upon that subject, until the expe-
riment then about to be made on the PEG
pie should disclose itself, and some more
certain estimate be formed Of its effects.
Again, sir, whilst Nr. Smith has solemnlv
sworn, that such conversation did not take
place, and there is no evidence whatever to
shew that il did there are other circum
stances strongly supporting his assertion.
1t is known that Burr generally disclosed
his plans to persons unfiendly to the ad
nini,tration, and feeling strong excite
msnts, and irritation against it. He consid.
ered such persons only fit for his purposes.
In this however, much to the honor of A
mexican citizens. he vas mistaken. But he
had no reason TO believe Mr.. Smith was
person ofthis descrip,ion. Very far other
wise. For independent Of Mr.. Smiths ge
neral attachment to the administration, he
held the digni6ed station of Senator, and a
profitable contract under the government !;
Burr had no reasonable expectation tina,
Mr.. Smith was ready to abandon these GER
tain advantages for the uncertain prospects
arising from Burr's wicked and visionary
projects and of course would he cautious
OF making such an unpromising attempt !;
one, which if it failed. would subject him
to certain and instantaneous detection. A.
mother strong circumstance in favor of this
conclusion, is derived from Burr's letter to
MIR. Smith of the 26tb October, 1906
One of the expressions alluded to, is the
following -" have never written or pub.
iished line on this subject 1.-THE separation
OF the union) nor ever expressed any o.
Their sentiments than those which you have
heard from me ia hu6ic romhanies at Wash
ngton and elsewhere, and in which L think
you concurred." Here is direct reference
10 this subject, but il is not minated that
any conversation took place at Mr.. Smiths
house, IN relation tn il, but /" in hu6Hc COM
hdnies at Washington and eiscIuhere," as far
therefore as mentioning the conversation as
happening n, other places. and emitting it
as having happened at Mr.. Smiths house
upon recen. visit there, can go II serves
20 sh.w, that such conversation, in all pro-
liability did not take place there, and leaves
a very strong inference in favor of Mr..
Smiths statement. Am I then to infer a
fact Of gull, against all these circumstan-
ces in favor Of innocence My mind is in.
capable of making such an Inference. il
would be to convert the rules Of the epidcnce
NJ facts tnto imhro6a6te grounds Of inducing
! sxsfiicions --error, not truth, must be the
consequence Of such substituton.-The
next evidence in point Of time from which
somc circumstonces of susticior are inferred
against MIR. Smith, is the testimony of Col.
| lanes Taylor. To this evidence concur
with he gentleman from Massachusetts, in
psyirg great respect because it was
gwen with intelligence, candor, and cir
cumspeclion highly honorable to Colonel
Taylor. The substance of mis- testimony is,
nat some short time after the 10th Sep.
-embcr, and after the pieces under the sig.
nature Of the Querist had been published,
and became the subject of general CONVEX
sation being in company with Mr.. Smith
and Others in Cincinnati, the sentiments "a
vowed in those pieces, became the subject
| Of particular conversation, in which, ac-
cording to the impressions made on his
mind, Mr.. Smith advocated e separation oil
| the union and he thought, not only deli
| vered his opinion, as an opinion recon-
mended by the Qnerist, but as his own.
differ in several important respects with
the gentleman from Massachusetts, as to
the true explanation Of this testimony, ia
ken in connection with other evidence
bearing irresis,ibly upon the same point
In the first place, it is TO be ascertained
whether Mr.. Smith really did express thi:
opinion in the sense imputed to him by
Col. Taylor, or whether Col. Taylor is moi
mistaken in that respects And in the mex
place, whether, if ne did so express him.
self, it was done with any mischievous in.
tent Both these circumstances being ne
cessary to constitute a criminal act. an
strongly inclined to think, indeed am al
most perfectly satisfied, that Col. Taylo
is mistaken in this particular point Of hi
evidence. There is part of Col. Taylor
own evidence, which furnishes strong con
siderations for caution in interpreting th,
rest. The candor and circumspection ob
served by the dsponent, in this particular
point Of evidence, is so honorable To him
that beg leave to present 1t to the Sen
ate in his own words. After answerin,
many questions put 20 him by Mr.. Smith
Col. Taylor concludes his evidence will
the following voluntary observation -"
beg leave further to state, that Mr.. Smitl
a. l...l a.