The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-09-30
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
FRfpAy, Apn,L 9, 1903.
CASE OF SCHN SAfIIk
(coNTINuEp)


Mr.. CrLEs--err. President, I amIcalfed up
on as member OF this Senate, to pronounce an
opinion upon the following resolution:
{" Resoirsd, That JoHa SMITH, n Senator
from the state Of Ohio, by his participation in the
conspiracy of Aaron Burr, against the Peace,
Onion aud Liberties of the people Of the United
States, has been guilty of conduct Incompatible
with ms duty and station rs a Senator Of the
United States, an;l that he he therefore. snd
'herchy is expelled from the Senate ct the United
States"
a declaration upon this subject ought not to
be made, KIT upon the most attentive examinati-
on Of tie evidence produced in the case, and the
most mature de!ibcration tlereupon. The sen
tcncc to be pronounced is important to The Jus
tice of the United States but more particular
1y so to the reputation of the person accused i.
W i'll hare also inscPerable influence upon that
OF his family. To hin, and theii it's effects are
all important. The resolution soemniy and un-
'equivocaily asserts, that John Smith, &c. barsi-
eiPGtcI ir'he conspiracy # Aaron Barr Before
can make this assertion, must have some evil
dencc of the fact. ! must acknowledge, that upon
the most attentive examination of all papers,
and The most respectful attention to MI the are-,,-
merits in the case, Y have not been able TO disco
yer any sati9actory coidence IF thar fact. Yes
terday paid great attention to the eloquent,
oigntied and candid observations oS the gentle
man from Massachusetts,, (Mr. Adams, both rs
to the jurisdiction of the Senate to inquire into
this case and the evidence exhibited III support
of the charges against the accused. The gen
tleman from Massachusetts, am perfectly con-
WINGED, has been influenced in the whole course
of this enquiry by the purest and most laudable
motives and think he is justly entitled to the
thanks ntthn Senate tc- :i:c 1,,l.li,,vt
he has recommended to be pursued. perfect
ly concur with that gentleman in opinion, on the
point of jurisdiction and upon retrospect of
the whole proceeding OF the Senate, am happy
to say, that it appears to me the best course for
the purposes OF justice, has been pursued, that
could have been devised, in the novel and diff
cult case presented for consideration A liberal
indulgence has been given to the accused to pro-
cure testimony in his defence land the witnesses
implicated have been projected from injury, by
requiring that they should have notice of the
time and place OF taking all dispositions affecting
their credibiEty. The only ground of difference
IN opinion between the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts and myself, is, in the Interpretation of
hie evidence IN the shall state the points of
difference between upon this subject, without
any other argument than what may be necessa-
ny to explain the reasons of this difference.
The first point of difference relates to the de-
clarations of Aaron Burr. From these declara-
tons, although general in their nature, and in
no instance made in relation to the accused, in
ferences of guilt are attached to him. In almost
every case, to apply the declarations of one man
to the condemnation of another, would not be 3
just rule Of evidence; in this case it would be
peculiarly unjust Because it is well known that
Burr was in the constant habit of making misre-
presentations in relation to other persons, and
that he was influenced by particular motive in
doing so. He appeared to consider that as one
of the most etiectual means to enhance the i'm
portance and promote the success of has enter.
prise. If his declarations are to be admitted as
evidence against other pers ons, they would APP.
ply 10 some of the most respectable citizens OF
10 Teri to- flo
which it is not pretended, would be Just or cor
rect in relation to them; and Can see nothing
In his observations, bearing on the case of Mr.
Smith, that would not apply with greater force
against others, who are neither implicated nor
suspected Therefore put Burr's declarations
entirely cut of tie case, and disregard all infer
ences drawn from them.
The next point of difference between the gen
tieman and myself, arises from q suggested in
consistency betweenthe letters, the aiIitiavts s.
the answer of Mr.. Smith. L have paid particu-
lar Alteration to these papers, connected with the
remark made by the gentleman, and am unable
to discover the inconsistency suggested. They
appear to me to be substantially Inc sarae----
The remark was, that i'll ofthese papers Mr
Smith states, that Burr did not disclose. to hin,
any of his Objects in another, he admitted that
he did disclose to him his object of settling his
Washita lands The remark which occurs to me
Jn reply is, that Mr.. Smith merely states an i'm
1,atcria fact in one paper, which he omits in an
other, as unnecessary. In this, see neither con.
trsdiction or Inconsistency. But the real expla.
nation OF this Incidental circumstance will be
found in the papers themselves. The one omit
ting tie fact in question, in speaking of the OBJ
jects of Burr, evidently alludes to the uuiazutt
Objects of which he has since been accused, and
W.. ch did not comprehend the settlement of the
W"shita lands. This circumstance, therefore
must, in any point of view be deemed trivial, un
less connected with some other of more impor.
lance and according to my explanation OF it
OF no consequence at all l would here remark,
that the fact asserted in the resolution is suscep
tiblc OF the clearest and most certain proof and
j. Of such nature, that if Mr.. Smith had COM
1nitted it, it would be scarcely possible for him
TO escape detection by positive proof ! an,
therefore, not satisfied to form my opinion on tri
vial circumstances, particularly, when so easily
and naturally susceptible of explanation consis-
tently with innocence. Mr.. Smiths own con
due; is the sole criterion by which he ought TO be
JUDGED. If this standard should once be depar.
ted from, aud questionable incidents res0rted to,
instead Of obtaining tr;itb, shall probably fall
into error. o.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, and nv.
self III orr consideration Of this case, concur in
the entire exclusion of the testimony ut Elias
Clever and all tine papers connected with it, We,
IN one respect, however, differ on this part of
the subject He read and relied upon the depo.
siGon 0f Major Riddle forwarded by Glover,
Ia sl.a 10 .Il