Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-10-21
FRIDA II ToBER p, 1908.

ouS GOWN, announcer VIII rise up. InlS much
l will venture to tell you, If there should be
war between the United States and Spain.
| shall headia corps of volunteers, and be
the first 10 march into the Mexican pro-
vlnces if peace should be preserved, which
| do not expect, shall settle my Washita
lands, and make society as pleasant about
me as possible. In this government have
been prosecuted, shamefully persecuted, and
am sorry to say, that III it all private con-
hdence between man and man seems to be
nearly destroyed. He Showed me a deed
for large tract of and on Red river, and
said IT would consent to let my sons go Thu
ther, he would provide well for them, to
which gave consent, though l never conn.,.
municated it to my eldest son till last Satur-
day, the day on which ne returned from
Marietta, and not till he expressed disin-
clination to cooperate with Col. Burr's OBJ
Ject, till he knew whether 1t was hostile to
the government of the United States or not.
Col. Burr tod me further, that very many
OF his friends IN different parts of the Unit
ed States would remove and settle with him,
and that he would be the best neighbour this
country ever had, and repeated that his OBJ
ject was not hostile TO the people of the IT,
States, or dishonorable to himself, and fur
Their, that in few months many of his enc
mics would be proud to Call him their
siend"
What is here disclosed! two objects on
iy. The hrst TO settle the W5shita lands
the second-in The eUent Of 7var with Sratn
to head company OF volunteers, and be the
first to march into Mexico. What was the
charge against Burr? A misdemeanor, BY
beginning and setting on iooil a military ex.
pedItion, Or enterprise against nation, with
which The United STATES gverc az heace, Sc
Would this evidence have had any ten
dency towards supporting this charge Ger
tanly NOT. SPAN had nothing TO do with
the settlement OF the Washica lands; and
with respect to the contemplated military
into Mexico-it was to be under
taken only IN the eOenT OF q zuar- and OF
course could De no violation OF law which
foro'ds such enterprises, only against nati-
0nS Ivffh which me United STATES ere at
heace. The evidence, therefore, could not
support the Charge; and whether such en-
terprise IN time Of zVar would have been
lawful or NOT, would nave depended upon
1He cITcHmvSGHce Of rhe nGyftzdnS acting
Sotth or zrlthoaI q commission from the u.
Stafes--but the gentleman from Massachu-
sets, remarks that this pretended conditi-
on, upon which the expedt on against Mex
co was to be undertaAeu, was too thin IA DIS
Bulse 10 impose upon the most CreduiCus OF |
ignorant. L Will here admit that always |
thought 1t very tnin disguise-but did eve |
ry body think so I! And particularly before !
6urrS other views were DISCLOSED liz ia
known that many men Vt the FIRST talents |
were deceived by thus disguise long after
this period. 1t was urged by many as Il |
substantial ground OF defence in favor OF |
Burr, during the whole course of his trial
at Richmond, and many adhered 10 It even
alter the trial Was over. Why is it expec.
ieo that Mr.. Smith particularly ought not |
10 nave been the dupe OF TINS disguise at |
that particular period IL cannot be because
he Is known to nave reposed blind conf |
dehce in Burr. Ii is probable that Burr's
knowledge OF that circumstance. induced
him to suggest the disguise. 1t is certainly
the circumstance, which iuiled MIR. Smiths
suspicious and made him the dupe of the ar.
tIhce. Ii may be said, and truly said, he
ought to have been more guarded-itI
would certainly have been better for MIR.
omith 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 a
crime, or OF criminal intent. The ONLY
conclusion L draw from this circumstance
Is, that Mr.. Smith furnishes a striking ex
ample OF d plain dealing, unsuspicious man.
involved IN Irretrievabie difficulties. iron,
the professions and batteries of an artfuI
and designing one.
The next observation made upon this mart
OF the evidence disclosed by Mr. 6. IS that
ne Consented to let his sons go with Burr,
from which a knowledge OF Burr's illicit
views is inierred.-lt certainly would be an
incorrect application ofthe rules of evidence
TO mfr an object different from the one dr.
closed by the evidence particularly when
the one eLf5reSsed Is much more natural
and probable, Than the one inferred. MIR.
Smith himself furnishes both the E1cf and
the object. He says, he was induced TO
consent to his sons going with Burr, from
Burr's promises TO advance their fortunes
10y giving them large portions OF the Wa
Shita lands. Was not this a very natural
object! What couldbe more natural or pro-
babie than for father 10 be influenced nv
motive OF advancing his sons fortunes
But 1t IS said this conduct discovered too
much confidence in Burr, and too much s,m.
piieity IN Mr.. Smith; there must be there.
fore some other concealed motive for il. IL
IS admitted that none is proved, and I he
iieve none exists. 1t is perfectly consistent
win ali the rest OF the evidence. Ii does
demonstrate TOO much confidence and 700
much SIMPLICITY 4; but it demonstrates moth :
ing else. 1t demonstrates no crime IL
aces nor demonStrGfe any hartfcfhafis1 -,
fhc cOHefitrdcu Of .4arou Rarx w. -