man.

close of his life. Some persons had gone by sea to New Orleans in expectation of Burr's arrival, and among others, Mr. Swartwout, of New York, and the famous Dr. BollWhatever the plot may have been, it was entirely defeated. At the time which best suited the purposes of the administration, the western country was awakened; orders were issued to the naval and military force of the United States to take Burr and his party, while descending the river, and "if it shall become necessary for that purpose, to destroy his boats." Apprised of these measures, Burr thought proper to be landed somewhere on the shores of the Mississippi, and thence found his way to the Tombigbee river, in the Mississippi territory, on the 19th of February, 1807, accompanied by one person.

It appears that Burr was in advance of his companion thirty or forty yards, in passing a settlement called Washington Court House, at about eleven o'clock at night. Burr passed on without halting or speaking; but his companion inquired of one standing at the door of a public house for the dwelling of a Major Hinson, and on being answered followed Burr. The person inquired of, suspecting the first traveller to be Burr, followed with a sheriff to Hinson's, and there having his suspicions confirmed, went to Fort Stoddard, and obtained a military officer and four soldiers, who took Burr into their custody. He was thence conducted as a prisoner to Richmond, where he arrived towards the close of the month of March.

LETTER XLVII.

SEPTEMBER 21, 1833.

On the 30th of March, 1807, George Hay, Esq., Attorney of the United States for Virginia, applied to Chief Justice Marshall to commit Colonel Burr on the charge of treason. A preliminary examination was had of the evidence, and the judge was of opinion, that it did not authorize a commitment for that crime, but only for a misdemeanor; and Burr was, therefore, allowed to find bail for his appearance at the next Circuit Court at Richmond; bail was given.

On the 22d of May, the Circuit Court was opened. The counsel for the prosecution were George Hay, Alexander McRae, and William Wirt. For Burr, John Baker, Benjamin Botts, John Wickham, Edmund Randolph, and Luther Martin appeared. At a subsequent day, Charles Lee also appeared. To these may be added Burr himself, who had been a lawyer of great eminence. Many days were passed in selecting a grand jury. Among others William B. Giles had been summoned, who had been informed by Mr. Jefferson of the certainty of Burr's guilt. This gentleman, no doubt at Mr. Jefferson's suggestion, had moved the Senate to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which motion, if successful in both branches, would have given Mr. Jefferson unlimited control over the personal liberty of every citizen in the United States. The motion was rejected even by that Congress. Mr. Giles seems to have had little doubt of his fitness to serve as grand juror. But after examination and discussion he withdrew. John Randolph (the same who was sent recently as minister to Russia) was foreman of the grand jury.

There appears to have been much discussion in court on the evidence which should go to the grand jury. Among other persons called as witnesses for the government was Dr. Erick Bollman, for whom Mr. Jefferson had prepared a certificate of pardon, which Mr. Hay presented to Bollman in court, and which Bollman peremptorily refused to accept. He was, however, sworn and sent to the jury.

While the jury were deliberating, the court were engaged in a long argument on a motion to punish General Wilkinson for contempt of court, in having unlawfully caused one Knox to be arrested, imprisoned, and forcibly conducted on board a United States vessel, called the Revenge, at New Orleans, and thence brought to Richmond, as a witness against Burr. The proceedings of Wilkinson appear to have been arbitrary and oppressive, and enforced by his military authority; but the Chief Justice decided, that he was not chargeable with contempt. Wilkinson came from New Orleans in the same vessel. The precise charge against him was, that he had used illegal means; and had invaded the privilege of witnesses, tending to the corruption of evidence; and materially to affect the justice and dignity of the court, so as to subject him to process of contempt. But, as before stated, the charge was not sustained.

On the 24th of June, the grand jury came in with charges of treason and misdemeanor against Burr; and with like charges against Herman Blannerhasset. Afterwards similar charges were found against General Jonathan Dayton and one Smith. Great difficulties occurred in selecting a jury for trial; party feelings had taken so strong a hold, that almost every person called seemed to have made up his mind from rumors and newspaper statements. The selection of a

jury occasioned a long delay.

On the 17th of August, Burr was put on trial, charged with having excited insurrection, rebellion, and war, on the 10th of December, 1806, at Blannerhasset's Island, in Virginia. Secondly, the same charge was repeated, with the addition of a traitorous intention of taking possession of the city of New Orleans with force and arms. To all which he pleaded not guilty.

Many witnesses were examined to show in what manner Colonel Burr had employed himself, in the western country, in 1805 and 1806; and to show that he had contracted for boats and provisions; and had conferred with divers persons, to some of whom he had disclosed one purpose, and to some another, according to the expectation of operating on them through different motives. The probability is, that Burr was then a desperate man. He was an exile from the state of New York, in consequence of the pendency there of the indictment for the murder of Colonel Hamilton; he had lost the popular favor; his means had been much reduced; he held the administration in contempt; he had insatiable ambition; and appears to have thirsted for opportunity to distinguish himself, and to retrieve his standing at all hazards. Yet, as circumstances now appear, one cannot but think, that a man of Burr's sagacity must have had some assurances and encouragement from the government, or from its military chief, Wilkinson, that he might move against the Spanish territories, whatever other designs he may have had. If Burr had no such reliance on government, it is improbable so intelligent a person should have imagined, that he could proceed successfully with his few boats and men, even if permitted to do as he pleased. his object was to seize New Orleans, he must have been deranged to think his armament sufficient for his purpose, if he had not been assured of Wilkinson's co-operation. If

If

Wilkinson can be supposed to have favored Burr's design, he may have changed his mind at a convenient time; or he may have accepted Burr's confidence, with the intention of defeating his projects, when this could be most effectually done. It is very possible that Mr. Burr, who is yet living, may leave some account of these transactions.

Among the witnesses called by the government against the accused was a very extraordinary man, well known and much esteemed for his exploits on the northern coast of Africa. His testimony is interesting, because it discloses his views of Colonel Burr; and because it gives some account of himself. It should be remarked, that the counsel of the accused had insisted, that the government's counsel ought to be required to prove, in the first instance, some overt act of levying war against the United States, according to the charge in the indictment, viz. at Blannerhasset's Island, in the Ohio river, in the month of December, 1806. This, like other suggestions, was fully argued, and it was decided to be proper first to offer such proof. The gentleman above alluded to, General William Eaton, was then called as a witness, and it was asked whether he was called to prove the overt act. It was answered that he was not, but to prove the previous intention of Burr. He was objected to, and another argument ensued; but the court decided, that evidence might be given of the intentions entertained by Burr, as these might show the character of the acts done at the island. General Eaton was thereupon sworn and examined. Commodore Truxton was also sworn and examined. The testimony of these two witnesses furnish the best materials for judging of the real designs of Burr ; but these have no longer such interest as to make it worth while to transcribe this evidence.

LETTER XLVIII.

SEPTEMBER 25, 1833.

SEVERAL other witnesses were examined to prove the acts done at Blanner hasset's Island by Colonel Burr's order, or suggestion. The sum of this evidence was, that he had

directed the building of boats and the purchase of provisions; and that three or four boats and some men with arms were at the Island about the 10th of December; that under fear of being taken by the militia, this party left the Island in their boats in the night, and went down the Ohio. It appeared that Burr had been at the Island, though not there at any time, while this party were there, but was at a distance of hundreds of miles, and in another state, (Kentucky.) The counsel for the accused then moved the court, that the further examination should be arrested, inasmuch as it was proved that Burr was not present when the overt act, (if such it was,) alleged in the indictment, took place.

This

This motion produced one of the most learned and able arguments to be found in the whole course of judicial proceedings. As much of it as is reported spreads over more than 450 pages. The Chief Justice pronounced his opinion on the 31st of August. At the commencement he says: "A degree of eloquence, seldom displayed on any occasion, "has embellished a solidity of argument and a depth of "research, by which the court has been greatly aided in "forming the opinion which it is about to deliver." carefully prepared and elaborate opinion resulted in this; that as the counsel for the government were not understood to deny, that if the overt act be not proved by two witnesses, so as to be submitted to the jury, all other testimony must be irrelevant; because no other testimony, (as to subsequent acts,) could prove the overt act. That an assembly on Blannerhasset's Island was proved by the requisite number of witnesses, and the court might submit to the jury, whether that assemblage amounted to a levying of war; but the presence of the accused at that assemblage being no where alleged, except in the indictment, the overt act was not proved by a single witness; and, of consequence, all other testimony must be irrelevant.

After this opinion had been delivered, Mr. Hay asked time to consider what his duty further required. When the court met at a late hour in the afternoon, Mr. Hay said, he had examined the opinion, (which had been handed to him in writing,) and that he must leave the case with the jury. The verdict was, "We of the jury say, that Aaron "Burr is not proved to be guilty under this indictment, by "any evidence submitted to us. We, therefore, find him