|
BURR's TRIAL.
. On the indictment for a iiisdrmea'tor-
[Continued from the Supplement -which aC-
companies .'this, evening's Gazette.']
"The clerk then rose to read the indict
ment, to which Mr. Rous objected. He said
that it was the province of the attorney
hirnsmself to read his own idiclment. Mr.
Hay replied, th.it such was not the usual
practice ; and after a, short conversation it
was read l>y the chrk.
The clerk was then proceeding to charge
the iurv
Mr. Botts contended that this was the pro-
vince of the attorney for the prosecution.
The Chief Justice observed, that there was
no charge necessary. Mr. H'af. All that
the clerk had to say, was that to this indict
rnent the accused had entered not guilty.,
and that the jury were to try the validity of
that olea. In saying this, however, I have
delivered the charge.
Mr. Ray then stated to the court, that his
express had arrived from Monticello, and had
brought back the return of the president of
the Uni'ed States, which he was now prepar-
p.l to read. Chief Justice did not know
whether there was any necessity for it, if
there was any difficulty on the part of the
fcnr. Mr. Hay. Notts at all, I assure you.
Mr. Botts. We wish, sir, to hear the re-
turn.
Mr. thy then read the following certifi-
cate from the president annexed to his ex-
tracted copy of Gen. Wilkinson's letter:
" On re-examination of a letter, Nov. 12th,
1806, from Gen. Wilkin on to myself (which
having been for a considerable time out of
my possession, is now returned to me) I find
ill it some passages entirely c nfidential, giv
en for my information in the discharge of
my executive functions, and which my du-
ties and the public interest forbid me to make
public. I have, therefore, given above a cor-
roct copy of all those parts which I ought
to permit to be made public. Those not
Communicated are in no wise material for
the purposes of justice on the charges of
treason or misdemeanor, depending against
Aaron Burr : they are on subjects irrelevant
to any issues which can arise out of those
charges, and could contribute nothing to-
wards his acquittal or conviction. The pa-
pers mentioned in the 1st and 3
as inclosed in the letter, beirg separated
therefrom, and not in my possession, I am
unable from memory to say what they were.
I presume they are in the hands of the at-
torney for the Hi ited States. Given under
my hand this 7th day of Sept. 1?07.
" TH : JEFFERSON."
Mr. Hay observed that in his oiun and in
the president's extracted c py from general
"Wilkinson's letter, there was not a variation
ol more than io or 11" words—the onrtted
passages '"ere indeed manifestly impro
per to he submitted to the court.
Mr. Hay then rose to open the charge of
the misdemeanor ;
" May it please your honor, and you gen-
. tlemeh of the jury,
The defendant before yon is charged with
a violation of the law of congress of the TJ.
States, passed in the year "94. As it origi-
nally stood the existence of this law was
limited to a short period ; but experience
having proved ir» salutary ti ndency, it is
now made permanent. The defendant
stands charged with violating the omen ; but that he had afterwards,
avowed the capture of Mexico as the object
of these preparations.
After Peter Taylor had delivered his tes-
timony, Morris 0. Belknap was called in
and sworn. The reader will recollect that
Mr. Belknap was one of those witnesses
who were examined on the trial for treason ;
but that his testimony on that occasion
was confined to the overt act on the island,
where he had not arrived before 8 or 9
o'clock in the night, on which the expedi-
tion had descended the river. His testimo-
ny was therefore necessarily short, and per-
fectly distinct from the evidence which he
gave on the present occasion.
Mr. Burr, observed, that the gentlemen
were ab unt to depart fr ira their usual me-
thod of introducing the evidence- They
-vere now going from the island.
S>medesultory conversation ensued, when
Mr. Hay observed that he wished to prove by
Mr. Belknap that he had conveyed a letter.
from A. B. to the party on the island, which
had produced their precipitate departure.—
If he was not m staken this was at least
one great point in Mr. Belknap's testimony,
and it. would necessarily prove how much
the party on the island were under the di-
lectionand agency of the accused.
Mr. hurr ob erved, that if they were to
shew his acts done without the district of
Virginia, he should object to it ; that he
was willing that tne whole of the testimony
exhibited on the former case should be gone
through ; and to save the time ¦ f the court,
that thewhole of it might be read from the
judge'snotes ; but now it seemed, they were
proceeding to an enumeration of th. se acts
which were d>ne out of the district. He
should also protest against the right, which
gentlemen were about to assume, of bring-
ing the acts and sayings of other people at
any'time and place, as evidence against him-
self.
Mr. Hay wished to prove by Mr. Belk-
nap an act that was done, it is true, without
the district of Virginia ; but which was
consummated in that district. He wished to
prove that Mr. Burr had apprised the party
in the island of his own apprehensions, that
he had conveyed his dispatches by Mr. Belk-
nap, and that they had produced the preci-
pitate depaiture of his men.
Mr. Burr. I will permit the gentlemen
to go on with Mr. Belknap's testimony,
although it is not right to produce it, be-
cause I am satisfied that Mr. B. is mca
pable of proving any such ciicumstance as
they relate.
[Tobe cohtihuel]
ry enterprize.
Mr. Botts. When we wished them on a
former occasion to begin with the proof of
the overt act, they urged that their
course was the lucid order of nature. Will
the gentlemen then depart from it in the pre-
sent i latunte ? It is either right to persue
this c urse, which they themselves recom-
mended, or to prove first the act laid in the
indictment. Rather than disturb them in
the course which we had supposed they had
selec ed, we had made up our minds to sub-
mit to all its inconveniences. The ,gentle-
men h.id surely better, begin at the island it-
From the London Morning Chronicle, 0/ July
28.
The circumstances respecting the En-
gagement between the Leopard and the
American frigate Constellation, [Chesa-
peake] are stated to be as follows :—'. It
appears that s me British deseners had taken
refuge on board the American frigate. The
Leopard falling in with her damauded that
they should be given up, and insisted upon
searching for them. This was peremptorily
refused by the American captain ; after
which the Leopard fired a shot, which was
answered by a broadside, and an action im-
mediately commenced, which, however,
did not continue long, for the Constellati-
on, [Chesapeake] upon having a few men
killed and wounded, struck her colours.
The deserters were then taken out of her,
and she was permitted to depart, and, we
understand, she returned immediately to the
Chesapeake; The Constellation, [Chesa-
peake] is a large 44 gun frigate, very little
inferior in size to the Leopard."
Such is the account given of this affair ia
the Ministerial paper the Sun, of last night.
Other reports mention, that it was not the
Constellation, but the Chesapeake, and that
she was carried to Halifax ; but we take it
for granted, that the above is the correct ac-
count.
Out of this statement, as it stands, va-
rious considerations arise ; though, to enable
us to judge of the true state of the case,
much 1111.re information is necessary. If
the American captain received 021 board his
vessel deserters from British ships of war,
knowing them to be such, perhaps he was
culpable, notwithstanding the practice of
one nation receiving the subjects of another
into its service, s* ithout any questions ask-
ed. On the men being demanded, he ought,
for the sake of peace and good understand-
ing, perhaps, to have given them up, tho'
we do not know, that by any la v of nations,
far less by any existing treaty, he was
bound to deliver them on the demand of
any British ship. If he was called upon,
however, to deliver them up on a menace
of search, and if that accompanied the de-
mand, he did no more than his duty in re-
fusing to allow his ship to be searched ; be-
cause, had he yielded to the menace, he
surrendered on important right belonging to
his country.
It is to be observed, that this is a case
different from any that has yet occurred,
respecting the right of taking British sail-
ors out of American ships. The Americans
dispute our right of taking them out of pri
vate ships, and alledge great outrages in
doing so. Here the caee stands upon total-
ly different grounds. The Constellation
[Chesapeake] was a ship bearing a ft,\g and
commission of the United States. The
question then is, whether this country, or
any ship bearing the king's authority and
commission, had a right to insist on visit-
ing by force the ship of a neutral and friend-
ly power, for the purpose of searching for
deserters ? It is not whether there actually
were or were not deserters on board the A
merican frigate, or whether the American
captain knew of it' The fact at present is
of no manner of consequence. The ques
tion is, whether we had the right to pursue
the redress of an alledged grievance in the
way resorted to by the commander of the
Leopard. A man may have a very good
action, at law, when he must not take the
law into his own hands.
We hardly imagine that any Civilian will
contend, that a British ship could have this
liuht of search by force, because such a right
is wholly inconsistent with the sovereignty
of the United States of America. To all
intents and purposes the sovereignty of the
United States in all its branches, and sure-
ly therefore, in whatever relates to military
jurisdictionandauth rityoveritspublic, force
is as c impleat as that of this or any other na-
tion, over its army or navy. But what can
be a more direct invasion of this right of
soverignty, what a more flagrant attack on
thgMionor of an independent nation, than
to insist as a matter of right, on going on
board a ship of war, and searching for de-
serters ? We do not know any case that
would support such a demand, for tiiere
can be no necessity for it ; but the pre-
tence in this case is very trifling, and far
below what could justify one nation in de-
manding that another should submit to such
a badge of ignominy Let any military
man, or any seaman, reflect for a moment
what the thing demanded is. It is that the
public ships add vessels of one power shall,
when and where they please, send on board
the public ships and vessels of another friend-
ly power, and by force pass in review the
whole crew, search the whole ship, and do
every thing the most inconsistent with the
discipline of the ship visited, and the digni-
ty of the nation submitting to this supposed
right.
Let us put this home to ourselves. Sup-
pose the Chesapeake had been lying at
Portsmouth. Suppose captain Truxt-..n. or
any hot-headed American had got informa-
tion that some runaway American sailors
were on board a British sloop of war. Ad-
mitting that they were runaways, would any
English officer commanding such sloop of
war, have acceded to the impudent and in-
sulting demand of Truxton, to send or come
on board his vessel, make his crew p\
muster, each tell where he was b .rn, search
every cranny, and do that which, in the very
nature of things, cannot be done without
outrage and insult .' Yet if there be right
in this pretension, it is a right common to
both nations; and captain Truxton would
have been full as much entitled to exercise
it at Spithead or in the Downs, as the c m-
mander of the Leopard in Hampton Roads.
The claim is so inconsistent with the clear-
est rights of independent sovereignty, that it
can have no foundation in the law of na-
tions ; and it would necessarily lead in
practice to such disorders among the high-
spirited officers of two different navies, as
must satisfy every reasonable man that, be-
ing utterly repugnant to common sense, it
cannot form part of the international code
of civilized societies.
This is not a case in the smallest degree
affected by that of the Swedish convoy. The
principle is wholly different. In the case
of the Swedish convoy there was no claim
made to visit and search the ship of war—
Our claim wa£ to search the merchant ships
under convoy ; and the Swedes said " No,
the presence of our ship of war is a suffici-
ent security that this convoy carries no con-
traband." We again denied this, and in-
sisted upon visiting the ships under convoy,
provided we had a reasonable ground of
doubt or suspicion.
The demand to visit and search a ship
bearing the flag and commission of an inde-
pendent neutral power, on pretence of catch-
ing deserters, is of a quite different nature.
Surely if any place ought to be privileged
from a forcible entry on sucb ignoble pur-
suit, it is the royal or the national navy of
an independent state. Surely if any courte-
sies are mutually due, it must be to pro-
hibit such indelicate 'and disorderly intru-
sions. We do not plead the cause of the
American navy here ; we plead that of the
British navy. We say that British ships of
war are not, and cannot be subject to such
visits from the Americans, or any other na-
tion ; and therefore the Americans are not
bound to submit to them from the British-
The law is equal to both, and the existence
of a law at once so humiliating and so dan-
gerous, cannot be supposed. We deny, then,
that such a law exists. We defy ministers
to produce a single paragraph from any res- ¦
pectabie writer on public law, or any admit-
ted case, by which the proceedings of the
commander of the Leopard can be authorized
or defended. His conduct,, come what may
of the dispute, ought to be disavowed
We are glad to find that sir John Nicho]
the king's advocate, was present at the
council upon this affair. The learning and
sound sense of sir John Nichol, we trust,
would correct the intempereiice of minis-
ters, and satisfy them that the pretension
insisted upon in this case is wholly unpre-
cedented, and is utterly inconsistent with
the common rights and dignity of indepen-
dent states.
What may he the facts of this case, we
do not pretend to be yet informed, It is
said, however, that the' deserters in ques-
tion were really Americans and net British
sailors ; that, as we have said, does nor al-
ter the question of right. If they were
British sailors, redress surely misrht have
been obtained by application to the Irm-ri-
can government ; and there was no such
pressing emergency or urgent danger, from
the escape of these deserters as to justify
the adoption of a violent remedy, or the
appeal to that sort of law which nothing but
necessity can sanction.
Complaints of taking each others men
are common to us and the Americans, ard
probably in both cases to some extent well
founded. But this is to be considered, that
in the one our men follow their own incli-
nation, in the other they are pressed. We
do not believe, however, that there are 1000
British seamen altogether in the American
service.
BY THIS DAY'S MAILS.
NEW.YORK, September 17.
Arrived, ship F.,ctor, W-hiyey, of Be-
verly, 57 days from St. Poienrfmig, and 47"
from Elsineur, hemp iron and manufactur-
ed goods. The Wig Rose, Gardner, sailed
for Philadelphia July 30. Sail-d in com-
pany, ships Pactolus, Beckforrl, for Salem.;
Hesper, Gushing, for Newbqrj port; Pfrse,
verance, Glazier, for Boston. Sailed in co.
from Elsineur, ship Pactolus. The brig
Catharine, Harden, of Salem, jj,st arrived.
July'81, spoke biig Lion, Alien, front St.
Petersburg for Boston ; and brig Industry,
Cook, from do. for New-York. Left, at
St. Petersburg, ships Messenger, Buffing-
ton, of Sob-in, for Baltimore, in iO days ;
America, Stickney ; Mary, Holland ; and
Hannah, Roberts, all for Newburyport, in
2 days ; Grace, Linze, for Boston, in 2 ;
Bmtus, Blunt, of Portsmouth, for New-
York, in 4 ; Nancy, Shapl-y,do. next day ;
Farmer, Lunt, of Portsmouth, for Charles-
ton ; Byfield, Foster, for Kostoti, in iO ;
Laura, Cleveland, for do. in 5 ; Orion,
MMillan, for New-York, in 10 ; Indian
Chief, Lilly, do. uncertain ; Factor, Rey-
nolds, for Boston, in 0 ; Magnet, Bowles,
of Portsmouth, in 5 ; Cornelia, Philadel-
phia, 6 ; Mary, Kitchen, do. 10 ; brig Ra-
spect, Andrews, Newburyport, 5 ; schr,
Joanna, Prince, Salem, IO. Lat. 57, 30,
long 18, 15, spoke ship Edward Pivbie,
of Freeport, 28 days from Virginia, for
Leith.
The ship Ceres, Green, 65 days f ora
Bordeaux, wine, brandy and dry goods.
The ship Charlotte, Sinclair, 64 days
from Amsterd on, in ballast. Passengers 7.
Sept. 1, lat. 40, long. 51, sp-^ke brig Ami-
ty, 20 lavs from Bordeaux for Philadelphia.
4th, Lr 39, 34, long. 59, spoke ship Bor-
deaux, 5 daysfmm New-York for Marseilles.
11th, lat. 39, 54. long. 64, 10, spoke ship
Cheeseman, 8 days from New-York.
The ship George, Sampson, of Boston,
55 days from London, dry goods, porter,
&c. Spoke, July 30, lat. 49, 45, long,
7, 50, a yellow sided ship without a head,
41J days from Baltimore. August 21, latr
44, long. 40, ifi, ship Manchester, 2&
days from Liverpool for Philadelphia ; next
day, shp Fair American, Dfiiis, 10 day*
from London for Baltimore. Sept. 3. lat.
41, 40, long 57. brig Rover of Kenne-
bunk, from New-York for Greenock. 6th
lat. 42, io, long. 59, 46, brig Maria, 6
days from Philadelphia forAmsterdam. ioth,
ship Golden Rule, 3^ hours from Wiscasset
for Liverpo .1. Sr.oke others that have
been reported. Sailed inco. July 23, Cora,
Mooney, for Baltimore ; Planter, Moore ;
and Thomas, Baush, for Norfolk.
The ship Perseverance, Connell, 48 days
from Amsterdam, gin, dry go ds. The
•hip Ophelia, Watterman ; Charles, Jough-
an ; Logan, all sailed about the 21st July
for New-York; ship Eliza, Sproat, 2 days
before for do.—Left, sh>p Aurora, just ar-
rived from New-Yoik, and others. July
29, lat. 52, 38, spoke schr. Betsy, 24
hours from Amsterdam for Boston. Aug.
6, in the Channel, was boarded by a British
brig of war, and treated politely—next day
spoke ship Jane of Portland, 6 days from
Rotterdam for America. 25th, lat. 45, 1?,
spoke ship Champion, 21 days from Liver-
pool for Philadelphia ; same day, spoke a
British ship 6j days from. Liverpool for
dittos
|
