|
TRTAL OF AARON BTJRR-
MOTION SOU COMMITMENT,
Cnitclusrve OPINION of the Chic? Justice
Marshall, on the motion fur commitment— I
¦Delivered on
Tui-sday, October 20.
[Co'uiudcd from the Gazette of the $ist ult.~]
Very barlyth the proceedings which pre-
Ceded this motion- I declared the opinion
that war might be levied without a battle,
or the actual application of force to the ob-
ject on which it was designed to act ; that
a body of men assembled for the purpose of
war, and beine; iri a posture of war, do levy
war; and froih that opinion I nave certainly
felt no disposition to recede. But the 111-
t ntion is an indispensable ingredient in the
composition of the fact ; and if war may be
levied without striking the blow, the inten-
tion to strike must be plainly proved.
T i prove this intention, the prosecutor
for the United States offers evidence of con-
versations lick! bv the accused or some . ne
of them, with various individuals at differ-
ent times, relative to the vie • s which were
entertained and the plans which had been
formed ; and of certain facts which took
place afier leaving the mouth ol Cumber-
land. For although it was decide! n t to
be ithin the power of tins court t com
nut for tri.il in a territ ry of the United
States, yet every transaction within a terri-
tory has been given tn evidence in the ex-
pectation, that such testimony might serve
to explain the meeting at tlie mouth of Cum-
berland, and because it was believed to be
proper for an examining magistrate to re-
ceive it.
That conversations or actions at a differ-
ent time and place might be given in evi-
d» nee as corrob ranve of the overt act of le-
vying war, afu_r that had been proVed in
5 xli a manner as to be left to a jury, 1 ne-
ver doubted .for an instant : But that in a
Case where the intent could not be inferred
fr rntiie fact and was not proved by decla-
rations connected with the fact, among
which I shi nld include the terms under
which those ho composed the assemblage
were convened together, this defect could
be entirely supplied by extrinsic testimony,
not applying the intent conclusively to the
particular fact, is a point, on which I have
entertained doubts which are not yet entire-
ly removed. The opinion of judge Iredell
in the case of Fries, according to my un-
derstanding of it when read at the bar, ap-
pears to bear strongly on this point .* I
that opinion would be conclusive with me,
at least while acting as an examining ma-
gistrate. I have not reviewed it particular-
ly, because my decision ivili not depend on
the propriety of admitting this mode ot
proving the intent.
It has also been made a question whether
after proving a connection between the ac
eused for some general object, the c nver-
sations of one of them may be given in evi-
dence against any other than htm elf for the
pnrp se ,f proving what tint object vas.
Oil the pari of the United States it is in-
sisted that such conversations may be gi-
ven in evidence on a-i indictment foi treason
in levying of war. By'he defence it is con-
tended, that -uch evidence is only admisst
I ble on indictments for a conspiracy, or on
indictments where a conspiracy may be laid
as an vert act.
The principle that one man shall not be
criminated by the declarations of another,
not assented to by him, not made in due
course f la '. constitutes a rule of evidence,
which ought not unreflectingly 11 be invad-
ed.
It is one of those principles on which I
do not think myself required to decide, be-
cause I am not sure that its decision ho e-
ver interesting it might he on a trial in chiel,
would essentially affect the question of c m-
mitment. n r am 1 confident that its dic>
sion as argued on the part ol the Uniied
States, would introduce the testimony it
was designed to introduce. In the English
hooks generally, the position that the decla-
. rations of a person not on trial may be gi-
ven in evidence against a man proved to
have be.en •. onnected with him, is laid down
only l i cases of conspiracy, where the
crime is completed without any other open
deed. The position is certainly not laid
down with respect to such cases, in terms
which rxcnde its application t others; but
it is n t l,iid d wn in general terms and is
affirmed to apply to the e particular cases,
. without being affirmed to apply to others,
From this general obseivation relative to the
English books East is to oe excepted. He
Stales the proposition generally. Yet it
may well be doubted, wfiether this general
st itement w as not ith a vie v to the law in
that treason, which, in England, almost
swallows up every o'her.
But i i In law to lie the same in
treason by levying war. as in cases ot con-
vey, now far does it extend '
doctrine nn this subject was review-
ed io the cases of Hardy and To ke. On
the pait of ih- crown a letter of Thelwall
containing seditious songs" composed by him
self, ami sung in the s ciety, was offered as
e* idence against Hardy, who was conm cted
with Thelwall. This testimony was rej ct-.
«d because it wa> not a part of the transac-
tion itself, hut an account of that transacti-
on given by Thelwall to a person not en-
gaged in the conspiracy. The court was
oi re He was overruled because a lettei
ii conspirator to another on the con-
was a Ci irpkte act in that collspi-
c'.
1 The next paper offered, was a letter from
•a society in the conspuacy, which was found
in trie possession of one of the conspirator!-, '
and this was unanimously admitted.
The principle which appears to be estab-
lished by these decision;, is, that a letter
fr un one conspirator; to another on the sub-
ject o! the conspiracy is evidence a.ainst,,
all, but that a letter fr ml a'conspirat r to a
person not connected with him, stating facts
relative to the conspiracy, is omy evidence
against himself. H>w f.ir a conversation
held with a stranger- JbV/the purpose •. f
bringing him into the plot, may be c msi-
dered as a transac'tvn, and theetore testi-
mony to show tlie genera! conspiracy, does
not appear fiom these decisions.
Tins species of evidence is received to
show the general object of the con.pnacy,'
but can affect no individual further than his
assent to that object can be proved by ; uch
testimony asisadmis ible in ordinary cases.
I notice this point tor the purp >se of ob-
serving, that I do nut decide it on the pre-
sent motion.
The first question which arises on the
evidence is,
With what objects did those men convene
who assembled at the mouth of Cumberland?
Was it to separate the western from the
eastern states, by seizing and holding New-
Orleans ?
Was it to carry on an expedition against
Mexico, making the embarkation at New-
Orleans ?
Was this expedition to depend on a war
with Spain ?
The conversation held by col. Burr with
Commodore Decatur, stated his object to be
an expedition ag. ir.-t Mexico, which ^uld
be undertaken, as the commodore under-
stood, with the approbation of government
in the event of war.
To gen. Eiton he unfolded, in various
conversations plans f r in ading Mexico,
aod also for seveiing the western from the,
Atlantic states.
To commodore Truxton he spoke of the
invasion and conquest ot Mexico ui tnj
event of a war, as a plan which he had di-
gested in concert with gen. Wilkinson, and
into which he was extremely destroys to
draw the commodore, A circumstance is
narrated hy this witness which has been no-
ticed by the counsel for the. United States,
and deserve* consideration. It isthedecla-
tion of col. Burr, that he was about to dis-
patch two couriers with letters to gen. Wil-
kinson, relative to the expedition. It was
at this time that Mesas. Bellman & Swart-
wout are said to have left Philadelphia car-
rying each a copy of the cyphered letter
which has Constitute^ so important a docu-
ment in the vanous motions that have been
made on this occosion. This le-ter, though
expressed in terms of some ara'oiguity, has
been understood by the supieme coun and
is understood by me to i elate to a military
expedition against the territories of a foreign
prince. In this scire tfie testimony offered
on the part of the United States siiows it to
have been also understood by Bollman, by
Swartwout and by gen, Wilkinson, The
inference is very strong, that this letter is
the sanvj to which col. Burr alluded in his
conversation with c unmodore Truxion, and
strengthens the idea tnat the accused gave
to that gentleman a true statement of the
real object, so far at least as relates to the
point a.-ainst which his preparations were
tobednecred All the conversation rela-
tive to an expedition by sea > ould be equal-
ly inapplicable to any attempt on the territo.
nes of the United States, and to the settle-
ment of lands.
His conversations with the Messrs. Mor-
gans certainly indicate that lu.s mind was
strongly directed to military objects, that he
was not friendly to the present administrati-
on and thit he contemplated a seperation
ol the union as an event which would take
place^at no very distant day.
His conversation with lieut. Jackson
points in express terms to hostility against
Spain.
The conversations of Mr. Blennerhassett,
evince dispositions unfriendly to the uni-
on and his writings are obviously intended
to di.safli.ct ihe western people and to excite
in ti.ii, bosoms strong prejudices against
their Atlantic brethren- That the object
o these writings via- io prepare the western
states for a dismemberment is apparent on
the face ol them, and was frequently avow-
ed by himself In a conversation vjitii toe
Me s>s. Hendersons which dci ivos ad.'.ti n
al importance from the solemnity with which
..his communications weie made, he laid
open a plan tor dismembering the union un-
der the auspices of Mr. Burr. To others
at sub. equent times, he spoke of the invasi-
on ot Mexico as the particular object to
which the preparations then making were
directed, In all th se whom he sought to
eng.igc in the expedition, trie idea was ex-
cited that though the Ouachita was its avow-
ed "bject, it covered something more splen-
didi and the allusions to Mexico when not
din cted were scarcely to be misunderstood.
The language ol Comfort Tyler also tends
to prove that the en-erprize was destined
against Mexico.
Tile communications made to general
Wilkinson deserve much consideration in
marking the real intention of the parties,
becausn it is obvious that col. Burr, whether
,vith or without reason, calculated on bis
co operation with the army which he com.
mandeil. and that on this co-operation, the
execution of his plan greatly, if not abso-
lutely di peii'l d. To ge eial Will.,
both the cyphered lettei and the explana-
tions made hy Bollman and Swartwout, de-
clared the expedition to be military and to
be intended against Mexico.
I do not think the authenticity of this
letter can now be questioned. When to the
circumstances enumerated by the counsel
on the part of the United States, are added
the testimony of Mr. Swartwout, and its
written in a cypher previously estab-
lished between general \\ ilkinson and col.
Burr, I think it (vtfriGieiitiy proved at least |
for the present, although not in the
writing ol the p :rson to whom it is ascriu d.
Th» conversation seated by general Wil-
binso'i as passing between Mr. Swattwout
and himself, so i\\. as it is contradicted hy
that geiuiem ui, cannot uffect Mr. ourr for
this plain f^as-on ; the person alledged to
have made thesfedeclarations avers not only
tl-.at he never rn.de! hem, but that he never
was authorised to make them ; that lie never
hear I from Mr. Bmr any sentiment indicat-
i ig desjg'ris against any part of the United
. ven s ispected hi n of s'ucH
designs. Ifthengen, Wilkinson bo correct,
1 must consider the o i$.ei .-atipp be harrati s,
as the conjuctures of Mr. Swartwout, not
ail librised by Mr, Hui t.
It is also a circumstance of some weight,
that Mr. Burr's declarations at the mouth of
Cumberland, furnish' strong reasons for the
opinion, that he did not wish those to whom
he addressed himself to'consider the Ouachi-
ta as his real ultimate object, and the refer-
ence to fmther informal ion from their par-
ticular leaders would naturally induce the
expectation, that without any open avowel
their minds would be gradully conducted to
the point to which their assent was to be
obtained. We find there were ramours
among them of attacking Baton Rouge, of
attacking ot'iei parts of the Spanish domin-
ions, but n ta suggestion was.heard of hos-
tility against the United Suites.
On comparing te timet y adduced by the
U. Sta.es with itself," this is observaoie —
Tnat wnich relate;, io treason md c nes t le
general design, while that Inch rem es to
the midemeanor points to the particular ex-
perh i,n which was actually commenced.—
Weighing the whole itiiis testimony, it
appears to me to preponderate in fav r of
toe (,pinion, tnai the enterpnze wa,, ready
designed against Mexico.
Bm thee is strong reason t . suppose tbnt
the embarkati n was to .e made at New.
Orlean-, and that t is said oould not t .ke
place without subletting tor a time the. go-
vernment i toe territory, which it is alledg-
ed would be t.eason. I'tie supreme court
has said tint t.> levoiutiouize a' territory by
torce, althm^n merely as a .step to or a mean
i t executing some gre.iler proj, j;t is treason.
But an embaikation of troops again t a fo-
reign country may be made without revoluti-
onizing the governmeiu of the place, .md
¦vithout subvert i;i_; the legitimate auinoiuy.
It is Hue that violence might probably re-
sult from sucti an attempt and tieason might
be the consequence of Us execution ; but
this treason would ai im- incidentally and
would not be the direct object for which the
men originally assembled. Tins treason
would attach to those who coram,tted it, but
would not 1 am in lined to think, iutect
a pievious assemblage convened for a dis-
ti.,ci purpose. It the object of the assem-
blage at Hie mouth of Cumberland was to
embark at New-Orleans for the purpose of
invading Mexico, the^-lav relative to that
assemblage wo.ild be essentially diifeient
from what il might be if their direct objr'ct
wes to subvert the g veinmeut oi New-Or-
leans oy force, li in prosecuting their pur-
pose, ai Ne>v-v):iea.is war sti uid DC levied,
mis would Oe treason at New. Orleans when
toe lact was committed, bm u c uld not I
think be said to U treason by levying war
at the mouth oi Cuuiperland wheie me tact
w,is neithet c l«mitted not intended. It
might oe oitierwise, if al the tuuulh ot
Cumberland, the determination to subvert
tne government ot a territory by torce tiad
been formed.
T.ds vpiiiionmay be in some degree illus
ti.mu by the ductune of Uie fin^li.-n hooKs.
i,i vy itlg ol war is an overt act oi compassing
khe king's death. So is a conspaacy to l<-v)
War, provided the conspiiacy be dnected
a ,-.11,,sL ih. king or Ins govvri.nit'iit. but it
ii be a conspiracy to do an act ot construe
tive treason, which act, if done, would sup
port an indictment for compassing the kin^ s
death, the con piracy without the act, will
nut support the indictment. So in tins case,
if the oojrct be an embarkation of a body ot
men against a foreign country, in the execu-
tion ot wiiich war may or m..y nor. be levied,
toe fact becomes necessary to constitute the
treason.
It is also a circumstance of considerable
weight with me, that the proof exhibited by
tin- Llniteo States to establish a general de-
sign to dismemoer the union, applies only to
colonel tiuir and Mr. hlcniierha-ssett. It is
not proved to have beer, ever communicated
even to Tyler and Floyd. Theie is not only
a failure to prove that such a design was
communicated to or entertained by the men
wdio v ere assembled at the mouth ot Cum-
berland but the contrary is'in lull evidence.
Toe United States haie adclustd several wit-
nesses belonging to that assemblage who con-
cur in declaring that they heard nothing,
toat they suspecied nothing, and that they
woulsi have executed nothing hostile to the
Uiiited Slates. This testimony cannot be
disregarded, for it is uncontradicted and is
offered by the prosecution. How then can
this assemblage be said to have levied war
against the United States ?
Had Burr and Blennerhassett constituted
this meeting, no man could have constru-
ed it into act of levying war, whatever
might have been their purpose. They be-
ing joined by others having no hostile in-
tentions against the United States, who
were attached to them with other views,
and who weuld n«d permit themselves to be
employed in the execution of such intenti-
ons, docs not seem to me to alter the case.
The reason why men in a posture of war
may be said to levy war belore a blow is
struck, is, that they are ready to strike, and
war consists in the various movements of a
militaiy force, as well as in actual fighting.
But these men were not ready nor willing
to strike, jit r could their chief be ready to
strike without them. He'hadyet toprevail up-
on them to come into li is measures. This is
not a meeting for the purpose of executing
a formed design, but a meeting for the pur-
pose of forming a design. It is therefore
more in the natuce ef conspiracy thaa of
actual war.
Suppose Mr. Burr tiad at the mouth pf •
Cumberland declared his object to be to
sieze upon Ne-v-Orleans and dismember the
Union; and that upon this declaration, his
men had universally abandoned him, could
this have been denominated an act of levy-
ing-war ? If we forget the constitution and
laws of our county, if we suppose treason,
like moral guilt, to consist in the intention
and it may be legally 'evidenced by words
declaring that intention, the ans er to this
question may be in the affirmative ; but if
it can consist only in an open deed of levy-
ing war, I confess myself unable to perceive
how such a proposition can be construed in-
to such a deed.
_ The case does riot appear to me to be es-
sentially varied by the circumstance, that
this design was not avowed, and that the
men followed col. Burr with other views.
Upon general principles it appears to me,
that unless some act be committed From
which a treasonable intent may be inferred,
that the treasonable intent must be proved
in the assemblage, where that assemblage is
composed of free agents, as well as1 in the
person who convenes them before the la v
considers war as being actually levied.
This opinion is supposed to be contrary
to the decision in the case of the earls ol
Essex and Southampton. I have examined
that case as reported in the si ate trial', and
d) not think it iri any respect contradictory
to the ideas I have delivered.
The design, of the earl of Essex was to
fsice his way into the palace, and io remove
Certain counsellors from the queen who
were his enemies ; but he intended no hurt
h> the pprsori of the queen. F r the pur
pose oi executing this design, he assi moled
a lar,;e body (pf armed m-iiat his own house
who continued embodied after being ord< r-
ed by the proper authority to disperse, and
he also entered the city ot London for the
purp se of raising the citizens in order fur-
thei to aid him in the execution of his plan.
Several consultations had been previously
held at which the earl of Southampton as-
sist (I ; and it is not alb dged in the case,
that he was not fully informed oi these pio-
jects. He behevid that no design was en-
tertained against the person ot the queen,
and therefoie that his acts were not treason-
able ; but in the law he was mistaken. In
fact, no particular design against her person
was entertained, and E.sex as little suspect-
ed as Southampton that they were commit-
ting treason. lh y were ignorant that the
law pronounced those facts to be treason,
but they were neither ignorant of ihe fa^ts
themselves, nor of, the real intention with
which those fac's were committed.
In this case, the judges delivered their opin-
ion of the law on two points. The one
" that in case where a subject attempteth to
put himself into such strengtl as the king
shall not be abie to resist him, and to force
and compel the king to govern otherwise
than according to his own iov.d authority
and direction, it is main est lehedion."—
The other, " that m every tebelli n the law
intended} as a consequent t, e compassing
ihe death and deprivation of the king, as
foreseeing that the rebel will never suffer
ti at king to live or reign who might | unisb
or taketevenge of his treason r rcfelliin."
Under this la v opinion ol the judges,
Ess, x and Southampton weie condemned
and exe< uled. Tne only difference betv, ceil
them was that the qn.iir^l a as the quariel o{
Es ex, and Southa,:,p on only adhered to
him ; orft he adhered to hun knowing .-hat
he oid una tne intention with winch he act-
ed.
Believing then the weight of testimony
to be in favor ot the opinion tha; liic real
and dtreci object of tne expediti n was Mex-
ico, and inclining also to tfie opinion
that in law either acts ol hostility and lesis-
tance to the government, or a hostile inten-
tion in ttie body assembled, is necessary to
conveit a meeting ot men with ordinary ap-
pearances into an act of levying w-ar, it
would in my judgment be improper in me
to commit the accused on the charge of
treason.
It is contended that they are not guilty of
a misdemeanor, on one of these grounds :
Either the United States were actually at
war - ith Spain, or the expedition was de-
pendent on war, and, in the event of peace,
was to be conveited into a settlement en the
Ouachita.
It is alledged that we were at war with
Spain, because a Spanish army had crossed
the Sabine and entered the territory of the
United States.
That a nation may be put into a state of
war by the unequivocal aggsessions of others
without any act of its own, is a proposition
which I am not disposed to controvert, but
I cannot concede this to be such an act.
The boundaries claimed by the United States
to their recent purchase of Louisiana are
contested by Spain. Now if either nation
takes possession of the contested territory as
its own, it is an act which the apposite go-
vernment may elect to consider either as an
act of war or otherwise, and only the go-
vernment can make that election. No ci-
tizen is at liberty to make it, or to anticipate
his government.
But it alledged that war, if not absolutely
made, appeared to be inevitable, and that the
prosecution of tire expedition depended on
its taking place. That the probability of
war was great, may be admitted; and this
j may extenuate the offence, but it still remains
! an offence which is punishable by law. If
the expedition was really eventual, and was
not to take place in time of peace, then cer-
| tainly preparations might be made for it
I without infracting any law ; but this is < fact
proper for the exclusive consideration of a
jury, and I shall make no comment upon it,
which might, the one way or the-other, in*
j fiuence their judgment.
1 shall commit A. Burr and Herman Blen-
; m-rhassett, for preparing and providing the
means for a niilitary expedition ajaltiit ih»
territories of a foreign prince, with whom
the United Stales were at peace. _ If those
whose province and duty it is to prosecute
offenders against the laws of the V. States,
shall be of opinion that a crime of a deeper
i been committed, it is at their choice
to act in conformity ,-, ith that opinion.
Israel Smith is not proved to have provid-
ed or prepared any means whatever, and
therefore I shall not commit him. If he has
really offended against the laws, he may be
prosecuted for the treason in Kentucky, or
for the misdemeanor in his own state, wliere^
if any where, his offence has been commit-
ed.
NEW YORK, November 4.
• Arri'eed,
The schr. Charlottee, Cad well from St.
Anns, Jam. and 5 days from Norfolk, rum,
pimento, and logwood. On Thursday, sup-
plied the brig Lion 6 months from Mocha,
for Baltimore, with provisions, then close in.
Tie sloop Hope, Neighbours, 2 days from
Cambden, corn and leather.
Cleared, ship Otis, Leeds, Leghorn ; sch'r
Marriner, Gale. Curracoa ; James & Kdward,
Cunningham, Halifax.
A vessel is said to have arrived in the De-
laware, in a short passage from Nantz.
The tirig tiniuie. from this port for • av-
enue, after being out 30 days, ai rived at N.
London, on Monday last, dismasted
PHILADELPHIA. Nov. j'J
Arrived, brio Mount-Vernon, Pierce,
Newport, 7 davs ; Charlotte, Weldenv
Havana ; schr. Resolution, Fulford. St.
Crox, (.i;. via Tortola sugars 23 ; Pros-
pect, Anthonv, New Bedford, 8.
Clea" d. brig Sophronia, Bird, La-Gui-
ra ; schr, Sea Horse, M'Connell, St. Jngo
de- Cuba ; President. Lewis, Boston ; En-
terpr ze Y' ung Richmond ; sloop Jane,
Titcomb, Portland.
FEDERAL GAZlVrTE.
FRIDAY, NOVEMBERS.
Extract of a 1'tter from a gentleman in N'env-
Orleans ft hii fr-end in Lexington, (Ken.)
d ted September 5, 1807.
'• Notwithstanding the extreme beat and
dryness of the season, I have remained in
the city all the summer, and I am happy to
say have enj yed very good health. Our
feopulatipn is estimated at from twelve to
fifteen thousand inhab tants of all a :es and
descriptions. The general average for two
or three years pnst, according to the bills of
mortaliy which I have examined is fifty two
per month. Considering the state of our
population, and the siiffei iftgs to « hich new-
ly imported negroes are subject, this is not
a great mortality, f r it does not amount
to two per diem. T-.e hole number of
Kentuokians who have died in Ne -Orle-
ans since this time last year, (and all who
navigate.flat boats are called Keniuckians,
whether from Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Ten-
nesse) d >es not ammount to but twelve per-
liamsay's Life <>j Washington.
We are pleased to li id, that from ,he well
meiied populanty of tins work (now sell-
ing at the no, k stores in this cu,y) ihe pub-
liner has a lair prospect of a very hand-
some remuneration. The name of Rams ATP
is alone Sufficient to sell a work, of winch
ue is announced its the author, Here ihe
virtues and the conduct of tne illustiiouj
Washington form the theme a .d Rotmsay 13
tne great narrator I> leading this work,
we are delighted with the author, and i.li.d
oiihgratilu e towards the much lamented
and unegualied man of whom this is a faith-
ful portrait.
No American, who justly prizes the true
glory of his country, can attentively lead
this volume without being a better, citizen ;.
no private or public libiary ought to be
without it.
VV hen, in speaking of the work before us,
we bestow the just meed of praise, and pro-
nounce it purt'h American, eloquent, im-
partial and dignified ; we would not be un-
derstood as attempting to depieciate the va-
lue of the splendid and masterly production
of chief justice Marshall. Marshall's Lift?
of the same exalted character, is a work so
much more vi luminous and expensive, that
it cannot be in common circulation.
BALTIMORE, November 5.
Mr. Hfc:WES,
Since I last addressed the public through
the channel of your paper, I have learned.
With pleasure, that independent of tho-e
friends, who weie within my house on
Tuesday Eve ring, not less than an hundu-d
more were in the street, viewing the conduct
of the Mob, watching their motion's, and
intermixing among them, well prepared to
act, whenever to act should be necessary.—•?
To all these I tender my sincere and grate-
ful thanks ; and pray them to accept my best-
wishes for the happiness of themselves and
of all, who are dear to them.
Thro' the channel.-of your paper let me
also, be indulged in giving to the public
the following letter from William Alexan-
der, esq. of Elkton, and one of those w ho
at that place celebrated the last fourth of
July. It is dated on the thirty-first of July
last, but not being sent by the Mail, and:
having myself left Baltimore, the 24th of
that month, I never saw it till yesterday.
Elkton, July 31, 1807.
Dear Sir,
Having seen your animadversions on
the three Toasts drank on the 41 h July, at
Elkton, I consider it a duty to inform you;
of my conduct on that occasion.
After dinner, when the Toasts were giv-
en out, I immediately spoke of the impro. er
sentiments, the gentleman next to me co-
incided in opinion with me, and observed*
we had better not disturb the company ; &
th§ gentleman on the other tide of me said
he would not drink them. I at the time and:
the next day, disavowed the Toasts, and
ever shall protest against such denunciations
against any man charged with a ci
|
