|
To William Branch Giles Monticello, April 20, 1807
DEAR SIR, -- Your favor of the 6th, on the subject of Burr's
offences, was received only 4 days ago. That there should be anxiety
& doubt in the public mind, in the present defective state of the
proof, is not wonderful; and this has been sedulously encouraged by
the tricks of the judges to force trials before it is possible to
collect the evidence, dispersed through a line of 2000 miles from
Maine to Orleans. The federalists, too, give all their aid, making
Burr's cause their own, mortified only that he did not separate the
Union or overturn the government, & proving, that had he had a little
dawn of success, they would have joined him to introduce his object,
their favorite monarchy, as they would any other enemy, foreign or
domestic, who could rid them of this hateful republic for any other
government in exchange.
The first ground of complaint was the supine inattention of the
administration to a treason stalking through the land in open day.
The present one, that they have crushed it before it was ripe for
execution, so that no overt acts can be produced. This last may be
true; tho' I believe it is not. Our information having been chiefly
by way of letter, we do not know of a certainty yet what will be
proved. We have set on foot an inquiry through the whole of the
country which has been the scene of these transactions, to be able to
prove to the courts, if they will give time, or to the public by way
of communication to Congress, what the real facts have been. For
obtaining this, we are obliged to appeal to the patriotism of
particular persons in different places, of whom we have requested to
make the inquiry in their neighborhood, and on such information as
shall be voluntarily offered. Aided by no process or facilities from
the federal courts, but frowned on by their new born zeal for the
liberty of those whom we would not permit to overthrow the liberties
of their country, we can expect no revealments from the accomplices
of the chief offender. Of treasonable intentions, the judges have
been obliged to confess there is probable appearance. What loophole
they will find in it, when it comes to trial, we cannot foresee.
Eaton, Stoddart, Wilkinson, and two others whom I must not name, will
satisfy the world, if not the judges, on that head. And I do suppose
the following overt acts will be proved.
- The enlistment of men in
a regular way.
- The regular mounting of guard round
Blennerhassett's island when they expected Governor Tiffin's men to
be on them, modo guerrino arraiali.
- The rendezvous of Burr with
his men at the mouth of the Cumberland.
- His letter to the acting
Governor of Mississippi, holding up the prospect of civil war.
- His capitulation regularly signed with the aids of the Governor, as
between two independent & hostile commanders.
But a moment's calculation will shew that this evidence cannot
be collected under 4 months, probably 5. from the moment of deciding
when & where the trial shall be. I desired Mr. Rodney expressly to
inform the Chief Justice of this, inofficially. But Mr. Marshall
says, "more than 5 weeks have elapsed since the opinion of the
Supreme court has declared the necessity of proving the overt acts,
if they exist. Why are they not proved?" In what terms of decency
can we speak of this? As if an express could go to Natchez, or the
mouth of Cumberland, & return in 5 weeks, to do which has never taken
less than twelve. Again, "If, in Nov. or Dec. last, a body of troops
had been assembled on the Ohio, it is impossible to suppose the
affidavits establishing the fact could not have been obtained by the
last of March." But I ask the judge where they should have been
lodged? At Frankfort? at Cincinnati? at Nashville? St. Louis?
Natchez? New Orleans? These were the probable places of apprehension
& examination. It was not known at _Washington_ till the 26th of
March that Burr would escape from the Western tribunals, be retaken &
brought to an Eastern one; and in 5 days after, (neither 5. months
nor 5. weeks, as the judge calculated,) he says, it is "impossible to
suppose the affidavits could not have been obtained." Where? At
Richmond he certainly meant, or meant only to throw dust in the eyes
of his audience. But all the principles of law are to be perverted
which would bear on the favorite offenders who endeavor to overrun
this odious Republic. "I understand," sais the judge, "probable
cause of guilt to be a case made out by proof furnishing good
reason to believe," &c. Speaking as a lawyer, he must mean legal
proof, i. e., proof on oath, at least. But this is confounding
probability and proof. We had always before understood that
where there was reasonable ground to believe guilt, the offender must
be put on his trial. That guilty intentions were probable, the judge
believed. And as to the overt acts, were not the bundle of letters
of information in Mr. Rodney's hands, the letters and facts published
in the local newspapers, Burr's flight, & the universal belief or
rumor of his guilt, probable ground for presuming the facts of
enlistment, military guard, rendezvous, threats of civil war, or
capitulation, so as to put him on trial? Is there a candid man in
the U S who does not believe some one, if not all, of these overt
acts to have taken place?
If there ever had been an instance in this or the preceding
administrations, of federal judges so applying principles of law as
to condemn a federal or acquit a republican offender, I should have
judged them in the present case with more charity. All this,
however, will work well. The nation will judge both the offender &
judges for themselves. If a member of the Executive or Legislature
does wrong, the day is never far distant when the people will remove
him. They will see then & amend the error in our Constitution, which
makes any branch independent of the nation. They will see that one
of the great co-ordinate branches of the government, setting itself
in opposition to the other two, and to the common sense of the
nation, proclaims impunity to that class of offenders which endeavors
to overturn the Constitution, and are themselves protected in it by
the Constitution itself; for impeachment is a farce which will not be
tried again. If their protection of Burr produces this amendment, it
will do more good than his condemnation would have done. Against
Burr, personally, I never had one hostile sentiment. I never indeed
thought him an honest, frank-dealing man, but considered him as a
crooked gun, or other perverted machine, whose aim or stroke you
could never be sure of. Still, while he possessed the confidence of
the nation, I thought it my duty to respect in him their confidence,
& to treat him as if he deserved it; and if this punishment can be
commuted now for any useful amendment of the Constitution, I shall
rejoice in it.
My sheet being full, I perceive it is high time to
offer you my friendly salutations, and assure you of my constant and
affectionate esteem and respect.
|