7. By that drawn on him by Colonel Burr, in favor of Belknap.

8. By a supposed contradiction between Mr. Smith’s statement respecting

the settlement of the Washita lands, in his deposition before Matthew

Nimmo, and the facts which appeared in evidence at Richmond. And

9. By a supposed similarity between the style of the conversation stated

in Glover’s deposition and that of Mr. Smith’s own deposition before

Nimmo.

By some of those proofs and circumstances, or by all of them taken

together, it is contended that a criminal connection between Smith and

Burr in the late conspiracy is established; and it is therefore incumbent

on me to consider them all; which I shall proceed to do in the order in

which they have been stated, and with as much brevity as the extent and

variety of the matter will admit.

As to the conversation stated by Elias Glover, I admit that, if it did

take place, it furnishes sufficient proof of a criminal participation

by Mr. Smith, in the enterprise of Colonel Burr, and sufficient ground

for a vote of expulsion. We are, therefore, to show that Glover’s

deposition, even when bolstered up by the furtive skulking affidavit of

his confederate, McFarland, is entitled to no credit. This we undertake,

and unless we do it in a satisfactory manner, I admit that we fail in our

defence.

And, first, we rely upon his bad character generally. To prove it, we

trace him from Newtown, in Connecticut, the place of his birth and

education, to Brookfield, and from thence to Delaware County, in the

State of New York. Five witnesses at the first of those places, seven

at the second, and twenty-one at the last, many of them proved to be

men of note and character where they live, and none of them proved or

even stated to be otherwise, have deposed that Elias Glover is a man of

general bad character. Several of them add, that he is not entitled to

belief on his oath. Now, let me ask, against what man of good character

could so many of his neighbors and acquaintances be brought to give such

testimony? The fact alone that so many men, who knew him in the places

where he has resided, consider him as a man of bad character, affords

plenary proof that he is so. These witnesses do not depose to particular

facts, but they speak of his general reputation, which they state to be

a bad one. This testimony is by no means rebutted by the depositions

produced on behalf of Glover. The deponents state that they never heard

any thing against his character. This may be true, and yet his character

a very bad one. But, take these depositions in their most liberal

construction, and what does the whole testimony amount to? Certainly to

this, that one-half of his neighbors consider him as a knave, and the

other half admit that, for any thing which they know, or have heard,

he may be an honest man. Surely, this is too equivocal a reputation to

entitle the ex parte deposition of its possessor to belief in a case of

this nature.

It must further be remarked, Mr. President, that the bad opinion which

these numerous witnesses express of Elias Glover’s reputation, does not

and cannot proceed from party feelings or political animosity; for the

principal witnesses, and those who have spoken in the strongest terms,

are proved to be of that political party to which Glover has taken

so much pains to prove that he belongs. They, as well as Glover and

McFarland, are proved to be most excellent republicans; and they have the

advantage of being proved also to be men of good character.

If we pursue Elias Glover in his next and last emigration to Cincinnati,

in the State of Ohio, we shall find that the bad character which he

acquired in early life, attends him still in his riper years. Col. James

Taylor, who was examined at the bar of the Senate, stated that there were

two parties in Cincinnati, “one of whom spoke well of Elias Glover, and

the other very unfavorably.” These two parties are not the two political

parties which divide our country. On the contrary, they both appear, with

the exception of some very few individuals, to be composed of exceedingly

good democratic republicans. What, then, were these two parties? One, I

answer, was composed of that portion of the citizens of Cincinnati, who

espoused the interests of Mr. Smith; and the other consisted of those

who had united themselves with his persecutor, Glover. The first speak

“very unfavorably” of Glover; and the last, as might be expected from his

associates and coadjutors, speak well of him.

And who, let me ask, belong to the party which speaks very ill of this

man? It must be answered, General Gano, General Carberry, Mr. Burnett,

Mr. Stone, Dr. Sellman, and a number of others, who have been proved to

be men of the first respectability in that part of the country. Has any

such favorable account been given of those who speak well of him? Far

from it. We know but little of them, and that little is very little to

their honor. Some of them, when called on by Mr. Smith to give evidence

in this case, refused to be examined. Some of them are proved to have

been connected with Glover, in the enterprise of Colonel Burr. And

McFarland, the chief of the party, was extremely active and zealous in

obtaining recruits for that enterprise. When he and Glover found that the

enterprise had failed, they took refuge, as is customary, in outrageous

patriotism; became the zealous hunters-up and denouncers of treason;

and, to use the language of Dr. Goforth in his deposition, attempted to

lay the body of John Smith as a pedestal whereon to rebuild their own

fallen reputations. Such men as these, no doubt, speak well of Glover. Be

it so. But, while General Gano, Doctor Sellman, Mr. Burnett, and almost

every other respectable man in the place, speak very ill of him, I shall

take the liberty of contending that “_cœlum non animum mutavit_;” that

he has not changed his manners with his residence; and that he still

merits and enjoys at Cincinnati that opprobrious distinction to which the

achievements of his early life gave him a title.

But, Mr. President, it is not on the general bad character of this man,

however clearly established, that we solely rely, for destroying his

credibility. I shall next proceed to show, that he has been guilty of

wilful and deliberate false swearing in no less than three instances.

Being interrogated before the grand jury at Chilicothe, whether he had

ever written and offered for publication, a piece ridiculing the measures

adopted by the Government for suppressing Colonel Burr’s enterprise?

he answered on his oath that he had not. He was, perhaps, not bound to

answer, but he did answer, and answered in the negative. This is stated

in the deposition of Ethan Stone, who was a member of the grand jury, and

has been proved at your bar to be a man of very respectable character.

And yet, two printers, Samuel L. Browne and D. L. Carney, connected with

Glover in politics, expressly swear that he did bring such a piece to

them for publication, and that they refused to admit it, because of its

tendency to bring those measures of the Government into derision and

contempt.

Again: on being further interrogated by the grand jurors, he admitted

that he did write such a piece, but that it was intended to ridicule the

conduct of the officers who had been appointed to carry the measures of

Government into execution, and not the measures themselves. Yet, Mr.

Burnett swears that Glover confessed to him that he had written the

piece for the express purpose of turning the measures of Government into

ridicule, and offered it to him for perusal.

Here could be no mistake. Either Glover or the other witnesses have

sworn to a falsehood. When their characters are contrasted with his,

there can be no hesitation where to fix it.

He also swore, before the grand jury, that he had never corresponded

with Col. Burr. This question, also, he was not bound to answer; but, to

prevent suspicion, he did answer it in the negative--so says Gen. Gano;

and yet George Russell, a man admitted to be respectable and intelligent,

swears that, in the fall of 1806, Glover gave him a letter, to be

delivered to Col. Burr, with directions to burn it if he did not see

Burr. This proves that he did correspond with Colonel Burr, because the

letter was too important to be delivered by Russell to any but Col. Burr

himself.

And this testimony is supported by that of Captain Nicholls, who

states, in his deposition, that when he was descending the Ohio, in

the command of one of Colonel Burr’s boats, Glover came on board of

the boat, and advised him how to proceed with it, so as to elude the

officers of Government; and yet this is the man who accuses John Smith of

participating in the views of Col. Burr! This is the jealous patriot who

swears that he communicated with Colonel Burr for no other purpose, but

to discover his views and pervert them!

But, the general bad character of Glover, and the deliberate falsehoods,

on oath, of which he has been proved guilty, are not all that we have

to oppose to his testimony against our client. That testimony has been

positively contradicted by his friend and confederate, McFarland. Glover

introduces his account of Mr. Smith’s conversation with him, about Col.

Burr’s plans and views, by stating that it took place in the presence

of a friend, who accompanied him to Smith’s house. It is fully proved

that McFarland was his friend. McFarland, therefore, must have heard the

conversation, if it ever took place, and he must have remembered it too,

for it is impossible to believe that a conversation so interesting, so

remarkable, from such a man as Mr. Smith, and on a subject which then so

greatly agitated men’s minds, could pass, in the presence of any man,

without taking strong hold on his attention, and sinking deep into his

memory.

Let us, then, hear McFarland on the subject of this remarkable

conversation, in which Mr. John Smith developed the treasonable character

of Col. Burr’s enterprise, and confessed his own participation.

We first find him conversing with Gen. Gano, to whom, long after this

conversation between him, Smith, and Glover, is stated to have taken

place, he declared that he was wholly ignorant of Burr’s plans, which

could not have been the case had he heard such a conversation as Glover

relates. He also stated to Gen. Gano, at the same time, that Glover’s

statement on this subject was incorrect; and he told another witness,

Mr. Longworth, that he knew nothing of Col. Burr’s plans, or against Mr.

Smith; which he could not have said with truth, had such a conversation

as Glover relates, taken place in his presence.

But all this it may, perhaps, be said, is mere conversation; and a man,

when not on oath, may easily be supposed to deny a fact, when it tends to

implicate himself in guilt.

Let us, then, hear McFarland on oath. When examined at Richmond, on the

trial of Col. Burr, though sworn to tell the whole truth, he says not

one word of this most remarkable and important conversation. And lately,

before the grand jury at Chilicothe, when interrogated as to this very

point, he declared that he knew nothing of the matter--that he had some

faint recollection of a conversation between Mr. Smith and Mr. Glover, on

the subject of Colonel Burr’s enterprise, but could recall to his mind

none of the particulars. This fact, and also the admission of Glover and

McFarland, that McFarland was the friend stated by Glover to have been

present at this conversation, are proved by Ethan Stone, General Gano,

and John Armstrong, three members of the grand jury, in their joint

deposition of February 20, 1808.

Now, Mr. President, let me ask whether any man can believe that such a

conversation took place, in the presence and hearing of Mr. McFarland;

that such confessions and disclosures on this most interesting subject

were made by Mr. Smith; and that McFarland had lost all recollection of

them, when examined before the grand jury, in January last? I answer,

that it is impossible; and that McFarland’s testimony, therefore, amounts

to a flat contradiction of Glover’s on this point.

And let it be remembered, that when Mr. Smith, under the order of the

Senate to take testimony for his defence, summoned this same McFarland to

give evidence on these points, and put questions to him for the purpose

of obtaining a full explanation, he positively refused to answer. I hold

in my hand the summons, the proof of its service, the questions of Mr.

Smith, and the magistrate’s certificate of McFarland’s refusal. This

wretch, who now appears among the accusers of John Smith, when called

upon to meet his intended victim face to face, and undergo the scrutiny

of a public examination, shrunk like a villain and a coward from the

investigation. Eager to destroy Mr. Smith, but not yet prepared to meet

the terrors of direct perjury, his mind maintained a short and faint

struggle between the desire of gratifying his malice and some remaining

sense of shame; but it was short and faint, indeed. For, within a few

days, his malice triumphed, and he made an _ex parte_, clandestine

deposition, not only without notice to Mr. Smith, but carefully concealed

from his knowledge, in which, in the teeth of all his former declarations

and oaths, he declares that Glover’s statement is correct. And this

deposition, conceived in malice and brought forth in perjury, is sent

forward to this bar, to bolster up the accusation against our honorable

client! What words can describe the mingled emotions of indignation

and disgust which such hardened profligacy (fortunately but seldom

exemplified) must excite in every virtuous mind!

I here dismiss McFarland, but I have not yet done with his confederate,

Glover, whose testimony against my client is further contradicted by

Matthew Nimmo, another of the actors in this black tragedy.

I hold in my hand an extract from Nimmo’s communication to the President,

bearing date the 28th November, 1806. This extract, which was furnished

by Nimmo, and is proved to be in his handwriting, contains some

information relative to Mr. Smith’s connection with Colonel Burr; which,

as it states, “was communicated by Colonel Burr, in a confidential

manner, to the person from whom Nimmo received them.” The person from

whom Nimmo received these communications was no other than Elias Glover.

This is manifest from Glover’s deposition, made not long afterwards, on

the 2d February, 1807, before this same Matthew Nimmo. Now, it will be

found, on a comparison, that Nimmo’s statement to the President, founded

on Glover’s communication, contradicts Glover’s deposition in two or

three essential points. In the communication to Nimmo, he alleges that

he received his information, in a confidential manner, from Colonel

Burr himself. In his deposition, he swears that he derived it from

the conversation of Smith, held in the presence of McFarland. In the

statement to Nimmo, he says that Mr. Smith had lately sent down the river

considerable shipments for the use of Col. Burr; but in his deposition

this most important fact is omitted. In the statement to Nimmo, it is

said that “next week two of his (Smith’s) sons descend the Ohio to join

Burr’s troops, and Mr. Smith follows shortly after.” In the deposition,

Mr. Smith is made to “express his regret that his engagements were such

that he could not go immediately himself, which he would do, if the

situation of his affairs would permit.”

Strong as these contradictions are, we have still stronger behind. We

have seen Glover’s deposition contradicted by McFarland and Nimmo,

two of his friends and confederates. We now introduce Glover himself

contradicting his own deposition.

Let it be kept in mind, that the conversation stated in Glover’s

deposition took place in September, 1805. He swears that, in that

conversation, Mr. Smith opened the criminal views of Burr, and his own

participation. Now, hear what he said in February following on this

subject to Mr. Longworth, one of those respectable witnesses whose

testimony we have adduced.

Mr. Longworth, in a deposition made in the presence of Glover,

who attended and cross-examined, after stating the substance of a

conversation between Glover and himself, relative to Mr. Smith, in

February, 1807, proceeds thus: “And, to the best of his (this deponent’s)

recollection, he (the said Glover) then declared, in express terms, that

he believed Mr. Smith unjustly accused, and that he was not concerned

with Burr in his expedition.” Contrast this with the deposition of

this same Glover, made February 2, 1807, a little while before the

conversation with Longworth, for the purpose of criminating Smith, as an

associate of Burr.

And James M. Lanier, another of the witnesses, tells us, in his

deposition, that in April, 1807, Glover, when charged by Smith with

having given information against him, at first denied the fact, and

afterwards, when more closely pressed, confessed that he had given

information, but declared that it was nothing of any moment, or capable

of operating to the disadvantage of Smith, towards whom he expressed a

friendly disposition. And yet, he had then made the deposition which is

now relied on for producing the disgrace and ruin of Mr. Smith! Can it be

possible that a tribunal composed of men with honorable feelings, will

listen for a moment to the testimony of a wretch who thus fabricates in

the dark an instrument of destruction, smooths his face to the smile of

friendship while he is preparing the mortal stab, and solemnly denies his

hellish machinations in order to lull his victim into a fatal security?

The falsehood of this accusation, independently of the direct proof of it

which we offer, is rendered in the highest degree probable by the extreme

enmity which Glover is proved to have borne towards Smith, and the active

endeavors which he had used to injure him. General Gano informs us in his

first deposition, that, as early as July 4th, 1806, Glover had abused

Smith most virulently in a public oration. Francis Dunlavy states in his

deposition, that, in August, 1806, Glover displayed “very great animosity

against Mr. Smith.” And Colonel Taylor, in his testimony at this bar,

informed us that Glover was “extremely active” in the measures attempted

for the injury of Mr. Smith by a party in Cincinnati, in the autumn of

1806. Doctor Sellman, Stephen McFarland, George Jordan, and John H.

Stall, furnish us in their depositions with a detail of those measures in

which Glover was extremely active. Let us hear what they were.

A meeting of the citizens of Cincinnati was called for some public

purpose, and was very numerously attended. Some resolutions were

passed by a very large majority. There is a small, but noisy party in

Cincinnati, calling itself “The Republican Society.” Some of its members

attended, and offered resolutions tending to criminate or vilify John

Smith. They were indignantly rejected by a large majority. These zealous

republicans, finding themselves out-voted, and being determined, as is

usual, not to submit to the majority, when against them, resolved to make

sure of their mark by calling clandestinely another meeting, to which

none but such as were selected by them for the purpose, and furnished

with tickets, should be admitted. The meeting was accordingly held

the next evening in the upper room of a tavern, and an attempt appears

to have been made, to pass the resolutions which the full meeting had

rejected, and which would, no doubt, have been then palmed upon the

public as the sense of the “people of Cincinnati”--for republicans love

to speak in the name of the people. But the people, in this instance,

chose to speak for themselves. They burst open the doors of the conclave,

and defeated the scheme. But the most zealous of the patriots were not to

be so repulsed. A few of them, and among the rest, the President, and Mr.

Secretary Glover, made their escape, met in private, and actually passed

their resolutions, which they forthwith published; taking care, at the

same time, to suppress the resolutions which had been adopted at the full

and public meeting, and of which Glover, as secretary of the meeting, had

possessed himself.

Is it difficult to believe--indeed, is it not highly probable, that a man

of Glover’s principles and character, who has gone such lengths as these,

to injure a person against whom he had conceived a resentment, would stop

at a false oath, if likely to effect his purpose? And ought not testimony

given under such circumstances, to be viewed with the utmost distrust?

Furthermore, can any thing be more improbable than that Smith should

make such a communication to Glover--to Glover his enemy, his public

traducer--who, in July, had abused him in a public speech; and in

August, had displayed very great animosity against him? What motives

for such a choice of a confidant, in an affair on which his character,

his fortune, and even his life, might depend? How does it happen, that

a man of John Smith’s understanding and prudence, passed over the long

list of his respectable and tried friends at Cincinnati, and fixed upon

Elias Glover, to whom alone to confide the most important secret of his

life? A man with whom he had long been on very ill terms; of whom, as

Mr. Isaac Burnett informs us in his deposition, he had long been in the

habit of thinking and speaking very ill, and whom, according to the same

gentleman, he was much surprised at seeing in his house! All this, it

must be allowed, is passing strange; and it will certainly require more

than the oath of Elias Glover to make us believe it.

Again: Why make this grave discourse to Glover, concerning Burr’s

plan? Was it to enlist volunteers? No! for Smith never appears to have

mentioned the subject to any other person; and if he was in Burr’s

secrets, he knew that Glover and McFarland were already enlisted. That

they were engaged, is proved beyond the least doubt. The evidence on this

point is full and unquestionable. They were not only engaged, but very

actively and zealously engaged. This, Smith, if he was also engaged, must

have known. Why, then, make a grave and mysterious disclosure to two of

his confederates, of the plans in which they were mutually embarked?

Can any thing be more ridiculous than the idea of a conspirator making

a formal disclosure of the conspiracy to two of his associates? This

single consideration would be sufficient to prove that the story of this

disclosure was invented by Glover, as a screen for his own guilt.

But how does it happen that Smith, in looking round for a confidant, did

not think of his friend Kelly, his confidential agent, and the usual

depository of all his plans and thoughts? Kelly, to whose character men

of the first rank in Kentucky, and amongst them Henry Clay, lately a

member of this House, have borne the most honorable testimony, tells us

in his deposition, that the highest degree of intimacy and friendship

subsisted between him and Smith, who wished to advance his fortune, and

was very desirous of assisting him. Yet Smith communicated to him nothing

of Burr’s plan. Desirous as Smith felt of promoting Kelly’s fortune,

and well acquainted as he was with the benefits of a contractorship, he

would hardly have failed to hold out to his friend the brilliant post of

contractor-general, or paymaster to Burr’s army; which, especially when

the treasures of Mexico should once be occupied, would have been so well

adapted to Kelly’s talents, and so fully adequate to all his desires.

Smith, however, does nothing of all this; and he not only avoids all

mention of these momentous and magnificent schemes to Kelly, but observes

an equal silence to his friends, Gano, Longworth, Findley, and Sellman,

while he singles out his persecutor and calumniator, Glover, as the

chosen depository of this great secret, and very gravely communicates it

to him and McFarland, with a full knowledge that they were, already, at

least as well apprised of it as himself.

Mr. President, this tale refutes itself. It is impossible for any man of

common sense to believe it. But, independently of external refutation,

the communication stated by Glover to have been made by Smith, carries

internal evidence of its falsehood, by the contradictions and absurdities

wherewith it abounds. Can any one believe that a man of John Smith’s

intelligence and knowledge told the ridiculous story about the frigate

which Mr. Somebody was building, or had completed, in the Southern

States, to be employed in this expedition? What! An individual in this

country build a frigate, to which so few fortunes are adequate? Mr.

Alston, who is probably the person meant, though rich, is well known not

to have the means of building a frigate, even were he disposed to expend

his whole fortune in such an enterprise. And this frigate, moreover,

was to be built in secret. Nobody was to see it; for otherwise, the

building of it by an individual, so strange a thing, would have been

a matter of notoriety, with which the newspapers would have rung, and

which it would have been wholly unnecessary for Smith to communicate to

Glover and McFarland, and ridiculous in the last degree to communicate

confidentially. A frigate built by an individual, and built in secret!

Can any one believe that John Smith, a Senator, and a man of information,

could tell so absurd a tale? Sir, a frigate cannot be built in a

dry-dock, although it may be kept there. It must be built openly. It

must be seen. Its commencement, and its progress, would be as well known

on the Ohio, long before it could be completed, as on the Potomac. And

to represent John Smith, a Senator, and a man of sense, gravely telling

such a tale to Glover, a lawyer, and McFarland, a judge, both men of some

information, accustomed to read the newspapers, and therefore knowing the

falsehood of the tale, is an absurdity so gross, that one is wholly at a

loss to conceive how Glover, who, depraved as he is, by no means appears

destitute of understanding, came to admit it into his fabrication. We

can account for it only by a reference to the kindness of an overruling

Providence, which, for the protection of innocence, sometimes impels

guilt to mar its own schemes, by a strange intermixture of folly with its

wickedness.

This deposition presents another instance of the same kind, though not

equally glaring. Glover swears that this communication was made to him

by Smith, under the strictest injunctions of secrecy. And yet he had

stated, in the beginning of the deposition, that the communication was

made in the presence of a friend, who proves to be William McFarland.

This is another instance in proof of the old adage, that “liars ought to

have good memories.” Before Glover came to the end of his deposition,

he forgot what he had said in the beginning, and thus fell into another

of those providential contradictions by which the falsehood of made-up

stories is often detected.

Reviewing, then, Mr. President, all these considerations--the bad

general character of Glover, at all the places where he had lived; the

repeated instances of wilful false swearing which had been fixed upon

him; the contradiction of this story by his friends and confederates,

McFarland and Nimmo, as well as by himself; his enmity to Smith, and

Smith’s ill opinion of him; Smith’s silence on this subject to all his

usual confidants and intimate friends; and the inherent contradictions

and absurdities of the story itself, I think myself warranted in saying,

that the credibility of Glover is completely overthrown, and that his

testimony must be laid out of the case.

I come next to that of Peter Taylor, and here I feel myself greatly

relieved, in being able to absolve him from the guilt of wilful false

swearing. His character is said to be fair, and, for aught we know, is

so. We are far from a wish to impeach it. But we shall show that in some

of the minute circumstances which he relates, and which are adduced as

grounds of suspicion against Mr. Smith, he probably mistakes, and that

the others are satisfactorily explained.

In ascertaining what degree of credit is due to an honest witness,

especially in relating, after a considerable lapse of time, minute facts,

which derive their complexion from circumstances apparently trivial,

it is proper, in the first place, to consider his education and habits

of life, and to inquire how far they have a tendency to produce that

accuracy and precision of conception and language, whereon the weight of

such testimony almost wholly depends. Apply this rule to Peter Taylor.

Admit him to be perfectly honest in his intentions. But we find him to

be an illiterate laborer, sometimes employed as a menial servant. Such

a man is likely enough to have a distinct perception, and an accurate

recollection, of such facts as he is accustomed to observe. But when he

speaks of things out of the usual track of his business, his thoughts,

and his observation; when he attempts, at such a distance of time, to

relate very minute facts, in which he could not have taken any interest

at the time; I ask, if we can implicitly rely on the clearness of his

comprehension, or the exactness of his memory? Is it not highly probable

that he may have misconceived at the time, or forgotten since, some of

those circumstances, apparently minute, on which the character of the

whole transaction frequently depends?

But if, in addition to this general reasoning, it should appear that

the witness has, in relating other parts of this transaction, committed

several mistakes, will it not be admitted that his recollection is

too confused or imperfect to command our confidence or influence our

decisions? This is the case with Peter Taylor. In his testimony, taken at

Richmond, from which the part now used against Mr. Smith is extracted,

he relates that, in October, 1806, Blannerhasset, on their return from

Kentucky, pressed him to join Colonel Burr’s expedition, and that he

consented to go, provided he might take his wife and family; to which

Blannerhasset did not consent. On his cross-examination, he states that

his wife died in the September preceding. He also relates, in his direct

testimony, that when the party left Blannerhasset’s island he saw Dudley

Woodbridge on the bank. And it is proved by Woodbridge himself, and by

Morris B. Belknap, that Woodbridge was at that time in bed, and was not

on the bank at any time during that night. These are small mistakes, but

they prove that Taylor’s recollection of minute circumstances, such as

those which he details concerning Mr. Smith, cannot be relied on.

The first of these circumstances is, that Mr. Smith, on being informed

that he was a servant of Blannerhasset, asked him to go up stairs. This,

at first view, might have a suspicious appearance, as if Mr. Smith wished

to make or receive some communications which required privacy. But when

we learn that Mr. Smith had his office up stairs, where he usually wrote,

and that he wished to write a letter by Taylor, the mystery vanishes, and

the circumstance stands fully explained.

But he wrote a letter to Colonel Burr. No doubt, Mr. President, a letter

from Mr. Smith to Colonel Burr, at that time, has in itself a suspicious

appearance. But we are made acquainted with the contents of the letter,

and the suspicion disappears. Instead of being a criminal correspondence

concerning an enterprise in which they were mutually engaged, it is a

letter informing Colonel Burr of the suspicions afloat concerning his

plans and movements, and requesting an explanation, for Smith’s own

satisfaction. Nothing could be more natural than such a step, on the part

of Mr. Smith. Colonel Burr had long been his acquaintance and friend,

and recently his guest. He could not, therefore, be indifferent, either

on Colonel Burr’s account or his own, to the reports in circulation.

These reports were founded on mysterious circumstances, which Mr. Smith

supposed could be satisfactorily explained, and he wrote to obtain this

explanation. No conduct could be more rational or more commendable. It

was kind and candid towards his friend, and cautious towards himself.

The answer which he obtained was well calculated to quiet his alarms.

His original letter is not in our power, but we have produced a copy of

it. The answer, however, in the handwriting of Colonel Burr, is now in

my hand. This letter is no after-thought; no subsequent contrivance for

exhibition; for Mr. Broadwell has proved that he saw it delivered to Mr.

Smith from the post-office. Let it be attentively read; let the situation

of Colonel Burr and of Mr. Smith at that time be considered; and then

let gentlemen candidly declare, whether they think that Mr. Smith, after

receiving that letter, could regard Colonel Burr in any other light

than that of an honorable man, indignantly repelling unfounded and

injurious suspicions? [Here Mr. HARPER produced the original letter, the

handwriting and authenticity of which were recognized by several of the

Senators.]

But Mr. Smith inquired anxiously about the news, in the part of the

country from which Peter Taylor had come. And what more natural, what

more usual, than to inquire the news, especially in a time of alarm and

apprehension? The operations of Colonel Burr were the subject of general

conversation, and had excited no small alarm. The plot, whatever it

was, appeared to thicken about Blannerhasset’s island. Of course every

one felt anxious to know what was going on at that place, and in its

neighborhood. This circumstance, then, is of no moment; and the letter,

the only ground of suspicion, being fully explained, every thing is

explained, except the last fact stated by Taylor, on which I will now

bestow some attention.

Taylor states that Mr. Smith offered him something to drink, and

“charged him not to go to any tavern, lest the people should be sifting

him with their questions.” Sift him about what? Did Smith then suppose

that Blannerhasset’s gardener and servant was possessed of the secrets

of the conspiracy, which might be sifted out of him? Is it credible

that so gross and absurd an idea could be entertained by a man of his

understanding? Had he used precautions to prevent Blannerhasset himself

from being sifted, there would have been some sense in it: but to suppose

him afraid of the gardener’s being sifted about things, which if he knew

them himself he must have been satisfied that the gardener could not

know, is to impute to him more folly than those who charge him with a

principal participation in Colonel Burr’s designs, would be willing to

admit.

Will it be said that Smith was afraid of the gardener’s being sifted

about the public occurrences in the island and its neighborhood, which a

person in his situation might be supposed to know? I answer, why should

he be so afraid? As those circumstances were notorious, the gardener

could do no harm by telling them; and they would speedily be known at

Cincinnati, whether he told them or not.

It is therefore impossible to suppose that Smith’s wish to keep Peter

Taylor away from the taverns, if he really had such a wish, proceeded

from any fear of disclosures which Taylor might make. It is much more

probable that Taylor, whose recollection we have already found to be very

imperfect, or to whom these little circumstances could not then have

appeared to be of any importance, has fallen into a mistake in relating

them, than that John Smith did so foolish a thing. He might, indeed,

caution Taylor not to go to a tavern, for fear that he should get engaged

in drinking, and delay his time--a thing which he knew was very likely to

happen to a man in Taylor’s situation; and it is possible, that in order

to keep him away, he endeavored to alarm him about something that might

happen to him at the tavern. This matter, floating confusedly in Taylor’s

brain, has at last assumed the form of this story about sifting, which

has found its way into his testimony, and is now adduced to fix a charge

of treason on John Smith.

And it is not a little surprising, if we are implicitly to believe Peter

Taylor, that Mr. Smith, after having taken so much pains to keep him away

from the taverns, for fear of his being sifted, should immediately have

sent him to one to get his horse fed; thus exposing him, for the value of

a gallon of oats, to the very danger from which he had just appeared so

anxious to guard him. “He then showed me,” says Taylor, “a tavern, and

told me to go to get my horse fed by the hostler, but not to go into the

house.” Does not this prove that if Smith wished to keep Taylor out of

the taverns, it was to preserve him from the temptation to get drunk and

lose his time, and not to keep him out of the way of questions? Had the

latter been his object, would he have sent this man to a tavern at all?

Would he not have had the horse fed in his own stable, or sent him to the

tavern by his own servant?

I here dismiss the story of Peter Taylor, Mr. President, presuming to

believe that the only fact of any moment, the letter, is satisfactorily

cleared up by the letter itself and Colonel Burr’s answer; and that

the other slight and trivial circumstances of suspicion are fully

explained, or resolved into the confusedness and inaccuracy of

Taylor’s recollection. Certainly facts so doubtful in themselves, so

inconsiderable, so capable of being misunderstood by the witness, ought

not to have any weight in such a case as this.

The testimony of Major John Riddle comes next to be considered; in which

he states that Mr. Smith told him that he knew more of Colonel Burr’s

plans than any other person in the State of Ohio, except one. Smith no

doubt did, at that time, suppose that he knew a great deal about Burr’s

plans, for he had then received the letter in which Burr affects to

explain them. It is not therefore surprising that he should make this

remark to Major Riddle; but as Major Riddle was, at the time of this

communication, the commander of a body of militia, stationed on the Ohio

to oppose Burr’s progress, it would have been most surprising if Smith,

having a knowledge of Burr’s real plan, had selected this officer as a

person to whom to boast of it. This consideration discloses the true

nature of Smith’s communication to Major Riddle. He believed that he

knew Burr’s plans, and that they were innocent. He therefore told Major

Riddle so; but had he really known them to be criminal, this officer was

one of the last persons in the world to whom he would have disclosed

his knowledge. Thus this casual communication to Major Riddle, which

the malicious industry of Mr. Smith’s enemies has hunted up and adduced

as a proof of his guilt, appears to be a most convincing proof of his

innocence.

But Mr. Smith also told Riddle “that if Burr succeeded, he would prefer

living at Cincinnati, to Philadelphia or New York, on account of

business.” Succeeded in what? Why in the innocent plans, which Smith had

just before told Riddle that he understood better than any person in

Ohio, but one. These plans, as explained by Colonel Burr to Mr. Smith,

were to form a strong and numerous settlement on the Washita, and in case

of a Spanish war to invade Mexico, under the authority of the Government.

And Mr. Smith, without more aid from the imagination than men usually

obtain in such cases, might have brought himself to believe that in case

these plans should succeed, they would give rise to a vast trade between

the country on the Ohio, and the new settlement or conquests; that

Cincinnati would become the centre of this trade, and that he, by reason

of his connections and situation, would be able to obtain a large share

in it. This might have been an airy speculation, but it was certainly an

innocent case; for it is manifest that the plans on the success of which

it was bottomed were innocent plans. Such Smith, at that time, supposed

Burr’s plans to be; or he would not have made his knowledge of them a

subject of conversation with Major Riddle.

That Major Riddle himself viewed the matter in this light, is evident

from his conduct. He was stationed on the river, with the command of a

detachment of militia, and had orders from his superior officer, General

Gano, to collect as much information as possible respecting Colonel

Burr’s plans and associates, and to report this to his General. Of

this we are informed by a deposition of General Gano himself; who also

states that Major Riddle did report to him, but made no mention of this

conversation with Mr. Smith, nor alluded to Mr. S. in any manner. This

conversation, therefore, must have been on the whole of such a nature,

or accompanied by such circumstances, as to make it appear perfectly

innocent to Major Riddle; who, otherwise, must have communicated it

as matter of suspicion at least to his commander. Had we enjoyed the

opportunity of cross-examining Major Riddle, these circumstances, and

the rest of the conversation, would no doubt have been recalled to his

recollection, and fully explained by him. In an ex parte deposition they

have been forgotten, or omitted as unimportant--an additional and very

striking example of the importance of the privilege of being confronted

with the witnesses against us, and of the danger of admitting any species

of ex parte testimony.

I come now, Mr. President, to the testimony of Colonel James Taylor, who

represents Mr. Smith as having, in a conversation with him and others at

Cincinnati, expressed opinions favorable to a separation of the Union.

It is to be recollected that Dr. Sellman, the brother-in-law of Colonel

Taylor, and a warm friend of the present Administration, was also present

at this conversation. This clearly appears from Dr. Sellman’s deposition

of February fifteenth, 1808, compared with the testimony of Colonel

Taylor. Dr. Sellman has stated this conversation with great accuracy:

and he represents Mr. Smith as having not even expressed an opinion,

much less a wish that the Union would be dissolved, but merely as having

repeated the opinions of a writer, under the signature of the Querist,

who had advocated a separation. Dr. Sellman tells us that there were five

or six persons present, none of whom however he names, except Mr. Smith

and Colonel Taylor. Let us take his own words:

“After attending some time to the conversation, I noticed

that a reference was occasionally made to a publication, or

publications, in the Marietta paper. For some time I was at

a loss to determine whether those gentlemen were expressing

their own opinions, or those contained in that publication;

for I was not present at the commencement of the conversation,

though it did appear to me to be a detail of the opinions set

forth in that publication. As it is now impressed on my mind,

I believe, to more fully satisfy myself, I asked a question.

Nor can I perfectly remember whether I intended the question

particularly for Mr. Smith, or for both the gentlemen; but I

believe it was intended for Mr. S. ‘Do you expect or apprehend

an early separation of the Union?’ To which Mr. S. replied,

‘Not in my lifetime; and I hope, or pray to God, I may never

live to see it, whether it takes place sooner or later.’ This

declaration being perfectly satisfactory to me, I paid little

or no attention to the conversation, and afterwards, I believe

soon afterwards, left the place. I did not hear Mr. S., or

any person present, advocate a separation of the Union; nor

have I ever before or since that time, heard Mr. S. advocate a

separation of the Union.”

Thus, then, we see, sir, that these two witnesses--men of equally fair

and respectable character, and equal intelligence--differ entirely in

their manner of understanding this conversation, in which they both

took a part. Colonel Taylor understands Mr. Smith to have advocated a

separation, and Dr. Sellman declares that he did not advocate it, but

merely repeated the arguments of the Querist, and expressed his hope

that a separation might never take place, and that, if it did, he might

not live to see it. Now let me ask whether this contradiction, between

two witnesses equally entitled to credit, does not leave the matter at

least in doubt? Do not the scales hang in equilibrium? And in this state

of doubt, can you decide in the affirmative? Does not the matter remain

precisely as if there were no proof on either side; and can you decide

affirmatively in the absence of proof? Is it not a fair and rational,

as well as legal, presumption, that a man is innocent till his guilt

appears; and can you say that Mr. Smith’s guilt appears, when the only

witness against him is contradicted by a witness of equal credit?

But I go further, Mr. President. I contend that every presumption derived

from the nature of the case, and the circumstances and situation of

the parties, is in favor of the statement made by Dr. Sellman. In the

first place, it appears that Dr. S.’s attention was particularly drawn

to the subject, and that he asked a question for the express purpose

of ascertaining whether those gentlemen spoke their own sentiments,

or merely repeated those of the writer. It is not therefore at all

probable that he would forget, or so widely mistake, a fact, to which

his attention was so strongly attracted. Had Mr. Smith advocated a

separation, as is now supposed by Colonel Taylor, Dr. Sellman could not

possibly have been in doubt on the subject, and his question would have

been useless and silly.

Secondly, we find Dr. Sellman very accurate and positive in his

recollection of Mr. Smith’s answer. It is impossible to suppose him

mistaken in a point which interested him so much, and must have made so

strong an impression on his mind. This answer of Mr. Smith is utterly

inconsistent with the statement of Colonel Taylor; for it is incredible,

that after having advocated a separation to Colonel Taylor and General

Findley, he should immediately, and in their presence, deprecate it to

Dr. Sellman as a misfortune, which he hoped, if it must befall us, he

should not live to see.

Thirdly, as Dr. Sellman was warmly opposed to a separation, it is most

certain that his attention must have been very strongly arrested, and

indeed his indignation excited, by such a conversation as Colonel Taylor

attributes to Mr. Smith; which could not have escaped his attention, or

so soon have been effaced from his memory.

It appears, in the fourth place, that there were several other persons

present at this conversation. Dr. Sellman says five or six, though he

does not name any of them. Colonel Taylor says that General Findley was

present. Now let me ask, if such sentiments had been expressed, in such

a company, by a man holding Mr. Smith’s situation in the Government,

would they not have attracted great attention, and given rise to much

conversation? Would not the matter, in all probability, have come to the

ears of some of those persons in Cincinnati who have been so active and

persevering in collecting testimony against Mr. Smith? And would not some

of those who heard this conversation, beside Colonel Taylor, have been

called on to testify?

Again: Why should Mr. Smith, on this occasion alone, have made himself

the advocate of dismemberment? Had he been disposed to preach this

doctrine, in the hope of making converts, would he have confined his

exertions to this one time and place? There is no evidence, nor even

accusation of his having broached the subject any where else; and if he

had done so, it could hardly have escaped notice. Had he been a promoter

of separation, would he have addressed himself solely to those persons

whom he must have known to be most averse from it; or would he not have

chosen for his hearers the weak and ignorant, who were most likely to be

affected by the usual arguments in favor of such a measure?

All these difficulties are reconciled by supposing, with Dr. Sellman,

that Mr. Smith merely repeated, without approbation, the opinions of

the Querist; and that Colonel Taylor misunderstood him as stating his

own opinions and wishes. He might even have gone further, and have

expressed an opinion or apprehension of his own, that the Union would

one day separate. That such a speculative opinion, or rather fear, is

entertained by many among us, who most ardently deprecate the event, is

notorious; and we find, from General Carberry’s testimony, that Colonel

Taylor himself is of this number. He told Gen. Carberry that he thought

the Union would separate in twenty years, and Gen. C. reproved him for

fixing even an imaginary period to its duration. It does not follow

from this that Colonel Taylor wished for a separation; and, surely,

what he innocently thought and expressed, as a matter of speculative

opinion, or of fear and dread, Mr. Smith may have innocently thought

and expressed in the same manner. That Colonel Taylor should mistake

the nature and extent of these expressions; should understand them as

arguments in favor of separation, is far more probable, than that Mr.

Smith should have advanced such arguments, at such a time, and in such a

company. When to this strong probability we add the positive testimony

of Dr. Sellman, I cannot but confidently hope that it will remove every

doubt on the subject. Had Mr. Smith advocated a separation of the Union

at such a time, it would no doubt have justified strong suspicions of

his being connected with the plans of Colonel Burr, which probably had

dismemberment, in part at least, for their object. But I humbly trust,

Mr. President, that the charge, without impeaching the integrity of so

respectable a witness as Colonel Taylor, has been completely disproved.

The next circumstance alleged against Mr. Smith, as evidence of a

connection with Colonel Burr, is the visit which he paid to Frankfort,

in Kentucky, in the autumn of 1806. This has been supposed to be a

visit to Colonel Burr; but the testimony which we have adduced shows

most satisfactorily, that it was a journey on public business. To this

point our evidence is full and complete. Mr. Smith, then contractor

for the army, was called on for very large supplies, on account of the

additional force called to the Sabine. He found, on inquiry from his

agents in Kentucky, whose depositions we have produced, and who are

proved to be men of character, that purchases could be made there on

very advantageous terms, for cash. He was not in cash, and therefore

resolved to try whether he could sell or discount bills on Philadelphia.

The best prospect of making this operation to advantage, and indeed

the only prospect of making it at all, was with the Insurance Company

at Lexington, which acts as a bank and exchange office. He accordingly

went to Lexington for that purpose. On his arrival there, he heard, for

the first time, as is fully proved, that Colonel Burr was on his trial

at Frankfort, where most of the directors of this Insurance Company

were attending the trial. He then resolved to go to Frankfort, for the

purpose of sounding them on the subject. He arrived there in the evening,

and stopped at a tavern, where he soon learned that Colonel Burr also

lodged. In the course of the evening, he paid a short complimentary

visit to Colonel Burr, saw some of the directors, learned from them that

his object of selling or discounting bills could not be accomplished,

and early next morning set out on his return home. All these facts are

satisfactorily proved. I will not recapitulate the testimony, which is

fresh in the recollection of the honorable members. But, I ask, what is

there criminal or suspicious in this transaction? Surely, it would be a

waste of time to employ it in the refutation of such a charge.

The next point to which I am to call the attention of this honorable

House, is the bill drawn by Colonel Burr on Mr. Smith, in favor of

Lieutenant Jackson. The drawing of this bill is adduced as a proof

of connection between Colonel Burr and Mr. Smith. It admits of most

satisfactory explanation in two different ways.

In the first place, it is notorious that Colonel Burr, in order to

increase the number and the confidence of his partisans, was in the

habit of representing himself as being connected with, and supported by,

many persons, whose names he supposed would add some credit and weight to

his enterprise; and who are known to have opposed his schemes, instead

of being engaged in them. Of this, the case of Commodore Truxton is a

striking instance. In this case, we find that Colonel Burr was very

desirous of engaging Mr. Jackson in his enterprise. Jackson was reluctant

and doubtful. Mr. Smith was a man of note and consequence, whose name

might well be supposed to have much influence on the mind of a youth like

Jackson; and to draw a bill on him, for an object connected with the

enterprise, was an indirect, but very significant mode of telling Jackson

that he was engaged. To artifices of this kind, we know that this unhappy

man had constant recourse. He, no doubt, sometimes deceived himself; but

he very often attempted to deceive others, in hopes of drawing them into

those schemes which have plunged him into irretrievable ruin.

Secondly, we know that Colonel Burr, when he set out from Cincinnati

on his journey down the river, left a sum of money in the hands of

Mr. Smith. This is proved to be usual with persons travelling in

that country, and may have been done by Col. Burr, from motives of

convenience, or with a view of giving himself the appearance of a

connection with Mr. Smith, by drawing on him. But it was done. The

money was in Mr. Smith’s hands. Colonel Burr had drawn for it, in favor

of Belknap, and he could not have known that Belknap’s bill had been

accepted, or would be so, before Jackson’s should be presented. He had

drawn in favor of Belknap, for his own use. He might, therefore, well

have supposed that the money was still in Mr. Smith’s hands, and that he

had a right to draw for it.

But, in whatever way we account for his drawing this bill, it was his

own act; an act which he had no right to do, beyond the money left by

him in Mr. Smith’s hands. To bring this act home to Mr. Smith, and make

it evidence against him, it must be shown that he had given Colonel Burr

authority to draw. In other words, had agreed to supply him with funds.

Drawing the bill is nothing more than a declaration by Colonel Burr;

and this declaration cannot affect Mr. Smith, unless he authorized it

previously, or confirmed it afterwards by paying the bill. Colonel Burr

drew a bill on me for $1,500, which I had not authorized, and declined

to accept. Because Colonel Burr thought fit to take this step, am I,

therefore, to be considered as engaged in his schemes? Surely, his mere

declaration cannot be allowed to criminate Mr. Smith. If it could, how

extensively would the principle operate! How many of the best men in the

country would be implicated!

There is another circumstance which strongly confirms the view which

we give of this subject. When Colonel Burr directed Jackson to call

on Smith with the bill, he does not tell him to apply to Smith for any

information concerning his plans. On this subject, he referred him solely

to General Tupper. So says Jackson, expressly. But why to Tupper, rather

than Smith? Smith was a much more important man than Tupper; and if

engaged in the scheme, was quite as capable of giving him information. He

would have given it much sooner, too, for Tupper lived at Marietta, and

Smith at Cincinnati; where Jackson, in his journey up the river, would

first arrive. Why, then, I say, direct the application to Tupper, rather

than to Smith? Sir, the reason is obvious. Colonel Burr, though he might

have been willing to insinuate, by drawing the bill, that Mr. Smith was

engaged, knew very well that he was not; and that, if he should direct

Jackson to call on him for information, it would lead to detection. This

fact alone proves, more strongly than a thousand witnesses, the innocence

of Mr. Smith. Witnesses may misunderstand, forget, or prevaricate; but

facts like this lay open the hearts of men, let us into their inmost

thoughts, and speak a language which we can neither misunderstand nor

disbelieve.

As to the bill drawn by Colonel Burr on Mr. Smith, in favor of Belknap,

which Mr. Smith paid, and which forms the next head of accusation, I

beg leave to read to the Senate the testimony of General Carberry. He

states that, some time before the date of this bill, Mr. Smith informed

him that Colonel Burr, finding it inconvenient to carry his money with

him, when he went down the Ohio, left it at Cincinnati in the care of

Mr. Smith; a circumstance which the same witness proves to be usual with

persons travelling in that country, and on which it is impossible to

lay any stress: for every body must admit that had the money been left

for any improper purpose, Mr. Smith would have kept the knowledge of it

to himself, instead of communicating it as he did to General Carberry.

The bill drawn in favor of Belknap, and paid, might of itself, standing

alone, furnish some ground of suspicion against Mr. Smith, as tending to

show that he was in the habit of supplying Colonel Burr with funds; but

when it comes to be connected with the deposit of money, which is proved

by General Carberry, it is completely explained. For nothing was more

natural than that Colonel Burr, having left his money with Mr. Smith,

should direct it to be paid to a person to whom he owed it, or who was to

employ it for his benefit.

I come now, Mr. President, to the seeming contradiction between the

statement of Mr. Smith, and the testimony taken at Richmond on the trial

of Colonel Burr, upon which I understand that some stress is laid. I say

the “seeming contradiction,” because I feel confident of being able to

show clearly that no real contradiction exists.

Mr. Smith, in his deposition before Matthew Nimmo, states that Colonel

Burr, early in September, 1806, spoke of the settlement of his Washita

lands. By the testimony given at Richmond in the trial of Colonel Burr,

by Lynch, from whom those lands were purchased, it appears that the

contract was not made with Colonel Burr till after the time when Mr.

Smith states this conversation to have taken place. Hence it is inferred

that Colonel Burr could not have spoken to Mr. Smith of his Washita lands.

But is it forgotten that Colonel Burr was in the habit of speaking of

these lands as his, and of his intention of settling them, long before

the period assigned by Mr. Smith for this conversation? This appears from

the testimony of Commodore Truxton, delivered at Richmond on the same

trial. He states, that in the summer of 1806, before Colonel Burr set out

for the Western country, he spoke of his Washita lands, and of his plan

of settlement. This he did either because he had then made an informal

contract for those lands, and therefore considered them as his, though

the formal contract of sale was not then made; or because he had then

contrived this disguise for his projects, and merely made use of it to

cover his real design, from Smith and others with whom he thus conversed.

In either case he would speak of the land as belonging to him. Indeed,

this whole argument against Mr. Smith rests on the idea that Colonel

Burr cannot be supposed to have said any thing that was not true. Mr.

Smith states that Colonel Burr spoke of his Washita lands, at a time when

those lands in fact were not his. Therefore Mr. Smith must have stated

an untruth. I believe that gentlemen will not, on reflection, find this

argument very solid.

One more point, Mr. President, and I shall conclude an argument, by which

I fear this honorable body has been, as I certainly have, very much

fatigued.

It is said that there exists a strong similarity between the deposition

of Elias Glover, and the statement made by Mr. Smith himself, on oath;

whence it is inferred that the deposition must be true. I must confess

that I have not been able to discover this similarity; but if it really

exist, it may be easily accounted for. Mr. Smith’s statement was sworn

before Nimmo, on the sixth of January, 1807. Nimmo, it appears, kept a

copy, for on the next day he certifies a paper as being a true copy of

the deposition sworn to before him by Mr. Smith. This he could not have

done, unless he had kept a copy, with which to compare this paper. On the

second of February following, Glover made this deposition, before the

same Matthew Nimmo. Now we know that Nimmo was the confidential friend

and adviser of Glover; and we may very easily conceive that, before

Glover prepared his deposition, he had been indulged by his friend with

a perusal of the copy of Mr. Smith’s, and that to give the greater air

of truth to this tale, he imitated the language as much as he could, and

followed the statement of facts, as far as would suit his purpose.

Again: It is very probable that Nimmo wrote the deposition of Glover;

and that, having Smith’s deposition on the same subject fresh in his

recollection, he fell insensibly into the use of the phrases. This is

known frequently to happen. Or the resemblance may be merely accidental.

And surely a resemblance between some phrases of these two depositions,

which may have proceeded from accident, or from design in Nimmo or

Glover, is very weak ground for inferring the truth of facts so utterly

improbable as those stated by Glover, and so strongly contradicted by

the great mass of testimony which we have produced; among which are

the declarations of Glover himself, and the oath of his friend and

confederate McFarland.

Having now, Mr. President, reviewed all the grounds on which the charge

against Mr. Smith is rested; having, as I presume to hope, satisfactorily

explained all the objections which have been urged against him; and

presented all the facts fairly, and as clearly as was in my power, to

the view of this honorable House; I am far from intending to trouble it

with any arguments of mine on the subject. The enlightened individuals

who compose it are much more capable than me of drawing the proper

inferences from the testimony which has been laid before them, and on

which they have bestowed a most patient and laborious attention: and to

their judgment I cheerfully, and I may be permitted to say confidently,

submit the cause of my client. They will doubtless bear in mind, that in

this cause is involved his honor, dearer to him than property or even

life; and that in pronouncing their decision they ought to be guided by

testimony, and not by conjecture; by the light of truth, and not by the

dark and deceptive glimmerings of suspicion.

When Mr. HARPER had concluded, the consideration of the subject was

further postponed.

FRIDAY, April 8.

_Case of John Smith._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the first report of the committee

appointed to inquire into the conduct of John Smith, a Senator from the

State of Ohio, as an alleged associate of Aaron Burr.

A short conversation arose on the course of proceeding, some diversity of

opinion existing as to the propriety of deciding on the report generally,

or on the resolution of expulsion with which it concludes. When on motion

of Mr. FRANKLIN, it was agreed, without a division, to proceed to the

consideration of the resolution, as follows:

_Resolved_, That John Smith, a Senator from the State of Ohio,

by his participation in the conspiracy of Aaron Burr against

the peace, union, and liberties of the people of the United

States, has been guilty of conduct incompatible with his duty

and station as a Senator of the United States; and that he be

therefor, and hereby is, expelled from the Senate of the United

States.

Mr. ADAMS then rose and addressed the Senate, and after replying to the

legal views presented by the defence, went on to say--

I have now finished my remarks upon that part of Mr. Smith’s defence,

which rests upon the supposed irregularity of the proceedings which

have hitherto been sanctioned by the Senate, on this investigation, and

upon objections against the principles maintained in the report of the

committee. The question on the facts remains still to be discussed.

What, then, is the evidence of Mr. Smith’s participation in the

conspiracy of Aaron Burr?

Since the resolution now under consideration was first offered to the

Senate, the state of the evidence has very considerably changed; in

some respects favorably to Mr. Smith’s defence; in others, to my mind,

more inauspiciously. The testimony of Elias Glover, I consider as

totally discredited; but since the deposition produced by Mr. Smith to

the committee, with his answers to their queries, I gave very little

credit to that witness, even before the accumulation of evidence against

him, which Mr. Smith has since obtained, and recently exhibited to the

Senate. Even then I thought the testimony of Glover could be of very

little weight, otherwise than as it was confirmed by that of others.

With the same exception, I now give it no credit at all. Stripped of the

confirmation which it may receive, from admitted circumstances, from

other testimony, and from Mr. Smith’s own acknowledgments, I consider the

case as if no affidavit of Glover belonged to it.

But if the credit of Elias Glover has been annihilated, that of Peter

Taylor has been beyond all controversy confirmed. In his answers to the

committee, Mr. Smith denied almost all the material facts, (and material

in the highest degree they are,) attested by Peter Taylor, respecting

him, on the trials at Richmond, and he declared his belief that he could

prove, by witnesses of the first respectability, his want of character as

a man of truth and veracity. Since then, Mr. Smith has had the fullest

opportunity to cross-examine the man himself, and to take testimony to

his general character. And what is the result? The general character

of Peter Taylor has risen purified from the furnace. In every witness

of whom the question was asked, he had found a panegyrist. One or two

mistakes of circumstances perfectly immaterial to Mr. Smith, or to any

other person implicated, have been discovered in a lynx-eyed scrutiny

of his testimony at Richmond; and the candor with which he instantly

acknowledged them, and the firmness with which on Mr. Smith’s inquiries,

he persevered in asserting all the important facts of his narrative, have

given to his evidence a much greater weight than it could claim before.

So decisive indeed is it, that Mr. Smith’s counsel now solemnly admits

those facts which Mr. Smith had as solemnly denied in his answer; and

argues with his usual ingenuity to dispel their effect.

Of Colonel James Taylor, the testimony has been in one respect

counteracted, and in another much strengthened. His character was so

well known, and so universally respected, that no attempt could be

made to assail it, other than on the basis of a supposed mistake. This

mistake, Mr. Smith, in his affidavit, made before he left this place,

asserted that he expected to prove by General Findley; the only third

person in hearing, according to Colonel Taylor’s statement, when the

conversation, occasioned by the _Querist_ occurred. Mr. Smith returns

without the deposition of General Findley; but in its stead he brings a

deposition of his friend Dr. Sellman, and also a private letter to him

from the same Dr. Sellman, intimating that General Findley could not

confirm Colonel Taylor’s testimony; but with a broad insinuation that

General Findley would not give that deposition in favor of Mr. Smith,

which he ought, for fear of losing his office. On the fact of this

particular conversation, then, we must balance the weight of testimony

apparently contradictory. It is barely possible that the conversations

mentioned by the two witnesses, were not the same, but held at different

times; and as evidence seemingly variant between two persons of

character, ought always, if possible, to be reconciled, perhaps the fair

and candid construction would be that. If, however, it was the same

conversation, we must be reduced to the necessity of choosing which of

the two witnesses has been most correct in his recollection. I cannot

but consider the express testimony of Colonel Taylor, confirmed by the

silence of General Findley, as that which is best entitled to our belief.

Colonel Taylor, we know, was on this occasion a most reluctant witness;

he had been the friend and intimate acquaintance of Mr. Smith; his

principle obviously was to say as little as possible, consistent with his

obligations to speak the truth. The impressions on his mind did not stand

singly upon his judgment; he had compared them with those of General

Findley, and by that comparison had found them confirmed. They had not

slumbered upon his memory for a length of time, so as to lose their

distinctness. He had communicated them to the Secretary of State in his

letter of the 13th of October, 1806, written a very few days after the

conversation was held. An extract of this letter is in evidence before

us, and it tallies exactly with Colonel Taylor’s testimony given to the

committee and before the Senate. The impartiality of Colonel Taylor,

his candor, his tenderness for Mr. Smith, the excellency of his general

character, and his appeal to the recollection of another respectable

witness in confirmation of his own, all combine to give his testimony

the highest claim to our belief. With Dr. Sellman I have no personal

acquaintance, and can, therefore, speak of him only upon the evidence

exhibited here on this occasion. He appears at least, in the character

of a very ardent partisan of Mr. Smith. In the newspapers transmitted

to us, I see his name at the foot of several very violent publications,

which have not been read, but which show that fifteen months ago he

had in some sort staked his own character upon the reputation of Mr.

Smith. A number of depositions concur to prove that he, in company with

a man who has since been convicted of an atrocious robbery, was at the

head of a party who burst open the doors, and broke in upon a meeting

of private citizens assembled to pass certain resolutions unfavorable

to Mr. Smith, and threatened them with a coat of tar and feathers. The

insinuation in his private letter to Mr. Smith, against the fair fame of

General Findley, bears no distinguishing features of an ingenuous mind.

I cannot believe that General Findley, a man of honorable consideration

in society, holding an important public trust, could have been actuated

by such unworthy motives in declining to contradict Colonel Taylor’s

deposition. Could he have done it consistently with truth, he had every

inducement that could operate upon generous feelings to do it. His

contradiction would not have impaired the reputation of Colonel Taylor.

It would not have induced a probability that he was mistaken. But to Mr.

Smith it was of the first importance--his reputation in the world, his

seat in the councils of the nation, the comfort of his life, the peace

and happiness of his family, were all at stake, and called in the most

imperious manner for the testimony of a man, who, by merely declaring

that he had understood his meaning differently from the witness appealing

to him, might have removed from him the burden of this imputation. It is

impossible to believe that he was deterred from such an act of signal

justice, by the base and contemptible fear of losing his office.

But, in addition to the evidence exhibited before the departure of Mr.

Smith from this place, a multitude of new depositions are now produced;

most of them obtained by himself, for the purpose of his own exculpation,

and two or three furnishing strong additional circumstances against

him; even those which he brings for his own discharge, have disclosed

a fact of the highest import, in my estimation, very unfriendly to

his defence. I mean his studious avoidance of appearing before the

grand jury at Frankfort, in Kentucky, on the second complaint against

Burr, in December, 1806. From the fullest consideration which I have

been able to bestow upon the whole mass of this additional testimony,

I have not discovered in it any ground sufficient for the rejection

of this resolution. I still am convinced that it ought to pass. The

most material of all the witnesses, to demonstrate that conduct of Mr.

Smith, which, in my mind, imposes upon the Senate the necessity of

coming to this decision, is _himself_. It is the coincidence between his

course of conduct and that of Mr. Burr; his own tardy acknowledgments;

his own alternate denials and admissions; his own consciousness of

participation in unlawful proceedings, and the testimony of his own

witnesses, which constitute the most irresistible evidence against him.

The other witnesses and the circumstances of the times, chiefly serve

to corroborate and elucidate, what he and his witnesses show, in feeble

characters, and indistinct obscurity.

To exhibit this coincidence of conduct between Mr. Smith and Mr. Burr,

in that light of which it is susceptible, it may be necessary, Mr.

President, to review the transactions of Col. Burr, in relation to these

projects, from the time when he descended from that chair, in which you

now sit, until the arrival of the President’s Proclamation at Cincinnati,

on the 13th of December, 1806; and to compare the conduct of Mr. Smith,

contemporaneous with the several events of public notoriety, and with

the facts testified by the witnesses, in the volume of evidence taken

at Richmond, and transmitted to Congress by the President of the United

States, with the purposes and views of Mr. Burr, at the several stages in

the progress of this conspiracy.

On the 3d day of March, 1805, the term of Mr. Burr’s career as Vice

President of the United States expired. How long, before that time, he

had been revolving in mind his designs upon the western division of

the Union, we need not inquire; but that they were then entirely new,

there is every reason to believe. It is known to many, perhaps to all

the members of this body, who were in the Senate at the time, that Mr.

Burr, during that period, paid a very studied attention, and professed

a peculiar respect to Mr. Smith. Very soon after this, in the spring,

summer, and autumn of 1805, Mr. Burr was traversing the Western States

and Territories, down to New Orleans, busily engaged in making every

preparation possible, at that time, for the campaign of the ensuing year;

even then we find, from a great variety of testimony, that Cincinnati,

Mr. Smith’s place of residence, was a spot where a great portion of Mr.

Burr’s exertions had been made; even then, from the depositions produced

by Mr. Smith, it appears that a Western empire, with _Cincinnati_ for its

capital, had been fully disclosed to William McFarland. This importance

of Cincinnati may serve to explain Mr. Smith’s observation to Major

Riddle, that, if Burr succeeded, he would prefer living at Cincinnati,

rather than at Baltimore or Philadelphia.

In the winter of 1805, Mr. Burr returns, to spend his time at this place,

and at Philadelphia. Here it was that he made his overtures to Mr. Eaton,

from whose testimony I must ask your permission, sir, to read two or

three extracts, showing how far his projects were then matured:

“Col. Burr now laid open his project of revolutionizing the

territory west of the Alleghany; establishing an independent

empire there--New Orleans to be the capital, and he himself to

be the chief; organizing a military force on the waters of the

Mississippi, and carrying conquest to Mexico.”

“He stated to me that he had in person (I think the preceding

season) made a tour through that country; that he had secured

to his interests, and attached to his person, the most

distinguished citizens of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Territory

of Orleans; that he had inexhaustible resources and funds;

that the army of the United States would act with him; that

it would be reinforced by ten or twelve thousand men from the

above-mentioned States and Territory.”

“He mentioned to me none, as principally and decidedly

engaged with him, but General Wilkinson, a Mr. Alston, who,

I afterwards learned, was his son-in-law, and a Mr. Ephraim

Kibby, who, I learned, was late a captain of rangers in Wayne’s

army.” “Of Kibby, he said, that he was brigade major in the

vicinity of Cincinnati, (whether in Ohio or in Kentucky,

I know not,) who had much influence with the militia, and

had already engaged a majority of the brigade to which he

belonged, who were ready to march at Mr. Burr’s signal. Mr.

Burr talked of this revolution as a matter of right inherent

in the people, and constitutional; a revolution which would

rather be advantageous than detrimental to the Atlantic States;

a revolution which must eventually take place; and for the

operation of which the present crisis was peculiarly favorable;

that there was no energy, to be dreaded, in the General

Government, and his conversations denoted a confidence that

his arrangements were so well made that he should meet with no

opposition at New Orleans, for the army and the chief citizens

of that place were ready to receive him.”

Such, then, was the plan of Mr. Burr, and such, by his declarations,

the state of his preparatory measures in the winter of 1805-’6; and I

have read the part of his statement relative to Major Kibby, (and I

mention it now, lest I might hereafter forget it,) because it may serve

to explain what Mr. Smith said to Major Riddle just after the arrival of

the President’s Proclamation at Cincinnati; that he (Smith) knew more

of Burr’s plans than any man in the State of Ohio, except _one_. Here,

it seems, there was one man, who knew them very sufficiently; and it

appears, by the depositions produced by Mr. Smith, that William McFarland

also knew a great deal of them.

Let us follow Mr. Burr to Philadelphia, and notice some particulars of

his conversation there with Commodore Truxton, in July, 1806. I shall

read from the Commodore’s testimony only those parts which may serve best

to connect the chain of events, and to show the consistency of Burr’s

purposes. He had previously, in the winter, talked with that gentleman

about land speculations, but in July, 1806, “he observed, (says the

Commodore,) that he wished to see, or to make me (I do not recollect

which) Admiral; for he contemplated an expedition into Mexico, in the

event of a war with Spain, which he thought inevitable. Mr. B. then asked

me if I would take the command of a naval expedition. I asked him if the

Executive of the United States was privy to or concerned in the project.

He answered me emphatically that they were not. I told Mr. Burr that I

would have nothing to do with it.” “Mr. Burr observed that, in the event

of a war, he intended to establish an independent Government in Mexico;

that Wilkinson, the army and many officers of the navy, would join. I

replied, that I could not see how any of the officers of the United

States could join.”

“Mr. Burr asked me if I would not write to General Wilkinson, as he was

about to despatch two couriers to him. I told him that I had no subject

to write on, and declined writing.”

This conversation was about the last of July; and I must now recur to

one or two passages in the famous ciphered letter of Gen. Wilkinson. In

the copy I have before me, it has no date,[51] but the formal letter of

introduction, which Mr. Swartwout carried with it, is dated 25th July,

1806. It was, then, written on or near the same day when Mr. Burr had his

last conversation with Commodore Truxton.

This letter indicates that Mr. Burr was on the point of departure for the

execution of the enterprise, which it declares he had actually commenced;

that detachments were to rendezvous on the Ohio, 1st November, and to

move down rapidly from the falls on the 15th of November, with the first

five hundred or one thousand men, in light boats, constructing for that

purpose.

It adds: “Burr will proceed westward, first August, never to return; with

him goes his daughter; the husband will follow in October, with a corps

of worthies.”

Finally, the letter contains also this passage: “Already are orders

to the contractor given to forward six months’ provisions to points

Wilkinson may name; this shall not be used until the last moment, and

then under proper injunctions.”

Whether Mr. Burr did actually leave Philadelphia on the 1st of August, as

his letter announces, I am unable to collect from any of the testimony

that has fallen under my observation; but on the 21st of August he had

reached Pittsburg; and there he invited himself to dinner the next day

with Col. Morgan, in a manner precisely similar to that in which he so

shortly afterward invited himself to pass five or six days at the house

of Mr. Smith. At Colonel Morgan’s, he dined and lodged one night. I shall

not recur specially to the remarkable testimony of Colonel Morgan and his

son, for it must be fresh in the recollection of every one who hears me.

I shall barely notice that, during his short visit here, he broached all

his doctrines respecting the imbecility of the present Administration,

and the right, the interest, and the provocations which the Western

people had to separate them from the Atlantic States. He was here

commencing that mode of operation for effecting the dismemberment of the

Union, which, in his subsequent letter of the 26th October to Mr. Smith,

he states to be the only mode in which that object could be accomplished.

His experiment did not commence in the right place. His attempt to tamper

with men of honor and sentiment, met the reception it deserved. He left

the house before breakfast the next morning.

On the 1st of September he had descended the river and was upon

Blannerhasset’s island; and, on the 4th of the same month, appeared in

the newspaper, at Marietta, the first number of the _Querist_, which

was followed by two or three more. I have been unable to obtain a copy

of these papers, but the substance of their contents is well known.

Their object was to prepare the minds of the people, in that part of the

country, for a separation from the Atlantic States; they dilated upon all

the topics so familiar in the mouth of Mr. Burr; and so much were they

identified with his doctrines, that Dr. Wallace, one of the witnesses at

Richmond, with whom Burr had conversed on these subjects in the summer

of 1805, declares that, on his first perusal of these papers, he drew

from their internal evidence the conclusion that the ideas were Burr’s,

and the language Blannerhasset’s. Blannerhasset was, indeed, the writer,

and precisely at the same time and immediately after, was ranging the

country with the activity and spirit of a recruiting officer--promising

the plunder of banks at New Orleans and of Mexican mines--settling the

hereditary succession of the fancied Crown; and teeming with embassies

and empires.

On the very same day that the first number of the “Querist” appeared at

Marietta, the 4th of September, Mr. Burr, by the pencilled note, invites

himself to the house of Mr. Smith, in Cincinnati, where he is hospitably

received and entertained five or six days. During this time, he spends an

evening at William McFarland’s, where he holds exactly the same kind of

conversation about the impotence of the Government, the rights and wrongs

of the Western country, and their inducements to separate from the rest

of the Union. About the 10th of September he leaves Mr. Smith’s; proceeds

to Lexington, in Kentucky, where he arrives and concludes his contract

for the Washita lands, before the close of that month.

Mr. Smith, in his answers to the queries of the committee, (an answer

which he offered to make upon oath,) says that, on this visit, Colonel

Burr tarried with him five or six days, and then progressed on his

journey: for what he next adds, I must refer to his own words:

“But he did not disclose to me ANY object he had in view.

Meanwhile the voice of suspicion and jealousy was raised

against him, and although I knew as little of his objects in

visiting the Western States as either of you, still, as I had

entertained him in conformity to the customs in which I was

reared, and according to my own sense of propriety, I felt

uneasiness and jealousy in consequence of these reports.”

The character of Colonel Burr is now generally well understood; and, when

combined with the circumstances I have just mentioned, and with others

which I am about to mention, it is difficult to conceive that his visit

to Mr. Smith at this time should have been made without design. For the

projects he contemplated, and which he was then attempting to carry into

execution, Mr. Smith was a man of the very first importance. As a Senator

of the United States, it is obvious how useful his services might become,

in his attendance here, during the session of Congress. As a contractor

for building gunboats, and for supplying the army with provisions, he

could, without exciting suspicion, and without danger of detection, be of

the greatest use in performing the same services, and furnishing for Mr.

Burr the same kind of supplies. As a man of influence and consideration

in the State to which he belonged, his aid in propagating the doctrines

of disunion, and in contributing to the accomplishment of that end, were

not less desirable. The motives of profit and of distinction which might

be held up to his expectations, were of a nature as persuasive upon a

mind, which could be as susceptible of receiving them, as those of making

Truxton an Admiral, or Eaton a General. Is it, then, credible that,

while Burr was proceeding upon his business, with all the activity and

energy of his character; while his boats were building and his provisions

collecting; while he was obtruding almost upon every stranger and

transient acquaintance, that he found in his way, the opinions which were

suitable to his purpose--while Blannerhasset was filling the newspapers

with rebellion, and engaging men for war, under his standard--is it

credible, I say, that Burr should have solicited entertainment under the

roof of Mr. Smith, and obtained it, for five or six days, without so much

as intimating to him any one of his purposes? Is it credible that, in the

course of that visit and in the intimacy between the parties, which the

whole transaction so strongly implies, amidst the violent suspicions with

which Mr. Burr, even then, was notoriously surrounded, there should never

have occurred to the friendly solicitude of Mr. Smith a single inquiry

which would have led to a disclosure, real or pretended, of the object of

Mr. Burr’s visit, and of his progress through the Western States? Should

this be deemed, under all these circumstances, a credible thing, I then

ask, how Mr. Smith’s asseveration that Burr did not then disclose to him

ANY object he had in view, is to be reconciled with Mr. Smith’s affidavit

of 6th January, 1807, in which he says, “Burr did then speak to him about

his project of settling a large tract of his Washita lands.”

It is one of the peculiarities attending Burr’s conduct, through the

whole of his conspiracy, that he had always an ostensible object,

to serve as a mask to the real design. One of the difficulties and

inconveniences of this method of transacting business is, that in

exhibiting the purpose, which is meant only for show, it is apt to be

materially variant from itself at different times. It is often variant,

not upon trivial incidents, with which the best human memory cannot be

accountable for perfect accuracy, but upon the most essential part of the

story. It is inconceivable to me, that, at that precise period of Mr.

Burr’s experiment upon the Western States, he should thus have been, at

his own desire, the guest of Mr. Smith, five or six days, without making

to him any communication of his real views, while he was so liberally

disseminating them to others far less intimate to his acquaintance, and

far less important to his purposes--and when we find Mr. Smith’s own

narrative, upon this very point, so variant from itself at different

times, how can we suppress the belief that the real story was not that

which could safely be told?

The conversation to which Colonel James Taylor attests, occurs within a

very few days after the departure of Mr. Burr from Mr. Smith’s house,

at this period. The subject of that conversation was the separation of

the States. Mr. Smith takes pains to circulate that _Querist_, which

was to scatter the seeds of disunion throughout the Western country.

Mr. Smith adopts its arguments as his own; and adds others of the same

tendency to assist its effects. Mr. Smith contends that these doctrines,

however obnoxious then, _in less than two years would become_ ORTHODOX.

Is there no knowledge and participation in Burr’s projects on the face

of these expressions? We are told they were speculative opinions; and we

hear complaints that a man should be held accountable for his political

speculations. But when speculative opinions are associated with military

preparations, and a formidable enterprise in the very process of

execution, then, sir, they assume a very different complexion from that

of free and legitimate discussion. Speculative opinions, at all times,

have such an influence upon practice, that I hold it not very justifiable

in a man vested with public trust, to speak in terms of approbation, of

a dismemberment of this Union, upon any contingency, or at any distance

of time. We ought to deprecate this greatest of all possible calamities,

for our posterity as well as for ourselves. Yet, I acknowledge, that

even these dangerous opinions, when merely speculative, may be expressed

without evil intentions, and ought not to draw the weight of public

censure upon the person using them, in the form of a decision of this

body. It is the time, the occasion, the circumstance, upon which this

speculative opinion was divulged, which display it as evidence of Mr.

Smith’s participation in Burr’s conspiracy against the Union.

We have followed the course of events until the close of September, about

which time Blannerhasset follows Mr. Burr into Kentucky. In the course of

that and the following month, the preparations and conversations of both

these personages, the numbers of the Querist, and certain publications of

an opposite character, which appeared in another newspaper, called the

Western World, had roused the suspicions, the anxieties, the resentments

of the people in that part of the Union, to the highest degree. About the

20th of October, Mrs. Blannerhasset found it necessary to despatch Peter

Taylor from the island, into Kentucky, for the purpose of warning Burr

that he could not, with personal safety to himself, return to the island.

Taylor was to go first to Chilicothe, then to Smith’s, at _Cincinnati_;

and there he was to be told where Burr and Blannerhasset were to be

found. At this time it was no longer safe to inculcate the disunion of

the States. The people there, I thank God, were not to be deluded by Mr.

Burr’s mode or by any other mode of effecting a dismemberment. They were

true to themselves and to their country. The public odium had arrived at

such a pitch, that it might not be advisable for Mr. Smith to appear so

intimate with Burr, as to know where he was to be found, and it might

also be necessary for him to have the ostensible object of Mr. Burr’s

purposes ascertained. For, although he says that, when Burr was with him

in September, he had talked about the settlement of the Washita lands,

yet, at that time, the purchase was not made.

This view of the state of things at that time will explain the

particulars of Peter Taylor’s testimony. When he arrives at Mr. Smith’s,

and inquires for Burr and Blannerhasset, Mr. Smith answers, that he knows

nothing of either of them. That Taylor must be mistaken; that was not

the place; but finding Taylor to be Blannerhasset’s servant, he tells

him, “he expected they were at Lexington, at the house of a Mr. Jourdan.”

Now, sir, what does this denial, in the first instance, that he knew any

thing of them, and this pointing so precisely afterwards to the very

house where they were to be found, indicate? The counsel for Mr. Smith

says, that Taylor was sent there for Mr. Burr’s greatcoat; nothing of

that appears in the evidence. But, from Taylor’s declaration, it appears

that he was sent there to ascertain where Burr and Blannerhasset were to

be found; that Mr. Smith, at first, denied knowing where they were, and

afterwards told him the very house in Lexington where he was to go for

them. As the sole object of Taylor’s going to Mr. Smith, was to inquire

where Burr and Blannerhasset were, and as, before he left the house,

Mr. Smith gave him a letter for Burr, under _cover_, to Blannerhasset,

it is impossible to doubt the correctness of Taylor’s testimony in

that respect; that Mr. Smith told him where to go. The inference is

irresistible. This accurate knowledge where they were, and this express

denial of that knowledge to a man whom he supposed a stranger, is a proof

that, even then, Mr. Smith knew much more than he was willing to avow.

The remainder of Peter Taylor’s story, so far as it respects Mr. Smith,

all concurs to establish the same fact. Mr. Smith’s anxious inquiries

for the _news_; for what was passing; for what was _said_, about General

Wilkinson; the charge to Peter Taylor not to go to a tavern, lest he

should be sifted with questions; and, finally, the letter, professedly to

Blannerhasset, but enclosing one to Mr. Burr, all combine to exhibit a

state of mind agitated and alarmed, studious of concealment, and fearful

of detection.

Above all, consider the inquiry, what was _said_ about General Wilkinson.

What could have associated, in a mind utterly ignorant of all Burr’s

projects, inquiries about Wilkinson with the then situation of Burr and

Blannerhasset? Recollect the passage of the ciphered letter: “Already has

the contractor orders to furnish six months’ provisions at the points

Wilkinson shall name; this shall be used only at the last moment, and

then under proper injunctions.”

Mr. Smith has, at one time, denied all the material facts attested by

Peter Taylor; and he attempted to disgrace his character; so little has

he been borne out by his own evidence, now produced, that he formally

admits the very facts he had denied. The same course has been pursued

with regard to Colonel James Taylor’s testimony. Sir, this treatment of

the witnesses is not calculated to inspire confidence in the solidity

of Mr. Smith’s defence. Unfounded attacks upon the character of a

respectable witness, not only confirm, but aggravate the weight of his

testimony.

If, however, the testimony of Peter Taylor needed confirmation, it

would be found in the substance of the letter itself, of which he was

the bearer, and of the answer to that letter. To these two documents

I now ask the particular attention of the Senate. The letter is dated

23d October, 1806, and says: “I beg leave to inform you that we have,

in this quarter, various reports prejudicial to your character. It is

believed by many that your design is to dismember the Union; although I

do not believe that you have any such design, yet I must confess, from

the mystery and rapidity of your movements, that I have fears, let your

object be what it may, that the tranquillity of the country will be

interrupted, unless it be candidly disclosed, which I solicit, and to

which, I presume, you will have no objection.”

Now, what is the solicitude manifested in this letter? It is not so much

that Mr. Burr’s object should be declared, _not_ to be the dismemberment

of the Union. It asks for something which may be _told_, to prevent

the tranquillity of the country from being interrupted. And it very

explicitly intimates what must be _denied_.

It is an answer of a very peculiar kind which appears to be wanted; an

answer contained in the letter itself. A voucher is wanted to deny the

project for dismembering the Union; and to speak with certainty of the

ostensible object. This was the settlement of the Washita lands. Mr.

Smith, in one of his narratives, says that Burr had talked with him on

this subject in September before; but the purchase of the lands was not

then concluded. It was uncertain whether that could now be spoken of as

the professed purpose, and Mr. Smith’s letter was well adapted to obtain

that certainty.

Mr. Burr’s answer appears perfectly to have understood the object of

these inquiries. Much has been said by Mr. Smith about the apparent

_frankness_ and _candor_ of this letter, and on this document he relies,

with great emphasis, as a complete justification of all his subsequent

confidence in Mr. Burr. To me, sir, it bears a very different aspect.

Considering it in the light of an answer to the solicitude of a man

altogether unconscious of Mr. Burr’s real designs, and aware of the

extremely suspicious appearances in which the conduct of Mr. Burr was

involved, this answer appears to me calculated for any thing rather than

to restore confidence. To manifest its real character, let us attend to

some of its most remarkable passages. Mr. Burr says:

“If there exists any design to separate the Western from the

Eastern States, I am totally ignorant of it. I never harbored

or expressed any such intention to any one, nor did any person

ever intimate such design to me. Indeed, I have no conception

of any mode in which such a measure could be promoted, except

_by operating on the minds of the people_, and demonstrating

it to be their interest. I have never written or published a

line on this subject, nor ever expressed any other sentiments

than those which you have heard from me in public companies, at

Washington and elsewhere, _and in which I think you concurred_.”

At this passage there are the following notes by Mr. Smith:

“J. Smith has heard Colonel Burr and others say, that in fifty

or a hundred years, the Territory of the United States would

compose two distinct Governments.”