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. [APRIL, 1808. 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 But, in whatever way we account for his kept the knowledge of it to himself, instead of drawing this bill, it was his own act; an act communicating it as he did to General Carberry. which he had no right to do, beyond the money The bill drawn in favor of Belknap, and paid, left by him in Mr. Smith's hands. To bring might of itself, standing alone, furnish some this act home to Mr. Smith, and make it evi- ground of suspicion against Mr. Smith, as tenddence against him, it must be shown that he ing to show that he was in the habit of supplyhad given Colonel Burr authority to draw. In ing Colonel Burr with funds; but when it comes other words, had agreed to supply him with to be connected with the deposit of money, funds. Drawing the bill is nothing more than which is proved by General Carberry, it is coma declaration by Colonel Burr; and this decla-pletely explained. For nothing was more natration cannot affect Mr. Smith, unless he author-ural than that Colonel Burr, having left his ized it previously, or confirmed it afterwards by money with Mr. Smith, should direct it to be paying the bill. Colonel Burr drew a bill on paid to a person to whom he owed it, or who me for $1,500, which I had not authorized, and was to employ it for his benefit. 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 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 APRIL, 1808.] DEBATES OF CONGRESS. Case of John Smith. [SENATE. Washita lands. By the testimony given ating Smith's deposition on the same subject fresh Richmond in the trial of Colonel Burr, by Lynch, in his recollection, he fell insensibly into the from whom those lands were purchased, it ap- use of the phrases. This is known frequently pears that the contract was not made with Col- to happen. Or the resemblance may be merely onel Burr till after the time when Mr. Smith accidental. And surely a resemblance between states this conversation to have taken place. some phrases of these two depositions, which Hence it is inferred that Colonel Burr could not may have proceeded from accident, or from dehave spoken to Mr. Smith of his Washita lands. sign in Nimmo or Glover, is very weak ground But is it forgotten that Colonel Burr was in for inferring the truth of facts so utterly imthe habit of speaking of these lands as his, and probable as those stated by Glover, and so of his intention of settling them, long before the strongly contradicted by the great mass of tesperiod assigned by Mr. Smith for this conversa- timony which we have produced; among tion? This appears from the testimony of which are the declarations of Glover himself, Commodore Truxton, delivered at Richmond and the oath of his friend and confederate He states, that in the sum- McFarland. Having now, Mr. President, reviewed all the on the same trial. mer of 1806, before Colonel Burr set out for the Western country, he spoke of his Washita grounds on which the charge against Mr. Smith This he is rested; having, as I presume to hope, satislands, and of his plan of settlement. did either because he had then made an informal factorily explained all the objections which have I am far contract for those lands, and therefore consid- been urged against him; and presented all the Iered them as his, though the formal contract facts fairly, and as clearly as was in my power, of sale was not then made; or because he had to the view of this honorable House; then contrived this disguise for his projects, and from intending to trouble it with any arguments merely made use of it to cover his real design, of mine on the subject. The enlightened indifrom Smith and others with whom he thus con-viduals who compose it are much more capable versed. 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 It is said that there exists a strong similarity mo. Again: It is very probable that Nimmo wrote the deposition of Glover; and that, hav than me of drawing the proper inferences from 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 as to the propriety of deciding on the report proceeding, some diversity of opinion existing generally, or on the resolution of expulsion with which it concludes. When on motion of Mr. FRANKLIN, it was agreed, without a division, as follows: to proceed to the consideration of the resolution, 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 for, and hereby is, expelled from the Senate of the Senator of the United States; and that he be thereUnited States. Mr. ADAMS then rose and addressed the Sen 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. [APRIL, 1808. ate, and after replying to the legal views pre- | much strengthened. His character was so well sented by the defence, went on to sayknown, 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, writen 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 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 7 APRIL, 1808.] DEBATES OF CONGRESS. Case of John Smith. in some sort staked his own character upon the But, in addition to the evidence exhibited be- [SENATE. chiefly serve to corroborate and elucidate, what To exhibit this coincidence of conduct be- 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 gaged in making every preparation possible, at Territories, down to New Orleans, busily enthat 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: 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." "Col. Burr now laid open his project of revolutionand that of Mr. Burr; his own tardy acknowl-izing the territory west of the Alleghany; establishing edgments; 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, "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 at SENATE.] Case of John Smith. [APRIL, 1808. tached to his person, the most distinguished citizens | Mexico; that Wilkinson, the army and many of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Territory of Orleans; officers of the navy, would join. I replied, that that he had inexhaustible resources and funds; I could not see how any of the officers of the that the army of the United States would act with United States could join." 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 sonin-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." "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, 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." Such, then, was the plan of Mr. Burr, and such, by his declarations, the state of his prepa- Finally, the letter contains also this passage: ratory measures in the winter of 1805-'6; and "Already are orders to the contractor given to I have read the part of his statement relative forward six months' provisions to points Wilto Major Kibby, (and I mention it now, lest Ikinson may name; this shall not be used until might hereafter forget it,) because it may serve the last moment, and then under proper injunc to explain what Mr. Smith said to Major Riddle tions." 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. Whether Mr. Burr did actually leave Phila delphia on the 1st of August, as his letter announces, I am unable to collect from any of the testimony that has fallen under my observa tion; 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 Let us follow Mr. Burr to Philadelphia, and shortly afterward invited himself to pass five notice some particulars of his conversation there or six days at the house of Mr. Smith. At with Commodore Truxton, in July, 1806. I Colonel Morgan's, he dined and lodged one shall read from the Commodore's testimony night. I shall not recur specially to the reonly those parts which may serve best to con-markable testimony of Colonel Morgan and his nect the chain of events, and to show the con- son, for it must be fresh in the recollection of sistency 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 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 * It was dated 29th July. |