declaration he speaks of? I wish our Ministers at Paris, London, and Madrid, could find out Burr's propositions and agents there." On May 26, 1807, after Burr's small force had been dissipated, Jefferson referred to the expedition in a letter to Lafayette. "I very much wished your presence there [at New Orleans]," he said, "during the late conspiracy of Burr. The native inhabitants were unshaken in their fidelity. But there was a small band of American adventurers who had fled from their debts, and who were longing to dip their hands into the mines of Mexico, enlisted in Burr's double project of attacking that country and severing our union. It is certain that he never had one hundred men engaged in his enterprise, and most of these were made to believe the government patronized it." In a letter of July 14, 1807, he said to M. Dupont de Nemours: "Burr's conspiracy has been one of the most flagitious of which history will ever furnish an example. He had combined the objects of separating the Western States from us, of adding Mexico to them, and of placing himself at their head."

. .

In regard to the intrigues of Burr with foreign powers, there is evidence that he attempted to enlist Great Britain, at least, in his schemes. Anthony Merry, the British Minister at Washington at the time, was intimate with Burr, but hostile toward Jefferson. Shortly after the duel with Hamilton, Williamson, an Englishman and a friend of Burr's, carried a very startling proposition from Burr to Merry, which the latter in turn forwarded to his home government. Merry's letter, written August 6, 1804, runs as follows: "I have just received an offer from Mr. Burr, the actual Vice-president of the United States (which position he is about to resign) to lend his assistance to his Majesty's government in any manner in which they may think fit to employ him, particularly in endeavoring to effect a separation of the western part of the United States from that which lies between the Atlantic and the mountains, in its whole extent. His proposition on this and other subjects

will be fully detailed to your Lordship [Harrowby] by Colonel Williamson, who has been the bearer of them to me, and who will embark for England in a few days. It is therefore only necessary for me to add that if after what is generally known of the profligacy of Mr. Burr's character, his Majesty's minister should think proper to listen to his offer, his present situation in this country, where he is now cast off, as much by the democratic as by the Federal party, and where he still preserves connections with some people of influence, added to his great ambition and spirit of revenge against the present administration, may possibly induce him to exert the talents and activity which he possesses with fidelity to his employers." Jefferson was slow to believe that Burr would receive any aid from European powers. In a special message to Congress, under date of January 22, 1807, submitted in response to a resolution introduced by John Randolph, asking the President for information in regard to the Burr expedition, Jefferson said: "Surmises have been hazarded that this enterprise is to receive aid from certain foreign Powers. But these sur

mises are without proof or probability." They are "to be imputed to the vauntings of the author of this enterprise to multiply his partisans by magnifying the belief of his prospects and support."

Burr's examination began on the 22d of May, 1807, and in August his trial for treason was opened in the United States District Court of Richmond, with Chief Justice John Marshall presiding. The trial was a memorable one, and the array of legal talent was imposing, particularly on the side of the defendant. Edmund Randolph and John Wickham, both of Virginia, and Luther Martin, of Maryland, appeared for Burr, while George Hay, United States District Attorney, with some assistance, conducted the prosecution. The sympathy of the Federalists was on the side of Burr. They forgot that he had killed their most brilliant leader, and looked upon him as a martyr to the vindictiveness of Jefferson. The President gave assistance and offered suggestions

to Mr. Hay in regard to the conduct of the case, but did not go further than any president should have done who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Nevertheless, attempts were made to drag him into the case. Luther Martin, was particularly severe in his condemnation of Jefferson. He charged the President in open court with attempting to destroy "the life and property of an innocent man" by "tyrannical orders" contrary to the laws and the Constitution. "The President has undertaken," he said, "to prejudice my client by declaring that of his guilt there can be no doubt.' He has assumed the knowledge of the Supreme Being himself, and pretended to search the heart of my highly respected friend. He has proclaimed him a traitor in the face of that country which has rewarded him. He has let slip the dogs of war, the hell-hounds of persecution, to hunt down my friend."

The attorneys for the defence attempted to compel Jefferson to appear as a witness and to bring with him the official records and letters bearing on the case. Justice Marshall granted the request for the subpoena but admitted that the court had no authority to enforce it. "The Federalist rather than the judge spoke on this occasion." Jefferson was greatly annoyed by Marshall's decision, and declined to appear. On June 20, 1807, he wrote to Attorney Hay in defence of his conduct: "The leading principle of our Constitution is the independence of the Legislature, executive and judiciary, of each other, and none are more jealous of this than the judiciary. But would the executive be independent of the judiciary, if he were subject to the commands of the latter, and to imprisonment for disobedience; if the several courts could bandy him from pillar to post, keep him constantly trudging from north to south and east and west, and withdraw him entirely from his constitutional duties." In the progress of the case it was soon evident that the prosecution was conducting a losing fight. Burr's attorneys were the more skilful; the evidence for the

prosecution was inconclusive and the State found it impossible to prove by two witnesses the "overt act" specified in the Constitution's definition of treason. The Court declared the evidence insufficient to convict, and the jury brought in a verdict of "not guilty." Jefferson was greatly incensed at the verdict. The trial came to an end on the 1st of Sep tember, and on the 20th he expressed himself emphatically in a letter to General Wilkinson. "The scenes which have been acted at Richmond," he said, "are such as have never before been exhibited in any country where all regard to public character has not yet been thrown off. They are equivalent to a proclamation of impunity to every traitorous combination which may be formed to destroy the Union." But he was not content to let the matter rest there, and in his message of October 27, he made the following pointed reference to the trial: "I informed Congress at their last session of the enterprises against the public peace which were believed to be in preparation by Aaron Burr and his associates, of the measures taken to defeat them, & to bring the offenders to justice. Their enterprises have been happily defeated, by the patriotic exertions of the militia, wherever called into action, by the fidelity of the army, and energy of the Commander-in-Chief in promptly arranging the difficulties presenting themselves on the Sabine, preparing to meet those arising on the Mississippi, and dissipating before their explosion, plots engendered there. I shall con sider it my duty to lay before you the proceedings, and the evidence publicly exhibited on the arraignment of the principal offenders before the District Court of Virginia, together with some evidence not then heard." Then comes the significant part: "From the whole you will be enabled to judge whether the defect was in the testimony, in the law, or in the administration of the law; and wherever it shall be found, the legislature alone can apply or originate the remedy. The framers of our Constitution certainly supposed they had guarded, as well their government against destruction by treason, as their citizens against oppression

under pretence of it; and if these ends are not obtained, it is of importance to enquire by what means, more effectual, they may be secured."

The most considerable study yet made of this movement is The Aaron Burr Conspiracy, by Dr. W. F. McCaleb, published in 1903. The conclusions of Dr. McCaleb differ quite widely from those arrived at by Henry Adams and others. He says that "the conspiracy was of much wider and deeper origin than has been usually supposed." He maintains that the disclosure of his designs to Ministers Merry and Yrujo, of England and Spain, respectively, was "a consummate piece of imposture" on the part of Burr, and argues strenuously that Burr had it in mind to make a conquest of the Spanish possessions, but had no idea of detaching the West from the Union. On the whole Dr. McCaleb makes out Burr to be less culpable than does the orthodox and traditional view. As a matter of fact it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to determine precisely what Burr's designs were. It is very probable that Burr himself did not have any very definite conception in mind. No doubt his course was to be determined largely by future contingencies. Certainly Burr's own words give no reliable clew to his purposes. He was "all things to all men." As John R. Green says of Queen Elizabeth, as a liar he was "superb and picturesque." He proposed various things at various times. To one man he spoke of a conquest of Florida; to another of the annexation of Texas and Mexico to the United States; to another of the secession of the West from the Union; to another of the capture of New Orleans; and to another of settlement and land speculation. No doubt there was a great deal of "consummate imposture" in all this, but it is exceedingly difficult to determine where imposture leaves off and seriousness and sincerity begin. In regard to Dr. McCaleb's book, however, it is not too much to say that he has raised a reasonable doubt respecting many of the conclusions of Henry Adams and others.