Page:Federal Cases, Volume 25.djvu/78

U.S. v. BURR (Case No. 14,693) The attorney for the United States replied to these objections.

The CHIEF JUSTICE said when there was a public gaol not unreasonable distant or unfit for the reception of the prisoner, and when the court was called upon on the part of the United States to commit a prisoner to its keeping, that he conceived himself bound to comply with the requisition; that when he had given the order for his removal from the gaol to his own lodgings, it was under an expectation that the trial would be prosecuted immediately, and that the intercourse between the prisoner and his counsel would be necessarily incessant; but as a postponement had taken place, such an intercourse would not be absolutely necessary: under such circumstances, therefore, he should direct the removal of the prisoner to the penitentiary, if he were still to continue in the possession of the marshal, and if his counsel were to have free and uninterrupted access to him.

Some difficulty having thus occurred on these points, the executive council was immediately convened. In a short time the following letter was submitted to the court:

"Council Chamber, June 30, 1807. "Sir: In pursuance of an advice of the council of state, I beg leave, through you, to inform the circuit court of the United States, now sitting, that any persons who may be confined in the gaol and penitentiary house, on the part of the United States, will be considered as in the custody, and under the sole control of the marshal of the district; that he will have authority to admit any person or persons to visit the confined that he may think proper, and that he will be authorized to select for the purposes aforesaid, any apartment in the penitentiary now unoccupied, that he may deem most conducive to safety, health, and convenience. I am, with great respect, sir, your obedient servant, "Wm. H. Cabell. "George Hay, Esq." The court then made the following order: "In consequence of the offer made by the executive of apartments in the third story of penitentiary and state prison for persons who may be confined therein, under the authority of the United States, and of the foregoing letter from the governor of this commonwealth, it is ordered, on the motion of the attorney for the United States, that so soon as the apartments in the third story of the public gaol and penitentiary shall be fit for the reception and safe keeping of Aaron Burr, that he be removed thereto, and safely kept therein by the marshal, until the second day of August next, when he shall be brought back to the prison where he is now placed, there to be guarded in like manner as at present, until the further order of the court."

Monday, August 3, 1807. On this day the circuit court of the United States for the Fifth circuit and district of Virginia, was held according to adjournment. Present: the CHIEF JUSTICE of the United States; George Hay, William Wirt, and Alexander MacRae, Esquires, counsel for the prosecution.

The prisoner was brought into court from his apartment, near the Swan Tavern, to which he had been removed on Saturday.

Edmund Randolph, John Wickham, Benjamin Botts, John Baker, and Luther Martin, Esquires, appeared as his counsel.

The court assembled at twelve o'clock. All immense concourse of citizens attended to wit- ness the proceedings of this important trial.

Mr. Hay observed that he could take no steps in this business until he had ascertained whether the witnesses summoned on the part of the United States were present; he therefore requested that their names might be called over; they were more than one hundred in number. Their names were accordingly called.

Mr. Hay begged leave to mention that he had nothing more to submit to the court this day. There were many of the witnesses of whose places of residence he was ignorant; several had not appeared; many had been merely pointed out to him by the attorney general of the United States. He observed that, therefore, he had not yet been able to furnish Colonel Burr with a list of the witnesses, and a statement of the places of their residence, as the law requires; that, as many of those who had been summoned and recognized had failed to appear, he was not ready to proceed with the trial immediately. He also informed the court that a list of the venire had been delivered on Saturday to Colonel Burr, but had since been discovered to be inaccurate. It became, therefore, necessary (an act of congress having directed this to be done at least three days before the trial) to deliver a correct list on this day; and, of course, the trial would be postponed until the requisite time should have elapsed.

The CHIEF JUSTICE inquired, then, to what day it would be proper to adjourn the court.

Mr. Hay could not possibly state by what day he should be able to prepare his lists.

Mr. Burr observed that it was not probable that he should avail himself of any privileges to which he might be entitled from any delay in furnishing him with the list of jurors, or of any incorrectness in the list; and therefore the court might adjourn to any day which was convenient to the attorney for the United States. If the day of adjournment depended on his own consent, he should not object to any adjournment, provided it did not extend further than Wednesday.

Mr. Hay had no objection to that day.

At the instance of Mr. Hay the names of the jurors were called, when forty-six answered to their names, two only being absent.

Mr. Burr reminded the court of the motion which he had made, on a former occasion, for a subpœna duces tecum, addressed to the president of the United States. That mo-