Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/500

 Aaron Burr as the acause Lawyer. of his country's liberty, while455 Jef thought himself bound to prove the charge; the President had alarmed the country with the cry of "wolf!" and in order to escape being laughed at felt bound to make good his accusation. For this purpose he left no stone unturned, — for this purpose he sum moned witnesses, and threatened them with the strong arm of the government, — for this purpose he vilified Burr, — for this pur pose he employed the brilliant talents of William Wirt; in a word, Thomas Jefferson appears in the despicable light of a persecu tor, using all the influence at his command to convict of a capital crime the man whose extraordinary exertions and splendid politi cal management had placed him in the ex alted position which gave him that influence. The world had not witnessed such hideous ingratitude since Francis Bacon prosecuted unto death his friend and benefactor, the young, brave, gifted, noble, generous and accomplished Earl of Essex. Not satisfied with attempting to influence witnesses and to force them by threats to testify against the accused, Jefferson wished to deprive Burr of the services of his princi pal advocate, and asked Hay, the United States District Attorney, whether "we shall move to commit Luther Martin [whom he styled "an impudent Federal bull-dog"] as particcps criminis with Burr." The conduct of Jefferson in this whole matter has been pronounced "a monstrous proceeding — a proceeding without precedent in the history of criminal prosecutions." Andrew Jackson denounced Jefferson's conduct towards Burr as a " persecution," and it caused Luther Martin to declare that "Jefferson hated Burr with a bloodhound's keen and savage thirst for blood." He had attempted to prejudice the case against Burr by declaring in ad vance that "of his guilt, there can be no doubt." He had proclaimed the man a traitor who had risked his life for years in

ferson remained at home, safe and secure. To the attempt of the prosecution to with hold certain important papers necessary to Burr's defence, Martin vehemently declared that "whoever withholds, wilfully, informa tion that would save the life of a person charged with a capital offence, is substan tially a murderer, and is so regarded in the registry of heaven." Burr was always at home in a court of justice: his equal.there, Heno listened man was patiently his superior, while few the, prosecution introduced witness after witness in evidence of his alleged overt act, but, on the seventeenth day of the trial, when the prosecution was about to introduce indirect and collateral evidence, the accused thought it was about time to stop the introduction of any more testimony unless it was to prove the overt act. Upon this point the great battle of the legal giants was fought to the finish. During this argument, which lasted nine days, there was " the finest display of legal knowledge and ability of which the his tory of the American bar can boast." It all turned upon the question whether, " until the fact of a crime is proved anything may be heard respecting the guilty intention of the person accused." In this great debate, while Wickham, Martin, Randolph and Hay all distinguished themselves by their argu ments on the legal question involved, William Wirt addressed himself to a sentimental view ery of theand question, impassioned and in the oration, coursewhich of his is flowas. full of fiction as any romance ever invented by the wit of man, he drew a fancy sketch of the relationship which had existed be tween Burr and Blennerhassett. Yet, that fairy-story has done more harm to the name and fame of Aaron Burr than anything and everything else besides. Chief Justice Mar shall, who presided over this celebrated trial