Who is Blennerha.s.sett? A native of Ireland, a man of letters, fled from the storms of his own country to find quiet in ours. His history shows that war is not the natural element of his mind. If it had been, he never would have exchanged Ireland for America. So far is an army from furnishing the society natural and proper to Mr. Blennerha.s.sett"s character, that on his arrival in America, he retired even from the population of the Atlantic States, and sought quiet and solitude in the bosom of our Western forests.
But he carried with him taste and science and wealth; and lo, the desert smiled! Possessing himself of a beautiful island in the Ohio, he rears upon it a palace and decorates it with every romantic embellishment of fancy. A shrubbery, that Shenstone might have envied, blooms around him.
Music, that might have charmed Calypso and her nymphs, is his. An extensive library spreads its treasures before him. A philosophical apparatus offers to him all the secrets and mysteries of nature. Peace, tranquillity, and innocence shed their mingled delights around him. And to crown the enchantment of the scene, a wife, who is said to be lovely even beyond her s.e.x and graced with every accomplishment that can render it irresistible, had blessed him with her love and made him the father of several children. The evidence would convince you, that this is but a faint picture of the real life.
In the midst of all this peace, this innocent simplicity and this tranquillity, this feast of the mind, this pure banquet of the heart, the destroyer comes; he comes to change this paradise into a h.e.l.l. Yet the flowers do not wither at his approach. No monitory shuddering through the bosom of their unfortunate possessor warns him of the ruin that is coming upon him. A stranger presents himself. Introduced to their civilities by the high rank which he had lately held in his country, he soon finds his way to their hearts, by the dignity and elegance of his demeanor, the light and beauty of his conversation and the seductive and fascinating power of his address.
The conquest was not difficult. Innocence is ever simple and credulous.
Conscious of no design itself, it suspects none in others. It wears no guard before its breast. Every door and portal and avenue of the heart is thrown open, and all who choose it enter. Such was the state of Eden when the serpent entered its bowers.
The prisoner, in a more engaging form, winding himself into the open and unpractised heart of the unfortunate Blennerha.s.sett, found but little difficulty in changing the native character of that heart and the objects of its affection. By degrees he infuses into it the poison of his own ambition. He breathes into it the fire of his own courage; a daring and desperate thirst for glory; an ardour panting for great enterprises, for all the storm and bustle and hurricane of life.
In a short time the whole man is changed, and every object of his former delight is relinquished. No more he enjoys the tranquil scene; it has become flat and insipid to his taste. His books are abandoned. His retort and crucible are thrown aside. His shrubbery blooms and breathes its fragrance upon the air in vain; he likes it not. His ear no longer drinks the rich melody of music; it longs for the trumpet"s clangor and the cannon"s roar. Even the prattle of his babes, once so sweet, no longer affects him; and the angel smile of his wife, which hitherto touched his bosom with ecstasy so unspeakable, is now unseen and unfelt.
Greater objects have taken possession of his soul. His imagination has been dazzled by visions of diadems, of stars and garters and t.i.tles of n.o.bility. He has been taught to burn with restless emulation at the names of great heroes and conquerors. His enchanted island is destined soon to relapse into a wilderness; and in a few months we find the beautiful and tender partner of his bosom, whom he lately permitted not the winds of summer to visit too roughly, we find her shivering at midnight, on the winter banks of the Ohio and mingling her tears with the torrents, that froze as they fell.
Yet this unfortunate man, thus deluded from his interest and his happiness, thus seduced from the paths of innocence and peace, thus confounded in the toils that were deliberately spread for him and overwhelmed by the mastering spirit and genius of another--this man, thus ruined and undone and made to play a subordinate part in this grand drama of guilt and treason, this man is to be called the princ.i.p.al offender, while he, by whom he was thus plunged in misery, is comparatively innocent, a mere accessory! Is this reason? Is it law? Is it humanity? Sir, neither the human heart nor the human understanding will bear a perversion so monstrous and absurd! So shocking to the soul!
So revolting to reason! Let Aaron Burr then not shrink from the high destination which he has courted, and having already ruined Blennerha.s.sett in fortune, character and happiness forever, let him not attempt to finish the tragedy by thrusting that ill-fated man between himself and punishment.[1518]
FOOTNOTES:
[1517] See 495-97 of this volume.
[1518] _Burr Trials_, II, 96-98.
APPENDIX F
ESSENTIAL PART OF MARSHALL"S OPINION ON CONSTRUCTIVE TREASON DELIVERED AT THE TRIAL OF AARON BURR, ON MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 1807[1519]
The place in which a crime was committed is essential to an indictment, were it only to shew the jurisdiction of the court. It is also essential for the purpose of enabling the prisoner to make his defence.... This necessity is rendered the stronger by the const.i.tutional provision that the offender "shall be tried in the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," and by the act of congress which requires that twelve petty jurors at least shall be summoned from the county where the offence was committed.
A description of the particular manner in which the war was levied seems also essential to enable the accused to make his defence. The law does not expect a man to be prepared to defend every act of his life which may be suddenly and without notice alleged against him. In common justice the particular fact with which he is charged ought to be stated, and stated in such a manner as to afford a reasonable certainty of the nature of the accusation and the circ.u.mstances which will be adduced against him.
Treason can only be established by the proof of overt acts; and ...
those overt acts only which are changed in the indictment can be given in evidence, unless perhaps as corroborative testimony after the overt acts are proved. That clause in the const.i.tution too which says that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" is considered as having a direct bearing on this point. It secures to him such information as will enable him to prepare for his defence.
It seems then to be perfectly clear that it would not be sufficient for an indictment to allege generally that the accused had levied war against the United States. The charge must be more particularly specified by laying what is termed an overt act of levying war....
If it be necessary to specify the charge in the indictment, it would seem to follow, irresistibly, that the charge must be proved as laid....
Might it be otherwise, the charge of an overt act would be a mischief instead of an advantage to the accused. It would lead him from the true cause and nature of the accusation instead of informing him respecting it.
But it is contended on the part of the prosecution that, although the accused had never been with the party which a.s.sembled at Blennerha.s.sett"s island, and was, at the time, at a great distance, and in a different state, he was yet legally present, and therefore may properly be charged in the indictment as being present in fact.
It is therefore necessary to inquire whether in this case the doctrine of constructive presence can apply.
It is conceived by the court to be possible that a person may be concerned in a treasonable conspiracy and yet be legally, as well as actually absent while some one act of the treason is perpetrated. If a rebellion should be so extensive as to spread through every state in the union, it will scarcely be contended that every individual concerned in it is legally present at every overt act committed in the course of that rebellion. It would be a very violent presumption indeed, ... to presume that even the chief of the rebel army was legally present at every such overt act.
If the main rebel army, with the chief at its head, should be prosecuting war at one extremity of our territory, say in New-Hampshire--if this chief should be there captured and sent to the other extremity for the purpose of trial--if his indictment instead of alleging an overt act, which was true in point of fact, should allege that he had a.s.sembled some small party, which in truth he had not seen, and had levied war by engaging in a skirmish in Georgia at a time when in reality he was fighting a battle in New-Hampshire--if such evidence would support such an indictment by the fiction that he was legally present though really absent, all would ask to what purpose are those provisions in the const.i.tution, which direct the place of trial and ordain that the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation?
But that a man may be legally absent, who has counselled or procured a treasonable act, is proved by all those books which treat upon the subject; and which concur in declaring that such a person is a princ.i.p.al traitor, not because he was legally present, but because in treason all are princ.i.p.als. Yet the indictment, speaking upon general principles, would charge him according to the truth of the case....
If the conspirator had done nothing which amounted to levying of war, and if by our const.i.tution the doctrine that an accessory becomes a princ.i.p.al be not adopted, in consequence of which the conspirator could not be condemned under an indictment stating the truth of the case, it would be going very far to say that this defect, if it be termed one, may be cured by an indictment stating the case untruly.
In point of law then, the man, who incites, aids, or procures a treasonable act, is not merely in consequence of that incitement, aid or procurement, legally present when that act is committed.
If it do not result, from the nature of the crime, that all who are concerned in it are legally present at every overt act, then each case depends upon its own circ.u.mstances; and to judge how far the circ.u.mstances of any case can make him legally present, who is in fact absent, the doctrine of constructive presence must be examined.
The whole treason laid in this indictment is the levying of war in Blennerha.s.sett"s island; and the whole question to which the inquiry of the court is now directed is whether the prisoner was legally present at that fact.
I say this is the whole question; because the prisoner can only be convicted on the overt act laid in the indictment. With respect to this prosecution, it is as if no other overt act existed.
If other overt acts can be inquired into, it is for the sole purpose of proving the particular fact charged. It is as evidence of the crime consisting of this particular fact, not as establishing the general crime by a distinct fact.
The counsel for the prosecution have charged those engaged in the defence with considering the overt act as the treason, whereas it ought to be considered solely as the evidence of the treason; but the counsel for the prosecution seem themselves not to have sufficiently adverted to this clear principle; that though the overt act may not be itself the treason, it is the sole act of that treason which can produce conviction. It is the sole point in issue between the parties. And the only division of that point, if the expression be allowed, which the court is now examining, is the constructive presence of the prisoner at the fact charged....
Had the prisoner set out with the party from Beaver for Blennerha.s.sett"s island, or perhaps had he set out for that place, though not from Beaver, and had arrived in the island, he would have been present at the fact. Had he not arrived in the island, but had taken a position near enough to cooperate with those on the island, to a.s.sist them in any act of hostility, or to aid them if attacked, the question whether he was constructively present would be a question compounded of law and fact, which would be decided by the jury, with the aid of the court, so far as respected the law. In this case the accused would have been of the particular party a.s.sembled on the island, and would have been a.s.sociated with them in the particular act of levying war said to have been committed on the island.
But if he was not with the party at any time before they reached the island--if he did not join them there, or intend to join them there--if his personal cooperation in the general plan was to be afforded elsewhere, at a great distance, in a different state--if the overt acts of treason to be performed by him were to be distinct overt acts--then he was not of the particular party a.s.sembled at Blennerha.s.sett"s island, and was not constructively present, aiding and a.s.sisting in the particular act which was there committed.
The testimony on this point, so far as it has been delivered, is not equivocal. There is not only no evidence that the accused was of the particular party which a.s.sembled on Blennerha.s.sett"s island; but the whole evidence shows he was not of that party.
In felony then, admitting the crime to have been completed on the island, and to have been advised, procured, or commanded by the accused, he would have been incontestably an accessory and not a princ.i.p.al.
But in treason, it is said, the law is otherwise, because the theatre of action is more extensive.
The reasoning applies in England as strongly as in the United States.
While in "15 and "45 the family of Stuart sought to regain the crown they had forfeited, the struggle was for the whole kingdom; yet no man was ever considered as legally present at one place, when actually at another; or as aiding in one transaction, while actually employed in another.
With the perfect knowledge that the whole nation may be the theatre of action, the English books unite in declaring that he, who counsels, procures or aids treason, is guilty accessorially and solely in virtue of the common law principle, that what will make a man an accessory in felony makes him a princ.i.p.al in treason. So far from considering a man as constructively present at every overt act of the general treason in which he may have been concerned, the whole doctrine of the books limits the proof against him to those particular overt acts of levying war with which he is charged.
What would be the effect of a different doctrine? Clearly that which has been stated. If a person levying war in Kentucky, may be said to be constructively present and a.s.sembled with a party carrying on war in Virginia at a great distance from him, then he is present at every overt act performed anywhere. He may be tried in any state on the continent, where any overt act has been committed. He may be proved to be guilty of an overt act laid in the indictment in which he had no personal partic.i.p.ation, by proving that he advised it, or that he committed other acts.
This is, perhaps, too extravagant to be in terms maintained. Certainly it cannot be supported by the doctrines of the English law.
In conformity with principle and with authority then, the prisoner at the bar was neither legally nor actually present at Blennerha.s.sett"s island; and the court is strongly inclined to the opinion that without proving an actual or legal presence by two witnesses, the overt act laid in this indictment cannot be proved.