Alexandria Daily Advertiser

FROM THE AURORA

IT appears to be one of the necessary consequences of criminality that it should, for the warning of others and the moral good of the world, take no step, but such as is calculated to betray itself. When Mr. Bollman presented the article which we published yesterday, from the manner of his address, coupled with a declaration which he made in the hearing of the editor, in the district court of Richmond, that the communications of the treasonable project of Burr, which he made to the executive, should be made public by him, we expected that such was the paper he proffered for publication. After a perusal, however, we perceived that the real purport of the paper offered was only the offspring of that system which the unfortunate author of the treason has pursued towards the country, the public, the executive, the persons whom he deluded, and those whom he failed to deceive.

Instead of asserting his innocence or attempting to prove it by facts or evidence, Mr. Burr has endeavored to roll back upon the government by which his treason has been frustrated and upon the public officers who have been most active in defeating his treason, and on the public officers who have conducted the prosecution, calumny and reproach and contumely.

"Like master like man!" As Burr has done so does Bollman. This unfortunate object of mercy, with a pardon registered in a court of law, issued upon the voluntary revelation of his own treason and the treason of the "master spirit" by whom he was led; this is the man who comes forward to the public with the expectation of making an impression on the public mind in favor of the man whom he had before betrayed and of depreciating the character and conduct of the man to whose benevolence and good faith he owes his liberty and life.

Was the disclosure made by this person brought before the district court in an extraordinary and unwarrantable manner? The manner was this: Mr. Hay, attorney for the district of Virginia, in discharge of his duty as public prosecutor called the several witnesses for the public to be sworn in open court on their passage to the grand jury. On Bollman being called, Mr. Hay stated that he conceived it to be his duty to inform the court in what situation he stood as a witness. This Bollman had made important disclosures of Burr's plans projects and the means of accomplishing them, and in consequence thereof the president had issued a pardon: which pardon Bollman at first received, then returned, and said he would neither receive nor reject. In this situation Bollman stood when he came into court and Mr. Hay then tendered a pardon to him in open court, which Bollman refused, and thereupon the pardon was recorded in the court by the clerk thereof.

Was this either an unwarrantable or an extraordinary manner of acting? Could any course be more fair and liberal? How could Mr. Hay omit to notice the pardon or the cause of the pardon, when the man pardoned was to be called as a witness, and appeared to temporise between his first revelations of the treason, and his later intercourse with his accused principal? The notice of the information given by Bollman to the executive, was rendered necessary then by Bollman himself, and what his own unprincipled conduct thro' out had rendered unavoidable, for every act but that of his pardon, which rescued him from the gallows, were his own voluntary acts. He embarked in the treason with Burr voluntarily -- he went to New Orleans voluntarily -- he opened his overture to Wilkinson voluntarily -- he was sent thence to Washington, indeed involuntarily; but without any solicitation or expectation on the part of the executive, he voluntarily proposed to reveal the plans, projects, and means, by which Burr was to accomplish his treason. The executive, however he must detest the traitor, was bound to hear the revelation of the treason; he condescended to let Bollman come into his presence, and to reveal at once the demonstration of his own criminal purpose, and the foreign aid which Burr was to receive, and had already received, and to which Bollman, before his departure to New Orleans from Philadelphia, was privy and a participator. Here then we see this Bollman, who first embarks in a scheme of perfidy to the U. S. of which two foreign powers were the aiders and abettors if not the original instigators -- after, but not till after he is seized and transported from the proposed theatre of his perfidy come forward with a new act of that very species of perfidy which he in his essay yesterday affects to reprobate.

Bollman says that a few days after his arrival at New Orleans in September last advices were received from gen Wilkinson stating that he would chastise the Dons. Now the first question we would ask is what has this to do with vindicating Bollman's character -- which he professes to be the object of his essay?

What has gen. Wilkinson's conduct or his threats on the Sabine to do with Bollman's pardon, or his disclosures to the executive?

But a more important question precedes these inquiries how and for what end came Bollman to New Orleans? How came letters to be addressed to him in cypher, under the name Henry Windbourne? Why, possessed of all the knowledge concerning the perfidious intentions of foreign powers against the U. S. did he go to New Orleans, endeavor to seduce the commander in chief of the army and leave his very tender solicitudes for the U. S. and her ideas of the great necessity of a war with Spain unrevealed, until he came prisoner to Washington city? Why did he keep the plans concealed until they were frustrated? And for what purpose was it, after they were frustrated, that he requested an interview with the executive?

It is ridiculous to say that he had no personal motives he may deceive himself in to the supposition that others will be deceived by him, but the biter is the only one bitten. His concern in the plans -- his being a principal emissary, his being taken in a situation that subjected him to be hanged as a spy -- the very mercy of Wilkinson, which changed his fate from a gibbet to transportation by sea to Washington -- his situation at Washington -- the mode in which he made the application to the president -- the very disclosure of the secret plans of Burr, and of the foreign resources from which Burr drew his funds, and his hopes of establishing that empire, with which in or near the 50th year of his age "the more youthful imagination of Dr: Bollman became enamored in the prospect of emancipating an enslaved kingdom."

Dr. Bollman stands precisely here in a situation similar to that of one of a number of highwaymen, seized on the road in the attempt to rob; the robbery to be sure was not perpetrated, but the Dr. turns state's evidence, and backs out with a full (or half full) disclosure, and for his useful discoveries as state's evidence, the executive deems him entitled to a pardon.

In this situation it is that this state's evidence comes forward as the vindicator of the man he at first betrayed, and the reviler of a magistrate to whom he owes his being at large and exemption from punishment, and thus he insults the very people against whose peace & union he had been a conspirator.

These we believe to be the real merits and the true character of Bollman's conduct all round -- like his principal, he lies and betrays everybody: old friends and strangers, benefactors and partizans: all are alike the victims of his duplicity and wily artifice.

Under such circumstances, and against such an antagonist, so fallen in the estimation of every man of worth and real honor, it may perhaps be superfluous to say another word. But public information demands a few further remarks, in relation to gen. Wilkinson -- and the president of the U. States.

The whole course of Burr's conduct has been, since his seizure, to heap revilement and distrust on general Wilkinson. Bollman, in his curious note upon general Wilkinson's returning to New Orleans "to play the devil," (and he appears to have played the devil with Burr, Bollman, and Co.) confess the whole of Burr's treason; and he admits it too in a cautious way, for while it convicts Burr, it establishes the sagacity and sound generalship of Wilkinson: for says Bollman, General Wilkinson made use of the information which Swartwout gave him of Burr's expedition, to close the dispute with the Spaniards, and then very ungratefully, he infers, after preventing the Spanish war by using the name of Burr, he comes back and after having rendered both illegal and illaudable Burr's plan -- (by frustrating the Spanish war) he then seizes upon Burr's own project its original & true character of treason!

There is one other point in this note that merits notice. Bollman says, Burr's expedition "acquired an illegal character through the inimical conduct of a weak & treacherous friend:".. The reader will do well to consider this sentence.

Was Burr's expedition originally or at any time legal? Did not Burr to more than ten of the witnesses who were examined by the grand jury, declare that it was not only without the knowledge or consent of the government, but that he held the government itself in contempt? But Bollman says had not Wilkinson by a stratagem brought the Spaniards to a truce on the Sabine Burr's project would then have succeeded.

Here then we have a clew to the "inimical conduct of a weak and treacherous friend." That is Wilkinson was so weak as to avert a Spanish war by one stratagem, and to destroy a treasonable conspiracy by another: had the Spanish war been suffered to go on, Wilkinson would not have acted inimical to Burr, had he suffered Burr to come down to Orleans in force he would not have acted inimical, but says this renowned intriguer from the county of Hoy a Wilkinson by frustrating both was weak and treacherous. -- We shall leave the weakness to be judged by the events; let us see by whom it is, and how consistently general Wilkinson is called treacherous.

Treacherous to whom? To his country? No! To the Spaniards? No! To whom then? Why treacherous says Dr. Bollman, who exposed Burr's treason after the fact: to Aaron Burr! Was impudence and audacity ever so barefaced as is this conduct of this man Bollman? Let us suppose the very worst; that the fell spirit of deceit and treachery could inspire Burr, to insinuate or assert. Let us suppose the very worst: that Wilkinson had a previous knowledge of Burr's imperial designs -- of his determination to seize on New Orleans and make it the seat of his arid empire, of which the youthful fancy of Dr. Bollman was so enamoured: Let us suppose more than ever was asserted or surmised, that Wilkinson had entered into written engagements to consummate such a scheme of treason as the severalion of the western and southern territory; and having arrived at the point when Swartwout reached him; that at this moment he had determined and continued resolved to conceal his plot from every one but Swartwout and Bollman, and that on arriving at N. Orleans he had like Coriolanus at the gates of Rome repented and instead of prosecuting the scheme of treason and severation of the national territory, compunction filled his bosom and the love of his country triumphed over his premeditated scheme of treason; we suppose all this freely, because we know the very reverse is the truth; but suppose this true. Why after all Wilkinson would have the merit of at least saving his country, and if he was guilty of treachery, it was to the most treacherous of men, to one with whom no faith ought to be kept. We do not admire Mr. Bollman's idea of honor. It is that vulgar honor called honor among thieves. He cannot see any uprightness to treason, but he can discover treachery in saving a nation from division of territory and civil war, and its concomitant horrors; Wilkinson at the very worst has acted a nobler part than the admired Coriolanus. He has frustrated not only a foreign but a civil war.

In this place, and we thank Bollman for the opportunity, we will inform the public of two important facts; and they will enable the public to determine the chastisement which this hardened conspirator merits, who has dared to speak as he has spoken of Wilkinson.

We above assumed that Wilkinson had concealed the communication made by Burr through Swartwout and Bollman, from every one; it has been repeatedly said that he concealed these and even Dayton's famous communications from the government. -- Mark the real state of the case. -- Swartwout reached general W's camp in the afternoon, and made his communication that evening The first emotion of Wilkinson was that he ought to be immediately disposed of as a spy; but recollecting that there were further communications to be made by Bollman, he determined to pursue another course. Early in the morning he called on col. Cushing, the second in command, and to him communicated the mission and the dispatch brought by Swartwout; with him it was agreed to be best to temporize with Swartwout, until the whole treason should be revealed by the prime emissary Bollman, and upon the possession of that full information to seize upon them and send them to the seat of government. The government was immediately addressed -- by an express dispatch; and Wilkinson took his measures with that admirable skill which has ended in preventing a Spanish war, and in frustrating the conspiracy.

In like manner the recent rumors concerning measures proposed in the grand jury, were founded upon the assumption that gen. Wilkinson had concealed Dayton's treasonable letter from the government. Had any question been asked by the grand jury this mistake could not have arisen, as a copy of Dayton's letter had been forwarded to the government -- fully communicated to the president -- was known to the secretary of war.

These are facts which are known to be true which will appear on the trial.

Let us see it then in another point of view -- see the entreaty the pardon of gen Wilkinson and of the president, for delicacy of naming them at the same time with Bollman, but it is the public interest which demands it. Wilkinson was treacherous! says Bollman. To whom? To Burr. The president was treacherous! says Bollman. To whom? To Bollman. But it is Bollman, who, after Wilkinson had frustrated the treason, that complains of Wilkinson's treachery! What treachery? Why, good reader, Bollman upbraids Wilkinson for not aiding Burr in his treason, and his treachery consists in not being treacherous to his country. He saves his country and frustrates Burr, for this Bollman calls him treacherous. This same Bollman who, after detected in that treason sent to the seat of the government against which he conspired; and he tells the American people in an address to the American people that from the cell in which he was imprisoned as a traitor, he of his own motion undertook to become the privy counsel of the government he aimed to destroy and to preach politics and purity to the executive.

It is his own story; he says he requested the interview for those two decided objects, Well! let us see how he is treated. His story is heard; he said he had no personal motives, What motives then? If he had no personal motives he must have meant only to add another scene to that atrocious cheat; for he says he sought to remove impressions of treason, and to persuade the executive to a war with Spain. If these were the objects he must be at the head of the most sagacious and hardened of conspirators; we will not credit him he is not entitled to it; we believe that he wished to save his life by turning state's evidence. The veriest prostitutes sometimes talk of purity, and disinterestedness. -- They nevertheless pursue their traffic with the world. Bollman revealed the secrets of his principal and was pardoned. Let us now see what were the conditions.

The president's note, which Bollman fortunately furnishes, speaks both the sentiments of the president concerning Bollman and the purpose for which he wished to obtain the statement in writing.

'The president states that Bollman's communications were "interesting," because they unfolded designs against the peace and union of the nation, and the connexion between conspirators and foreign governments in he assumes, that their complexion and tendency was such as Bollman would not scruple to commit to writing, which he had orally entered," but hints "omissions which must have alluded to some circumstance necessary to complete the narration or some incompleteness or inconsistency in the narrative given. The manner of the president note is obviously but distant, and it displays a guarded confidence in the completeness or fidelity of communication. But the point that appears to be most dwelt upon by Bollman is the promise of its being kept secret, and secluded from the public.
attempts to distort this point, we are firmly of opinion from the manner in which Bollman at prandial protestations about the fidelity of connexion, that when Burr made so many semi-confidential letters, in relation to the letter of the 15th May, before the district court, that he had a special apprehension of this state's civil evidence of Bollman, and that it was by it his had a special apprehension of this state's civil roused into such an inflation of affected ho- por. president say- Thomas Jefferson gives his But as it regards Bollman, what does the word of honor that the communication in writing shall never be used against Erick Boll- man. Now what is the fact have these papers ever been used against Erick Bollman? No! on the contrary to prevent the possibility of it the president issues a pardon, so that upon any change of the president or any alteration of circumstances, that paper, which is an offi- cial paper, and which the president under the obligations of duty must file in the secret de- partment of the state, he took care by issuing a pardon should never bring the author and informer into jeopardy. The pardon is issu- ed and the promise is fulfilled. But let us see the revocation made by Bollman. It is not said that it specially concerned the president: but it is said deeply to concern the state: well then, was the president to keep treason unre- vealed and not to act upon it in any shape? Was the promise never to use it against Boll- man, the whole end and purpose of the disclo- sure, and of the commitment in writing? Hay- ing brought the examination of Bollman's risay to this point, we at once see the man, and his profligacy stares the public in the fre. The communication of the treason is to be committed to writing, and on what con- dition? Look at the condition, it is not on the condition of saving A. Burr, or Jonathan Dayton, or James Adair, or any other prin- cipal or associate in the treason; the conditi- on was single, and on that single condition was the communication deliberately written and delivered: that condition was that it should never be used against Bollman. Here then we have not only the history of the dis- closure but the purpose is unfolded, and we find that Bollman who talks so much of es- sential fraud and turpitude, had actually made all these disclosures upon the single condition of saving himself; leaving his prin- cipal and all his associates to shift for them- selves. This is the true character of the transaction, and we deem it wholly superflu- ous to say more upon it, though there is room for ample animadversion. We trust we have placed this agent of treason fairly and in his true colors before that country before which he had the impudence to intrude himself. The notice we have taken of him has been on public grounds, nor should his production have obtained a place in this paper, had we not at once seen the propriety of suffering him to convict himself before the country he endeavored to betray. if we ever take notice of him again in any way it will be only from similar motives, though we think it will be hardly ever necessary to say a word about him again.