The speaker paused for an impressive moment and then, selecting his words with care, addressed the bench: “I consider this principle of the trial by jury, preserved in its uttermost purity and independence, as connected with the best principles of the human heart. It ought to be viewed and approached with the utmost reverence and caution; and when a judge is called to do what may lead him to encroach on this principle, he will advance with the utmost circumspection and awe. I will take the liberty to say that it will be far more safe and correct to remain a thousand miles on this side of the line which separates the rights of the Jury from those of the Court, than to go a hair’s breadth beyond it; and if he should encroach he ought for no human consideration to touch it. If ever he do, he undermines civil liberty.” That short dissertation on trial by jury must have made some of those present wonder if they had misjudged when they wrote George Hay off as a mediocrity. The District Attorney returned to the old question of whether actual presence of the accused at the scene of the overt act was necessary to sustain a charge of treason. Suppose, he said, Colonel Burr had never been on the spot where the overt act was committed. Suppose he knew his men were there and about to be attacked. Suppose he sent more men there to help them, along with arms, ammunition, and provisions and all other things necessary for their defense. Suppose an attack was made and repelled and thousands fell in the battle. Would it be contended by the gentlemen of the defense that Aaron Burr, not having been personally present when this overt act of his procurement was committed, was not a principal but an accessory? That his soldiers were principals in treason, but he was not? To prove the fallacy Mr. Hay proposed that they look at the result. He is innocent and safe. They are guilty and punished. “Is it possible,” he asked, “that the human mind can be so perplexed by learning and so misled by ingenuity, so totally bereaved of all its powers, as to adopt a conclusion like this?” Mr. Hay closed his argument by reverting to Mr. Wickham’s expressed fear that the doctrine the prosecution asked the Court to sanction would be fatal to the liberty and happiness of the people of the United States. He pictured Mr. Wickham trembling for his country, himself, and his posterity lest the prosecution succeed.