Mr. Wickham opened the debate and was followed by Randolph, Wirt, Botts, MacRae, Hay and Lee. Mr. Martin concluded. It fills one volume of Mr. Robertson’s report of the case, and it would be vain to attempt in this brief review to give anything like a satisfactory account of it. Some of the reasons urged in support of the motion were: that Burr, not being present on Blannerhassett’s Island, was merely an accessory, and not a principal; that if he was a principal he was a principal only in the second degree, where guilt is merely derivative, and that therefore no parole evidence could be admitted against him, until a record was produced of the conviction of the offenders in the first degree; that the facts must be proved as laid in the indictment, and evidence proving the accused to have been absent at the time of the overt acts is inadmissible to support an indictment charging him with the commission of that act; that no parole evidence could be given to connect the prisoner with the men assembled on Blannerhassett’s Island, until an act of treason on the part of these men was proved; and that the assemblage there was not an act of treason; that until the fact of a crime is proved no evidence should be heard respecting the guilty intentions of the accused. On Monday, August 31st the Chief Justice rendered his decision. He read it with great care and consumed three hours in doing so. “The question now to be decided,” he began, “has been argued in a manner worthy of its importance, and with an earnestness evincing the strong conviction felt by the counsel on each side that the law is with them. “A degree of eloquence seldom displaced on any occasion has embellished a solidity of argument, and a depth of research by which the court has been greatly aided in forming the opinion it is about to deliver. “The testimony adduced on the part of the United States to prove the overt act laid in the indictment having shown, and the attorney for the United States having admitted, that the prisoner was not present when that act, whatever may be its character, was committed, and there being no reason to doubt but that he was at a great distance and in a different state, it is objected to the testimony offered on the part of the United States, to connect him with those who committed the overt act, that such testimony is totally irrelevant and must therefore be rejected. “The arguments in support of this motion respect in part the merits of the case as it may be supposed to stand independent of the pleadings, and in part as exhibited by the pleadings. “On the first division of the subject two points are made: “1st. That conformably to the constitution of the United States, no man can be convicted of treason who was not present when the war was levied.