2. By the facts stated by Peter Taylor.
3. By the conversation stated by Major Riddle.
4. By the conversation stated by Colonel James Taylor.
5. By Mr. Smith’s journey to Frankfort, in 1806.
6. By the bill drawn by Colonel Burr, on Mr. Smith, in favor of Jacob Jackson.
7. By that drawn on him by Colonel Burr, in favor of Belknap.
8. By a supposed contradiction between Mr. Smith’s statement respecting the settlement of the Washita lands, in his deposition before Matthew Nimmo, and the facts which appeared in evidence at Richmond. And
9. By a supposed similarity between the style of the conversation stated in Glover’s deposition and that of Mr. Smith’s own deposition before Nimmo.
By some of those proofs and circumstances, or by all of them taken together, it is contended that a criminal connection between Smith and Burr in the late conspiracy is established; and it is therefore incumbent on me to consider them all; which I shall proceed to do in the order in which they have been stated, and with as much brevity as the extent and variety of the matter will admit.
As to the conversation stated by Elias Glover, I admit that, if it did take place, it furnishes sufficient proof of a criminal participation by Mr. Smith, in the enterprise of Colonel Burr, and sufficient ground for a vote of expulsion. We are, therefore, to show that Glover’s deposition, even when bolstered up by the furtive skulking affidavit of his confederate, McFarland, is entitled to no credit. This we undertake, and unless we do it in a satisfactory manner, I admit that we fail in our defence.