Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 2 P20 ppsx

window, burglary was not committed. The same
rule applied when a door or window was
partially open even though it was necessary to
open it further in order to enter. The rationale
underlying this rule was that one who failed to
secure his or her dwelling was not entitled to the
protection of the law. A majority of states no
longer follow this rule and consider breaking to
be the slightest application of force to gain entry
through a partially accessible opening.
When entry is gained by a
MISREPRESENTATION
of identity or by any other trick, it is called
constructive breaking, which satisfies the break-
ing requirement of burglary. However, if a
person, such as a servant, has authority to enter,
there is no breaking unless he or she breaks into
and enters an unauthorized area.
Under the common law, the breaking had
to occur immediately before the time of entry.
Most jurisdictions that retain the breaking
element are in agreement; in others, the break-
ing can occur during a
REASONABLE TIME before
the entry. Some jurisdictions have completely
eliminated the element of breaking from the
statutory definition of burglary, while others
require it for one degree of burglary but not
another.
Entry In the course of a burglary, entry is the
act that follows the breaking. Literally, it occurs

when there is physical intrusion into another’s
dwelling or building by any part of the intruder’s
body. A momentary intrusion will suffice. When
a thief kicks open a window to gain access to a
dwelling, the momentary insertion of the foot
constitutes an entry.
When an instrument is used to gain access
to a dwelling, the intrusion of the instrument is
not an entry unless it is used to accomplish the
intended felony. If the instrument is used to
take something from inside the building, there
is an entry sufficient for burglary.
An entry may be constructive. In other
words, it is not always required that the thief
enter the dwelling. If he or she directs another
person not legally capable of committing the
offense, such as a child, to enter, then the entry
is imputed to the thief.
In jurisdictions where breaking is an
element of burglary, there must be causation
between the breaking and entry. Although the
acts may occur at separate times depending
upon statute, the entry must follow from the
breaking. Where a hole is drilled into a wall on
one day and entry occurs a few days later, there
is a causal link between the breaking and entry.
Dwelling At common law, the entry had to be
into the dwelling of another to constitute the
offense. A dwelling was defined as a house or
mansion where one normally sleeps, although it

was not necessary that it be occupied at the time
of entry. Structures and premises immediately
surrounding the dwelling, such as an outhouse
or a yard, were also protected since they were
considered part of the dwelling.
A dwelling had to be a place of human
habitation and occupancy. A storehouse pro-
tected by a nightwatchman was not a dwelling
even if he occasionally slept in it. If, however, it
was within the immediate surroundings of a
dwelling, it would be treated as a dwelling for
purposes of burglary.
In the early 2000s, most jurisdictions have
expanded the common-law requirement that
the offense take place in a dwelling. There is no
jurisdiction that retains this requirement for all
degrees of burglary. Under modern statutes, the
offense can occur in any enclosed structure,
regardless of whether it is used for habitation.
Nighttime The requirement that the breaking
and entering occur at night was an essential
element of the offense at common law. Sunrise
and sunset were not the means of determining
night and day. The proper test was whether the
countenance of a human could be discerned by
natural light.
Many jurisdictions no longer require that the
offense occur at night. Some states have retained
it for higher degrees of the offense, but do not
require it for all degrees. Under statutes retaining

the nighttime element, it is defined as occurring
30 minutes before sunrise or 30 minutes after
sunset. It is not necessary that all acts be done on
the same night. If the breaking and entering is
done one night and the felony is committed a
few nights later, the offense is committed.
Intent Under the common law, an intent to
commit a felony at the time of breaking and
entering into the dwelling was an essential
element of burglary. Since
LARCENY was a felony
at common law, an intent to commit a larceny
would suffice. Statutes vary from one jurisdic-
tion to another. An intent to commit a felony is
no longer required for all grades of the offense.
In some states an intent to commit any crime
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
178 BURGLARY
will suffice. Man y states have retained the felony
requirement for higher grades of the offense.
Absent this intent element, a breaking and entry
might be a trespass, but not be a burglary.
If a defense to the underlying crime or
felony is sufficiently established, there can be no
conviction for burglary. For example, if a
person charged with burglary is accused of
larceny and has a sufficient defense to the
larceny charge, then there is no burglary.
Degrees of the Offense
Some jurisdictions have a statutory scheme

under which the offense is divided into degrees.
These types of statutes frequently impose
heavier penalties when the offense involves the
use of force or
WEAPONS. Under one such statute,
burglary in the
THIRD DEGREE is committed by a
person
KNOWINGLY entering or remaining un-
lawfully in a building with an intent to commit
a crime therein. When the same offense is
committed with explosives or deadly weapons,
or when it results in physical injury to a person
who is not a participant in the crime, it is
burglary in the first degree, for which there is a
greater penalty.
IMPRISONMENT is the usual punishment for
burglary. Under statutes in many states, the
severity of the sentence is determined by the
degree of the burglary.
FURTHER READINGS
Allen, Michael. 2005. Textbook on Criminal Law. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press.
Cromwell, Paul F., and James N. Olson. 2003. Breaking
and Entering: Burglars and Burglary. Florence, KY:
Wadsworth.
Smith, J.C. 1997. Law of Theft. New York: LexisNexis.
Thomas, D.A. 2003. “Domestic Burglary—Sentencing
Guidelines.” Criminal Law Review (March).
v

BURKE, EDMUND
Edmund Burke was an orator, philosophical
writer, political theorist, and member of Parlia-
ment who helped shape political thought in
England and the United States during the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
Burke was born January 12, 1729, in Dublin,
Ireland, to a Protestant father and a Roman
Catholic mother. His father, a prosperous
Dublin attorney, was cold and authorita rian,
and the two did not enjoy a close relationship.
After graduating from Trinity College, Dublin,
in 1750, Burke traveled to England to study law
in accord with his father’s wishes. However, he
did not progress in his legal studies, and he
Edmund Burke 1729–1797
▼▼
▼▼
17251725
18001800
17751775
17501750
❖❖ ◆
◆
◆
◆
1729 Born,
Dublin, Ireland
1756 A
Vindication of

Natural Society
published
anonymously
1759
Founded
the Annual
Register
1765–66 Elected
to Parliament;
served as private
secretary to the
Marquis of
Rockingham, the
prime minister
1776 American colonies declared
independence from Great Britain
1774–80 Served
again in Parliament
as representative
from Bristol
1790 Reflections
on the
Revolution in
France published
1797 Died,
Beaconsfield,
Buckinghamshire,
England
Edmund Burke.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

ALL GOVERNMENT—
INDEED, EVERY
HUMAN BENEFIT AND
ENJOYMENT
, EVERY
VIRTUE AND EVERY
PRUDENT ACT
—IS
FOUNDED ON
COMPROMISE AND
BARTER
.
—EDMUND BURKE
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
BURKE, EDMUND 179
eventually abandoned the law in favor of a
literary career.
In 1756 Burke published two philosophical
treatises, A Vindication of Natural Society and A
Philosophical Enquiry into the Originof Our Ideas of
the Sublime and Beautiful. These and other works
launched Burke’s career as a critic of social and
political issues. Burke became a member of the
literary circle headed by Samuel Johnson, the
English author, scholar, and critic. In 1759 Burke
founded the Annual Register, ayearlysurveyof
world affairs to which he contributed until 1788.
Realizing that the literary life would not
pay enough to support a family, Burke entered
politics. In 1765 he was appointed private

secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham, Eng-
land’s prime minister and a member of the
WHIG
PARTY
, marking the beginning of a lifelong alliance
between Burke and Rockin gham and the Whigs.
Burke was also elected to Parliament in 1765. In
1766 Rockingham lost the premiership. Burke
was offered employment with the new adminis-
tration, but chose to remain with the Whig
opposition. “I believe in any body of men in
England I should have been in the minority,” he
said. “I have always been in the minority.”
Burke believed strongly in opposition poli-
tics. Having a party that acts as a watchdog for
the
INCUMBENT party is the best way, he felt, to
avoid corruption and
ABUSE OF POWER.Asa
member of the opposition, Burke could do what
he did best: criticize the government for what
he considered unjust or unwise policies. He
disagreed with England’s policies in North
America and urged the government to abolish
the tea duty imposed on the colonies. “All
government—indeed every human benefit and
enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act—
is founded on compromise and barter,” he said
in 1775, in his Speech on Conciliation with
America. However, despite his dissatisfaction

with English policy, he did not support the
American revolutionaries. Although he believed
that the British had been overly harsh and
tyrannical, he also believed in the legislative
superiority of the British Parliament over the
colonies. In August, 1776, he expressed his
despair over the conflict between England and
its North American colonies: “I do not know
how to wish success to those whose victory is to
separate us from a large and noble part of our
empire,” he wrote. “Still less do I wish success
to injustice,
OPPRESSION, and absurdity. No
good can come of any event in this war to any
virtuous interest.”
Burke vociferously criticized the British
government’s policies in Irela nd as well, and
decried the poverty and persecution of Catho-
lics there. Yet, although his sympathies were
clearly with the oppressed and powerless in
Ireland, he again opposed revolution and urged
moderation on both sides. “I believe there are
very few cases which will justify a revolt against
the established government of a country, let its
constitution be what it will,” he said.
Burke’s support for established order, even
where it meant support for inequalities, was
most evident in his harsh criticism of the French
Revolution. “[T]he age of chivalry is gone,” he
wrote in Reflections on the Revolution in France.

“That of sophisters, economists and calculators
has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is gone
forever.” According to Burke, the French revolu-
tionaries’ only purpose was to destroy all
traditional authority and property rights. The
result, he predicted, would be anarchy and the
emergence of an autocratic ruler whose reign
would be worse than any the revolutionaries had
seen before. Burke’s prediction proved accurate:
the revolution in France led to the Reign of
Terror and the regime of Napoleon.
In his
CONDEMNATION of the French Revolu-
tion, Burke presaged American thought on the
importance of private property to the preserva-
tion of societal harmony. Stephen B. Presser,
associate dean and professor at Northwestern
University School of Law, wrote that
Burke’s attacks on the French, and his
spirited defense of private property as a
guarantee of order, stability, and prosperity
have echoed through the arguments of
American judges and statesmen.
Burke’s strongest criticism of British policy
came in the 1780s when he instigated
IMPEACH-
MENT
proceedings against Warren Hastings,
governor-general of India. Burke attacked the
British East India Company as unjust and

oppressive in its treatment of the Indian people.
In his Speech on Opening the
ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT
of Warren Hastings (1788), Burke
asserted his belief that the exercise of arbitrary
political power is never justified. “My Lords
the King has no arbitrary power to give him
[Hastings], your Lordships have not, nor the
commons, nor the whole Legislature. We have
no arbitrary power to give, because arbitrary
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
180 BURKE, EDMUND
power is a thing, which neither any man can
hold nor any man can give.” Burke’ s view that
political power is held in trust for the benefit of
the people is reflected in the basic tenets of U.S.
democracy and is at the core of the United
States’ republican form of government.
Burke has been claimed as a champion of
both liberals and conservatives. His denuncia-
tion of oppression in India, Ireland, and North
America and his staunch opposition to the
exercise of arbitrary power endeared him to
libertarians and proponents of individual rights.
However, his strong faith in established politi-
cal, religious, and social institutions , and his
fear of reform beyond limitations on sovereign
power, reverberate in contemporary conserva-
tism. Likewise, his support for

CIVIL RIGHTS was
tempered with a strong belief in the necessity of
individual responsibility. In 1791, he wrote, in A
Letter to a Member of the Nation al Assembly,
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact
proportion to their disposition to put moral
chains upon their own appetites; in propor-
tion as their love to justice is above their
rapacity; in proportion as their soundness
and sobriety of understanding is above their
vanity and presumption; in proportion as
they are more disposed to listen to the
counsels of the wise and good, in preference
to the flattery of knaves.
Burke was firmly opposed to the substitu-
tion of government assistance for individual
initiative. In Thoughts and Details on Scarcity
(1795), he cautioned against “attempts to feed
the people out of the hands of the magistrates.”
He seemed to predict the modern quagmire of
WELFARE dependency when he wrote, “and
having looked to government for bread, on
the very first scarcity they will turn and bite the
hand that fed them. To avoid that evil,
government will redouble the causes of it; and
then it will become inveterate and incurable.”
The last few years of Burke’s life were
marred by the death of his only son, Richard
Burke, in 1794. With his wife, Jane Nugent
Burke, whom he had married in 1757, Burke

had established the harmonious family life he
had never known as a child. The premature l oss
of his son, and the concomitant demise of
Burke’s dreams and plans for the young man’s
future, left Burke disconsolate. Although he
continued his activities in politics, particularly
in the formation of the Irish government, his
personal life was clouded with disappointment
and bitterness. Burke died three years after his
son, on July 9, 1797; yet two hundred years after
his death, his philosophies continued to reso-
nate on both sides of the Atlantic.
FURTHER READINGS
Crowe, Ian, ed. 1997. Edmund Burke: His Life and Legacy.
Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts.
Kirk, Russell. 2001. The Conservative Mind from Burke to
Eliot. 7th ed. Chicago: Regnery Books.
———. 1997. Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered.
Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
Kramnick, Isaac, ed. 1999. The Portable Edmund Burke. New
York: Penguin.
Lambert, Elizabeth R. 2003. Edmund Burke of Beaconsfield.
Newark: Univ. of Delaware Press.
O’Brien, Conor C. 1994. The Great Melody: A Thematic
Biography of Edmund Burke. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press.
v
BURLAMAQUI, JEAN JACQUES
Jean Jacques Burlamaqui achieved prominence
as a Swiss

JURIST and legal author.
Burlamaqui was born July 24, 1694. As an
educator, Burlamaqui taught legal studies at
Geneva; however, his fame is based primarily on
his two publications relating to the law:
Principes du droit naturel, translated as “Prin-
ciples of natural law,” in 1747; and Principes du
droit politique, or “Principles of political law,”
in 1751. He believed in
NATURAL LAW and its
▼▼
▼▼
17001700
Jean Jacques Burlamaqui 1694–1748
16751675
17251725
17501750
17751775
❖
❖
◆
◆
◆
◆
1694 Born,
Geneva, Switzerland
1720 Appointed
professor of natural
and civil law
1732 George

Washington
born
◆
1743 Thomas
Jefferson born
1747 Principes du droit
naturel (Principles of
Natural Law) published
1751 Principes du droit politique
(Principles of Political Law)
published posthumously
1748 Died, Geneva, Switzerland
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
BURLAMAQUI, JEAN JACQUES 181
relationship to God, human intellect, and
innate moral responses, and he viewed natural
law as the foundation of domestic and
INTERNA-
TIONAL LAW
.
Burlamaqui died April 3, 1748, in Geneva,
Switzerland.
v
BURNET, DAVID GOUVERNEUR
David Gouverneur Burnet centered his career
efforts in Texas.
Burnet was born April 4, 1788, in Newark,
New Jersey. Before entering politics, Burnet
served under Francisco de Miranda in 1806 in
an endeavor to liberate Venezuela from Spain.

He also studied law and pursued careers in
business and speculation.
Burnet relocated to Texas and presided as
a Texas district judge in 1834. In 1836 he
participated at the Washington-on-the-Brazos
Convention, where he drafted the Texas
DECLA-
RATION OF INDEPENDENCE
; in 1836 he served as the
president ad interim of the Republic of Texas.
He subsequently resigned, but returned to
perform the duties of
VICE PRESIDENT. From
1846 to 1847 he acted as the
SECRETARY OF STATE
of Texas, the first person to hold such a
position in the newly formed state. Burnet died
December 5, 1870, in Galveston, Texas.
v
BURR, AARON
AARON BURR was a soldier, lawyer, and politician
and the third vice
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Burr was born February 6, 1756, in Newark,
New Jersey. His family traced its ancestry to the
Pilgrims and through hundreds of years of
English gentry with many members who were
prominent in government and politics. Both
his parents died when he was young and he
and his sister were raised in comfortable

circumstances by their maternal uncle. Bu rr
was a bright, charming, handsome, and witty
boy who was gifted intellectually but decidedly
mischievous and difficult to control. From
earliest childhood he showed ambition, deter-
mination, and leadership.
Burr entered the College of New Jersey
(now Princeton University) as a sophomore in
1769 at the age of thirteen and graduated
summa cum laude three years later. He then
enrolled in
LITCHFIELD LAW SCHOOL (Connecticut ),
which was run by his brother-in-law and former
tutor, Tapping Reeve. However, the Revolution-
ary War and his desire to be a part of it
interrupted his studies.
Burr rose swiftly through the ranks of the
revolutionary army, displaying daring, energy,
courage, and imagination. His small stature
and pampered upbringing belied an internal
strength that surprised many who knew him.
Accompanying Colonel Benedict Arnold’s
troops in their expedition to Quebec, he
endured cold, hunger, and illness. He was made
an officer in the Continental Army and soon
served with General
GEORGE WASHINGTON.
Burr resigned his Army commission in
1779. He resumed the study of law in 1780
and was admitted to the bar in 1782. Later in

▼▼
▼▼
18001800
David Gouverneur Burnet 1788–1870
17751775
18251825
18501850
18751875
❖
❖
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
1788 Born,
Newark, N.J.
1806 Joined
Miranda expedition
to emancipate
Venezuela from
Spain
1817 Visited
Texas; lived
with Indian
tribe for a time

1826
Immigrated
permanently
to Texas
1834
Became
Texas
district
judge
1836 Helped draft Texas Declaration of Independence;
became president ad interim of the new Republic
1838–40
Served as vice
president of
the Republic
of Texas
1845
Texas
admitted
to the
union
1848 Mexican War
ended by treaty in
which U.S. gained
territory from
Colorado to
California
1846 Became secretary
of state of Texas;
Mexican war began

1861–65
U.S. Civil
War
1870 Died,
Galveston, Tx.
1866 Elected to U.S.
Senate but Texan
delegation rejected by
Congress (due to former
Confederate ties)
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
182 BURNET, DAVID GOUVERNEUR
1782 he married Theodosia Prevost, a widow
ten years his senior, and the following year their
only child, a daughter also named Theodosia,
was born.
In 1789 Burr was appointed attorney general
of the state of New York and in 1790 he was
elected a U.S. senator, defeating General Philip
Schuyler, the father-in-law of
ALEXANDER HAMILTON.
This was the beginning of a bitter rivalry with
Hamilton that would come to a ruinous conclu-
sion years later.
Burr served in the Senate for six years.
In 1796 the voters turned against him
and elected his former antagonist, General
Schuyler. Burr attributed his loss to Hamilton’s
assiduous efforts to undermine his support and
reputation.

After losing his Senate seat, Burr served a
short time in the New York assembly, before
entering the presidential race of 1800. He and
his opponent,
THOMAS JEFFERSON, received the
same number of votes in the
ELECTORAL COLLEGE,
and the election went to the House of
Representatives for resolution. Burr and his
supporters were unabashedly ambitious in their
zeal to win the office. Burr’s nemesis Hamilton
stepped into the fray, announcing his support
for Jefferson and criticizing Burr. Finally,
through clever manipulation of the voting
process, Hamilton secured the presidency for
Jefferson and Burr automatically became
VICE
PRESIDENT
. As a result of this peculiar election
Congress passed the
TWELFTH AMENDMENT, which
mandated separate balloting for president and
vice president.
Burr’s ruthless and opportunistic ambition
caused many of his colleagues to shun him both
professionally and socially. President Jefferson
held him at arm’ s length, and others in the
administration treated him like an outsider.
Burr blamed his failure to secure the top office
largely on Hamilton and he brooded over

perceived injustices. Having lost his beloved wife
in 1794, Burr was left with only his daughter,
whom he idolized. He devoted as much time and
energy as possible to her education and her
grooming. However, the young la dy was moving
Aaron Burr.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
▼▼
▼▼
17751775
Aaron Burr 1756–1836
17501750
18001800
18251825
18501850
❖
❖
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆◆ ◆
1756 Born,
Newark, N.J.
1772 Graduated from
the College of New
Jersey (now Princeton

University)
1775–79
Served in the
revolutionary
army
1789
Appointed
attorney
general
of New
York state
1783 American Revolution ended
1790 Elected to U.S. Senate, defeated General Philip
Schuyler, father-in-law of Alexander Hamilton
1796 Lost
reelection
to General
Schuyler
1801 Became vice president under Thomas Jefferson when House
of Representatives broke electoral college tie in Jefferson's favor
1812 Returned
to United States
1807 Acquitted of treason in conquering
venture; went into exile in Europe
1806 Failed in attempt to conquer land in
western U.S. and Mexico
1804 Killed long-time political rival
Alexander Hamilton in a gun duel
1836 Died,
Princeton, N.J.

LAW IS WHATEVER IS
BOLDLY ASSERTED
AND PLAUSIBLY
MAINTAINED
.
—AARON BURR
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
BURR, AARON 183
into adulthood and a life of her own. In 1801,
against her father’s wishes, she married Joseph
Alston, of South Carolina, and moved to the
Palmetto State, leaving Burr alone in Washing-
ton, D.C.
Toward the end of his term as vice
president, Burr ran for governor of New York
but was defeated. During the campaign Hamil-
ton again expressed his distrust of Burr and
made other disparaging comments about him.
Feeling that his honor had been impugned, Burr
challenged Hamilton to a duel. Although
Hamilton tried to defuse the conflict, Burr
was determined to force a
CONFRONTATION. The
two men met at 7:00 a.m. on July 7, 1804. Burr
was an excellent marksman, and he killed
Hamilton with the first shot. In an ensuing
public outcry, Burr was indicted for
MURDER.
He escaped to his daughter’s home in South
Carolina until the furor died down and

eventually returned to Washington, D.C., to
complete his term as vice president.
Burr came to realize that his aspirations to
the presidency had been destroyed. His political
career in ruins, he left Washington, D.C., and
traveled west to explore frontier territory. He
also concocted an elaborate
CONSPIRACY that
was to be his final political undoing. Though
complete details of the scheme have never been
fully discovered, Bur r apparently intended to
United States v. Aaron Burr
I
B
n 1807 Aaron Burr was prosecuted for tre ason
and high misdemeanor in the federal circuit court
in Richmond, Virginia, with U.S. Supreme Court
Chief Justice John Marshall presiding as a trial
judge. Despite evidence that Burr had been plotting
to raise a rebellion and overtake a portion of the
western territories in the United States and other
evidence that Burr was planning to lead an
unauthorized invasion of Mexico, the defenda nt
was acquitted by a jury on both t he treason and
high misdemeanor charges.
Aaron Burr served as the nation’sthirdvice
president from 1801–1805, having lost the 1800
presidential election after the U.S. House of
Representatives b roke an electoral deadlock by
naming Thomas Jefferson presi dent and Burr vice

president. Al though Burr contemplated running for
president again four years later, those ambitions
came to an end when he was indicted for murd ering
Alexander Hamilton in a duel on July 11, 1804.
Later that same month, Bu rr, now disaffected
with American politics, met w ith Britain’sministerto
the United States, Anthony Merry, who subsequent-
ly reported to his government that Burr “was
endeavoring to effect a separation of the western
part of the United States” via military action. In early
1805 Burr, while still acting as the vice president of
the United States, contacted Spanish minister,
MarquesdeCasaYrujo,todiscussthesame
subject. The governmen ts of both Great Britain
and Spain declined to offer Burr an y financial or
military assistance.
When hi s term as vice president expired, Burr
headed west to raise a military force that would
either invade Mexico or forcefully sever the
southwestern United States into an independent
nation led by Burr himself. The former vice
president first met with another malcontent, Herman
Blennerhassett, on Blennerhassett Island, located
in the Ohio River, then part of Virginia. A year later
Burr joined forces with General James Wilkinson on
Blennerhassett Island, where they assembled a
force of unknown size to carry out Burr’splan.Burr
left the island before any actions were taken to
implement the plan.
After Burr departed, Wilkinson had second

thoughts about the plan and informed President
Jefferson of their rebellious preparations. Jefferson
issued a proclamation call ing for the suppression of
the conspiracy. Federal authorities arrested Burr in
March1807whilehewastryingtofleeintoSpanish
Florida. The former vice president was brought back
to Virginia where he stood trial before Chief Justice
John Marshall (early Supreme Court justices
performed double duty as appellate judges on the
nation’s high court and as trial judges in their
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
184 BURR, AARON
lead the western states in an INSURRECTION
against the federal government. After the states
seceded, he planned to install himself as the
head of a newly created republic. He then
intended to conquer Texas and Mexico. In
October 1806, President Jefferson issued a
PROCLAMATION denouncing Burr’s venture. On
January 14, 1807, Burr was arrested in
Mississippi on a charge of
TREASON. He escaped,
but was later apprehended in Alabama. Burr’s
trial began in May 1807, and lasted six months.
He was eventually acquitted but his political life
was over.
Burr spent the next several years in exile in
Europe, where he endured poverty, humiliation,
and degradation. In 1812 he quietly returned to
the United States, slipping into Boston wearing a

disguise and using an assumed name. After a
time he resumed a somewhat normal life and
opened a law office in New York. Burr’s
prospects seemed to be brightening when he
was dealt two crushing personal blows. First, he
learned that his only grandchild, Aaron Burr
Alston, had died before Burr returned to the
United States. A few months later his beloved
daughter perished in a shipwreck while traveling
from South Carolina to New York to visit Burr.
Burr was devastated by these losses. A wave
of sympathy tempered public opinion toward
him, but he was still shunned by those in
designated circuit court) and state trial judge Cyrus
Griffin. Bail was set at $5,000.
After hearing testimony from Wilkinson, the
grand jury for the Virginia federal circuit court
indicted Burr on June 24, 1807. The indictme nt
charged him with one count of treason and one
count of high misdemeanor for “unlawfully, falsely,
maliciously, and traitorously intending to raise
and levy war” against the United States.
The trial began on August 10, 1807, and ended
less than a month later, on September 1, 1807.
Jefferson, motivated in part by personal vindictive-
ness against Burr, declared in a special message to
Congress during the trial that Burr’s guilt had been
“placed beyond question.” Jefferson then gave
George Hay, the U.S. attorney in charge of the
prosecution, incriminating evidence to offer against

Burr. Jefferson also dangled pardons as entice-
ments to any co-conspirators who agreed to turn
sta te’s evidence.
But the prosecution had two major problems.
First, the linchpin of the treason charge was the
alleged overt act of assembling a military force on
Blennerhassett Island for the purpose of waging
war against the United States. The indictment said
this act occurred on December 10, 1806, a d ate on
which a ll defense and prose cution witnesses
agreed that Burr was not on the island, but instead
hundreds of miles away.
Second, Chief Justice Marshall instructed the
jurors that they could stil l convict B urr of treason
for being an coconspirator to the crime, so long as
at least two witnesses provided testimony that
some overt act was committed in furtherance of the
conspiracy. But General Wilkinson was the only
witness who testified as to Burr’s involvement in
the alleged crime. The jury returned a verdict of
“not guilty” after deliberating for only 25 minutes.
On September 9, 1807, the trial for the high
misdemeanor began, again with Chief Justice
Marshall and Cyrus Griffin presiding. Prosecutor
Hay called more than 50 witnesses to t estify against
the defendant. But the jury again acquitted Burr.
HaythenfiledamotiontoprosecuteBurrfor
treason in Ohio, alleging that the defendant
conspired to levy war against the U.S. government
in that jurisdiction as wel l. Marshall listened to five

weeks of testimony concerning the motion and then
on October 20 ruled that Burr coul d only be tri ed for
misdemeanor charges in Ohio. Finally, H ay ceased
efforts at prosecuting Burr any further.
FURTHER READINGS
Beirne, Francis. 1959. Shout Treason: The Trial of Aaron Burr.
New York: Hastings House.
Melton, Bucker F., Jr. 2001. Aaron Burr: Conspiracy to Treason.
New York: Wiley.
Vail, Philip. 1973. The Turbulent Life of Aaron Burr: The Great
American Rascal. New York: Award Books.
CROSS REFERENCE
Treason.
B
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
BURR, AARON 185
prominence. He continued his law practice,
enjoyed a small circle of supportive friends, and
even remarried, though the union was short-
lived and unhappy. He quietly and unobtru-
sively engaged in numerous altruistic and
philanthropic ventures, including providing
for the education of young men and women
of limited resources and adopting an orphan
who lived with him until late adolesc ence.
During the la st few years of his life, Burr
suffered a series of strokes. At first, he
rebounded completely, but each successive
episode left him weaker. He died September
14, 1836, and was buried beside his parents and

grandfather in Princeton, New Jersey.
FURTHER READINGS
Kennedy, Roger G. 2000. Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson:
A Study in Character. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Lomask, Milton. 1982. Aaron Burr. 2 vols. New York: Farrar,
Straus & Giroux.
Melton, Buckner F., Jr. 2001. Aaron Burr: Conspiracy to
Treason. Indianapolis: Wiley.
Vail, Philip. 1973. The Great American Rascal. New York:
Hawthorn Books.
v
BURTON, HAROLD HITZ
Harold Hitz Burton served as a Supreme Court
justice during the years the Court outlawed
SEGREGATION.
Burton was born June 22, 1888, in Jamaica
Plain, Massachusetts. He attended Bowdoin
College, where he was elected Phi Beta Kappa,
and graduated summa cum laude in 1909. He
then entered Harvard Law School where he
received his bachelor of laws degree in 1912.
He married Selma Florence Smith and the couple
set out to take advantage of opportunity in
the burgeoning Midwest. They settled in
Cleveland where Burton established a successful
law practice.
Burton serve d in the infantry in France
during
WORLD WAR I.Herosetotherankof
captain and was awarded the Purple Heart. In

1923 he began teaching law at Western
Reserve University (now Case Western Reserve
University) and he remained on the faculty
there until 1925.
Burton’s political career began to take shape
when he was elected to the Ohio Legislature in
Harold Hitz Burton.
PHOTOGRAPHY BY
OSCAR WHITE. CORBIS.
Harold Hitz Burton 1888–1964
❖
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
❖
1888 Born,
Jamaica
Plain, Mass.
1909 Graduated summa cum
laude from Bowdoin College
1912 Earned law degree from
Harvard Law School
1914 World
War I began
1917–18 Fought in World
War I; won the Purple Heart

1929
Elected to
Ohio State
legislature
1935 Elected mayor
of Cleveland, Ohio
1940
Elected
to U.S.
Senate
1939–45
World War II
1945 Nominated to U.S. Supreme
Court by President Truman
1950 Wrote
opinion in
Henderson
v. U.S.
outlawing
segregation
in railroad
dining cars
1950–53
Korean War
1954 Joined unanimous ruling in
Brown v. Board of Education that
outlawed segregation in public schools
1964 Died,
Washington, D. C.
1961–73

Vietnam War
1958 Retired from the Court
▼▼
▼▼
18751875
19251925
19501950
19751975
19001900
◆
◆
◆
THE CONSTITUTION
WAS BUILT FOR
ROUGH AS WELL AS
SMOOTH ROADS
.
—HAROLD BURTON
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
186 BURTON, HAROLD HITZ
1929. He also acted as chief legal official of
Cleveland from 1929 to 1932. In 1935 he was
elected mayor of Cleveland and he was returned
to office twice. By 1940 Burton’snameand
reputation for integrity were well established
and he easily won election to the U.S. Senate.
He became known in Washington, D.C., as
a moderate conservative who advocated U.S.
membership in the newly formed
UNITED NATIONS.

When a vacancy occurred on the Supreme
Court in 1945, President
HARRY S. TRUMAN, a Demo-
crat, was under pressure to name a Republican
to fill the slot. Truman did the politically expe-
dient thing: he named Burton, a moderate
Republican whom he admired and who would
likely be replaced in the Senate by a Democrat.
Burton was a popular choice. He was confirmed
within a day of his nomination with no
TESTIMONY
heard by the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE and
unanimous approval by the full Senate.
Burton was a hardworking, conscientious,
dispassionate, and open-minded justice. His
moderate conservatism was a unifying influence
on a highly fractious court. He was noted for his
ability to bridge conflicting factions with
narrowly written opinions that settled an issue
without taking a philosophical stand. He
generally supported states’ rights against inter-
ference by the federal government, except where
his sensitivity to human suffering was aroused.
In 1947 he wrote a vigorous dissent from the
Court’s decision to allow Louisiana to execute a
prisoner after several previous attempts to
execute him had failed. The Court held that
the state’s continued efforts to execute the man
did not constitute “cruel and unusual” punish-
ment. Burton wrote, “It is unthinkable that any

state legislature in modern times would enact a
statute expressly authorizing
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
by repeated applications of an electric current
separated by intervals of days or hours until
finally death shall result” (Louisiana ex rel.
Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 67 S. Ct. 374,
91 L. Ed. 422 [1947]).
Burton’s decisions in antitrust and labor
disputes tended to favor corporations and
management over unions. He was generally
opposed to extending individual rights beyond
the letter of the Constitution, but he digressed
from that stance in matters of racial segregation
and discrimination. A decision he authored in
1950 struck down the practice of confining black
passengers in railway dining cars to a separate
area. “The curtains, partitions and signs [used to
mark that area],” he wrote, “emphasize the
artificiality of a difference in treatment which
serves only to call attention to racial classifications
of passengers holding identical tickets and using
the same public dining facility” (Henderson v. U.
S., 339 U.S. 816, 70 S. Ct. 843, 94 L. Ed. 1302
[1950]). Burton was also a member of the 1954
Court that unanimously declared that segregation
in public schools is unconstitutional (
BROWN V.
BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686,
98 L. Ed. 873).

Burton was compelled to retire in 1958
because of deteriorating health due to Parkin-
son’s disease. He died October 28, 1964, in
Washington, D.C.
FURTHER READINGS
“Harold Hitz Burton.” 2009. Biographical Directory of Federal
Judges. Federal Judicial Center. Available online at http://
www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=331; website home
page: (accessed August 27, 2009).
Harold Hitz Burton Papers, George J. Mitchell Department
of Special Collections, Brunswick, ME: Bowdoin
College Library.
Schwartz, Bernard. 1995. A History of the Supreme Court.
2d ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
CROSS REFERENCE
Warren Court.
v
BUSH, GEORGE HERBERT WALKER
George Herbert Walker Bush capped a full and
distinguished political career with his election
in 1988 as
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.Bush
became the forty-first chief executive after
serving for eight years as the nation’s
VICE
PRESIDENT
under RONALD REAGAN. The most
memorable events of his one-term presidency
were the Desert Shield and Desert Storm
Operations in the Persian Gulf in 1991.

Although Bush was enormously popular in
the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, his stand-
ing with the U.S. public plummeted as domestic
problems and a sour economy took their toll. In
1992, Bush lost the presidential election to
Democratic challenger
BILL CLINTON, the governor
of Arkansas. Clinton’s campaign offered a promise
of change and a “new covenant” between citizens
and government.
Born June 12, 1924, in Milton, Massachu-
setts, Bush was the son of Prescott Sheldon Bush,
an international banker and U.S. senator from
Connecticut, and Dorothy Walker Bush, the
daughter of a wealthy St. Louis businessman.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
BUSH, GEORGE HERBERT WALKER 187