Jenks's Portland gazette. [volume] (Portland [Me.]) 1799-1802, 1801-02-23
fVoLUME IIl.1

-
his behalf. I myfelf was fummoned. An
honorable Member from Pennfylyania, # M.
GaAa'm was alto fummoned aud fee fever
al other honorable Members 10 their places
who were included in the luminous. 1t hap
pened that we were prevented from going into
court as ioon as We had iEtended, but we did
70 and when we entered the court, We found
the party preparing an affidavit, or prepared
with one and holding it in his hand, in which
our tsltiInony was Rated 70 be material to his
defence, and our ablence was aledged as a
ground for Pohponing the trial. But our ap-
Pearance dilconceried this fcheme, and the
trial went on. Why were we fummo0ed, Sir ?
Nobody PIefent was ignorant of the purpofe
1t was mere trick TO polfpone the tral, and
70 universally underfocd. We were funmon
ed in the expectation and belief that we would
not attend. 10 that cafe our abience would
have been alledged as caufe Of PoRpone-
ment and there was no difficulty about
twearlng that our teRimony was material.
II the trial has been poaponed on this ground,
the point would have been gained and Juice
eluded and if the court had refufcd to poa-
Pone i, the opportunity which was fought, Of
abulIng the court, aud rating al outcry about
the denial Of juaice, would have been afforded
VIII any body deny this ltatement? No nobody
will prefume TO deny it. The truth AIthed on
all who were within the verge Of the court
None were 70 biod as not to fee the article !;
none were 60 ihameleis as not 70 blufh az it,
Even the tPirit Of party was reduced to flence,
and the mott hardened votares of faction hung
down their heads, and were COMPOUNDED at the
detection. How did the detection take place
How was the deiign rendered thus apparent
The witnehes thns fummohed With parade,
thus called from their feats ID the National Le-
glilatnre TO give evidence On the trial the
witneies Whole ablence, when il was hoped and
believed that they had declined attending, was
about to be made the ground Of an application
on oath for poltPonenlent of the caufe whole
teltlmony was about to be fated on oath to BE-
material 70 The deteEce the witnsf5s, when
they did come, were not examined. They re-
mained in court during the whol- Of the trial.
The party was Informed Of their being prefent,
and when he had gone through all his othec
teitlmony, was expressly adked by the court
whether he wiihed 70 examine them, and he
fAid no. hey were not examined Let il
ihould be iaid that through fatigue ariGag from
the length Of The trial, he had been unable 70
examine them, the court informed him that if
be wibed for time to refreih himfelf, there
lhould be 40 adjournment Of an hour az two
Tor that purpole, but this indulgence be rejected,
and .till declined to examine thefe witnefes.-
thus the Purpole for which they had been
lummoned was ddcloled, and it became mani.
felt 10 all, even thofe mot unwilling to fee,
that their being called on was mere trick,
which their unexpected appearance had defeat
ed.
But we are told, Sir, that this perf5n was re-
fulad the opportunity Of producing other tell.
mony. What tehimony That Of the Preli-
dent ofthe United States. And do gentlemen
ieriouily contend that the PreGdent Of the Unit
ed States is liable 10 Be called from the feat of
government, where his high and important
functions alwas require him to be, in order to
travel up and down the United States As wit
neis on trials IF he may be fummoned to at
tend one court he may be fummoned TO attend
another. If he NUT 60 as a witnefs into the
courts ct Penntylvania, he NUT on the fam
principle, go as a wrnels into thofe of New
F1arnPfhre or Georgia, Can gentlemen Be
ferrous in contending for fuch principle No,
they are not ferrous they cannot be ferrous
and | am firmly perluaded thai the honorable
gentlemen from Maryland Mr.. Nicholfon)
who has expressly contended for it, would,
mmafy maHtandit, be one Of The frR to concern
and exPoie its aburdity.
The PRECEDENT, moreover, was called on in
this cafe to criminate himlef, which the beit
eaabhfhed rules Of law protect every perfon
from being compelled 10 do. The party was
indicted for fslfe, icandalous and malicious
libel on the PRECEDENT, whom he had accuied Of
many attrocious acts. He plead the truth Of
the matter in publication, and wihed to bring
the Preiident as wtnets to crinioare himlelf
by proving their truth. This is forbidden by
the pofitive rule of law, received and admitted
in every days praAioe What would be the
consequences OF admitting it with refpea to the
PfeGdent A profgAte fellow would have
nothing to do but 10 accufe him in print Of
ctime and when indicted for il, harais his per