Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1803-02-10
(Cont.na,G.l

the applicants had any righs to the extract
prayed for. The ienste had by iPec'tlc
rule declared the Executive records ie-
cret. Buthe could nor conceive what be-
neft they (,he Petitioners could derive
from an extrad ifthey obrsined II. They
ak that the Secretary Of The Senate may
be allowed to certify fats from the Ike
cstive record but the Supreme Court,
nor no court would admit fueh csrsia-
cate as tcfimony, becauie the Secretary
had no zeal. In order TO ger any bentft
from this record, the court fsould allow
the Petitioners Subpoena to The Secreta-
ry of the Senate with duess tfeAm. He
challenged all lawyers upon this iubJet',
and all men of common fenfe, they mutt
all agree with him, thar he thing prayed
for could do the Petitioners 70 good with
out zeal. But, MIR. Wright faid, ne
had further objections agaiuif pailng the
relolution. 1t was well known why this
certificate was requeRed, il was to aid IN
an audacious attempt to Pry into Executive
{ecrets by tribunal, which had no auiho-
rity TO do any iuch hing, and TO enable
the Supreme Court to ahame an unheard
of and unooanded power, if not detpotiim.
Ii was to enable the Judiciary 10 exeFcde
an suthority over the PRECEDENT, which he
could never content TO. It was well
known that the pefions applying were enc
mics 10 the Prchdent, and that the court
were not friendly 70 him, and undef theie
circumfancies, to interfere In the butlnels,
would be making the Senate patty
No couit on earth could controul the
lygi1atule, and yet it had been held here
on this floor thar they could, and this was
part OF the fame attempt TO iet the court
above the Proficient, and 10 cat Rigma
upon him. The Prefdenr had righs 60
withheld the commiilions from theie Juf
tices, becauie they did not hold their Off
tes de benz rrerito, but de here tlacito.
Mr.. Iiillhoule remarked, that he did
NOT diicern any thing in the reiolstion un-
der confederation that had the imalieh rela-
ticn 70 the character and conduct OF the
PRECEDENT, nor was there any thing in the
application that could lead TO fuch con-
cluiion-It IS iaid there is a cauie pending
before sic Supreme Court OF the United
States in which it's important TO aicer
tain the fact, thar the Senate did adviie
and content 10 the appointment OF the IN
diyiduals named in this application TO be
JuGices. of the peace for this territory, and
and copy of the journals OF the Senate IS
regretted for that purpole--the journals OF
the Senate being the oaly evidence OF the
fact, can that evidence with propriesy be
withheld: The opinion thar fuch copy
would not be admitted as evidence cannot
be correct, for it is the only mode IN which
many important faas, in relation TO ap-
rointnens to Office, and the ratification OF
treaties, can be proved. For what pur-
poCe are thefe journals kept (which are
the only record of the proceedings OF the
Scnate) if they are not TO be reforted 70
as evidence of what is done 10 Senate.
Suppof, queRion to a'i{e in copit of
;nfice relative TO the office Of a MARTIAL or
Judge, and it houid be claimed that there
had never been coni}itutiona! appoint
ment 60 fuch Office for that the nomina-
ton had been rejected BY the Senate, and
,brir advice ard content had never been
obtained; or in cafe of treaty with
foreign na,icn. the Prefdert mould by
proclamation declare the ratification, and
p-cmulgatc The fame as the iuprelne law
of the land, where the Senate had rr!uied
their advice and content 10 iuch rstiflca
ton in either cafe would the att CT the
rre6dent be valid without the previous
advice ard content Of the Senate, ard how
can it be proved that (uch advice and con
Zen, has been had. bW by Tefort 70 TIE
journals OF the Senate ; Surely tiie com
rs,Gion or proclamation OF the Prcs!dcat
could not be copcluGve, becauic che Senate