Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1803-02-14

&C complaint was ever mace hele, that,
rule OF this body had been violated
Ii cannot therefore be pretended IL,
there is any injunction OF fecrscy to iorba
the copy prayed for by the reti'icass
The whole difficulty aries from III.
directing our Secretary rot 10 give cerf
fed extracts of the journal without ey
prels permii1ion of the Senate. This r.
eula.ion is wife and very oleful. Ii +,
preile, idle curohty winch for imyror,,
pu,polss might publiih the votes Ct ,hs
Senate Rejecting officers in nomina,on,
or nominations made ard withdrawn Iy
the Pfetldcnt before the Senate acted upou
them.
Nas when citizen fates that he has,
fuit in high court OF jo&ice; that he
at.s Of this body and copies OF Our jour.
nal, Will be material tehimony in hin
caulc wien tina, part Of the journal ak.
ed for is not under any injunction OF iecre.
cy, or in lis nature confidential; whu
pr.,encence can there be for Withhold.
ing it Will orr giving leave to take
copy of it, espre!s an opinion Ct the
houfe whether il be legal teGimony? Whe.
Their it will iopport or defeat the fuig'
Surely nor. Much lels will it by impl.
cation intimate that one party is rsh,
& the other wrong. Il is public record
of which any peslon intereaed has right
to demand copy.
II the gentleman from n. York (Mr
Clinton) were recorder of deeds or Of
wills in the county where be reGde.
would he relufe copy OF deed or a will
to fuitor in courts Would he feel that
by giving a copy he leGened his impsr.
ality as a jurer or judge IL thar fuitOn
cauie, although at the time of giving III.
copy he knew nothing o! the merits Of the
cafe How could he poiibly PREJUDICE.
cauie the merits Of which he had never
heard, and yet we, who are now in the
fame Gsoatiou prccifcly, arc told that We
are about TO give an opinion.
There would be infinitely more forcein
al!edging that By refulal Of the copy
we undertake TO decide between the par.
ties; for in that cafe the Senate mutt be
fuppoled to have examined the petitioners
cau(e of action, and TO have found it luch
| that the teaimony prayed for would net
fuaain. An arbitrary refulal certainly
| would net extinguifh the petitioners right
No court would determine that a right
lhall be defeated becaufe thole who are in
pcGellion of teltimony to fupport it ehod:
to withhold that teftimony againa all rules
of juRice. They will either admit liz
ferior teaimony to efablifh the fact if ma.
terial, or direct procefs to bring forward
what is conceived to be legally att2inabk,
Our refulal then will not defeat Tic lDiicf
and we lhall be in the awkard htuallono o.
having interfered to aop proceeding |
without having the power ct accom2lh.
ing our Object.
Mr.. R. faid that his obfervation
would have ended here, had noi new
and highly dangerous doctrines beenls.
vauced by gentlemen on the other fd'
during this debate sgainit which he mot
it hi, duty to enter bis folemn P'o'ef'
There was an end ofall free Irregular 60. +
yernment if a commiiion from the PTea'
ntent was concluive evidence Of Ii9h'
to Office againf the journals of the 'enan,
There was an end TO the contribution
power Of lesiilation if tie prehdent's Pro
clanation of Treaties confituted the
lup.eme law Of the land, when the lou''
nails of the fenate ihewed that more to',
one third of the ienate had voted aga'o'
the acc, ptance and ratification of'he lr'
ty. The commjfion and the procIaaH'
ton were good frima faeie evidence ="
might be encountered and defeated N 10 10
execution by the truth of the Gale Sa
tablilhed by the journals, and courts y
q.