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

my own part, Know nothing OF Tie cafe,
neither do / with ,s know, Tor 1 have no
authority TO try it. Eat the gentlemen
fay the dignity If the Preaas'st is involv-
ed, and that we are in duty bound to Pro-
,eet his dignity. But how? What have
The petitioners aased They have aiAed
the evidence of tatt. And how are we
TO protect the Pre6dent's dignity by
withholding that evidence. And are gen
tlemen then Of opinion, that the diiclofure
Of facts, will impair the dignity Of our
6ra msgiilra,es Sir, | have. no iaoh aF-
prehenaon. truf thar our PRECEDENT has
acted properly and that iull enquiry
into fats, mutt rebound TO his honor
Thsfe who oPpoie this reiolutioo, ieem
to think orherwifc. But ae,, are they
prepared by their vote to declare that in
jurous opinion /? Is there gentleman IN
this Senate, who, when the yeas and
nay, are called, will record hi, opinion
that the dignity Of our Pfefident can only
be preierved. by Withholding the evil
dence of facts /?
We have been told, fir, by an honora-
Die member from Kentucky, (Mr. Brock
enridge) that right to examine, implies
a right TO correct and control. This pro-
petition bias been frequently advanced on
different occalions. | never noticed IT
bccaufe it appeared TO carry within itfelf,
the fuficient evidence of its fallacy; but
fince, it is now again produced, it may be
we'll TO give it one moments notice. a
right to examine whether we agreed to
certain refolstioa, implies, it ieen's, a
right to control our conduit. II may &c
queHion in an inlurance caufc, whether
damage was fuRained by a violent wind
at Tea, does the examination into the tse;s
imply right to command the winds ADD
the feas. Does the enquiry, whether
fhip has periihed in form, imply the
right TO correct and control the Almighty
raiier of forms
We have been told by the member lait
up from Georgia, that the evidence aiked
for by the Petitioners, is uielefs, becauie,
altho' the Senate may have approved OF
them as officers upon the Preiiden.'s noIn-
nation--yet il was in the diicsetlon OF the
Prefiden,, to make, or omit the appoint
ment which alone could confer right.
That gentleman, ieems PERFECTLY acqaain.-
ed with the eaufe which is depending. -
He knows precifsly what proof is aeed lSa
which he axis for to he Inefficient thinks
proper to refufe it. Ii appears TO me, Gr,
thar this fenate is not the proper tribunal
either TO examine the merits OF the c2uie,
or the validity and weight OF evidence.
Theie are the proper fuhjects Of enquiry
elfewhere. 1t we adopt the gentleman's
reafoning, however, We PREJUDICE the canfe
and | ihsll be glad to know, if this prac-
tice be adopted, what cafe can exit in
wich like refuial may not be made. A
client is advifed by his council to apply
to US for evidence in our power, IS need
ful to inpport his righte. We resuie, BE-
cauCe in our opinion, thar evidence is not
alone iuficient.
out the fame gentlemen has told us, he
would not eitablnh any general precedent.
He would always judge Of the particular
crcumltance, and under the particular cir
cumitances Of this cafe he would withhold
he evidence aiked for. But will not
this eaablia a general preeedeRts How
are precedents eaablhhcd : Is il ufual for
Judges TO make deciiions fer the fpeeial
purpole of becoming precedents? No fuch
thing. They give judgment in a cafe
which comes before them, ana that judg-
ment becomes precedent for iubfequent
cafes turning upon the fame principle. |
hall be glad TO know then, how DIFF
tint'ion is hereafter TO be taken between
this ard other cafes. Here is fuit pend
ing in Court of Jaaice, and one Of the
c.