Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1806-07-30


court cannot withhold. He read article
of the amendments to the constitution.
which says that I" in all criminal prosecu-
tons the accused shall have compulsory
process for obtaining Witnesses" This
fundamental act was the paramount law;
IN which the right was secured to every
citizen. Process D,usf be issued the sc-
cused takes it, as he takes that which be-
longs to him. He wanted process, call il
by whatever name, which would compel
The witnesses into court. Any other could
not be called COMPULSORY.
There is no arguing either with credit
or success against a constitutional proyi-
[ s,on.-The constitution undoubtedly pua.
rantees 10 the accused Compulsory proc, 50
Tor obtaining Witnesses. But had no, com.
pulsory process, such as isknownio The laws
been ISSUED by the court, & AN apology ten.
dered Tor failing TO obey its injuGlions, en-
iIrely satisfactory, all things considered (?
MIR. Emmett secuted The idea of attach
mcn's 90 the principles Of British iurs.
prudence, which he Declined to be al war
with the part of the constitution which he
had cited. When, however, lie was asked
by the presiding Judge, whether in ODE
statute provided specific remedy, he an.
swered that in his reading he had not met
with any.-Falllng then to bring the witt
nesses in by subpenai to what process
could the court resort, if attachments, is.
sued on the principles of the common law
were TO be excluded! MIR. Emnett, did
J rot designate any. Perhaps there is none
known to the laws. Our statutes, as!coD-
coded by Mr.. Emmett, are silen, on the
subject. The constitution, which ,eco--
| nzcs the principle for which he contend.
ed, exists, but the laws have made no pro-
visisn for carrying il into effe Ct.
With regard to the ma,eriality of the
Witnesses, which, as the defendants coun.
sci wished 10 put off the Trial was the
main point Mr.. Emmett, with amphfca.
lions, repeated the arguments OF Mr HoT-
man---Spain had commenced hostihties
against US, and although congress had not
| declared war, yet by the lav o. nations we
we're at war, though tecbnicaliy at peace.
He presumed On state OF things that did
not exist, and arg"ed as if ,hsy did.
lt:s conclusion was therefore incorporated
by faeis. MIR. Emmett was followed by
Mr.. Harrison on The same SIDE; who fra
Yelled over the same grousd. Mr.. Har-
rsoD, spoke about two hours, and closed
the argument. The court adjourned TO
Thursday morning at 10.
Thursday morning Judge Patterson de.
! !ivered the opinion Of the court in writing.
Ths opinion, which was given at great
length. was perspicuous. Having assign-
ed the reasons at large, he concluded with
stating it as the unanimous opinion of the
court that, in jusfsfcqaon, the testimpny
OF the Witnesses was nct material. Th.
! laws were inhexible. The President had
not dispensing power, and therefore g.
ven direction from him to the def adams
10 engage in the expedition, could not
justify the act. II was not material in
mitigation, for testimony in mitigation was
not for the jury. The trial therefore
must so on.
! With regard to compulsory process, the
court, he said, differed.in opinion; one Of
the judges being against, and the other
for IL; at least for y rule TO shew cause
why the witnesses did not appear.
j Having delivered the "pinion of the
court judge Patterson retired, seemingly
exhausted. He was much indisposed
when the court was opened, and perhaps
more when he retired from il. Judge
Talma5ge was now alone.
j As the trial was to go on, the counsel
for the defendant asked leave for few
moments consultation, 1t was granted
and they retired. In about ten minutes
they re,urDed--when Mr.. Moron moved
the court TO put off the trial to The next
regular term. The motion was made on
an affidavit of the defendant setting forth,
that Jonathan S. Smith and Thomas
t(capt.) Lewis, both on board the I.eander,
were material Witnesses, and were expeGt-
ed here by September. The Judge de-
cded against the motion ON the ground,
that if they we're maietial Witnesses, it
, should have been so stated in the first af-
hdavit by which the trial was originally
| put off. There would be no end 10 shese
/ motions ifyielded To. At the request of
the daiendlnt's counsel, the court adjourn
ed To Friday morning.
! Yesterday the trial was commenced,
: bat we shall soy nothing upon it until it
5 is over. A detailed statement Of it will
\ then be given in this paper.